Talk:Population history of the Indigenous peoples of the Americas/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Why do we care of Colonist's military misadventures?

"The Arauco War, etc. all represented either pyrrhic victories by colonial forces, outright defeat, military stalemates, or further alliance-politics."

This sentence just seems to have no point. Did Europeans sometimes lose? I'd argue that indigenous people were on the losing end of all those conflicts.

Surprised this article doesn't get more eyeballs. Stardude82 (talk) 15:05, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

Sentence doesn't make any sense; it's an odd collection of battles/wars that don't seem related (American Civil War?); I'm not sure writer understands definition of "pyrrhic"; and the cited reference doesn't support the assertions. I'm going to remove the whole sentence. Glendoremus (talk) 17:20, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

I've just read the article and I have a couple of thoughts "Repeated outbreaks of Old World infectious diseases such as influenza, measles and smallpox (to which they had no natural immunity" The phrasing is in my view not scientifically sound. No one has natural immunity to smallpox or any other disease. What likely happened in the old world was that there was evolutionary pressure from smallpox; someone whose particular combination of genes made them more likely to survive smallpox, would have left more descendants. Thus by the time of European settlement in the Americas, an average Eurasian or African may well have evolved to a point where 85% survived smallpox, whereas without this selective pressure, maybe only 25% or less would, and this may have contributed to the devastating effect on the indigenous populations, but it does not mean there is natural immunityBold text.

The 2nd issue I have is "Over 60 million Brazilians possess at least one Native South American ancestor, according to a mitochondrial DNA study". Mitochondrial DNA cannot possibly prove this. Mitochondrial DNA simply tells one about one's matrilineal line. Having 1 native American ancestor is of no significance. Since one has 1024 great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great-grandparents, I'd expect the proportion to be higher (consider Elizabeth Warren). I read the article which actually proves much more.

Just considering the 247 individuals in the study, the majority of whom identified as white, 82 had a matrilineal line which was native American or Asian, 69 had a matrilineal line which was African and 96 had a matrilineal line which was European.Graemem56 (talk) 11:14, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

Deliberate infection

Several historical records suggest that many infections happened because of a deliberate policy to exterminate the natives. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.92.27.165 (talk) 05:31, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

Do you have a WP:RS to support this claim? Student7 (talk) 23:26, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

There is a Canadian documentary that has shown historical records showing that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.92.24.140 (talk) 02:25, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9vNW9meqny4&t=33m02s — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.92.24.140 (talk) 02:29, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

Annett is not even close to being a RS.Pokey5945 (talk) 21:30, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

Student7 has reversed my edit about a historical marker along the I-10 freeway in California which states that the Cahuilla Indians believe that they were intentionally infected with smallpox by the US Army who gave them infected blankets. He also says he is not sure of the point but that should be obvious. As for reliable source, it seems to me that a historical marker put up by the state of california ought to be reliable enough. The marker recounts that this is what the tribe believed. Obviously, it can't be proven 160 years later, but the fact that this is the belief of the survivors certainly seems relevant, so i don't see why Student7 doesn't see the point. Judging from his or her previous use of WP:RS perhaps there is a lack of objectivity here of not wanting to see the point? I'm going to try and reinstate the reverted text. Otherwise this section might look like a complete whitewash of the issue. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JPLeonard (talk • contribs) 03:38, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

It isn't a reliable source. Such markers are put up sometimes for political reasons, eg ones claiming Norse in Georgia, etc. If this is significant you should have no problems finding better sources. If you can't, then it doesn't belong here either. Dougweller (talk) 06:58, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

Agreed. No peer review. Even if it were RS, it substantiates a myth, not an actual incident.Pokey5945 (talk) 21:30, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

Hmmm. I've spent a lot of time researching and checking the claims about smallpox-infected blankets being given to Indians. As far as I can discover there is one, and only one, documented case of this actually being attempted (the Fort Pitt incident) - and no evidence that it was successful. All other claims seem to be a misreporting of the known facts or are simply apocryphal. See Wiki pages about Smallpox and about Fort Pitt. Cassandra. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.74.233.22 (talk) 12:30, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

William Trent (Captain, Virginia Militia, 1763):"Out of our regard to them we gave them two Blankets and a Handkerchief out of the Small Pox Hospital. I hope it will have the desired effect." It is worth noting that at that time, small-pox had been a problem (with various outbreaks) for some time in that region. That is, the Native Americans had previous exposure to it. It is questionable whether 'bacteriological warfare' was intended and it is unlikely that it had any effect.98.17.180.195 (talk) 15:46, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

Guns, Germs, and Steel is not a valid historical text to be used as a citation.

This book shouldn't be used as a citation because it wouldn't be allowed in any decent first-year university history course as a citation. The basic premises of the book fail to take into account context, historical detail/specificity, accurate voicing of indigenous peoples from the American continents. It's simply a pop history book that shouldn't be used by anyone attempting to accurately portray history. He's entirely Eurocentric and unfairly biased in his work, — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.68.188.122 (talk) 05:03, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

@Heironymous Rowe: I agree. Are you around? Some day I need to fix his article. Doug Weller talk 16:44, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

• Agree. For a contentious topic like this, works of popular history are not sufficient. Unfortunately, these sorts of books are widely used in Wikipedia. Charles Mann, 1491: New Revelations of the Americas Before Columbus, is another one I see referenced frequently. For basic, uncontroversial facts, either book is probably okay, but they shouldn't be used to support controversial facts or broader theories/conclusions. Glendoremus (talk) 20:53, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

I disagree completely. Guns Germs and Steel is considered a valid book by many historians and geographers. Diamond's explanation is the best yet to explain the reasons the Old World developed differently from the New World and was able to conquer it, and not vice-versa. Prior exposition to disease, due to the domestication of animals was one of the main reasons, and a consensus among historians as the main killer of indigenous Americans.

Now specifically to your arguments: "This book shouldn't be used as a citation because it wouldn't be allowed in any decent first-year university history course as a citation."- Looks like anecdotal evidence to me.

"The basic premises of the book fail to take into account context, historical detail/specificity"- Bombastic statements with no evidence are useless.

"Accurate voicing of indigenous peoples from the American continents"- Individual voices are very rarely used at all in the book, because they are quite irrelevant to understand large historical processes, mostly based on material conditions.

"He's entirely Eurocentric"- Eurocentrism has a very ambiguous meaning, but I suppose your accusation is based on the fact that he considers European societies in 1492 more technologically developed than the ones in the American Continent at the same year. The problem is they were indeed more advanced, and that is undeniable. Knoterification (talk)

At the end all of that is actually irrelevant, because Diamond's book is used one single time in the article, only when briefly explaining his continental axis theory. The larger thesis of the article, that indigenous people mostly died of disease (90%), and most died without ever meeting an European, is widely held and basically a consensus, and only one which takes into account how European action in the mid 16th century American continent (except in a few areas) was quite incipient.

Very bad sources that is blacklisted at our indigenous project as is 1491.--Moxy 🍁 01:27, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

Virulence and mortality Section Poorly Sourced

I'd argue that this section either needs to be sourced or removed. It relies on one source from Cook and the only other cited text is Gums Germs and Steel, which, if the above section of this talk page is to be believed, should be removed (I am unaware of any Indigenous studies historian/historian of Early Americas who would cite Diamond at this point). Could the Cook source just be moved up to the above section? Interested to hear what others think about this. --Hobomok (talk) 21:07, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

You should give some evidence to the claim that Diamond is no longer used by academia. The argument of Ostler (which is not a renowed historian) that most indigenous peoples did not die because of low immunity, is plain right anti-scientific. It is known as a fact that the arrival of Europeans caused an immense disruption in the whole American continent very quickly, because diseases spread long before European advance. The Mississipian culture disappeared before Europeans arrived, the large cities in the Amazon river discribed by Orellana, were no longer found by subsequent expeditions, and the claim of early explorers that the North American Atlantic coast was filled with indigenous communities, was no longer reported by subsequent voyagers. Knoterification (talk) 14:15, 25/06/2021 (Brasilia)

Also, Ostler's book is exclusively about the history of indigenous peoples in the USA. It does not cover the whole American continent, therefore it cannot be used to make such sweeping statements. Knoterification (talk) 14:19, 25/06/2021 (Brasilia)

Since other editors have reverted your changes, I'm only going to say this:

First, you're ignoring the nuance of Ostler's argument and misrepresenting it.

Second, Ostler is an endowed chair at an R1 University, is a highly respected scholar, and his book, which is from a major University press, touches on multiple geographic areas. If you want to refute a work of that stature, begin by reading it.

Third, consensus was reached in the above discussion re: Diamond and Diamond's played-out determinism. You're reverting consensus, and you were the only editor who disagreed with this consensus. Further, you're working against the grain related to scholarly consensus when it comes to Diamond and his ideas.

Finally, the Katz article you provide as a critique of the "genocide" label seeks to critique Stannard's comparison of colonialism in the Americas to the Jewish Holocaust. Katz does not seek to refute the genocide label. Ostler himself critiques Stannard's methods.--Hobomok (talk) 19:57, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

You can really see how academics are enganging in a serious discussion when they write an article called "f*k Jared Diamond". Anyway, I can easily find articles "refuting" Marx and calling him an economic determinist, that does not mean that there is a consensus against Marx in academia. You are only engaging with specific part of the scholarly world. Katz openly refuses the lable of genocide for the vast majority of deaths in the Americas, because they happened due to disease and most without large contact with Europeans.

There are also some strong contradictions in the Wikipedia article itself: "A century after the arrival of Christopher Columbus, some 90% of indigenous Americans had perished from "wave after wave of disease", along with mass slavery and war, in what researchers have described as the "great dying"". Just look at this statement for a minute. In 1592, only a relatively small portion of the Americas had effectively been explored by Europeans, and even a smaller amount had been occupied. How did 90% of indigenous people die, even in remote regions? I am open to the possibility of genocide in the Caribbean, but even in Mexico and Peru that seems too way off. It is a scholarly consensus that the few thousand conquistadors were only able to conquer and rule through alliances with other peoples, and more importantly, because both the Aztec and the Inca civilization had been shaken by European diseases before the effective invasions of Pizarro and Cortés.

Now going back to Katz's article. After first showing that Stannard claims most Jews died of epidemics in the Holocaust concentration camps, Katz affirms that: "Alternatively, when it suits his purpose, Stannard takes the extreme position of denying the impact of disease. He has gone so far to assert that: "Despite frequent undocumented assertions that disease was responsible for the great majority of indigenous deaths in the Americas, there does not exist a single scholarly work that even pretends to demonstrate this claim on the basis of solid evidence." This rebuttal is nonsensical given the mountain of available evidence, some of which will be introduced below. It should also be noted that he contradicts himself in American Holocaust XII, and 85 among other places..."

We should therefore at least put the counter argument against Stannard's thesis.

Knoterification (talk) 18:31, 25/06/2021 (Brasilia) — Preceding undated comment added 21:31, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

As I return to this article and read it more thoroughly, I find sections like "Displacement and Disruption," which says only this: "The populations of many Native American peoples were reduced by the common practice of intermarrying with Europeans.[75] Although many Indian cultures that once thrived are extinct today, their descendants exist today in some of the bloodlines of the current inhabitants of the Americas." Regardless of how out of touch with historical reality these two sentences are, the source is accessgenealogy.com. To ignore various regimes of displacement (despite linking to the removal page and the trail of tears) is bad enough, but to use a random genealogy website to support such claims is not good research, to put it lightly, and is in league with what I outline above r/t the "virulence and mortality" section.

This page needs to be cleaned up, badly, and historical realities need to be represented in-line with contemporary scholarship. --Hobomok (talk) 15:48, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

I also recommend that the article focus on resurgence and survivance--this shouldn't solely focus on population decline. There should be discussion of Native resistance to colonialism and present action rather than writing about Native peoples only as victims of colonization. --Hobomok (talk) 22:16, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

The article is specifcally about population history of indigenous Americans, it certainly lacks in pre-colonial history, but the disapperance of 90% of the original inhabitants of the the American continent is certainly extremely relevant. Resistance to colonization is not that relevant to population history, specially since they were generally unsuccesful. Knoterification (talk) 14:15, 25/06/2021 (Brasilia)

I think you should take a look at what resistance and survivance mean in this context. Generally, Native people should not be presented as only being acted upon by colonialism, as beings without agency. To do so is to ignore the history of colonialism, and, the history of Indigenous population in the Western Hemisphere. Resistance and Survivance are part of that history. ----Hobomok (talk) 19:57, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

Reséndez claim seems sensible and specific. Stannard's claim is nowhere a consensus. I suggest using Russell Thornton' books, American Indian Holocaust and Survival, Chapters 3-5, and “Population of Native North Knoterification (talk) 14:15, 25/06/2021 (Brasilia)

Orphaned references in Population history of Indigenous peoples of the Americas

I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Population history of Indigenous peoples of the Americas's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "Denevan":

• From Columbian exchange: Denevan, William M. (October 1983). "Demographic Collapse: Indian Peru, 1520-1630 by Noble David Cook". The Americas. 40 (2): 281–284. doi:10.2307/980770. JSTOR 980770. Retrieved 28 May 2021.
• From Spanish conquest of the Aztec Empire: Denevan, William M., ed. (1992). The Native population of the Americas in 1492 (2nd ed.). Madison, Wis.: University of Wisconsin Press. pp. 148–49. ISBN 9780299134334. Retrieved 21 October 2016.

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT⚡ 19:04, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

Centrality of disease in "Earth system impacts of the European arrival and Great Dying in the Americas after 1492"

The scientific paper "Earth system impacts of the European arrival and Great Dying in the Americas after 1492", which is used in the article when referencing the Great Dying and its climatic consequences, claims repeatedly that "the indigenous population collapse was primarily caused by the introduction of pathogens unknown to the American continent (“virgin soil epidemics”), and that "the effects of the European conquest and the consequences of the epidemics amplified the already devastating deadliness of the diseases".

When using it as a source the wikipedia article itself states that "A century after the arrival of Christopher Columbus, some 90% of indigenous Americans had perished from wave after wave of disease", to which someone added "along with mass slavery and war" (which is not found on the article). Since in 1592, only a small part of the Americas had been explored, and even a smaller part occupied; it is clear the statement puts a much greater emphasis on diseases, which spread among indigenous peoples. Therefore we have a clear contradiction in the article.

My suggestion would be give equal weight to both thesis; that diseases were central and the vast majority of deaths; and that they were not. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Knoterification (talk • contribs) 18:41, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

Yes, you say right here that this article says "the effects of the European conquest and the consequences of the epidemics amplified the already devastating deadliness of the diseases". This is what Gilio-Whitaker, Ostler, and Resendez all say as well--that disease was indeed a major factor in depopulation, but the effects of the diseases were exacerbated by many other aspects of colonialism (forced removal, physical violence, environmental destruction, enslavement, etc.), and Indigenous populations were never given the chance to rebound because of those other aspects.

I think you need to take a look at what the many cited authors you say that you disagree with are saying. No one is saying that diseases were not a major factor. No respectable scholar would say that. What they are saying is that diseases were indeed central, AND that they were made much worse by other parts of colonization. The other argument, that lack of immunity alone is to blame, is represented by Cook, because it's a source from a major university press.

I'll finish with two final points:

1. The article by Lewis and Maslin (and others, but Lewis and Maslin are the two authors who primarily advance this argument--see this article and the book that followed) is mainly about dating the Anthropocene to 1492, because of the land-use change and dip in CO2 levels that resulted from and coincided with colonization of the Americas. When I say their discussion of disease is part of their literature review, I mean do not mean that the article is a literature review. Rather, I mean that they mention it in their literature review, and death from disease because of lack of immunity is not their main claim (or even a real claim that they make, evidenced by the quote that you provide). Their main claim is that the climate changed because of the number of Native people who died in the Western Hemisphere resulting from colonization, and the land-use change resulting from that number of people who died.. Thus, the article should be used to discuss changing climate because of colonization, but it should not be used to advance ideas around death from solely lack of immunity to disease.

2. The list of sources represented that argue death from disease was exacerbated by other aspects of colonialism is in no way exhaustive. If you'd like, I can add more, like this one, or this one, or this one, or this one. There are many scholarly sources that show how disease was made worse by other aspects of colonization. They are not all represented here, but they easily could be. I've chosen not to include every single one, because I thought the points in the represented sources were fairly clear.

Ultimately, for the reasons I outline, I don't think that the Lewis and Maslin piece makes sense to use to claim what you're trying to claim. Further, the studies on the page and here make it abundantly clear that disease was a major factor in the depopulation of Native peoples of the Americas; however, disease was made much worse by other aspects of colonization such as forced removal, physical violence, enslavement, and environmental change. This is what the majority of studies say. This is what the page reflects.--Hobomok (talk) 19:23, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

In your answer you relativize the wording of the Wikipedia article itself, which does not point to diseases being the main cause, complemented by direct violence, but "Similarly, historian Jeffrey Ostler at The University of Oregon has argued that population collapses in the Americas throughout colonization were not mainly due to lack of Native immunity to European disease." Disease was not A major factor. It was THE major factor. Even the article by Ostler claims that "Virgin-soil epidemics undoubtedly occurred", (but he minimizes them).

The article by Lewis and Maslin does claim that diseases were the main cause, it actually builds its argument according to that.

"The arrival of Europeans in the Americas in 1492 CE marks the onset of disease epidemics resulting in the loss of the majority of indigenous people living in the Americas over the subsequent century"

"the existence of a sufficiently large indigenous population in the Americas before 1492 CE. Second, the impact of anthropogenic land use on the environment. Third, the population decline estimates following the arrival and spread of European diseases."

Existing evidence suggests that the indigenous population collapse was primarily caused by the introduction of pathogens unknown to the American continent (“virgin soil epidemics”) together with warfare and slavery (Black, 1992; Crosby, 1976; Dobyns, 1993; Joralemon, 1982; Mann, 2005; McNeill, 1977). Part of a wider Columbian Exchange of once-separate continental fauna and flora, these epidemics were introduced by European settlers and African slaves and were passed on to an indigenous population that had not been previously exposed to these pathogens and therefore did not initially possess suitable antibodies (Dobyns, 1993; Noymer, 2011; Walker et al., 2015).

As I have argued before, this phrase "A century after the arrival of Christopher Columbus, some 90% of indigenous Americans had perished from wave after wave of disease", should only be used if the centrality of disease is highlighted, because it is wideley known that in the first 100 years of colonization European occupation was still limited. The article even uses maps to show the comparison of land use in the Americas in 1500 and 1600, in the second map there is a very large reduction all through the continent, including in its interior (such as the Amazon), which had not yet been explored by Europeans. Knoterification (talk) 20:39, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

I'm going to try to keep this short this time: Ostler explains that "virgin-soil epidemics undoubtedly occurred." Yes, he and many other authors, who are cited in the article and others who I cited previously here (this one, or this one, or this one, or this one) are not denying that lack of immunity played a role and virgin soil epidemics did indeed occur. However, lack of immunity is not an isolated cause. The effects of disease were so terrible because of the additional aspects of colonialism. I've cited many sources for you. The sources say what the sources say.

Maslin and Lewis also say this in some regard. You've quoted from it: "Existing evidence suggests that the indigenous population collapse was primarily caused by the introduction of pathogens unknown to the American continent (“virgin soil epidemics”) together with warfare and slavery..."

Much work has been done since Alfred Crosby coined the term and Cook expanded on it. No one is saying that these scholars are racist for having said this (Ostler himself explains this here). They are simply presenting mounds of new research that shows that lack of immunity and the resulting diseases were so catastrophic because of the additional other aspects of colonialism. It is not one or the other, it is both. I have no idea why we keep going round and round about this. You've also been reverted by other editors aside from me at this point. If you want to keep going on with this, I suggest moving for an RfC.--Hobomok (talk) 01:29, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

You still don't not answer my point about the 90% reduction of the inhabitants ot the Americas in 100 years, even in places with no European presence. That is the main point of my comment. The article is at the moment displaying a clear contradiction. If you want to keep your thesis, I would suggest deleting this passage.

In relation to Muslin and Lewis, the key is in the word "primary", which is emphasized repeatedly in the text. It seems to me an arbitrary choice to simply ignore this central theme of their article.

As other users have pointed out, you have simply invented a consensus that does not exist. For me, and many others, including Muslin and Lewis, diseases were the main reason for deaths; for you and others apparently other aspects are more relevant; but the articles does not put the both theories in equal weight, instead it claims the first theory is "outdated", and puts greater emphasis on Ostler who affirms that "When severe epidemics did hit, it was often less because Native bodies lacked immunity than because European colonialism disrupted Native communities and damaged their resources", which is a statement that clearly minimizes the lack of indigenous resistance to diseases, which is a consensus. Yes, it is likely that if Europeans had simply contacted the Americas and not occupied it, the indigenous population would have rebounded (though it could take centuries, remember one third of Europeans died in the Black Death which was one single epidemic in contrast to dozens introduced to the Americas) However the main point for the centrality of diseases is that Europeans were only able to colonize the Americas with a small handful of men, because the indigenous peoples were so susceptible to them. Nothing similar happened in Africa, which the Europeans tried to occupy without success until the technological advancements of the 19th century.

Even the article about Aztecs you linked makes that claim: "The Spanish conquests in the Americas would not have been possible without disease. That’s because pathogens that were mostly unknown on the continents preceded the conquistadors in both Mexico and Peru. In Mexico, the pestilence reached the Aztec capital, Tenochtitlan, before its fall in 1521. Pathogens also reached Peru, inciting a civil war among the Incas. Both of these situations were extremely favorable for Spain. The plague—cocoliztli—was the most devastating post-conquest epidemic in large parts of Mexico, wiping out somewhere around 80 percent of the native population."

Lastly, "No one is saying that these scholars are racist for having said this". I never made that claim, and even if someone was making that claim it would be irrelevant. Knoterification (talk) 04:03, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

Just one last point. You can clearly see how both passages, though somewhat in agreement, invert the weight and the chronology of both aspects, diseases and colonization.

"When severe epidemics did hit, it was often less because Native bodies lacked immunity than because European colonialism disrupted Native communities and damaged their resources"

"The Spanish conquests in the Americas would not have been possible without disease. That’s because pathogens that were mostly unknown on the continents preceded the conquistadors in both Mexico and Peru."

In one of them epidemics only happen because of European colonization; on the other European colonization only happens because of epidemics.

Knoterification (talk) 04:09, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

I don't see any major academic disagreements over the complicated and messy and miserable reality, in which the relative effects of disease, immiseration and starvation, and frank violence, varied greatly at different times and places. We need to decide on a form of words that will incorporate, for example, the well-argued case of Resendez that the extermination of the Tainos was due to brutality and starvation with no significant element of disease, the combination of war and smallpox that finished Mexica power and the Mandan tribe, the diseases that depopulated Amazonia almost before any European visited the area, and the many ill-documented epidemics that killed huge numbers of people who had never seen a European. Richard Keatinge (talk) 12:03, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

Apparently there is some disagreement even Ostler points out that: "I should add that as much as I've learned from Kelton, Jones, and others, I think they go a bit too far in saying (if I understand their position correctly) that there is no such thing as VSEs. It seems to me that there were some, but they weren't universal."

Others however believe Virgin Soil epidemics played a larger role. Knoterification (talk) 03:45, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

Continuously we go around and around about Lewis and Maslin, and then there are complaints brought up about Ostler, and it would seem, only Ostler. There are many other cited sources. I have no idea why there’s such fixation there. There are many cited sources for the combination of lack of immunity to disease and other aspects of colonialism working to make the effects of disease worse. I do not understand the continued issues here. If one were to bring other reputable scholarly sources into this conversation (not diamond, not Mann, not an article discussing the anthropocene and climate) that spoke to these specifics I’d have no issue with their inclusion alongside current reliable sources.

I will also say, though, that I’m still having trouble seeing issue with current text in the section: Gilio-Whitaker points to new research. This doesn’t mean the old is “outdated.” It simply means that there is new research. Resendez points to it with Taino populations, and Ostler describes it in what is now the United States. If there is other specific information in other areas of the Western Hemisphere, by all means, it should be added. However I don’t understand the continued issues with Ostler, especially when those quotes are specific to the US context, which is important here in addition to central and South America, and he also makes it clear that disease was a major factor alongside other factors.

—Hobomok (talk) 14:14, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

I fully agree with @Richard Keatinge, we should try to show the complexities of the process and point to the widely variable instances of population decline, from those that were a product of massacres and slavery, to those that happened without European direct contact.

I think you touched one of the main points about Ostler's paragraph. The paragraph does not make it clear if he is dealing with only the USA or with the whole of the Americas, and it apparently conflates both, beginning with

"Similarly, historian Jeffrey Ostler at The University of Oregon has argued that population collapses in the Americas throughout colonization were not mainly due to lack of Native immunity to European disease."

and ending with

"have yet to come to grips with how U.S. expansion created conditions that made Native communities acutely vulnerable to pathogens and how severely disease impacted them. ... Historians continue to ignore the catastrophic impact of disease and its relationship to U.S. policy and action even when it is right before their eyes."

I notice that kind of conflation happens sometimes in the article, beginning with a general statement about the Americas, and prooving it by naming examples from the USA. Does Ostler's book really cover the whole of the Americas? According to its subtitle (from the American Revolution to Bleeding Kansas), it appears to focus mostly on the USA. I doubt it covers the history of Brazil for example.

My last point would be to say that due to the the form the paragraph about diseases was constructed; making it appear arguing in favour of the claim that "population collapses in the Americas throughout colonization were not mainly due to lack of Native immunity to European disease", it makes it hard to fit the countless instances where the opposite happened such as the one mentioned in this source "How Aztecs Reacted to Colonial Epidemics, already used in the article.

"The Spanish conquests in the Americas would not have been possible without disease. That’s because pathogens that were mostly unknown on the continents preceded the conquistadors in both Mexico and Peru. In Mexico, the pestilence reached the Aztec capital, Tenochtitlan, before its fall in 1521. Pathogens also reached Peru, inciting a civil war among the Incas. Both of these situations were extremely favorable for Spain. The plague—cocoliztli—was the most devastating post-conquest epidemic in large parts of Mexico, wiping out somewhere around 80 percent of the native population." Knoterification (talk) 21:32, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

Ostler’s book covers North America and Spanish colonization of Mesoamerica in relation to Spanish colonization of Florida. If you’d like to add discussion of Brazil, then you need to add a secondary source specifically discussing that. Finally, I’m having trouble with your consistent issues with Ostler when you’re making judgements about the book and his scholarship based on your reading of the book’s subtitle.

I’ll also ask you again to not selectively quote the sources provided. Prior to your chosen quote from “How Aztecs Reacted to Colonial Epidemics” the article states, “ Native Americans and people of African descent have been disproportionately affected by diseases brought to the “New World” by Europeans. As Jeffrey Ostler noted in the Atlantic, these effects are compounded by the colonial legacies of slavery and by economic discrimination.”

Directly after your chosen quote the article states, “The theory (virgin soil theory) is still widespread, often devolving into vague claims that indigenous people had ‘no immunity’ to the new epidemics. By now we know that the lack of immunity played a role, but mostly early on. Current research instead emphasizes an interplay of influences, for the most part triggered by Europeans: slavery, forced labor, wars, and large-scale resettlements all worked together to make indigenous communities more vulnerable to disease.”

Yet again, the article that you’ve chosen to quote from clearly details “the interplay or influences” in addition to disease. The difference with this article is that it is legitimately about that interplay.

The subheading of the article says as much: “Colonial exploitation made the indigenous Aztec people disproportionately vulnerable to epidemics. Indigenous accounts show their perspective.”

Stop cherry-picking quotations (as you’ve done with Lewis and Maslin), stop misrepresenting arguments in articles. This Wikipedia article currently represents exactly what the JSTOR Daily article says: current research shows the interplay between disease and other aspects of colonialism. No one is saying disease wasn’t a factor. No one is saying disease didn’t play a major role in depopulation. This Wikipedia article doesn’t say that either. All of the current scholarly sources show the interplay between disease and other aspects of colonialism, and that’s what this page does too, because this page represents reliable, relevant scholarly sources. I’m done explaining this to you. —Hobomok (talk) 22:12, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

My trouble is about Ostler is the use of his arguments about the USA to make sweeping claims about the history of the Americas as a whole. That is just like using a book about the history of Brazil to claim that in all of the Americas miscigenation between Europeans and Amerindians was the norm.

The quote that is used on that paragraph, is itself refering specifically to North America, while in Wikipedia it is claimed that it refers to the Americas as a whole. That is cherrypicking which you are against.

"For several decades, historians have emphasized a single cause for Native depopulation: the so-called “virgin soil” epidemics that occurred when Europeans first arrived in NORTH AMERICA. According to the virgin soil epidemic theory, Europeans brought crowd diseases, especially smallpox and measles, for which Native Americans had no immunity. The consequence was population collapses of 70 percent or more for almost every Native community that came in direct or indirect contact with Europeans. Recent scholarship, however, has shown that virgin soil epidemics did not occur everywhere and that Native populations did not inevitably crash as a result of contact. Most Indigenous communities were eventually afflicted by a variety of diseases, but in many cases this happened long after Europeans first arrived. When severe epidemics did hit, it was often less because Native bodies lacked immunity than because European colonialism disrupted Native communities and damaged their resources, making them more vulnerable to pathogens"

I regret that you have monoplized the article. You are simply prohibiting users to include any information, even those present in your own sources, that contradicts your thesis.

Why can't this paragraph be used as a source?

"The Spanish conquests in the Americas would not have been possible without disease. That’s because pathogens that were mostly unknown on the continents preceded the conquistadors in both Mexico and Peru. In Mexico, the pestilence reached the Aztec capital, Tenochtitlan, before its fall in 1521. Pathogens also reached Peru, inciting a civil war among the Incas. Both of these situations were extremely favorable for Spain. The plague—cocoliztli—was the most devastating post-conquest epidemic in large parts of Mexico, wiping out somewhere around 80 percent of the native population."

Why can't I use sources criticizing Stannard's thesis? Knoterification (talk) 03:14, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

Look, I’m not trying to monopolize this article, and I’m sorry if it seems that way. I’ve been trying to tell you that we disagree so it might be time to go to RfC. I see your point with Ostler focusing on specific areas of the continent. How’s this for Ostler:

We can add a qualifier like this: “Similarly, historian Jeff Ostler has shown that in parts of North America and mesoamerica…” I’m trying to edit collaboratively here. What do you think about that lead-in sentence rather than the current one?

In the case of you using the quote from the JSTOR Daily article, that would make sense if it included the other quotes that I provided above, because the main point of that article is that disease in addition to other aspects of colonialism caused depopulation. You have to include both or you have to summarize the article in a way that makes their main point clear in addition to the cherry-picked quote that you want to use. If you still disagree, then ask for an RfC.—Hobomok (talk) 03:38, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

Thanks Hobomok for ths constructive suggestion. I don't have immediate access to Ostler, but from the quotation in the article it does seem that his point is mainly about a fairly specific set of social circumstances, in which indigenous populations had lost political independence and most of their resource base, getting instead (in much of North America) whiskey, government rations, and despair. Those circumstances would account for a significant and reasonably well-recorded population decline, but they still leave plenty of room for virgin soil epidemics to have killed far more people. What about something like “Similarly, historian Jeff Ostler suggests that in many parts of North America and Mesoamerica, groups that had lost their independence and their main resource bases then lost large proportions of their remaining populations to infectious and noninfectious diseases”? Richard Keatinge (talk) 13:00, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

Hi @Richard Keatinge: I think it makes sense to shorten the Ostler section a bit, but I also feel that your proposed wording takes away some of Ostler’s nuance that reflects current scholarship. That is, it’s not just removal and stripping of Native sovereignty, although those play a key role.

What about a shorter, more accessible quote from this publicly available Atlantic article (https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2020/04/disease-has-never-been-just-disease-native-americans/610852/ ) following your proposed wording?: “He explains that ‘Post-contact diseases were crippling not so much because indigenous people lacked immunity, but because the conditions created by European and U.S. colonialism made Native communities vulnerable.’”

Or, another possible quote from the article: “Native vulnerability had—and has—nothing to do with racial inferiority or, since those initial incidents, lack of immunity; rather, it has everything to do with concrete policies pursued by the United States government, its states, and its citizens.”

I think either of these quotes make clear the way that the structure of settler colonialism in the U.S. and colonialism in mesoamerica allowed disease to proliferate. And the cited article would be more accessible to readers than the book (although we should probably cite the book as well). Thoughts? —Hobomok (talk) 14:40, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

Ostler's article on the Atlantic is again exclusively about the USA.

" Native vulnerability had—and has—nothing to do with racial inferiority or, since those initial incidents, lack of immunity; rather, it has everything to do with concrete policies pursued by the United States government, its states, and its citizens"

It does however make this claim:

"Virgin-soil epidemics undoubtedly occurred.", which could be mentioned in the article. Knoterification (talk) 22:41, 13 May 2022 (UTC)

It seems to me that Ostler is more interested in how actions by the USA government and citizens aggravated epidemics in indigenous populations. That however leaves still the "initial incidents", which Ostler agrees happened through "Virgin-soil epidemics", open. How large were those inicial incidents? The 90% rate in 100 years makes them appear quite large. We know for sure they had a large effect on the Amazon, the Mississipi and Inca and Aztec civilizations for example. Knoterification (talk) 22:47, 13 May 2022 (UTC)

This Brazilian source for example talks about the large indigenous cities on the Amazon which were encountared by early Spanish explorers. For a long time people though they were lying, because no susbequent expedition found them. However their remnants were discovered by archaeological studies. The article afirms that epidemics made their populations plummet, and when the region was effectively occupied (which never happened fully) the cities had been abandoned. Knoterification (talk) 22:53, 13 May 2022 (UTC)

I’ll look at the Brazilian source later. However, yes, Ostler is discussing what is now the United States, and in part, mesoamerica in his book, which is why I added the qualifier on the page. His statement that virgin soil epidemics occurred in the US is clear throughout the current quoting. It’s that they occurred IN TANDEM with other destructive aspects of colonialism. The JSTOR Daily article discusses mesoamerica specifically, you’ve quoted from it, so I’m not sure why you’re returning to the Aztecs. Again, Please stop selectively quoting. Finally, in terms of the American southwest and plains, I’m not sure what you’re referencing specifically, but you’ve previously mentioned Hohokam and other societies where there is no know cause for collapse whatsoever. —Hobomok (talk) 00:21, 14 May 2022 (UTC)

He does not claim they occured in TANDEM

"Native vulnerability had—and has—nothing to do with racial inferiority or, since those initial incidents, lack of immunity

He claims that virgin soil epidemics ocurred during the "inicial incidents", before effective colonization".

He then claims the rest of the depopulation (which he belives counted for the majority) did not happen due to "virgin soil" epidemics.

I have already pointed a whole paragraph in a source that you used to show that both the Aztec and Inca civilizations were strongly weakened by disease (v.s epidemic) before the Spanish invasion, which only succeeded because they were weakened. For some uknown reason you have decided that the paragraph is irrelevant. In relation to the Southwest of North America I was talking about the Mississipian culture, which disappeared after inicial Spanish contact, through virgin-soil epidemic. Knoterification (talk) 23:22, 14 May 2022 (UTC)

This Brazilian source explains that the Amazon was home to densely populated civilizations, found be recent archaeological studies and indigenous story. At the end, it states: “ All this data - it is always good to remember - is still preliminary, but it leads us to believe that the pre-Cabral Amazon was home to many more people than was used to imagine years ago. It is likely that population density has plummeted with epidemics brought by Europeans, as seems to have happened in other regions of the Americas.” That lone quote doesn’t “prove” that epidemic was the cause of collapse, and it’s also not the point of the study. It’s one speculative sentence. Again, this is not the smoking gun that you believe it to be. —Hobomok (talk) 02:26, 14 May 2022 (UTC)

I am very surprised that you don't even accept the possibility that the large Amazonian cities were depopulated by epidemics. I did not realise, but you seem to hold the extreme view (which Ostler does not hold) that every large epidemic in the Americas after the inicial European contact in 1492 happened through European subjugation. That is clearly not the case. Remember the non-indingeous penetration in the Amazon was unexistant during the during the first century, and still very limited during the three following ones, and during the 20th century Brazilian expeditions to the Amazon by Candido Rondon and the Villas Boas brothers, which wanted to protect the indigenous peoples, still did introduce diseases, which caused many deaths, by simple contact. Knoterification (talk) 23:42, 14 May 2022 (UTC)

According to this article about the Xingu region in the Amazon, which today houses the largest indigenous reserve on the world and was never occupied,

"Desde a chegada dos europeus à América, a região onde fica aquela terra indígena já sofreu diversas epidemias, a primeira delas no final do século 16. Vírus contraídos no litoral do país se espalharam pelo interior antes mesmo de conquistadores portugueses dominarem o centro do Brasil, provocando uma devastação chamada cataclismo biológico. Varíola, sarampo e gripe reduziram a população xinguana em quase 90%, fazendo desaparecer grandes cidades."

which means

"Since the arrival of Europeans to the Americas, the region which that indigenous land is situated suffered diverse epidemics, the first of them on the late 16th century. Virus contracted on the coast spread through the interior even before the Portuguese conqueror dominated central Brzil, provoking devastation called bioloigical cataclysm. Smallpox, measels and flu reduced the Xingu population in almost 90%, making large cities disappsar. Knoterification (talk) 00:09, 15 May 2022 (UTC)

Change title to "Effect of European contact on Population of Indigenous peoples of the Americas"

The article deals only with the the size of the population at the time of European contact and changes after that. There is nothing about the history of the population before European contact. Was it growing? Did it grow when the Americas were first settled and then plateau? Did it rise and fall over the centuries? I know little is known but I'm sure there are expert opinions backed by some evidence. History of the population size before European contact should be added here or in a separate article. (There is no such article listed in See Also).

Placing this at top because of it's global nature. Sorry if I'm not supposed to. Ttulinsky (talk) 21:48, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

Why are "Estimations" for pre-Columbian contact population size using a unit size of "one thousand"?

For example why is Alchon's estimate in 2003 for a total population size of "46,500-53,500"? Users then have to mentally multiply by a thousand and arrive at "46,500,000-53,500,000". What if their mental math is off by 10 and they come away thinking there were only 4.6-5.3 million inhabitants? 2601:8C0:B80:E60:ED4D:70AF:F216:BA76 (talk) 06:07, 20 October 2022 (UTC)

Good point. At this edit I have rewritten the aable in millions. I hope this helps. Richard Keatinge (talk) 13:49, 20 October 2022 (UTC)

Business studies

to search 🔎 105.245.230.239 (talk) 17:57, 19 April 2023 (UTC)