Vandalshandle
Gold Member
- Thread starter
- #441
"Americas[edit]
See also: Population history of indigenous peoples of the Americas
From the 1490s when Christopher Columbus landed in the Americas to the end of the 19th century, the indigenous population of the Western Hemisphere declined, mostly from disease, to 1.8 million from around 50 million, a decline of 96%.[36] In Brazil alone, the indigenous population declined from a pre-Columbian high of an estimated 3 million to some 300,000 (1997).[37][38] Estimates of how many people were living in the Americas when Columbus arrived have varied tremendously; 20th century scholarly estimates ranged from 8.4 million to 112.5 million.[39] However, Robert Royal stated, "estimates of pre-Columbian population figures have become heavily politicized with scholars who are particularly critical of Europe and/or Western civilization often favoring wildly higher figures."[40]
Epidemic disease was the overwhelming direct cause of the population decline of the American natives.[41][42] After first contacts with Europeans and Africans, the death of 90 to 95 percent of the native population of the New World was caused by Old World diseases such as smallpox and measles.[43] Some estimates indicate that smallpox had a 80–90% fatality rate in Native American populations.[44]
British commander Jeffery Amherst may have authorized the intentional use of disease as a biological weapon against indigenous populations in the Americas.[45][46] It was the only documented case of germ warfare and it is uncertain whether it successfully infected the target population.[47]
Some historians argue that genocide, as a crime of intent, does not describe the colonization experience. Stafford Poole, a research historian, wrote: "There are other terms to describe what happened in the Western Hemisphere, but genocide is not one of them. It is a good propaganda term in an age where slogans and shouting have replaced reflection and learning, but to use it in this context is to cheapen both the word itself and the appalling experiences of the Jews and Armenians, to mention but two of the major victims of this century."[48]
By contrast, David Stannard argued that the destruction of the American aboriginals, in a "string of genocide campaigns", killing "countless tens of millions", was the most massive genocide in world history.[49] Several works on the subject were released around the year 1992 to coincide with the 500th anniversary of Columbus' voyage. Noble David Cook rejected such claims, writing "There were too few Spaniards to have killed the millions who were reported to have died in the first century after Old and New World contact."[50]
In 2003, Venezuelan President Hugo Chávez urged Latin Americans to not celebrate the Columbus Day holiday. Chavez blamed Columbus for leading to the alleged genocide.[51]
David Quammen likened colonial American practices toward Native Americans to those of Australia toward its aboriginal populations, calling both genocide.[52]"
WIKI
See also: Population history of indigenous peoples of the Americas
From the 1490s when Christopher Columbus landed in the Americas to the end of the 19th century, the indigenous population of the Western Hemisphere declined, mostly from disease, to 1.8 million from around 50 million, a decline of 96%.[36] In Brazil alone, the indigenous population declined from a pre-Columbian high of an estimated 3 million to some 300,000 (1997).[37][38] Estimates of how many people were living in the Americas when Columbus arrived have varied tremendously; 20th century scholarly estimates ranged from 8.4 million to 112.5 million.[39] However, Robert Royal stated, "estimates of pre-Columbian population figures have become heavily politicized with scholars who are particularly critical of Europe and/or Western civilization often favoring wildly higher figures."[40]
Epidemic disease was the overwhelming direct cause of the population decline of the American natives.[41][42] After first contacts with Europeans and Africans, the death of 90 to 95 percent of the native population of the New World was caused by Old World diseases such as smallpox and measles.[43] Some estimates indicate that smallpox had a 80–90% fatality rate in Native American populations.[44]
British commander Jeffery Amherst may have authorized the intentional use of disease as a biological weapon against indigenous populations in the Americas.[45][46] It was the only documented case of germ warfare and it is uncertain whether it successfully infected the target population.[47]
Some historians argue that genocide, as a crime of intent, does not describe the colonization experience. Stafford Poole, a research historian, wrote: "There are other terms to describe what happened in the Western Hemisphere, but genocide is not one of them. It is a good propaganda term in an age where slogans and shouting have replaced reflection and learning, but to use it in this context is to cheapen both the word itself and the appalling experiences of the Jews and Armenians, to mention but two of the major victims of this century."[48]
By contrast, David Stannard argued that the destruction of the American aboriginals, in a "string of genocide campaigns", killing "countless tens of millions", was the most massive genocide in world history.[49] Several works on the subject were released around the year 1992 to coincide with the 500th anniversary of Columbus' voyage. Noble David Cook rejected such claims, writing "There were too few Spaniards to have killed the millions who were reported to have died in the first century after Old and New World contact."[50]
In 2003, Venezuelan President Hugo Chávez urged Latin Americans to not celebrate the Columbus Day holiday. Chavez blamed Columbus for leading to the alleged genocide.[51]
David Quammen likened colonial American practices toward Native Americans to those of Australia toward its aboriginal populations, calling both genocide.[52]"
WIKI
