Would the Native inhabitants of North America be better or worse

You have no idea what you've just started.

I think penicillin and vaccines did more good over the long run than smallpox and firewater did evil.

This being said, the initial contact was nothing short of a cataclysm for the natives.

>>2258003
Of course not because they are not geneticly powerful enough to resist the white man.

>>2258003
Well, they wouldn't have suffered those epidemics brought on by contact with European pathogens, so that's one point in their favor.

Much better off. Immigration destroys the receptive nation in the long run.

>but Hamilton told me immigrants are loyal and hardworking XD

>>2258003
Anyone think Aztecs would have ruled over America?

>>2258037
nah, they were due to get toppled Cortes or no

File: 2016-08-27 01.28.23.png (3MB, 1080x1920px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 1080x1920px

>>2258003
>20 year life expectancies in the undiscovered tribes of the Brazilian Amazon
Gee what do you think?

>>2258037
No, they were a unilateral empire that pissed off her neighbors through arrogance and slave raiding.

All great empires grow through cooperation with friendly foreigners, and destruction of hostile ones. The Aztecs pissed off everyone in central Mexico

>>2258046
>20 year life expectancies in the undiscovered tribes of the Brazilian Amazon

How would you even measure that if they are undiscovered and thus their demographics are not quantifiable?

>>2258057
You'd ask other, previously discovered tribes about the undiscovered one in question. Why would they lie?

I'm not sure why liberals use this an argument. I don't want to be destroyed like the natives were

>>2258037
Fuck no, they were on the way out sooner or later, they had a metric dickload of rebellions because having zealots who don't care about the people under them as heads of government wasn't a smart idea
Plus I seem to recall old Montezuma was trying to prevent any chance of the lower classes becoming nobility and trying to consolidate power before the Spanish came.
Honestly they were on the way out with or without the Spanish

>>2258067
what argument, what liberals?

>>2258067
Theyre not asking you to let them in, they're justifying your destruction to themselves

>>2258003
that pic is stupid, they already lived inside walls, they were kidnapping and attacking each others all the time

>>2258003
>image
I really don't get this argument, considering that Indians have been largely reduced to alcoholic, red-skinned Jews that more often than not live in poverty on what are essentially giant rural ghettoes and were BTFO in a series of bloody wars stretching over more than four centuries after being ravaged by foreign disease. Is it supposed to be saying that white people would be hypocrites for avoiding wanting that to happen to them in turn?

>>2258044
>>2258052
>>2258074
What about the Inca's if they'd gotten time to properly settle their empire?

>>2258003
OP image is retarded. There was no US back then.

>implying keeping the pilgrims out of their land wouldn't have done them a great deal of good

>>2258107

Pizarro found the Inca Empire as it was breaking apart at the seams. They were collapsing into civil wars.

>>2258052
>All great empires grow through cooperation with friendly foreigners, and destruction of hostile ones. The Aztecs pissed off everyone in central Mexico
t. aztecpro

If the Europeans didn't find and subjigate them the Chinese would have instead

>>2258074
>they had a metric dickload of rebellions
which they literally encouraged so they could have a reason to wage war again and capture more warriors for sacrifice

>>2258143

Feel like they were previously due to unclear claim to throne, but as pizarro got there, they were just about to reclaim the throne and i feel like everything would have smoothed out in time. They seemed to be expanding too, feel like a war of inca vs aztec would have happened as They had just come in contact with eachother as Pizarro got there

File: rrare127.jpg (38KB, 800x582px) Image search: [Google]

38KB, 800x582px

>>2258003
less of them would be dead, but with their own wars and everything, i suppose it would be better to say 'different people would be dead'

This is really a stupid question because there was never and could never have been a scenario where the natives never came into contact with Europeans and higher civilization. The disease would make its way eventually, and even if colonialism had been delayed by hundreds of years by some crippling war or plague that bankrupt the maritime nations, merchant ships along iceland, greenland, and canada would have started up again, or Russians would have colonized down from Alaska, or the Japanese, Chinese, and Indians would have moved eastward.

recognition of historical consequences is important, but framing the event in terms of what could have happened "if natives could be left alone forever' makes way less sense than framing it in terms of 'if some other power had been the first to contact them' like Belgium or even the Ottomans or something

>>2258157
Not a stable environment for an empire my guy, hence they would not have taken over the Americas decently

>>2258003
Always makes me laugh when leftards make this comparison in order to make people accept mass immigration

>"Hey guys, these natives americans who got wiped out did blindly accept hordes of immigrants, so surely we should do as well, what could possibly go wrong?"

>>2258003
well, just imagine a world with two africas instead of one

>>2258271
But Africa had both European contact and immigration to their lands.

They would have been colonized at some point. NA and SA were way to far behind in technology, and their populations were spread to thin across the continents for them to go through a fast paced technological advancement. The reason why China, the ME and Europe advanced so fast was because of the density of population and numerous nations, tribes, countries and etc.

File: Tenochtitlan-Mexico City.jpg (242KB, 687x715px) Image search: [Google]

242KB, 687x715px

>>2258271
Europe and Europe2?
Nice

>>2258107
did sumeria take over asia?

>>2258003
Probably not, but there would be a lot more of them.

>>2258327

Did Inca have any other opposing threat in America though? Sumerians were living on barrowed time just as any Empire that started in eurasia

>>2258146
Doesn't [insert anything]pro imply that person is partisanly in favor of that thing?

My post was anti-Aztec, Pedro.

>>2258003
Bringing up the european colonisation is an instant turn off for me in a debate... its like saying anyone outside of africa is an illegal.

>>2258003
We'va had this thread a million times.

I have an alternate question in the same category:

Could the European powers have successfully colonized the Americas if the Native Americans hadn't been there?

>>2258003
White people were conquerors.

Not immigrants. They became immigrants much later.

this cartoon implies the wildmen knew what walls were

or the concept of nations

>>2258138
Uh, you really are implying it wouldn't have? You don't think that not being dead would be better for them?

>>2258506
They'd be dead anyway.
So would their colonizers.

Human lifespan isn't that long.

By most metrics they were an egalitarian and classless society where resources were spread evenly and group cohesion was greater than anything European countries could muster.
By other metrics they were at a stone age level of development and were in constant warfare with neighboring tribes and conducted barbaric ritualistic torture, murder, and enslavement of their enemies down to the women and children.

File: migrationBadForNatives.png (232KB, 1155x429px) Image search: [Google]

232KB, 1155x429px

>>2258003
The only funny thing about that cartoon is that the person who drew it obviously thought they were lampooning Trump's immigration policy. When in fact it's pretty much the best example of how immigration can be terrible for the people already living in a country.

as for the question at hand, it basically comes down to whether primitive or modern industrial society is better, because there's no way the Native Americans would have developed to the level we have today without European contact. And modern society is obviously better, so this isn't really a very interesting question.

A more interesting question would be whether the Native Americans would have been better off is European policy had been to control the lands of the more powerful Indian tribes as allied vassal states rather than simply displacing them. Something that might lead to a patchwork much like British India where some states were administered directly and some retained a quasi-independence.

>>2258547
Whites didn't 'immigrate illegally'.
They came with guns and conquered.

Argument makes no sense either way.

>>2258552
That's not true - although I bet that's what you got taught in highschool.

If we look at the US specifically there was decades of peace between the Massachusetts settlers and the Natives before war broke out. The pilgrims arrived in Massachusetts in 1620 and asked to be allowed to settle in the lands of the Wampanoag tribe. Having got permission, they bought some land and began farming. Tensions between natives and English grew as more settlers came, especially since the Puritan denominations arrived, but by and large relations between the settlers and the Wampanoag remained peaceful (the settlers did fight, but they fought alongside the Wampanoag against their enemies, or the enemies of the other tribes in the area they allied themselves with). Many of the natives converted to christianity, and the English attempted to solve the problem of cultural relations by helping them build towns so they could live a less nomadic life.

Finally however it became clear that the settlers now outnumbered the Wampanoag. The Wampanoag chief, 'King Philip' started plotting to strike against the colonists, fearful that if he left them to carry on as they were they would take over everything and native culture would be lost entirely. Unfortunately for him, one of the Christian natives informed the English of the plot (and was murdered for it). Whether King Philip's war would have gone better for the natives if they'd had more time to prepare is anyone's guess, but King Philip's warriors were still able to attack and burn a majority of the English towns and slaughter over 2.5k settlers.

>>2258552
>>2258671

After recovering from the initial shock of the completely unexpected betrayal, the settlers quickly recovered. They outnumbered the Wampanoag four to one by that point, and many of the Christian natives in the area remained loyal and refused to support king philip. Needless to say the English won, and from that point on Massachusetts was basically English territory that the Wampanoag were allowed to live on rather than the other way around (although the Wampanoag were allowed some autonomy well into the 19th century). The sudden betrayal of a supposedly friendly, christianised tribe however made the English far more suspicious of the natives and far harsher in their dealings with them from then on.

The moral of the tale being that if it takes you until the immigrants outnumber you four to one for you to work out that your culture isn't going to survive constant immigration, then it's already far, far too late. Just because the first few foreigners immigrate peacefully, work hard, build things and contribute to the community, join your military and marry into your families, doesn't mean that they're going to behave the same way when they begin to outnumber you.

King Philip's war happened in 1675. That's fifty-five years after the first settlers landed. You might think you're a smartypants now because you can "see through" all the fear-mongering and racism surrounding the immigration debate. By the time you have to explain to your grandchildren what happened to the country they were supposed to inherit, you might not feel so fucking clever.

File: 131769676239.jpg (50KB, 345x345px) Image search: [Google]

50KB, 345x345px

>>2258547
>the person who drew it obviously thought they were lampooning Trump's immigration policy.

Methinks the "2006" date in the corner casts that theory into doubt.

This is why confirmation bias is a bitch, kids.

>>2258003
Of course they'd be better off, for one they wouldn't be a race on the verge of extinction and living in shitty conditions today.

>>2258676
>Methinks the "2006" date in the corner casts that theory into doubt.

Fine, I was a little too topical - it was just lampooning anti-immigration in general rather than Trump specifically. How does this actually affect the point? It is still against Trump's immigration policy, and it is still completely backwards.

>>2258682
>implying the chinks wouldn't have got there eventually and fucked them over even worse.

>>2258682
>living in shitty conditions today.
'shitty conditions' today is better than the best that their lifestyle pre-European contact could provide.

>a race
>a
>race
>implying Native Americans were all one people.
If history in the Americas had been left to run its course then there would still have been plenty of wars, genocides, plagues, etc devastating enough to wipe entire peoples out. Who knows, maybe the tribe raking in casino money today (btw, don't think no one noticed how you automatically assumed that natives were all poor) would have been enslaved, killed, or cannibalised by their neighbours if Europeans hadn't shown up

>>2258046
20 years when factoring in child mortality rates.

>>2258742
you say that like it's some kind of counter-point. Are you saying that dead children don't matter just so long as adults get to live past 20?

File: 1483522606897.jpg (234KB, 1200x1200px) Image search: [Google]

234KB, 1200x1200px

>>2258003

Wouldnt have changed much. It's not like the continent would have gone undiscovered if columbus never sailed west. No matter who discovered the continent, diseases like measles, mumps, smallpox, and the plague would spread and pretty much depopulate the entire western hemisphere.

We know a lot about the central and south american societies, but pre columbus north america is something of a mystery. Hernando De soto described rudimentary villages, towns, walled settlements and forts, small kingdoms, and cities with thousands of people. By the time the european settlers began arriving on the eastern shore, all of that was totally gone. The kingdoms fell, cities and forts were abandoned, and the people spread out into wilderness to live simpler lives.

There's a lot of stigma around the fact that europeans discovered america, but who cares? If the Chinese or the Congolese had done it, the result would have been pretty much exactly the same. Initial exploration would introduce disease and later settlers would find a sparsely populated continent, ripe for colonizing.

>>2258003
If they did build a wall, a few more might still be around.

File: quote-the-industrial-revolution-and-its-consequences-have-been-a-disaster-for-the-human-race-theodore-kaczynski-74-94-79[1].jpg (63KB, 850x400px) Image search: [Google]

63KB, 850x400px

>>2258547
>And modern society is obviously better, so this isn't really a very interesting question.

That's one spooked opinion on the matter.

File: El_suplicio_de_Cuauhtémoc.jpg (1MB, 1658x1080px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 1658x1080px

>>2258003
Its like asking if the people of Iraq would be better off without the mongol invasion. Natives did not enjoy it

>>2258674
>>2258671
this is why its important to know your history people, a sense of perspective matters

File: Inca-expansion.png (78KB, 1730x3200px) Image search: [Google]

78KB, 1730x3200px

>>2258165
It took a couple generations for the Inca to conquer Peru and Ecuador.

A series of great northern expeditions over the course of a century would be necessary to bring the Inca to the edge of the Meso-American sphere of influence. First and foremost would have been the conquest of the coast of Colombia. Then advancing up the isthmus of Panama, then Costa Rica, Nicaragua and Honduras.

It would have been grueling, particularly getting adapting Incan potatoes to the new regions.

>>2258003
I never got these political cartoons, because they're meant to mock people who want to build a wall, but they're actually reinforcing their ideas. The Native Americans got fucked because they were too nice for too long, and by the time they realized that Europeans didn't want to co-exist, it was too late.

When will this wall meme end?
Many nations tried this. Chinese, Romans, Germans. It never worked.

>>2258506
>reading comprehension

File: Aztecexpansion.png (201KB, 1892x1055px) Image search: [Google]

201KB, 1892x1055px

>>2258037
>Aztec
>Empire

>btfo by Tlaxcalans because they didn't take the flower wars seriously

Well they'd still exist instead of dead,
So I don't know

>>2258515
It's the longest thing you'll ever experience. Why would you cut it short?

>>2258003
Well it would be a hell of a lot better for them.

>>2258037
More likely the Iroquois.

>>2258498
>implying natives didn't have walls or nations
Sometimes your stupid comments surprise me, /his/. They shouldn't surprise me, but they do.

>>2259369
>((/his/))
This is a /pol/ thread through and through.

>>2258147
>implying the chinese were ever good at subjugating other non-chinks.

>>2259677
Not an argument.

>>2258037
Aztecs are like Rome, once they ran out the places to raid and loot they would crumble

>>2258023
>I think penicillin and vaccines did more good over the long run than smallpox and firewater did evil.
Been to the Rez lately?

>>2258046
see
>>2258742

>>2258046
>undiscovered
What a shitty meme. There are no undiscovered tribes. Every time some clickbait story rolls around about an "uncontacted" tribe I make a beeline for the anth department and ask the South American ethnographers what tribe they are, and invariably their material culture indicates a well known (in academia) linguistic family. No tribe in the Amazon was left untouched by the West, the populations you see in the remote areas are survival populations or self-renouncing tribes who fucked off into the woods because they didn't want to deal with the colonists, ESPECIALLY after the rubber boom.

>>2258748
I mean, it's not like infant mortality really leveled off into "modern" numbers until like 1920ish.

>>2258488
This is actually an interesting question. My guess would be "sorta?" but it would have been slow ass going, comparatively, and the Americas would have likely balkanized after population diffusion.

>>2259369
No shit.

>>2258671
>>2258674
Colonization had already been going on for like 128 years at the time of the Massachusetts colony. The Puritans found that when they arrived Amerinds there already had English speakers. Also, a shitload of Puritans didn't ask permission or pay anything, as indicated by Die Welt der Indianer, though the initial few families of Pilgrims were fairly decent. It is unclear whether Sassamon was telling the truth or lying in an attempt to win back English trust and respect, though something was likely planned after the proposal to disarm.

>>2258737
>'shitty conditions' today is better than the best that their lifestyle pre-European contact could provide.
I repeat, been to the Rez lately?

>>2259273
>A series of great northern expeditions over the course of a century would be necessary to bring the Inca to the edge of the Meso-American sphere of influence. First and foremost would have been the conquest of the coast of Colombia. Then advancing up the isthmus of Panama, then Costa Rica, Nicaragua and Honduras.
>It would have been grueling, particularly getting adapting Incan potatoes to the new regions.
^This, though the evidence of trade of precious stones sorta indicates Colombia could have easily been made some kind of vassal state.

>>2259331
Word.

>>2259359
They had a solid governance model but I'm skeptical they could have expanded in the ways needed to dominate at that level, but on the other hand it's not like we have a particularly coherent picture of cultural trajectory pre-contact.

>>2258046
What the fuck is up with her leg like seriously,

>>2258003
Better off in many ways.
Most importantly, Existing is better off than not-existing

>>2260689
she's standing on her toes,or rather relaxing on them.
Her knee is bent back so she could stand on her toes.

>>2259359
the five nations were propped up by European powers

the whole evolution of the continent was shaped by contact

>>2260712
>Most importantly, Existing is better off than not-existing
Rez suicide rates are through the roof, 34 in 100k by age 35. There's a small rez in the north planes that had 17 suicides in 8 months back in 2010. Eight kids under 18 killed themselves in Gila River in 2014.

But sure, the Red Savage is much more content in this culture than he otherwise would be. Whatever helps you sleep at night.

>>2258003
Yeah. It's usually a better idea not to disturb the ecosystem.
Now all colonized peoples have been assimilated to the materialistic industrial society with generation of fiat currency as it's priority which brought along things such as alcoholism, drug abuse, and trashy cultures.

>>2259054
>being an anprim and stirnertard
meme post

>>2261180

I think he was agreeing with you. They largely don't exist now and did then, and now they certainly don't exist in large enough numbers to make the culture more than a shadow of what it was- that said, I don't think it necessarily has to do with the lifestyle, and more the fact that they live on reservations and are the slowly dying remnants of a people that's been totally annihilated.

File: 63996694533.jpg (39KB, 598x608px) Image search: [Google]

39KB, 598x608px

>>2258003
>you're so racist for wanting to build a wall
>I know, let's reference how the original inhabitants of the land were all but eradicated due to unchecked foreign immigration into their lands

I mean, really, what other point are they trying to make? This is pro immigration control as fuck no matter what the "intended" message was and you'd have to be as dumb as a sack of potatoes to not get that message. I suppose it could just be a relatively harmless self aware poke, but it's a political cartoon so it's gotta be hamfisting a message. I just don't think the author realizes what he's really hamfisting here.

>>2261213
Yes they were so much better off raiding and torturing one another and all their problems are because of money, not the nanny state which seeks to infantalize them and removes all their needs and thus purpose.

>>2261366
Yeah, the nanny state is totes coddling them with food deserts, toxic waste in the irrigation systems, and withholding services other communities outside the rez would consider essential for basic function.

>very coddles
>so handholding
>much infantilized
>wow

>>2259285

...Actually, the Chinese and Roman ones did work. Germans didn't because the wall was bombed to shit during a world war and it was undermanned and undergunned.

>>2259285
>chinese wall was for early warning, not to keep the Mongols out
>worked perfectly
>Roman's Britania wall worked perfectly, their numerous other walls worked pretty great too, Rome collapsed due to internal strife more than anything
>Gernans
Not sure what Germanic wall you're referring to, to be perfectly honest. Not the Berlin Wall right? That worked fairly well, unfortunately.

>>2258003

>moonbats think this cartoon is a witty and ingenius argument against being anti-immigration

>>2261398
I can't speak for the US side by in Canada that is exactly what it does.

>muh boiled water in rez

All of these come down to incompetence and corruption on the bands part, they are handed huge sums of money for simply existing which they then squander or embezzle and then they cry for more. Just like the infants our system of gibs me dat or I'll call you a racist has made them into.

File: Batiashur.png (319KB, 597x515px) Image search: [Google]

319KB, 597x515px

>>2258019
I think he knows exactly what he's started. He's seen this episode and wants to see it again.

>>2261505
>All of these come down to incompetence and corruption on the bands part
In America, all mediation between the wider economy takes place through the BIA, all tribal lands are Federal lands, administrated by the DoI.

Frankly, I'd murder for Canadian style treatment. Maybe I'd have gotten this grad degree sooner and own a house by now, if I'd have had access to that form of disbursement.

>>2261499

Don't they see it shows the need not trust immigrants?

>>2261505

You're oversimplifying, unsurprisingly, at least for the situation in the US. Most times reservations and reservation interests are treated like a child's input anytime a more powerful US interest has their eye on some of their shit. Besides that isolating these communities has done them no service; they get the worst of both worlds when it comes to sovereignty, potential for industry, social dynamics, etc.

>>2258037
Cahokia was a huge cultural base but collapsed. There wasn't a powerful North American Indian group to unite and consolidate power.

>>2258003
I've never understood comics like this.
Is the implication that Mexican immigrants are going to forcibly conquer land, distribute infected blankets, loot, rape, and destroy our culture?


These all feel like stealth anti-immigration comics.

>>2261557
Like I said, I can't speak for the US side.

I do know we have as bad if not worse social problems with the Indians. A suicide pact between tweens was in the news last week after a bunch of kids in northern Ontario planned to off themselves and one succeeded. The Indians of course blamed the government for a lack of funding for counselors.

No matter the issue, they just need more money.

>>2258003
>better [off] or worse off

better off without the round eyes fucking things up by far

>>2261557
They do a lot of that to themselves.

Nobody MAKES the Indians act like dumb cunts and make personal loans unenforceable.

Nobody MAKES them make fucking retarded economic policy and make themselves more expensive to do business with than literally nay other community within driving distance. They do that to themselves.

>>2261528
You could literally take out a million dollars in student loans, refuse to pay it back, and have nothing happen to you. Don't give us that shit.

>>2261608
>These all feel like stealth anti-immigration comics.
Or the people who think immigration is a good idea are just really, really stupid.

>>2258003

one thing i can say definitely, they had luck that they encountered Christians instead of Muslims

What I would like to ask instead is, what if America was "discovered" by pooinloos, chinks or sandniggers?

>>2262712
Why?

>>2262782
Muslims would have done a lot worse.

File: 654.jpg (99KB, 900x900px) Image search: [Google]

99KB, 900x900px

>>2262795
Like how they had done to Spain? By bringing culture? Building hospitals, libraries and palaces?

> pooinloos, chinks or sandniggers

you have to go back

>>2258003
If it wasn't the Europeans, it would have been the Africans or Asians.

>>2258003
Yes!

>>2258003
this is a common argument, and it's supported by a number of misconceptions about indigenous culture, history; and aboriginal revisionism

I see it in almost every country with an aboriginal population that was displaced

>aboriginals were so happy before white man came
>aboriginals were one people, with one claim (often implied)
>100% of america was claimed before white settlers
>aboriginals that sold their land were all tricked
>indians were nomadic and didn't understand land ownership
>the first white people were culpable for everything that happened after
>modern white people are responsible for everything that happened in the past
yes they try to claim both

>>2258674
>You might think you're a smartypants now because you can "see through" all the fear-mongering and racism surrounding the immigration debate. By the time you have to explain to your grandchildren what happened to the country they were supposed to inherit, you might not feel so fucking clever.

The population of the Middle East and North Africa is 381 million.

The population of Canada and the United States is 352 million.

The population of the European Union is 508 million.

Westerners and Americans (I mention Americans specifically because that's where this whole notion of genocidal replacement projection comes from) aren't neolithic tribes.

>>2263240
we arn't tribes, but I don't think that is an argument against a social change
it's a very long-proved dynamic

if you have a 10% demographic of africans, you see several things really quickly
1. that population grows disproportionately to that of the general population, and that's something you can't control
2. the immigrants are not evenly spread, they have a large impact in a few places
3. their number is magnified to some extent by their cultural impact, their visibility in public, greater media exposure

if that community develops issues, like crime, drugs, unemployment, domestic abuse etc
you are powerless to stop it

the people you allow to remain in your communities can be as well picked as you like, their children will be a expression of the whole gene pool from which they come

>>2260558
>Colonization had already been going on for like 128 years at the time of the Massachusetts colony.
In the Caribbean, central and south America, yes, but not in north America.

>The Puritans found that when they arrived Amerinds there already had English speakers.
They found that there was one fluent English speaker who had been to England because he'd been kidnapped by a passing explorer, and afterwards travelled back and forth across the Atlantic. There were no European colonies in North America outside of the Caribbean region until Jamestown was founded. There had been good deal of interaction between the Europeans and the natives who lived on the coast since the Americas were attracting a lot of explorers looking to make a name for themselves, but that isn't the same as colonisation.

>It is unclear whether Sassamon was telling the truth or lying in an attempt to win back English trust and respect
People have raised the question of whether Sassamon was telling the truth, but his suspicious death and the fact that Metacomet (king philip) very quickly attacked the English after the accusation seem to suggest that he was legit.

>Also, a shitload of Puritans didn't ask permission or pay anything,
it varied. The Puritans were less friendly with the natives that the original Mayflower settlers (who, although Protestant dissenters, were not actually Puritans), but they still maintained a reasonably close relationship between the colonists and the natives, and although they often took land without permission, they also paid for land or at least asked permission to take over fallow land. It often came down to the feelings of small groups or individual settlers who would make their own deals with the natives, or ignore the natives' feelings, without always making reference to the colonial government. Needless to say, the settlers grew less interested in respecting the natives wishes as the numbers of settlers surpassed the native population.

>>2261179
Shape but not utterly dependent on.

File: 1338150046190[1].jpg (189KB, 650x813px) Image search: [Google]

189KB, 650x813px

>>2263240
The population of the USA in 1950 was 150 million. The population of Egypt in 1950 was 21 million.

The population of the USA in 2005 was 295 million. The population of Egypt in 2005 was 71 million.

So the population of the USA didn't quite manage to double in 55 years, while the population of Egypt more than tripled. And the population growth in other middle Eastern countries was far more extreme - Jordan's population grew by ten times in the same period. Overall, the population of the middle east and north africa grew 3.7 times in the period 1950 - 2000 compared to North America's 1.8 times and Europe's 1.3. The population of the Middle East and North Africa is projected to be almost double what it is today by 2050, and that isn't even counting middle easterner immigrant communities in other countries. Meanwhile Europe's population growth is predicted to be less than 10% - most of which will come from immigrant communities, since the birth rate of native Europeans in often below replacement.

Maybe instead of comparing what the populations are now, you should have thought about what they're going to be in 55 years time. If the Wampanoag had done that they might have been less relaxed about letting the English colonists settle on their land.

>>2258003
worse. the foods and produce brought to the states built the economy for the next 200 years or something. also dont think they had guns either which i doubt they would have developed themselves. the foods pilgrims brought were only successful from the teachings of farmings from the natives, however. Fair trade. but, tobacco and corn.

File: tenochtitlan_2_by_8eelze-d3he8no.jpg (46KB, 900x338px) Image search: [Google]

46KB, 900x338px

>>2258003
Well it was Armageddon, total societal collapse even tribes & cities that helped the spanish ended up as slaves dying in the mines and plantations in their encomiendas after the fight was over.

File: extrapolating.png (21KB, 461x295px) Image search: [Google]

21KB, 461x295px

>>2263355
>if you have a 10% demographic of africans, you see several things really quickly
>1. that population grows disproportionately to that of the general population, and that's something you can't control
>2. the immigrants are not evenly spread, they have a large impact in a few places
>3. their number is magnified to some extent by their cultural impact, their visibility in public, greater media exposure

If you're going to get all culturally analytical on me, then explain why Marseilles has the same murder rate of San Francisco and not, let's say, St. Louis.

>>2263513
>Maybe instead of comparing what the populations are now, you should have thought about what they're going to be in 55 years time.

You mean a discipline that hasn't managed to get a single projection right in 50 years of trying?

https://www.nap.edu/read/9828/chapter/4#43

>>2258547
>And modern society is obviously better, so this isn't really a very interesting question.
In what terms? For whom?
Opinions != Facts

>>2258003
>immigration
We colonized North America, I want this meme to die

Colonization =/= Immigration

>>2258003
Worse.

>>2266508
>You mean a discipline that hasn't managed to get a single projection right in 50 years of trying?
Their projections have been on average 25% out. It's going to take a lot more than a 25% difference in the projected outcome to stop the Middle east from outnumbering Europe or North America in another 30 years. I don't even know why we're only talking about the middle east anyway - it's hardly the only area of the world that people immigrate to the west from. It isn't even the only muslim area of the world that people immigrate to the west from.

All the areas that the main groups of immigrants come from have experienced much higher rates of population growth than the West over the last two or three generations, and countries that were relatively small have grown until they now have larger populations than most western countries. I compared Egypt and the USA in my previous post, but that doesn't really do the problem justice since Egypt is still 4.5 times smaller than the US. When you look at Egypt in comparison to European countries, you see that Egypt has gone from being much smaller than all the main European countries - the UK, France, Italy, Spain and Germany - to now having a larger population than any of them. Egypt in 1950 had a population less than half the size of the UK's. Now Egyptians outnumber the British by almost a third.

No serious estimate says that the population of the third world isn't going to increase at a significantly faster rate than the west's for the foreseeable future. The balance of power has shifted drastically over the last half century, and there's every reason to expect that it will continue to change just as rapidly.

>>2266714
see
>>2258671
>>2258674
The simplistic narrative you have been fed about Europeans turning up and stealing all the land is just that: a narrative. A narrative shaped by people looking back through the lenses of the centuries of conquest and displacement that followed.

>>2266889
The English didn't move to Plymouth because they wanted to assimilate into Native culture. In fact, what you directed me to proves my point that the English were colonists, not immigrants. The Wampanoag were fools for allowing foreigners to establish entire towns in their bosom.

>>2258003
Native North Americans had nothing - no writing, no towns. Just small Nomadic crews.
They could be colonised by Central Americans - they further level would be worse than actual for about 200 years.

>>2266956
>The English didn't move to Plymouth because they wanted to assimilate into Native culture
then by your standard, America and Europe are being colonised.

>>2267545
I'd sure say they are

>>2261624
Again?
I remember the last one from about half a year ago.
I find it funny how no one dares to mention or even try to investigate the likely, and in the case of the one a while back actually mentioned by the kids, abuse. Can't blame the natives for their own failure as a community, or for beating and raping kids. No, it's got to be the lack of money.

>>2261180
Yeah, I was agreeing with you.
Red savage was better desu, traditional ecological knowledge> European barbarians

>>2261366
The nanny state is just compensating for the inherent inequality that comes along with money tho

>>2267665
The native community doesn't really exist anymore tho
Some Europeans laid claim to the land it emerged from

>>2266984
>no towns. Just small Nomadic crews
You are appallingly ignorant of Native culture. Several tribes built very large permanent settlements with populations in the thousands, a few even above 10,000 people. And this was a practice not localized to just one tribe, you find these large settlements all over North America. In fact only a fraction of the known tribes were actually nomadic, most were sedentary to some degree or another, it varied by region. Both liberals and racists have this tendency to paint natives as simple, innocent savages but this is total bullshit. There were numerous native civilizations in North America with complex, hierarchical cultures that featured land ownership, property rights, specialized labor, etc, even a kind of feudal system among the tribes of the Pacific Northwest.

But the scale these tribes existed on is in the thousands of years, there are native settlements in North America older than any European city, settlements that existed for centuries only to eventually be abandoned after disease or warfare culled the population.

>>2268144
Source on land ownership, and property rights I'm very interested in the devolpment of Eco/anthropocentric world views across cultures and am bad at finding the proper information.
Property rights or territory?

>>2258003
I hate when people post comics that say this as if it doesn't prove exactly why secure borders are a good thing

>>2268723
Physically dividing landscapes is a terrible thing.
People that don't know ecology from economics shouldn't have any say in issues of land/ resource use.

File: Atlantikwall.png (79KB, 612x804px) Image search: [Google]

79KB, 612x804px

>>2261484
all their walls could not stop invaders. all their empires vanished,

guess he was referring to the "Atlantic Wall" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atlantic_Wall
which failed to stop allied invasion.
But Berlin Wall or Iron Curtain failed as well.

>>2269390
Walls only work as long as they're sufficiently manned and the enemy does not have superior siege technology.

>>2258003
They may have been better off with earlier contact