this post was submitted on 19 Feb 2025
1334 points (98.1% liked)
People Twitter
5967 readers
2050 users here now
People tweeting stuff. We allow tweets from anyone.
RULES:
- Mark NSFW content.
- No doxxing people.
- Must be a pic of the tweet or similar. No direct links to the tweet.
- No bullying or international politcs
- Be excellent to each other.
- Provide an archived link to the tweet (or similar) being shown if it's a major figure or a politician.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
It is truly staggering the extent of the destruction we caused on the natives to this land.
Wiki says 96% of them were killed. That's something like 3.6 million humans were slaughtered.
And most all of their land taken.
It's an injustice in this country that we don't learn about it more and try to atone as best we can.
Of that 96% starvation and disease killed many/most. The USA absolutely waged genocidal campaigns against the various tribes but that 3.6 million includes other deaths as well.
shooting bison and smallpox blankets say hello
I mentioned starvation specifically because of the needless slaughter of bison.
We count that in the genocide
my point is it is completely fair to say white America killed the vast majority of the natives
whitewashingly pedantic to blame the gun and not the man pulling the trigger
Active or not, the Europeans and then the Americans caused the collapse of their civilization.
Imo all deaths are related.
Many weren’t intentional though. There was diseases spread initially by livestock that killed many of that 3.6 million.
Yes, there absolutely were intentional campaigns of genocide but a lot of natives just caught the flu and had zero defense to it. Nobody intentionally gave them the flu because many of these people never saw Europeans.
I have a suspicion that if it weren't for all the disease the colonizers would have destroyed them anyway.
Also nobody intentionally made them deathly ill? Smallpox blankets.
You're not wrong.
However, it is worth pointing out that the documented "smallpox blankets" stuff happened in the 1700s and 1800s, which was already a century or two after the continent had been greatly depopulated by diseases spread unintentionally.
Good point, I didn't think about that.
Measles, syphillis, rubella, mumps, chickenpox even. chickenpox is especially dangerous to adults who never had it.
I never said nobody intentionally made others sick. I said most were not intentionally made sick. Most Natives died before even seeing Europeans.
smallpox being one, there is evidence smallpox originated from horses, which were abundant in europe, horses had thier own pox virus.(and going back further it came from an unknown rodent host.
"Guns, Germs, & Steel"?
Yes GGS= Guns Germs and Steel by Jared Diamond. OP already used the full name.
I guess my sticking point is, does it matter if it was intentional? Contact with Europe destroyed them from both accidents and outright malice. It was still genocide even if it was on accident, imo.
Yes, because at the time we didn't understand germ theory. The livestock the spanish brought over introduced these diseases to other people via other animals.
If you supermegavirus X to your pet rat which lives in your house and who then gives it to a bird who then gives it to a different bird and eventually kills me are you responsible for my death? No you are not and that is how many/most died. They had zero contact with Europeans.
And who do we think caused them to die of starvation and sickness without access to the lands they could hunt or doctors.
And then there's the whole gifting then smallpox blankets thing
There's a good reason that Hitler's concentration camps and Final Solution were inspired by America's campaign against the native nations.
We pioneered race science too
It's worth remembering that most of them were killed by disease, and that the diseases travelled faster than the colonists. Europe had had centuries of people living in filthy cities where all kinds of diseases were constantly breeding. The survivors carried those diseases but were immune to them. As soon as they met the native populations, the natives were exposed to countless deadly diseases that were completely new to them.
Now, sure, the colonists went and tried to slaughter as many natives as they could, but often they'd get to a new native settlement and find it was mostly empty because everybody had already either died or fled. Who knows, the natives might have been able to put up a fight against the colonists if they hadn't been so devastated by the diseases. I'd bet that the colonists just took all the natives dying as another sign that their conquest was blessed by their god.
The city of Cohokia was unrivaled in population on the continent until post-colonial Philadelphia about 800 years later, and by some estimates may have even rivaled contemporary London at its peak
There's other native American cities being found hidden in the jungles of South America too.
The amount of history, stories and people that have been lost to the sands of time are incredible
Keep in mind that at the time London wasn't all that big a city.
Cahokia is estimated at between 12k and 40k people. That's a decent sized city for sure, but around the same time, Baghdad had a population over 1 million. Uruk in modern-day Iraq had 40k people at 3000 BC, and Ur hit 100k by 2000 BC. Rome and Alexandria hit 1 million 2000 years ago.
I think Tenochtitlan was more impressive, not only because of the population (estimated at between 200k and 400k on the day Cortez arrived) but also because of how the city looked, basically a city built into the middle of a lake. I still love to look at Thomas Kole's visualizations of the city
By the way, if you haven't read Cahokia Jazz, you should. It's a fun crime story, set in a world where Cahokia didn't fall, and where the independent native people are waging political battles to keep their freedom as Europeans claim the rest of the continent.