Estimates show 90% of indigenous people were wiped out due to colonial contact (life, jobs)
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Don't you think that's a grossly exaggerated figure?How could that be true when indigenous genes are far more abundant than European and African when you take the Meso region on down to Brazil? Outside of the US and Canada, indigenous people are the majority.
It all depends on where they were wiped out. That number can be correct for the Caribbean, where the indigenous population was wiped out almost immediately by forced labor and epidemics. A massive importation of African slaves was then needed to continue the colonial exploitation economies.
Nonetheless a recent DNA study in Puerto Rico revealed that 55% of the population has indigenous DNA as opposed to African as once was recently thought. In fact African DNA is the least, a fact that will be highly disputed among Puerto Ricans who live on the mainland.
Despite epidemics and forced labor the indigenous population in Mexico, Central America and the northern Pacific side of South America remains, in some regions almost intact, but in the majority highly mixed.
A lot of Europeans were wiped out by contact with Asians like the Mongolians too. It's an old human trait to assign a disease to an ethnic group or race of people, or in some cases to people of a socioeconomic class like the poor.
That's what I learned in a class on STD's given by two black Africans with doctoral degrees in laboratory science.
Would you assign disease to Jews? No. What about gay people and blame them for spreading HIV in the United States? No. That would be politically incorrect.
It would be very tolerable to blame European (i.e. Christians) for diseases killing foreign peoples that don't immune systems as resistant to the particular pathogens. And it would be a little tolerable to blame black Africans for HIV crossing over from some other species to humans.
I have news for people... a lot of bacterial diseases are becoming resistant to our drug treatments against them. Some of these drug resistant strains are in Asian and European countries but not in the USofA yet.
Are people going to blame the Russians--who already have cases of drug resistant TB--when drug resistant TB hits the United States?
I read a book years ago, many years ago, on public health where the author argued that 20th Century public health with the anti-bacterial revolution was awesome but countries focused on themselves when it came to public health. So, she argued, in this new age of rapid international transportation, public health needs to viewed from a global rather than national perspective.
The Europeans of the 1500s didn't know about germs and diseases from the Etiological stand point we do now. They had a much more dim understanding of disease. And we are still learning about diseases and their processes in the fields of pathology.
It seems in some countries the Amerindian populations were pretty well wiped out and the 90% figure seems sensible. In other countries it seems 90% would be an exaggeration.
But then all this might open the can of worms as to what "race" is. Liberals and modern anthropology (anthropology being the study of human beings) tells us that there is only one race of humans on earth and that people merely have varying ancestral lines.
So, is a Mexican Amerindian or non-Amerindian? Is President Obama black or non-black?
Then there is the gene-centric view of "race" or ancestry and of man. This is an extraordinarily popular view today of mankind, by liberals and especially Black-Americans with some or a lot post-secondary education. So, they have shows with DNA studies telling a person "how white" or "how African" or "how Amerindian" they are.
Sciences is always influenced by the politics and non-scientific beliefs of our time.
If you want to emphasize the "gene" as the most fundamental factor of being "white," or "black," or "Amerindian" then you'll never see Amerindianism lost or wiped out in United Statesian phenotypic whites and blacks. And they can celebrate the "diversity" in their genotype and their populations genetic pool.
On the other hand... if you want to emphasis the accursed nature of the Spanish... then you'll either ignore or downplay the "gene" as the most fundamental factor of being this or that, and you won't view or speak of the Mexicans as being a nation composed of mostly Amerindians.
You see liberals do this with Brazil. What is Brazil considered "scientifically" by the UN, the liberals of the United States, and the Brits? The nation with the second largest black population on earth second only to Nigeria.
So blackness is not wiped out in Obama or Brazilians but redness was wiped out in Mexico.
THEY own the most profitable casino in the world. Last year, they raked in an amazing $800 million--twice as much as any other casino, including Atlantic City's Taj Mahal and the MGM Grand in Las Vegas--from gamblers trying their luck at blackjack, poker, bingo and slot machines. And this year, their operation, which boasts 15 restaurants and two luxury hotels, is grossing $2.5 million every day, a pace that could make them $1 billion by year's end.
To say that the 318 members of the Connecticut Mashantucket Pequot Indian tribe--half of whom are Black --have hit the jackpot is an understatement. In the three years since their Foxwoods Resort Casino opened in the sleepy town of Ledyard in the southeastern part of the state, many members of the tiny tribe have gone from minimum-wage, dead-end jobs to multimillionaire status, talking business with the governor, playing golf with celebrities and driving fancy cars.
Certain Native American tribes had close relations with African Americans, especially those where slavery was prevalent. Members of the Five Civilized Tribes held enslaved blacks, who migrated with them to the West in 1830 and later. In peace treaties with the US after the American Civil War, the tribes, which had sided with the Confederacy, were required to emancipate slaves and give them full citizenship rights in their nations. The Cherokee, Creek, and Seminole have created controversy in recent decades as they tightened rules for membership in their nations and excluded Freedmen who did not have at least one Native American ancestor on the early 20th-century Dawes Rolls. The Chickasaw Nation never extended citizenship to Chickasaw Freedmen.[3]
This woman may run for President of Brazil. If she does she'll likely identify herself as "black" as that is the new political term of power in Brazil for a number of reasons, one of which is due to the "science" of the Americans and all their gene-centric view of race and thoughts and behaviors flowing out of genes.
But why I point her out is because she grew up in the Brazilian forests--in abject poverty--and throughout her life it is my understanding... she identified herself as a forest person in the sense of connoting an "Amernidianess" about her.
But the U.S. media would never accept her as"Amerindian" because the U.S. narrative must continue that "Only in America" can the slave or Indian on the plantation "make it" in life, and that Latin America wiped out all its Amerindians.
Maria Osmarina Marina Silva Vaz de Lima[1] (born February 8, 1958) is a Brazilian environmentalist and politician. Ms. Silva was a colleague of Chico Mendes, who was assassinated for defending the Amazon environment.[2] She was a member of the Worker's Party (PT) until August 19, 2009 and served as a senator before becoming environmental minister in 2003. In 1996, Ms. Silva won the Goldman Environmental Prize for South & Central America.[3] In 2007, the United Nations Environment Program named her one of the Champions of the Earth[4] and the 2009 Sophie Prize.[5] Running in the 2010 Brazilian elections for the Green Party (PV), she earned 19.33% of the popular votes.[6]
Quote:
Ms. Silva was born near Rio Branco, in Acre, a descendant of Portuguese and black African ancestors in both her maternal and paternal lines.[9] Silva grew up as one of eleven children in a community of rubber tappers on the Bagaço rubber tree plantation (PortugueseSeringal Bagaço), in the western state of Acre. Orphaned at age 16, young Marina moved to the state capital, Rio Branco, where she received a Catholic education as she worked as a maid. She graduated in history from the Federal University of Acre at 26 and became increasingly politically active. In 1984 Ms. Silva helped create Acre's first workers' union.[10] She led demonstrations called empates with Chico Mendes to warn against deforestation and the outplacement of forest communities from their traditional locations.[11]
Quote:
In 1994, Ms. Silva was the first rubber tapper ever elected to Brazil's federal senate. As a native Amazonian and a senator...
I think Latin Americans are right to look at mestizos and mulattoes and other mixies as not being Amerindian and not being black.
That's not to say I'm opposed to some guy that's half white and half Amerindian and raised by his Amerindian family in the U.S., around other Amerindians, as identifying as Amerindian. I've got no problem with that.
The Amerindian genes are alive and well, in the DNA of most of the population of Latin America.
Just because we don't dress the same way as the original Amerindians used to dress (or NOT to dress at all) and because we don't speak the original Amerindian languages, that doesn't mean that we aren't at least partly Amerindian.
I AM AMERINDIAN, and I always will be! In my case, a proud Tabajara!
I would like to read from the source of that information.
Do you mind providing a link?
Quote:
Soon after Europeans and Africans began to arrive in the New World, bringing with them the infectious diseases of Europe and Africa, observers noted immense numbers of indigenous Americans began to die from these diseases. One reason this death toll was overlooked is that once introduced the diseases raced ahead of European immigration in many areas. Disease killed off a sizable portion of the populations before European observations (and thus written records) were made. After the epidemics had already killed massive numbers of natives, many newer European immigrants assumed that there had always been relatively few indigenous peoples. The scope of the epidemics over the years was tremendous, killing millions of people—possibly in excess of 90% of the population in the hardest hit areas—and creating one of "the greatest human catastrophe in history, far exceeding even the disaster of the Black Death of medieval Europe",[27] which had killed up to one-third of the people in Europe and Asia between 1347 and 1351. The Black Death occurred to a European population which also had not been exposed and had little or no resistance to a new disease.
This woman may run for President of Brazil. If she does she'll likely identify herself as "black" as that is the new political term of power in Brazil for a number of reasons, one of which is due to the "science" of the Americans and all their gene-centric view of race and thoughts and behaviors flowing out of genes.
But why I point her out is because she grew up in the Brazilian forests--in abject poverty--and throughout her life it is my understanding... she identified herself as a forest person in the sense of connoting an "Amernidianess" about her.
But the U.S. media would never accept her as"Amerindian" because the U.S. narrative must continue that "Only in America" can the slave or Indian on the plantation "make it" in life, and that Latin America wiped out all its Amerindians.
I think Latin Americans are right to look at mestizos and mulattoes and other mixies as not being Amerindian and not being black.
That's not to say I'm opposed to some guy that's half white and half Amerindian and raised by his Amerindian family in the U.S., around other Amerindians, as identifying as Amerindian. I've got no problem with that.
wht do you mean by this can you go further into detail?
The article is not claiming the percentage as the overall percentage. It states POSSIBLY in excess of 90% of the population IN THE HARDEST HIT AREAS. It does not claim, as your post implies, that "90% of indigenous people were wiped out due to colonial contact."
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
