this post was submitted on 19 Feb 2025
1337 points (98.1% liked)
People Twitter
5974 readers
2839 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
The initial Spanish expeditions had herds of pigs with them, which transmitted a ton of diseases to the natives. A hundred years later when other Europeans came the cities were almost completely depopulated.
People are weirdly against this idea, I think because they believe it diminishes the deliberate genocide that came later, which it doesn't. The horrible truth is that disease spread through completely biologically defenseless populations starting in the late 15th century. By the time European countries were consolidating colonial power, the Native population had been obliterated by somewhere between 65–89%. Those aren't extremes, that's a range of completely plausible figures. The variance is so large because it's hard to tell how many people used to live in a place when disease, unaided, killed every person in every settlement in unthinkably huge areas. To say entire tribes disappeared is an understatement, entire networks of multiple cultures were wiped out so thoroughly that their memory is lost forever. The Native American population in 1800 was a small fraction of the number of people who once lived.
Even in the american mythos of the mayflower it mentions them surviving off established food caches and stores from abandoned settlements. People dont think much about that, but they werent left behind because the natives were so welcoming to the Pilgrims.
Their diminished population just made it a whole lot easier for Europeans to commit further atrocities
Didn’t Lewis and Clarke note how often they found abandoned settlements?
Not sure about Lewis and Clark, but I have read that David Thompson did.
George Vancouver recorded beaches strewn with old human bones. Around the same time he wrote journal entries along the lines of, "Wow, look at all this rich, uninhabited land that would be ideal for settlements!" I don't recall Ol' George ever putting two and two together.
Never knew that, wow.
That was 2-300 years later