Hacker News Reader

Comment by gwbas1c | Hacker News Reader

> But there's an implication that the European colonizers bumbled their way through history, as if they didn't face and overcome their own issues with starving populations. I think it's objective fact that Europeans have been quite resilient themselves, being as how they managed to settle most of the planet.

At least when it comes to the Americas, the reason why the Europeans became dominant was mostly luck and genetics: American Indians (and the Siberians they descended from) don't have the genetics to fight European disease. Where European death rates from Smallpox are around 1/3rd, for American Indians it's at 90%.

Otherwise, compared to Europe, American Indians typically had a better diet and better hygiene.

View on HN

I think technology made dominance inevitable. Many other issues, including disease and internal conflicts, absolutely accelerated the pace of victory but consider the technology. You're looking at steel weapons/armor, gunpower/firearms/cannons, crossbows, and horses against unarmored unmounted opposition equipped with basic stone instruments and simple bows.

That's not true. Bows and arrows shot further and straighter than muskets.

You're also arguing with well established historical fact. Before the pilgrims, no European colony could establish themselves because the Indians would threaten them if they didn't leave. The pilgrims established themselves in Plymouth because smallpox killed off all the Indians shortly before their arrival. (It's so well known that it's even repeated in Charlie Brown's Thanksgiving special)

If you have about 30 minutes, the free sample of 1491 explains this: 1491 (Second Edition): New Revelations of the Americas Before Columbus https://www.amazon.com/dp/B000JMKVE4/ref=cm_sw_r_apan_FAD53K...

Before the Pilgrims?

Almost one hundred years before the Plymouth settlement, the Spanish had conquered Mexico. Almost fifteen years before Plymouth, the English had settled Jamestown.

The South American and Mexican conquests were also due to smallpox.

It's really worth reading 1491. The evidence for smallpox and other European diseases directly contributing to the fall of American Indians, both in North and South America, is undisputable and well-known.

Two things:

1. I think a much appropriate term to use here is Native American instead of American Indians.

2. I disagree with your statement "the reason why the Europeans became dominant was mostly luck and genetics". I do agree that the disease brought by the Europeans played a very important role in the whole colonization effort but mostly it was violence the main driver. Saying otherwise is just downplaying the genocide.

I'm repeating well established historical fact: 1491 (Second Edition): New Revelations of the Americas Before Columbus https://www.amazon.com/dp/B000JMKVE4/ref=cm_sw_r_apan_FAD53K...

I'm also following the book's terms. Native American is a confusing term, and the author includes an appendix explaining it

I understand where the confusion is coming from: that Columbus thought that he had arrived in India and so named the natives "Indians" but it's been long established that this was a terrible mistake and that the peoples from the Americas were, in fact, not Indians but rather Native Americas. They were not brought from India. They were already established here. So it's incorrect to call them American Indians. It's just plain offensive these days to call them so.

Don't take my word for it, though. Just ask any "American Indian" which term they prefer and you'll find your answer quickly.

> Don't take my word for it, though. Just ask any "American Indian" which term they prefer and you'll find your answer quickly.

And you'll get many different answers, especially as you travel. North and South America are two large continents; and the Indians were diverse and had many different names for themselves.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com