Just a historical note for the interested: disease was a trade. Americans got smallpox and Europeans got syphilis. Syphilis was a much more fearsome disease before it mutated down into its present version.

Hell, untreated syphilis is still pretty fearsome.

The origins of syphilis are still not quite clear. There is a stronger hypothesis that the bacterium, in the Eurasian landmass, were affected by a mutation that created the strain which caused the disease in humans around the 1300s.

Wouldn't it also have plagued the American continent if that were true? Native Americans are strongly resistant to syphilis.

OP, I direct you to /r/askhistorians. They probably have an answer over there.

If you haven't noticed the reason for posting here is because the official narratives tend to be skewed.

Looks like you'll be getting an /r/Askhistorians answer anyhow! To answer why indigenous American populations have a much stronger presence in Latin America than Anglo America and how that relates the spread of Afro-Eurasian diseases, there are four primary topics we need to consider.

1. The Pre-Columbian demographics in these regions.
2. The timeline of colonization by European powers.
3. The methods of imperial domination employed by those European powers.
4. Second Opinion Bias and the Smallpox Scapegoat.

So, first, the population of these regions. You know about Cahokia, and that's just the tip of iceberg that is the Pre-Columbian population of what's now the US and Canada. Contrary to popular opinion, the nations of Anglo America were not all nomadic hunter-gatherers (that's a false impression created by the fact that nomadic hunting societies like the Comanche, Lakota, and Blackfoot were among the last major independent Native nations). There have been settled densely populated communities in what's now the US for nearly 4000 (starting with Poverty Point in Louisiana around 1,700 BCE, with a population of 5000 or more) and continuing into the early colonial period, with places like Ivitachuco (near modern Tallahassee) having a reported population of 30,000+ in the early 1600s (though this may have been the population estimate for all the lands under Ivitachuco's authority; the report is a bit vague). But populations the size of Ivitachuco's are few and far between in Anglo America, and something like old Poverty Point is closer to the average for large communities in the area. Meanwhile, in Mexico and the Andes, communities the size of Ivitachuco were particularly common. So if a Wampanoag village of 2000 people and a Maya city of 20,000 both lose 90% of their population, there will still be a lot more Maya left than Wampanoag.

Second, the major population centers of Mesoamerica and the Andes start getting hit hard by Afro-Eurasian diseases early in the colonial era, throughout the 1500s. In Anglo America, these diseases don't start becoming a major issue until the 1600s and especially the 1700s. In Mexico, the indigenous population it its lowest point in the mid-1600s; in Anglo America, the Native population hit its nadir around 1900. People in Latin America have had a lot longer to recover their population numbers.

Third, the differences in the colonial agenda. Generally speaking the Spanish colonists came to integrate native populations into the Spanish system of governance. The conquistadors toppled the existing hierarchy just to place themselves on the thrones of Mexico and Peru. The British, and by extension the Americans, didn't come primarily to conquer but to settle. This meant getting rid of the Native population in the territory they claimed. This involved duplicitous land deals, slavery, warfare, massacres, and other unsavory methods of forcing Native nations off their land.

Fourth, the issue of second opinion bias and the Smallpox Scapegoat. In recent years, pop-culture has picked up on the idea that diseases played a large role in the European conquest of the Americas, and this is true. But the problem is that the pop-culture version of this tends to present the issue as though diseases, spread by the callous unthinking hand of Nature, was the dominant factor; that isn't true. It's what I've taken to calling the Smallpox Scapegoat - shifting the blame to an impersonal force of nature to avoid recognizing conscious acts that people have undertaken over the centuries (and continuing into the present) that have caused incalculable death and devastation to Native peoples throughout the Americas. There have been recent studies done with populations in the Amazon that are just now getting some of these foreign diseases that show how quickly people can bounce back from these epidemics when they don't have to contend with chronic warfare, enslavement, and other pressures that hinder the society's ability to heal and rebuild. So on one hand, yes, a the Wampanoag were hit particularly hard by an epidemic of some sort between 1616-18, a couple years before the Pilgrims arrived in Plymouth (you'll sometimes see this misrepresented and exaggerated as an epidemic that devastated all Native Americans before Europeans arrived). But this disease didn't set up a racist judicial system that prevented Wampanoag from appealing unlawful land deals. This disease didn't undermine the Wampanoag's food base by letting its domestic animals run rampant over the countryside, tearing into Wampanoag fields and disturbing the local ecosystem. This disease didn't ship most of the Wampanoag population into slavery on Bermuda.

So, ultimately, your premise "if Native Americans in North Americans were not genocided by Europeans..." is wrong. Europeans and Euro-Americans did commit acts of genocide and in some cases continue to do so.

Very good post. Thank you.

I don't know why this is so unbelievable to people.

I always heard they mostly died from smallpox that the Europeans intentionally gave them...

Side note, the white man won my hometown in a baseball game against the natives.

"hey group of people with no concept of ownership, or gambling. We challenge you to play this game that we invented, which you've never heard of. If we win, we get your land... if you win, umm. you get these smallpox infected blankets we brought."

Man Europeans are pretty fucked up.

Europeans did not intentionally give any Indians smallpox. That is a myth. It is you and your understanding of history that are fucked up.

From American Indian Prophecies. Kurt Kaltreider, PH.D. pp. 66-67

In 1779, George Washington sent orders to General John Sullivan concerning the need to attack and destroy the Iroquois Nations.

“The immediate objects are total destruction of their settlements, and capture of as many prisoners of every age and sex possible - George Washington“

Washington was also an advocate of germ warfare, first introduced by Sir Jeffery Amherst after whom the town of Amherst, Massachusetts, and Amherst College are named. The idea of germ warfare with smallpox was suggested to Colonel Henry Bouquet, after which Colonel Bouquet wrote back:

“I will try to inoculate the [Indians] with some blankets that may fall into their hands, and take care not to get the disease myself. As it is pity to expose good men against then, I wish we could make use of the Spanish method, to hunt them with English dogs, supported by rangers and some light horse, who would, I think, effectually extirpate or remove the vermin.”

Now, would you be interested in posting a source on how it is me and my understanding of history that are fucked up? Or would you rather just make baseless claims with no evidence, so that everyone can immediately recognize the quality of your character?

You quote one cock-eyed document and claim that it proves something? You know nothing.

http://www.history.org/foundation/journal/spring04/warfare.cfm

"During Pontiac's uprising in 1763, the Indians besieged Fort Pitt. They burned nearby houses, forcing the inhabitants to take refuge in the well-protected fort. The British officer in charge, Captain Simeon Ecuyer, reported to Colonel Henry Bouquet in Philadelphia that he feared the crowded conditions would result in disease. Smallpox had already broken out. On June 24, 1763, William Trent, a local trader, recorded in his journal that two Indian chiefs had visited the fort, urging the British to abandon the fight, but the British refused. Instead, when the Indians were ready to leave, Trent wrote: "Out of our regard for them, we gave them two Blankets and an Handkerchief out of the Small Pox Hospital. I hope it will have the desired effect."

Now I've posted two cock-eyed documents. You want to back up your claim yet? You know nothing John Snow.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/science/science-news/11046891/Seals-helped-Europeans-wipe-out-Native-Americans.html

not sure what that means. "seals could be partly to blame."

The claim dude is making is "Europeans NEVER intentionally gave Native Americans smallpox infected blankets."

That is a demonstrably false claim.

not sure what that means. "seals could be partly to blame."

The Telegraph is blowing that study out of proportion. We've known that tuberculosis arrived in the Americas long before Europeans did. Recent genetics studies indicate that it was transmitted via seals or sea lions swimming back and forth between Africa and South America, or at least the American strain of TB is more closely related to the pinniped strain than to other human strains. There's no really evidence that this introduction of TB created a devastating pandemic when it arrived, but if it did, the people of the Americas had recovered long before Europeans started showing up. Blaming seals for the later devastation is like blaming the Black Plague rats for World War II.

Why don't you quote another cock-eyed document then?

Hmm.. nice counter point, but I'm still going to take historical record for better proof than your shitty attitude and inability to back up your claims with any sources.

Source?

Your question as written is non-sequitur, but I get the ideas you are trying to question.

First, Natives of what we call America are genocide survivors from Americans and Europeans, it is a fact, just as the holocaust is. Genocide tends to occur whenever there is a large gap in industrial capabilities of peoples. There are many books that breakdown the methods. Recently American Holocaust: The Conquest of the New World is a popular book.

1. When Europeans tried to conquer the interior jungles of Africa they encountered counter diseases that killed Europeans. Malaria is one example.

2. As central and south america also share similar climates and conditions to central Africa a similar situation with disease occurred.

3. The Spanish and Portuguese, method of takeover was more 'soft' genocide. The native population actively interbred with Spanish and Portuguese. The phenotypic traits of natives overshadow the more recessive traits of Europeans.

4. The Spanish didn't have the overwhelming military force of America. Remember how the Spanish and Mexican wars went.

5. As a method of appeasement the Spanish allowed some traditions to be kept. So workers and Native soldiers would work with the Spanish more readily.

6. What many call 'native' traditions and culture is now mixed with Catholicism because of the appeasement style of genocide the Spanish used.

7. Its more openly accepted that genocide occurred in Central and South America, people talk about it. In the US people do not talk about the genocide because it contradicts the dominant 'land of the free home of the brave narrative.' Thus the Native cultures are not as wide spread as they are south of the US.

In the US there are pockets where native culture is dominant, they are called concentrations camps, I mean reservations. In and around these reservations you will find few European looking people. However the traditional native culture is still elusive even for blood natives because europeanization and Americanization was a social safety mechanism to protect from social genocide methods.

Basically, America is only a melting pot for Europeans. Separate and unequal for everyone else. The real melting pots are south of the US, still with very apparent inequalities though.

The native culture is still alive in the US however you have to seek it out.

The presumption in your statement is that the natives of Central and South America did not die from European diseases. That is incorrect. It may be that they did not die as easily from European disease as the natives of North America.

There may have been differing degrees of vulnerability between the various peoples of the Americas. The Indians of North America were obvious highly vulnerable to European disease. Any native of north-eastern North Ameria carried by ship to Europe during the time of the early colonies did not live much beyong a year or two. Disease killed them.

That was not the presumption. I believe Native American died of small pox, just not all of them. I believe they were terorised and starved out much more efficiently in the north. It's a shame I never heard of places like Cahokia and emerald mound in high school and instead had to find out about them on my own. It makes me feel as if someone was intentionally hiding something from me.

It seems the issue for you is that the OP does not share your own presumptions about this matter.

The issue for the OP is that I don't share his presumptions about this matter. I happen to be correct on this. It is a common myth that blankets with small pox were deliberately given to Indians. It appears in many books and other sources. It is completely incorrect. There is not a trace of proof for this accusation.

It is completely incorrect. There is not a trace of proof for this accusation.

While it certain wasn't a common strategy as the pop-culture mythos would assume, it happened at least once. We have the receipt.

While not required, you are requested to use the NP domain of reddit when crossposting. This helps to protect both your account, and the accounts of other users, from administrative shadowbans. The NP domain can be accessed by prefacing your reddit link with np.reddit.com.

I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.

LOL. OK.

"And yet I refuse to back up my claims with any proof whatsoever." -luckinator 2015

The issue for the OP is that I don't share his presumptions about this matter. I happen to be correct on this. It is a common myth that blankets with small pox were deliberately given to Indians. It appears in many books and other sources. It is completely incorrect. There is not a trace of proof for this accusation.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/science/science-news/11046891/Seals-helped-Europeans-wipe-out-Native-Americans.html