> the European explorers and colonists did commit horrific crimes against humanity

not only horrific but the biggest hollocaust in the entire human history, with around 34 million people killed from 1500 up to 2025

with that said, people romanticize them too much. canibalism, war and also a (probably) big impact in one of the most rich ecosystems of Earth: the Amazon was ripped with their practices of burning stuff and planting dominant species among the forest that reduced for sure the amount of biodiversity in their +15,000 years of existence there. tho not defending EU ppl ripping out their forest till the border of rivers

▲

verisimi 2 hours ago | parent | next [-]

These numbers are surely numbers on a spreadsheet, unless you are referring to literal bodies that have been counted.

In this article itself, we read that:

> When Estrada-Belli first came to Tikal as a child, the best estimate for the classic-era (AD600-900) population of the surrounding Maya lowlands – encompassing present day southern Mexico, Belize and northern Guatemala – would have been about 2 million people. Today, his team believes that the region was home to up to 16 million

The point is that spreadsheet estimates can be so wrong, they are verging on meaningless.

▲

assaddayinh 11 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

These super lative rich western diabolism always sounds like trump when i read it.

▲

ljsprague 15 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

>not only horrific but the biggest hollocaust in the entire human history

Does this number include deaths due to introduced diseases?

	▲	mc32 15 hours ago \| parent [-]
		If it does then the Black Death introduced by Genghis Khan in the Middle East and Europe is likely higher.

▲

ab5tract 14 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Where can I read this certainty of destroyed biodiversity? That sounds like an extremely unsupported position, considering that the Amazon has the highest rates of biodiversity today.

The continued belittling of indigenous forestry practices contributes to out of control wildfires.

▲

luqtas 14 hours ago | parent [-]

https://portal.amelica.org/ameli/journal/181/1813954027/html...

https://www.sp-amazon.org/publications

▲

13 hours ago | parent | next [-]

[deleted]

▲

ab5tract 13 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

> The forest itself, paleo-scientists of all stripes say, is much more domesticated than previously thought.

This implies that the biodiversity is a result of (or, at the very least, supported by) the indigenous practices, which is a far cry from your claim that biodiversity suffered from those practices.

▲

luqtas 13 hours ago | parent [-]

have you actually read anything? indigenous were pointed as responsibles for cultivating dominant species which had an impact and shaped the flora. the last website i published is a whole book showing how its rich biodiversity happened over multi million year processes. it also points out the impact on the "funneling" of species indigenous occupations had

i still think despite their impact, they were exemplar compared to what we had on the rest of the world (but i never studied Asia). but it's not like they were magicians that had no impact on anything and lived in complete synergy with nature by increasing biodiversity. and if you think cultivating biological dominant species across a forest has no impact i suggest you to research on the many examples of alien flora effects on various ecosystem on modernity or even try to throw some Hawaiian Baby Woodrose somewhere out their native land to check how much these species take over anothers. they probably killed and reduced species expression to settle themselves there. but cest la vie. living has an impact after all

▲

ab5tract an hour ago | parent [-]

You said certainty but now you say probably. Which is it?

I never claimed that they had no impact, but it is clear that the impact tended towards neutral to positive because: a) the forest was still there; and b) it had the higher rate of biodiversity in the world.

Indigenous burns in California are recognized as being a net positive for the old growth forests and the biodiversity within. It doesn’t take a lot to extrapolate that the same was true in the Amazon.

	▲	ab5tract an hour ago \| parent [-]
		To state it a different way: yes, of course and without doubt their very presence affected biodiversity. But you were talking about their practices, which tended towards custodial over exploitative. And overall these practices clearly supported biodiversity as a whole, otherwise we wouldn’t note the biodiversity of this region as anything special (see again the quote I took from your first article). I apologize anyway for my slightly combative tone. I appreciate the resources you shared even if I haven’t had time to absorb them in full yet.

▲

gjsman-1000 15 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

That number is statistically too high.

Most historians pinpoint it at around 5-15 million. Communist Russia (3-20 million) and Communist China (15-40 million) both killed more.

▲

luqtas 14 hours ago | parent [-]

your number is about North America. i hate when people sum America to the North. we are chatting about everyone from both continents

i went to check on the doc. i watched (https://youtu.be/laW_Yf6N4kU?si=vi3KY9prfdqfNybC&t=1176) and i have to make a correction: they point out that the majority of the 80 million people living on America were killed on the first 100 years of colonization. they do talk impartially as it being one of the biggest holocaust known to the humanity. i don't agree on excluding death numbers from disease. it wasn't something like the Black Death (25 million) where effected countries weren't in war, nor they were also being blown out of existence by superior (war) technology

and 80 million aren't even the highest estimations historians suggest [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Population_history_of_the_Indi... ¶ some historians point up to 100 million people killed

	▲	wahern 9 hours ago \| parent [-]
		> they point out that the majority of the 80 million people living on America were killed on the first 100 years of colonization. they do talk impartially as it being one of the biggest holocaust known to the humanity. i don't agree on excluding death numbers from disease. it wasn't something like the Black Death (25 million) where effected countries weren't in war, nor they were also being blown out of existence by superior (war) technology A majority of deaths by disease occurred before Europeans even made contact with the regional population. So to differentiate the Black Death because it didn't involve a state of conflict doesn't make sense. Most of the natives who died had never even seen a European, let alone live in a state of conflict with them. In fact, AFAIU disease began sweeping across the Americas before colonial conquests had even begun, initial transmission occurring during exploratory and trade missions.