Talk:Population history of the Indigenous peoples of the Americas

• This talk page was refactored on 26 March 2005, to make the page more useful for editors working on the article. The previous version of the talk page is available above at "history".

The great title search

This article has had numerous titles and proposed titles, including:

• American Holocaust
• Mortality rates arising out of the European colonization of the Americas
• Post-colonization Native American depopulation
• Depopulation of Indigenous peoples in the Americas
• Depopulation of Indigenous Americans
• Indigenous depopulation in the Americas
• Destruction of American indigenous peoples

A number of alternate titles were proposed here:[1], including:

• Decimation of Pre-Columbian populations
• Devastation of Native American populations
• Destruction of the American Indian
• Demographic disaster
• Impact of the European conquest of the Americas
• Destruction of the native peoples of the Americas
• Impact of the European conquest of the Americas
• Post-Columbian Depopulation
• Genocide in the Americas

and then there's the current title:

• Population history of American indigenous peoples

I proposed the current title, arguing that the previous title ("Destruction...") was POV, implicitly endorsing the provocative, minority assertion that the massive depopulation of the indigenous American people was deliberate. SimonP disagreed with this title, saying "it does not describe the content of the article." The article was rejected for Collaboration of the week, in part because the titles suggested were POV, as well as someone objecting to one or more of the long names.

I think part of the reason the article was renamed so often is that people (including me) moved it without first trying to find some sort of consensus. So I suggest we do this now. I agree with the criticism that the current title is too long and doesn't quite speak to the point.

Probably my vote would be Native American depopulation. Some would argue that "depopulation" is a euphemism for genocide, but I think that term covers both the disease portion of the debate as well as the genocide arguments. Also, the intro of the article should also make clear that the term "Native American" applies in this case to all indigenous peoples of the Americas who aren't always included in that term -- variations like "American indigenous peoples" are too awkward for a title.

Another potential is Native American genocide. Although that is clearly a POV title, at least the article now (and should continue) to explore whether or not the term genocide actually applies. Plus, the title is short and clear.

What do you think? --Kevin Myers 13:11, Mar 26, 2005 (UTC)

I think depopulation is about as NPOV a term as is possible. I do think some indication of the time frame is useful, however, so I would suggest something along the lines of "Post-Columbian Native American depopulation" or "Post-colonial Native American depopulation". Also many thanks for your recent edits, they have much improved this page. - SimonP 14:20, Mar 26, 2005 (UTC)

Depopulation is a neutral word and should do the job -- but not too descriptive. Something like "Native American Population Crash" might be more accurate. I'm not married to this one however. WBardwin 23:20, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I will admit that the current title makes me expect a graph with numbers rising and falling over prehistoric and historic time periods. And "depopulation" is overall better. But, on further thought (see above) -- the topic of the article can be clearly divided into two segments.

1) Disease related population crash -- the result of the biological separation of the two hemispheres and the sudden biological collision. Despite the arguments over isolated incidents of bio-warfare, the population effect was a passive one, one without intent on either side.

2) Population effects due to colonialism -- here we deal with an active intent, sometimes genocidal. Issues such as fuedalism, religious oppression, slavery, differences in subsistance activities, warfare over territory, attempted bio-warfare, manipulation of native peoples, cultural misunderstandings, etc. heavily impacted the populations' health, vitality and numbers. Disease was a factor here too, as Europeans changed native lifestyles, but they were more likely to be endemic and chronic diseases rather than infectious epidemics.

Despite my fear of sounding like an division junkie, would two cross referenced articles cover the overall issue in a better way? Kevin's fine work has certainly given us plenty to work with, and his sections fall cleanly on these lines. But -- then we would have to search for two titles! WBardwin 08:29, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)

This is the only genocide in the world that was successfull and you still talk about bullshit names? Its called Native American Genocide.Korrybean 21:25, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Most people with whom I have spoken, including children of Holocaust survivors, refer to a Native American Genocide, so how did that term become: "Population history of American indigenous peoples"? Frankly, the present title is abusive. It is understandable that there is debate over how to define the population decline following European colonization, but the title for that should read something like "Post-Colonial Depopulation" rather than "Population history." Population history should include everything since the Pleistocene. Yes, "depopulation" might sound something like extermination, forced removal, and starvation, but it can also represent war, or a natural plague; all of the above played a part. Right now, section by section, the article reads like an argument decrying the term Genocide, but in the process it glosses over and belittles a huge tragedy of one people displacing and decimating another, intentionally, and unintentionally.--Dante456 06:00, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

There are problems with any title anyone could come up with. To my mind the major problem with terming this a "genocide" is that it makes the assumption that all indigenous Americans represent one unified people who were all treated exactly the same by one unified group of Europeans. This is not at all the case. The current title has other problems, but it's closer to being an accurate description of what the article covers.--Cúchullain ^t/c 07:21, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm not arguing for or against the term genocide, the present title is inappropriate. In terms of populations, the Europeans can be termed a group, and the indigenous Americans can also be termed a group, even though neither group was politically or ethnically cohesive. Particularly in the case of North America, one population did displace and decimate the other, intentionally, and unintentionally. The article's focus, and the broader debate, is on the culpability of European colonialism in this tragedy. The present title is misleading, and does not represent the article's focus. Furthermore, the brevity of certain sections, particularly the section on displacement, is specious. If I marched your family hundreds of miles to a desert because I wanted your land, and your wife and children died of starvation, should I call it a "disruption which resulted in fewer births"? Or, can we be a bit more descriptive? --Dante456 15:32, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

You can't use 'American Holocaust' as a redirect it should be an article on the book on this title. -PatPeter 18:02, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

With the main article being named Indigenous peoples of the Americas, for sake of consistency then this article should be named Population history of indigenous peoples of the Americas, no?--Old Hoss 17:08, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Discussion of the Stannard book

Stannard is not the only authority on the subject. Moreover, he represents one particular, militant, Native Hawaiian viewpoint.

The fact is that populations in the Americas and the Pacific islands had never been exposed to the common diseases of the Eurasian-African landmass. They had NO inborn immunity to what were childhood diseases for others. Measles, for example, killed a huge percentage of the Native Hawaiian population.

European incursions in areas like China, the Phillipines, Africa, etc. did NOT result in mass die-offs, simply because the inhabitants were immune to European diseases. Zora 08:42, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)

So this is an article about one particular theory of history? A theory advocated by a professor or two? If so, then this article is entirely the wrong approach, IMO. It should read more like a book report/review, evaluating the book, the author, and the field. This feels more like a Cliff Notes version of the book, conveying an uncritical digest of the material. I haven't read the book, but that is how the article seems. -Willmcw 11:07, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)

PS or maybe a clearer explanation in the first sentence or two that this is a description of a particular theory. --Willmcw 11:13, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)

The article started with Stannard, but is & should move away from him if he is some way to the extreme end of the bell curve. --Tagishsimon (talk)

Aargh. I don't have the references to hand, but dammit, this is the considered opinion of historians and anthropologists. In general. Not just one book. I did my dissertation research in Tonga, one of the island groups affected by the depopulation. One reference there is Norma McArthur, Island Populations of the Pacific. As the American continents, I researched this for a Usenet argument a few years back, and then dropped the subject. But as an anthropologist with two degrees, and a resident of Hawai'i where Stannard lives, I tell you he's waaaay out there. He's married to Haunani Kay Trask, who is well-known as a Native Hawaiian militant.

I know it's POV at the moment, but repeating Stannard as if he were the standard reference in the field is even more POV, and pernicious to boot. Zora 12:37, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)

After I'd written the previous, I realized that the whole subject was probably new to you, and that you didn't realize that it had been thoroughly debated, by numerous people, over the course of many years. You seemed to be saying that if Stannard was the only person in the field, I should write a book report on him. No, no, I was trying to give the consensus theory and point out that Stannard was an outlier.

I'm aware that it's still POV, but I haven't had TIME to grub up references. Zora 12:42, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I think I was the one who wrote the misleading section re Stannard thinking that Europeans were at fault for the disease deaths. I haven't read the book in question; I have read his earlier book on the Hawaiian population crash. That was a number of years ago, but in the Hawaiian book he did seem to be arguing that everything was the Westerners' fault, and that they could have prevented the die-off if they'd been sufficiently concerned. (Case in point being the vilification of Captain Cook for not having better control over his poxy sailors.) The use of the term genoicide in the later book seemed to me to be a continuation of the earlier argument, that it was manslaughter if not premeditated murder. If Stannard isn't arguing that it was conscious malevolence or neglicence, then the use of the term genoicide is pure demagoguery.

It looks like it's time for a library trawl again. Sigh. Zora 06:58, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)

If you drew an inaccurate inference from Stannard's writings, it was probably his fault and not yours. From what I've read, he relies (in my amateur opinion) on distortions and half-truths to goad his readers into moral outrage. To wit: In calling a section of American Holocaust "Pestilence and genocide", he seems to be intentionally blurring the disease and genocide issue.

His work is offensive and bigoted, in my opinion. To illustrate, if someone wrote a book describing in gruesome detail every murder of a white person by a black person in American history, we'd rightfully deride it as race baiting crap. Stannard has written that kind of book. Wikipedians should resist writing articles using his approach.

Of course, there were certainly acts of mass murder and genocide committed by whites against Native Americas (on a local or tribal, rather than continental, scale); these have been written about by responsible historians, and make appropriate topics for Wikipedia. --Kevin Myers 09:08, Dec 20, 2004 (UTC)

I find it a little hard to read so many comments from people who haven't read Stannard's book. I know this conversation happened a long time ago but I hope a few of you will return to help me with my question. Stannard is not the only one to propose that what has happened over the last 500 years in the Americas is genocide. There are many scholars who use genocide to describe what has happened, and a few are even mentioned in the article; here are two more: Zinn, Howard; Comsky, Noam. I am trying to find out where to place quotes, figures, and derscriptions of events that make it very clear that many European leaders, including Christopher Columbus, George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, and Andrew Jackson (to name a few) had very clear intentions, when giving orders or caring out massacres and killings, to wipe out every native man, woman, and child who stood in the way of policies (or desires) for clearing land and/or collecting natural resources. I would like to know of any ideas about where in Wikipedia such quotes, figures, and events would fit the best. Gunuin 06:56, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Scientific Issues regarding the disease hypothesis

What I can not comprehend is why there was not a parallel "virgin soil" epidemic for the colonists? Why wouldn't the colonists be exposed to roughly the same number of virulent diseases as the indigenous population. Furthermore, wouldn't we expect to see outbreaks in Europe from travelers who take whatever new diseases contracted in the "New World" back to Europe. These arguments of disease being the causal agent for the genocide wreaks of holocaust denial, and in fact mirrors the claims of Nazi Holocaust revisionists. But clearly it can be done in this case because these are not crimes that were committed by someone else. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zaidkhalil (talk • contribs) 22:41, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Removed a link

I removed a link to a site that claimed, no ifs, ands, or buts, that smallpox infested blankets were passed out and caused an epidemic. Since we cover the controversy in detail, I'm not sure what is to be gained by adding a site that has less detail than the article. Zora 01:32, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Amherst/Bouquet/etc.

Whether or not any smallpox-contaminated blankets were actually distributed, Jeffrey Amherst, 1st Baron Amherst and Henry Bouquet certainly wanted to do it, and corresponded about doing it... AnonMoos 22:45, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

See the Deliberate infection? section in the article and the "old" talk section "Blankets and smallpox" above. The story is well laid out in Pontiac's Rebellion, a well-written featured article. WBardwin 22:54, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

The incident is adequately covered in various places, but not in the "Deliberate infection" section of this article, where it is discussed over a whole paragraph, but the most incriminating details seem to be carefully omitted from the discussion. If the incident is to be discussed at all in this article, those details should not be omitted... AnonMoos 23:08, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Theoretical fiction

This article is based on theoretical fiction. There is no way to examine the immune systems of people from the past. Scientists have enough trouble studying the immune systems of living people, much less those of the past. Populations plummet for a number of reasons, including war. There was surely no shortage of diseases in the Americas. The article sounds as though America was disease free until the Europeans arrived. Current scholarship says that Europeans may have been the first people in the Americas. Thomas Paine1776 23:58, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Smallpox, measles and TB are theoretical fictions? I suppose historic pandemics like the Bubonic plague and Black Death probably didn't occur either, because the people affected are dead, and there's no way to study their immune systems.

Again, you have not indicated which scholarship claims Europeans were "first". I have pointed out that Solutrean hypothesis (if that is what you're referring to) makes no assertions regarding the timing of the first human arrivals in the Americas. Saying Solutreans sailed along Atlantic pack ice in 17,000 BC does not rule out humans exploring the Alaskan coast in 20,000 BC or before. Twalls 12:56, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Native American Genocide

The Native Americans practiced genocide and this also had an effect on their demographics.

Without going in to detail, one example: The Erie (tribe) were exterminated by other Native Americans recently enough we have the written records of the event (over several years) by western trader observers.67.161.166.20 05:45, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

unnecessary baggage

I just snipped off some bracketted fact about how europeans had 2 storey houses with the 1st floor acting as a barn. Things related to things related to this subject are important, but they should be in other articles and you should link to the relevant article instead so that this article can be concise and to the point. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.210.151.144 (talk) 02:13, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Genocide debate submission

The following material by User:Siniestra, moved here for discussion, clarification and a source for what appears to be a quote. WBardwin (talk) 03:34, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Although some other historians face it differently and keep in mind widespread colonizers conceptions like in North America: - "The Pioneer has before declared that our only safety depends upon the total extermination of the Indians. Having wronged them for centuries, we had better, in order to protect our civilization, follow it up by one more wrong and wipe these untamed and untamable creatures from the face of the earth. In this lies future safety for our settlers and the soldiers who are under incompetent commands. Otherwise, we may expect future years to be as full of trouble with the redskins as those have been in the past.", as exposed in Wounded Knee Massacre (1890).

GA Sweeps Review: On Hold

As part of the WikiProject Good Articles, we're doing sweeps to go over all of the current GAs and see if they still meet the GA criteria. I'm specifically going over all of the "World History-Americas" articles. I believe the article currently meets the majority of the criteria and should remain listed as a Good article. However, in reviewing the article, I have found there are some issues that may need to be addressed. I have made minor corrections and have included several points below that need to be addressed for the article to remain a GA. Please address them within seven days and the article will maintain its GA status. If progress is being made and issues are addressed, the article will remain listed as a Good article. Otherwise, it may be delisted. If improved after it has been delisted, it may be nominated at WP:GAN.

Needs inline citations:

1. "In what is now Brazil, the indigenous population has declined from a pre-Columbian high of an estimated 4 million to some 300,000"
2. "Low estimates were sometimes reflective of European notions of their own cultural and racial superiority, as historian Francis Jennings has argued: "Scholarly wisdom long held that Indians were so inferior in mind and works that they could not possibly have created or sustained large populations.""
3. "The most devastating disease was smallpox, but other deadly diseases included typhus, measles, influenza, bubonic plague, mumps, yellow fever, and pertussis (whooping cough)."
4. "Similarly, in the fifty years following Columbus' voyage to the Americas, an unusually strong strain of syphilis killed a high proportion of infected Europeans within a few months."
5. "Using evidence from 24 epidemics, Acuña-Soto concluded that the Spanish did not bring the epidemic to the Aztecs, but arrived during its onset and intensification. Acuña-Soto's theory is controversial and not widely accepted as of 2007."
6. "Serfs stayed to work the land; slaves were exported to the mines, where large numbers of them died."
7. "However, since Las Casas's writings were polemical works, intended to provoke moral outrage in order to facilitate reform, some scholars speculate that his depictions may have been exaggerated to some degree. No mainstream scholar dismisses the idea that atrocities were widespread, but some now believe that mass killings were not a significant factor in overall native depopulation. It may be argued that the Spanish rulers in the Americas had economic reasons to be unhappy at the high mortality rate of the indigenous population, since at least some of them wanted to exploit the natives as laborers."
8. "...genocide was defined (in part) as a crime "committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnic, racial or religious group, as such.""

Other issue:

1. The "Pre-Columbian Americas" section should either be expanded on or incorporated into another section. It is currently too brief to warrant its own section.

This article is in good shape and it's good to see that there are not that many issues. I will leave the article on hold for seven days, but if progress is being made and an extension is needed, one may be given. I will leave messages on the talk pages of the main contributors to the article along with related WikiProjects/task forces so that the workload can be shared. If you have any questions, let me know on my talk page and I'll get back to you as soon as I can. Happy editing! --Nehrams2020 (talk) 08:25, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Hope you don't mind me striking the ones that get done. Murderbike (talk) 18:09, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

I actually prefer it, as it's good to see progress being made. --Nehrams2020 (talk) 19:56, 28 February 2008 (UTC)