Look at all that white. I thought the empty land theory was just a myth?
>>18471272What do you all think the "real" population of the pre-Columbian Americas was? Ain't no way it was "100 million".
>>18471272You have to factor in the fact that a lot of these were nomadic so..the "empty land theory" isn't some /pol/troon revisionism like most things are.
>>18471272That's a theory? People say it's a myth? Then what is the explanation for European colonists being able to wander out in the woods and found cities from scratch in ideal locations?
>>18471272You look at every single recorded battle between settlers and Natives. And it's always like 2 dead 8 wounded. Where is the "100 million"? Where are the bones?
>>18471272Well it was empty when the colonists went there. But that was more a side effect of everyone already being dead by then. >>18471291That's literally not how it happened.
>>18471272The white areas are places where we have no records of who lived there before the Columbian plagues.
>>18471272As your map's own legend very clearly states, white also stands for unknown affiliation, it's not actually meant to imply that native americans decided to thoroughly settle empty deserts and arctic wastelands but arbitrarily decided to leave random areas of the eastern woodland alone.
The map is just incomplete, I know for a fact that there are various indigenous groups in the white area of Northern Mexico there>>18471277>>18471292I need to do more reading on Precolumbian demography to have a truly informed opinion, but my read on it from what I have looked at and know about Mesoamerica and to a lesser extent other parts of the Americas, would be somewhere between 50 to 100m. That's a huge range but as I said, I'm trying to be mindful of my own knowledge gaps and to not be too specific here.What I am confident in saying is that anything below 40m is almost certainly too low. Denevan's "The Native Population of the Americas in 1492" is probably a good place to start to read on this, he comes to a figure of like ~55m, see pic, but I know many Mesoamericanists which would go with higher numbers (tho some slightly lower), and my impression is that recent research in North America and the Amazon would bump those numbers up, but don't quote me on that.
>>18471292>Where is the "100 million"?In central and south America.
>>18471847You mean those people who became the modern populations of Central and South America?
It was far emptier than that. Here is a map of all archaeologically attested settlement in the eastern states c. 1500. The larger blobs represent more nomadic or dispersed populations, not larger populations. The total population north of Mexico was probably between 2 and 4 million, and huge portions of the country were entirely uninhabited. The former heartland of the Mississipian culture had been completely abandoned, to the point that archaeologists call it the 'Vacant Quarter'. The population shifted and shrunk even more before colonization took place. For instance, the population of the St. Laurence River valley observed in the early 16th century had already disappeared by the 17th due to being genocided by the Iroquois, who in turn were almost destroyed by smallpox in the 17th century. On the other hand, migrations and the spread of the horse meant some areas that were uninhabited in 1500 were more settled by 1800, like the upper Mississippi and the Great Plains.>>18471688Denevan's number are probably roughly accurate but the numbers for the Carribean seem ridiculous. Even Dobyns, who gave massively inflated numbers for the rest of the Americas, but the Carribean population at half a million.
>>18472543Comparison of different population estimates for the Americas.
if you can't keep it, it isn't yours
>>18472545>>18472543only 5 million for Mexico is absurdly low>The former heartland of the Mississipian culture had been completely abandonedDefine "heartland". There were definitely some Mississippian polities still around: De Soto encountered some, the Natchez were still building Moundbuilder style towns into the 1700s, etc
>>18471272You really expect me to trust an amerishartian snownigger to give accurate numbers on native americans? Might as well ask an israeli kike about palestinians, just look at this snownigger acting like his kike bretheren >>18472783
>>18471272I think most of the white are places where Iroquois expansionism and Carolinian slave raiding fucked things up so badly we don't even know who the original population even were anymore. Think more "shatter zones" or "no man's land" than "wastelands".
>>18472543Archeologically attested is doing some heavy lifting, absence of evidence is not necessarily evidence of absence. Especially when all that land has been pretty extensively developed and terraformed.
>>18473524calm down senor
>>18472543That's essentially a population density map for modern America.Was long Island a single pre-colonial super-city or is it just that every square inch of the island was dug up for buildings or roads?
>>18471272>city is in a white regionBased. Feels good to be 100% EVROPEAN
>>18473524>Xenor, los snownegros gave my abuela type 2 diabetes o algo
