Documented every time you go outside and noone looks Native American in a continent where 100% of the population was once Native American.
And where bisons were so numerous that roamed the land lifting so much dust that the sky turned dark.
And where bisons were so numerous that roamed the land lifting so much dust that the sky turned dark.
There were a lot of natives.
The European outsiders all but eliminated both. No guilt. No respirations.
What more do we need to know?
You don’t think disease, land stealing, or war should be part of the picture?
Reducing? Beats ignoring
You also don't seem to be aware that history is not absolute. In this case, there are *at least* three lens: the genociders, the genocidees, and the buffalo / bison.
You seem to be stuck on defending the genociders by demanding justification or some sort of analysis. But we know exactly what happened. We know why.
By the time the Americans had a program to slaughter the bison to get rid of the natives, many estimate the Native Americans had already lost 90% of their numbers.
I'm not saying there was no genocide, I'm saying it was going on long before buffalo killing was used as a tool for it.
And when someone asks for documentation (where this dispute started), it's unreasonable to claim "two things don't exist, therefor one caused the other". By the same logic I could say "the Tasmanian devil doesn't exist and Indians don't exist, therefore killing the Tasmanian devil was used to kill the Indians." what an absurd form of logic. Just because something is true, doesn't mean your logic or justification for it are valid or educating for others.
Have you ever wondered why the European North American settlers didn’t have a unified indigenous empire to contend with, such as could be found in Central and South America? (Ie Incan or Aztec).
I would posit that it was because the Hunter/raider/gatherer societies could not sustain growth beyond a certain point. For whatever reason, the North American indigenous tribes would not cross a threshold of government and infrastructure that is required to eliminate their reliance on raiding (the perpetual changing hands of limited refined resources), and game hunting (ie lack of livestock domestication and food storage that allow for permanent settlements, growth).
What the Europeans did to the Indians was as horrendous in execution as it was consequential to the decisions those tribes made during the hundreds of years leading up to the arrival of the Europeans.
Who knows what may had been if Columbus had been confronted with a unified indigenous empire with permanent settlements and defensive emplacements? Instead he found desperate tribes of marauding Indians, reliant on a singular food source and very willing to accept short term alliances for short term infighting advantages.
Its hardly a thing, IMO, for a descendant many generations removed to feel guilty over…let alone pay penance for.
The Tahuantinsuyu (Inca) had a civil war of succession followed by a purge of the nobility after the monarch died Huayna Capac of smallpox.
So not even in those cases they faced a unified front.
And the innovations you mention are not enough. On one side you have no navigation technology (map making, compass, etc), no animal traction.
The US experience does not speak for the entire continent.
Why so many of them have paternal haplogroup R (European)? (in some areas, with a frequency of up to 88% of males)
What really means is that the natives you are running into are... you.
What happened to the rest?
Aside from being a deeply weird thing to say, there's no buffalo left in either case.
The Paiute tribes, and others, have stories about the long war they fought against the Si-Te-Cah which were giant red-headed cannibals, and there are samples from that war that still exist. The Choctaw similarly have stories of their wars against the Nahullo (white giants), similarly, that were cannibals, as do many other tribes.
There have been many Smithsonian coverups of the well-reported giant findings https://grahamhancock.com/dewhurstr1/ and some of the skeletons are both the more ancient Giant Native American mound peoples (non-caucasian), and the described caucasian skulls.
South America is replete with giant skulls and skeletons, some of which have characteristics fundamentally different from normal human skulls and are not merely headboarded infants. Many of these skulls have some similarities to the Mound people's giant skulls found in North America.
Many of the skulls and DNA they've found are not simply North Asian, Eastern Asian and Southern Asian, but also show other groups history in the Americas too, such as the Australo-Melanesian findings
https://sciencenordic.com/anthropology-archaeology-denmark/d...
https://www.science.org/content/article/mysterious-link-emer...
https://www.sciencenews.org/article/ancient-dna-fossils-sout...
https://www.livescience.com/61319-dna-first-americans-lineag...
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/07/08/science/polynesian-ancest...