Welcome • User Guide
ToS • Privacy • Canary
Donate • Bugs • License

©2025 Poal.co

1.0K

(post is archived)

[–] • 5 pts

Some very cool books on this. Most of the population was centered around a few very dense southern fertile agricultural spots, #1 being the Mexico Valley based on farming corn. There was also some decent-sized populations in California and along the Mississippi river.

Other than one large settlement called Cahokia near modern St Louis, there were never any major populations very far north, probably for the simple reason that it never suited their agricultural style. It doesn't take any genius to build a huge population, just organized agriculture and a good reliable water source.

There are some really interesting primary accounts from early Spanish (well it was before Spain was a thing, but "Spanish") explorers and Priests who wrote about seeing massive settlements everywhere. On the Mississippi River they wrote that there were so many people the fires lit the sky at night and you couldn't even land on the shore. French explorers a century or two later just found empty land. Smallpox and even simple crowd diseases can wipe out entire civilizations of people who had zero natural immunity. If only they'd had Pfizer to save them (that last part is a joke guys, don't kill me like the clotshot does).

[–] • 2 pts

Doubt

[–] • 1 pt

Nothing wrong with doubt, but there are some pretty decent arguments on the subject. Lots of fertile places had big populations in the past that collapsed for different reasons, from drought to war to disease to who knows what.

[–] • 1 pt (edited )

As long as it's not pinned on "colonialism" you know the eventual reduction.

[–] • 1 pt

They mostly all died before any contact with settlers from what I've read. They had a bad habit of fleeing from places where disease was spreading into healthy areas since they had no concept of quarantine, etc. Supposedly, anyways - it's all just theory based on circumstantial evidence.

[–] • 0 pt

Where are the agricultural tools to support the hypothesis? Stone arrow heads are plentiful in the mud around Cahokia. They lived off the wildlife, grains and berries around the area. There was no organized agriculture beyond naturally sowing seeds during harvesting of naturally occurring edible plants. I doubt the population was more than a 2 million in the whole region.

[–] • 1 pt

I don't think Cahokia was supposed to be even close to a million people. I meant it was basically the only permanent settlement on par with a town/village anywhere in the north. Most of the land America occupies today was basically uninhabited.

I think we're agreeing here. The only large populations were a few select southern valleys, and even then the evidence is not strong enough to make it more than a theory.

[–] • 1 pt

Sounds like satans chosen are at it again.

[–] • 0 pt

While I doubt it, it could've been possible.

[–] • 1 pt

The Americas were quite populous. Europeans killed very few directly. Almost all deaths were the result of Old World diseases running rampant and European explorers showing up to find empty ruins or post-apocalyptic shells of former cultures.

[–] • 1 pt (edited )

I don't agree with the idea that "European diseases" killed off natives, as we've not observed such population declines to disease with any other populations. Further, we know for a fact that less fatal archaic strains of diseases in Europe were already prevalent among native American populations, providing them with ready resistance to European strains. But that comes with a caveat.

We do observe these declines when any population is in the midst of dealing with famine. Reduce a persons nutrition, their immune system's ability to resist disease and infection declines. Do this to a large population and disease spreads and in a host with a weakened immune system, you develop more virulent strains.

We know for a fact that when the Pilgrims arrived in North America, the natives where in the midst of famine. Global climate and weather was changing, not majorly, but enough that it seriously affected agriculture. One's health declines when malnourished is very similar to what we observe with those afflicted with GRIDS/HIV/AIDS and most cancers. By the way, keep an eye on those you know who submitted to the covid "vaccine". Interesting times ahead for them as the cancer rate is already rising.

[–] • 0 pt

That's fair, it could definitely be a combination of malnutrition and disease.

[–] • 0 pt

Interesting, I would have never guessed it to be that high.

[–] • 5 pts

They are making up numbers.

In 1400 Europe had 78 million inhabitants. In 2022 it's 448 million, growth of nearly 600%. If you believe their numbers medieval Mexico had a population of over 1/4 of it's modern value.

There is zero chance of that being accurate. That would require advanced waste management, fresh water procurement, farming, etc., by civilizations that didn't even have the wheel yet to be vastly superior to Europe. The Europe that built Notre Dame 250 years prior. The Europe that had advanced math and trigonometry for over 1,000 years.

No, this bullshit is made up by highly credentialed liars so they can click their tongue at liberal cocktail parties about how evil the colonizing West is. Then they can suggest some sort of 3rd world welfare in the name of past injustice. After all, since "we" killed hundreds of millions of noble savages, what's a few hundred billion in freebies? All administered by Klaus Schwab's WEF friends of course.

[–] • 1 pt

That is also an interesting take on it. I don't think you give them their deserved credit though.

https://www.touropia.com/pyramids-in-mexico/

They obviously were far beyond the wheel.

[–] • 0 pt

Those were all made with rollers and sledges. No New World culture is known to have used the wheel before the arrival of Europeans. There were toys with wheels, but nobody thought to use them for work or war.

[–] • 0 pt

Jewish numerology bullshit. 60 million oy vey.