I'm just sort of lurking in this part of the debate. Natives in places
like Minnesota were wiped out by the Spanish?

Jeff Rigby wrote:
No that's a misquote, I mentioned that the east and southeast of the
continental United States had this massive depopulation.

Actually, I don't believe you specified *where* 80% of the native
Americans had been been wiped out. And you certainly did not say
anything about long term depopulation.


.. DSK, misread and
or misquoted.

Yeah, that must be it!

You don't ever actually say untruthful or stupid things, you just get
misunderestimated!


Climate has a lot to do with the spread of disease. The warmer climates
spread typhus and cholera faster than the cold climates.


Duh. Funny how there's little malaria in Canada, eh?

OTOH diseases like smallpox, which is among most deadly and is
documented to have ripped thru the New England tribes in several waves,
is virulent in all climates and is contagious for years. In fact, one of
the web sites you gave links to mentioned a smallpox epidemic caused by
digging a pipeline thru a graveyard of smallpox victims, decades later.

It is possible... not very likely, but possible... that by the early
1800s the overall Indian population was down to 20% of what it had been
at peak, before the arrival of Europeans. But since we don't know how
many there were at either time, there's not much point in insisting on it.

One thing we agree on, the white man's diseases (including alcoholism)
killed a lot more Indians than bullets ever did.

DSK