Talk:Population history of the Indigenous peoples of the Americas

Depopulation from disease suggestions (from a sockpuppet)

I think this section could use more counter points since currently most of it is dedicated to opinions that disease on it's own isn't primarily to blame. Numerous scholars challenge this idea but aren't cited at all. In addition I think the paragraphs on Ostler and Reséndez could be trimmed and merged into the same paragraph since they are arguing very similar positions and currently each have their own overly long paragraphs. Ostler's paragraph is mostly quotes and not as easily readable as it could be. Nettless (talk) 16:38, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

The current literature does say that disease on its own isn’t primarily to blame—it is more along the lines of Resendez and Ostler (that colonial violence through removal and slavery laid the groundwork for disease to flourish, I.e. it’s a lot more complicated than simple epidemic collapse). This is why your addition of the sentence “ They now believe that widespread epidemic disease, to which the natives had no prior exposure or resistance, was the primary cause of the massive population decline of the Native Americans” was removed originally and needs to be removed again.

I suggest the section lead with European ideas of the period (Divine approval of colonialism), followed by the current scholarly consensus (that colonial violence exacerbated disease proliferation), followed by Cook’s dated theory. The disease-only narrative has been brought up and removed here and on other pages related to Spanish colonialism, it’s dated and it’s not what current research says. See the above section here for related discussion. Hobomok (talk) 17:53, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

It doesn't seem to be a settled issue. Historians have repeatedly pointed out to cases where Europeans simply had peaceful contacts, or were defeated in battle, by indigenous populations, and returned a few decades later to see that they had completely vanished (Orellana's expedition up the Amazon River for example). If one third of Europeans died in a few years in the black death, why wouldn't that happen reppeatedly and with an even larger force in the Americas? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Knoterification (talk • contribs) 09:24, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

Relating an account from a historical figure (which could have taken place due to any number of variables) and then posing a hypothetical you’ve just thought up doesn’t make a strong case for your argument. The current scholarly sources say what they say, and the page reflects them. Hobomok (talk) 14:11, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

also, just as a note, I’d say this section has MUCH fewer problems than something like “Displacement and Disruption,” which only says “ The populations of many Native American peoples were reduced by the common practice of intermarrying with Europeans.[71] Although many Indian cultures that once thrived are extinct today, their descendants exist today in some of the bloodlines of the current inhabitants of the Americas.” This is… problematic.

Why come into this page out of nowhere and take umbrage with the depopulation from disease section’s focus on current scholarly literature when this section exists? Hobomok (talk) 20:40, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you're insinuating here but I'll focus on whatever section I see fit. Nettless (talk) 22:12, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

I’m not insinuating anything besides that we can improve this article markedly by focusing on much weaker sections rather than focusing on sections that already reflect scholarly consensus and have already been the subject of discussion above. No need to be combative. Hobomok (talk) 23:09, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

You're misrepresenting sources and falsely claiming there is some sort of scholarly consensus. I read both Ostler and Resendez. You claim there is scholarly consensus which includes Ostler, however Ostler explicitly argues against this and essentially states his position is actually against the current majority scholarly viewpoint. Ostler even says in the book "Since 1992, the argument for a total, relentless, and pervasive genocide in the Americas has become accepted in some areas of Indigenous studies and genocide studies. For the most part, however, this argument has had little impact on mainstream scholarship in U.S. history or American Indian history. Scholars are more inclined than they once were to gesture to particular actions, events, impulses, and effects as genocidal, but genocide has not become a key concept in scholarship in these fields." Ostler further states "A recent development in the American genocide debate centers on the question of whether ethnic cleansing is a more apt term than genocide. In Ethnic Cleansing: The Crime That Should Haunt America (2014), Gary Anderson surveys the entirety of U.S. history including its colonial antecedents and argues that the crime of ethnic cleansing best characterizes this history. Anderson also insists that genocide does not apply to any of the history since “policies of mass murder on a scale similar to events in central Europe, Cambodia, or Rwanda were never implemented.” Benjamin Madley, author of An American Genocide: The United States and the California Indian Catastrophe (2016), has rebutted Anderson by arguing that a sustained genocide occurred in at least one place in the United States: California during the Gold Rush from the early 1850s into the 1870s. Because the case for genocide in California is particularly strong, this latest wrinkle in the debate could conceivably be resolved by an agreement that Madley is right about California but that Anderson is right about the rest of U.S. history. Given the history of the American genocide debate, however, it is doubtful that a consensus will emerge. It is safe to predict that the debate will continue."  Andres Resendez on the other hand doesn't argue that forced labour and slavery were a main cause of depopulation in the entire americas. Resendez only attributes forced labour as possibly the main cause regarding the Caribbean. He doesn't attribute it as a main cause in Peru, Mexico and the US. For Northern Mexico and Southern US, Redendez primarily argues slavery played a role through slave raids spreading disease further in same way trade does. Resendez's does not particularly disagree with the position of scholars like Cook regarding disease. There is no scholarly consensus according to even Ostler, but according to you, apparently there is. Nettless (talk) 01:28, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

I think you're in the wrong place here. If you want to wade into the genocide debate because you read Ostler's appendix, you'll want to go somewhere else. The quote from Ostler on this page is related to colonial violence (in its myriad forms) allowing disease to proliferate more easily. Resendez doesn't discuss colonial violence broadly, but rather slavery and everything that goes along with it, and argues that the structure allowed disease to spread more easily, which is almost exactly what you outline in your rundown of his book above. I'm not sure if you intended to agree with the text from Resendez on the page, but I'm fairly sure you just did.

Other scholars that agree with Resendez and Ostler on colonial violence (slavery, physical violence, sexual violence, removal, etc.) setting the stage for disease to spread include sociologist Dorceta Taylor in 2016's The Rise of the American Conservation Movement: Power, Privilege, and Environmental Protection, and genome scientists Brendan O'Fallon and Lars Fehren-Schmitz, among others. Current scholarship states that colonial violence created conditions for disease to flourish among Native peoples. This is clear. This is what the sources say. This is what should be represented on the page.

I still don't understand why we're arguing about a pretty cut-and-dry section when multiple sections on this page need major work, or why, on a page that needs major work, this one seemed to be the one area that was keyed in on. Very strange to me.--Hobomok (talk) 02:35, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

A note: Now I do understand why Nettless was obsessed with arguing about this section: they were a sockpuppet of a user who frequently has these arguments and pushes anti-Indigenous points.--Hobomok (talk) 20:16, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

Appears unconfirmed. The points made are still logical, the selective inclusion of some of Ostler's works is not warranted, I have added additional information to the page based on the assessment of the consensus in the literature by Ostler. PresidentCoriolanus (talk) 01:27, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

Ostler's assessment of topical literature should be included

A recent user has been vandalizing edits on the subject of American history and genocide scholarship and edited the page to remove a directly relevant quote in Jeffery Ostler's 2019 work "Surviving Genocide: Native Nations and the United States" summarizing the topical literature on the subject and the dominant since 1992.

See: Ostler, Jeffrey (2019). S from the American Revolution to Bleeding Kansas. Yale University Press. pp. 11–17, 381. ISBN 9780300245264.

Since 1992, the argument for a total, relentless, and pervasive genocide in the Americas has become accepted in some areas of Indigenous studies and genocide studies. For the most part, however, this argument has had little impact on mainstream scholarship in U.S. history or American Indian history. Scholars are more inclined than they once were to gesture to particular actions, events, impulses, and effects as genocidal, but genocide has not become a key concept in scholarship in these fields.

Given that the citation is used as evidence of scholars who characterize it as genocide, the only content of the article where Ostler makes an assessment of the relevant topical literature (since 1992!) should be included to describe the assessments of the field. Furthermore, if you are editing citations, please see that multiple sources are provided (Anderson, Grenke, etc). So (a) please provide valid reasoning and (b) edit only the relevant citation.

I do also think the page should get a protection status. PresidentCoriolanus (talk) 00:47, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

I reverted you misquoting Ostler. Someone else already explained this above in response to a sock puppet who tried to add this misquotation. You commented there defending the sockpuppet’s bad-faith points after you appeared here to go ahead and re-add a quote that a bad-faith sockpuppet insisted upon adding. I’m removing your edits (and those from the previous sockpuppet) which misquote a book where a scholar argues that genocide occurred in these instances. I’m doing this because unfortunately the person who used to deal with this kind of ridiculous editing and misquoting has retired.

One final point: I’m not sure what you mean about me removing other sources. I didn’t remove Anderson. The Grenke source you keep linking to is not the book itself. It is actually a review of Grenke’s book, and the reviewer eviscerates Grenke’s claims.

So, number one: if you’re going to cite Grenke, cite the book itself.

Number two: the book shouldn’t even be cited because scholars in Grenke’s field feel it’s not a good book. —GeraldineSeinfeld (talk) 20:15, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

Ostler is not misquoted. Even if Ostler agreed that genocide occurred in some circumstances as per his definition and opinion, he still made an assessment of the relevant topical literature on the subject which is useful to readers. Please do not edit-war, provide valid reasons for removal.

So far your reasons are not valid because:

1. Ostler is directly quoted, not misquoted. Ostler is already cited earlier and later in the paper as a scholar who is of the opinion that the word 'genocide' should be used to describe the population decline due to an unquantified interplay between intergroup conflict and displacement, and disease. Ostler's assessment of the scholarship on the matter is used to provide a description of the mainstream scholarship. Ostler is in no way being represented as not being one of the scholars that make the affirmative claim.
2. The alleged "sock-puppet" who discussed the matter earlier is irrelevant. He simply mentioned a quote from an already-cited author that I think allows readers to better gauge the field's history and trajectory. However, that user never added this quotation from Ostler's work, which I think is useful as it is the only citation I have identified on this page that makes an assessment of the topical literature on the subject.
3. Several other users above such as Knoterification have shared the complexity and variability of the literature on the subject, including within the works of those that make the affirmative claim. As such, it is very useful to have a representation of the topical literature.

If you have any alternative assessments of topical literature made by other scholars, I implore you to share them.

Scholars who disagree with mainstream opinions can still assess the mainstream opinion. In fact it lends more credibility to their assessment as they favour another perspective yet still acknowledge that another perspective may be mainstream.

"I’m not sure what you mean about me removing other sources. I didn’t remove Anderson."

You reverted the entire edit instead of just Ostler, which we should discuss here first. And yes the automatic citation got the Genke citation inaccurate. I will correct that.

"Eviscerates" is just your personal opinion.

"the book shouldn’t even be cited because scholars in Grenke’s field feel it’s not a good book"

Yet, scholars such as Anderson did. I can name many scholars with different perspectives and I so I think you should name the scholars you refer to. The point of wikipedia is not a popularity contest, it is to summarize information with as much neutrality as possible. PresidentCoriolanus (talk) 00:54, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

Please stop lobbing false accusations. I reverted you once for adding an out of context quote and a book that has been reviewed poorly. Now I'm here after you re-added it. That’s not edit warring.

1. Ostler is quoted out of context. He describes the previous history of the field. He (and others quoted on the page) show that the current consensus among scholars, aside from Clayton Anderson, is that this constitutes genocide. Clayton Anderson is the only reputable scholar in well-received books that currently argues against genocide (in favor of “ethnic cleansing”). I have no idea what you mean by “unquantified.”

2. I have to wonder if you’ve read Ostler or you’re just directly taking the above sock puppet’s quote and putting it on the page, because that quote is out of context, and if you read Ostler you’d know this. Directly after Ostler makes a clear case for the majority of contemporary scholarship arguing for a genocide designation and against past scholarship he defines. You’re quoting from only one part of his point (past consensus against the genocide designation) and leaving the second part out (contemporary consensus in favor of genocide designation). Therefore, the quote you and this sock puppet want to add is out of context. Either you haven’t read Ostler and you’re taking this quote from the sock, or you’ve read Ostler and you know the quote is out of context but you’re arguing for its inclusion in bad faith. Either way, this is suspect addition and editing. Also, yes, Nettless is a sock puppet, and that sock master is known for making anti-Indigenous edits all over Wikipedia. There’s nothing “alleged” about it.

3. The user you’re tagging (now you’re canvassing here in addition to edit warring at settler colonialism) was arguing in favor of disease as the major driver of depopulation. Ostler also argues against that and has contemporary citations to show for it, as does the page.

Ostler is arguing current mainstream scholarly thought, but before he does that he showed what scholarly thought was in the past. He does this so that readers know the history of the field and the past debates he’s wading into. That doesn’t mean the quote you’ve cherry-picked represents contemporary thought in “mainstream scholarship.” That means it was accepted in the past, but according to Ostler and those he cites, it isn’t any longer. Aside from Clayton Anderson, you’re adding old, out of date scholarship to the page by quoting Ostler out of context.

Finally, the idea that Grenke’s book was eviscerated in the review you cite is not what I think. That book is received a really, really bad review. Have you read that review that you cited from Stephen Feinstein in the Canadian Journal of History about Grenke’s book (that’s not even from a University Press)? Go read that review of Grenke’s book and then try to come back and tell me we should cite that book. There is no way that book should be included anywhere as representative of anything after a review like that in a peer reviewed journal. That’s the kind of review that stops people from getting a job.—GeraldineSeinfeld (talk) 14:33, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

Edit warring includes going through a user's history to find any edits remotely related to.

1. Ostler is not quoted out of context. I am quoting his description of the previous history of the field until the time of the writing of the work because that is a respectable assessment of the topical literature on the subject.

"Directly after Ostler makes a clear case for the majority of contemporary scholarship arguing for a genocide designation and against past scholarship he define" —GeraldineSeinfeld

2. It is telling that you accuse me of not reading a work and continuing character attacks, yet think he made such an argument after without even quoting him (qoute him). However, it is clear that Ostler does not do this because this quote is from his appendix. Ostler's work makes no other assessments on the current topical literature on the subject or that the "majority of contemporary scholarship" argues for the 'genocide destination." It is his appendices that consider genocide in U.S. history and give population estimates by nation for the period covered by the book. In these appendices he states that, and I quote directly:

Scholars are more inclined than they once were to gesture to particular actions, events, impulses, and effects as genocidal, but genocide has not become a key concept in scholarship in these fields" — Jeffery Ostler, Page 384

That is an assessment of the current topical literature on the subject. He does not say 'since 1992 and until now.' He says "since 1992" and then says genocide has not become a key concept in scholarship in these fields." Evidently, in ordinary language has not become" means at the time of writing it has not become as such, which is correct if we review mainstream journals on American history, conflict and genocide studies.

"The user you’re tagging (now you’re canvassing here in addition to edit warring at settler colonialism) was arguing in favor of disease as the major driver of depopulation. Ostler also argues against that and has contemporary citations to show for it, as does the page." —GeraldineSeinfeld

3. Mentioning a user directly relevant to discussions on this page regarding Ostler is not canvassing, especially when you have made personal attacks and accused providing proportional representation of dominant viewpoint of being fringe. I accidentally reverted an edit on that page twice and I have apologized to a moderator. This does not excuse your own vandalism. Furthermore, Ostler does not actually argue against that. I will actually quote him:

"Scholarship on disease and Native Americans frequently emphasizes the horrific impacts of major epidemics. These diseases hit some nations in the zone of removal, although they never engulfed the entire region" — Jeffery Ostler, Page 347

He admits that disease was the central factor, but in his perspective it constitutes 'genocide' as across hundreds of years and millions of interactions, he believes conflict and resource competition created a complex interplay of factors which worsened exposure and lethality of disease. Now this is generally accepted in old and contemporary scholarship, however, according to Ostler, most scholars do not consider it 'genocide.' Ostler explains that he believes the disruption of conflict, competition and stress constitutes genocide because:

"Disrupted communities are less capable of providing compassion and care" — Jeffery Ostler, Page 34

Other scholars such as Anderson, Basso, etc have made the point that if that was the case, then logically it should apply to the 'Old World' where disease is estimated to have killed tens of millions, and where, across hundreds of years, we can also identify thousands of instances of conflict, war, and even enslavement. No respectable scholar says disease is not a major factor. Not even Ostler. Diseases were indeed central, and as this page says, "some" scholars in settler-colonial studies believe that the disease exposure was uniformly attributable to phenomena such as conflict with other populations (which resulted in displacement, resource competition, etc).

4. As Ostler admits, there is no evidence this is a mainstream view outside of niche fields such as settler-colonial studies and indigenous studies, fields which generally operate on a set of assumptions which has a selective effect that draws individuals with certain perspectives to them. And this is correct if we review mainstream journals on American history, conflict and genocide studies. For instance, we do see some developments that theorize displacement atrocities as a distinguishable crime from genocide, but outside of settler colonial studies and indigenous studies, we have not seen as Ostler says genocide become a key concept in scholarship in these fields.

See: Basso, A. R. (2016). Towards a theory of displacement atrocities: The Cherokee trail of tears, the herero genocide, and the pontic greek genocide. Genocide Studies and Prevention: An International Journal, 10(1), 5

See the review of Grenke.

5. You are just sharing your personal opinion. Stephen Feinstein's review is no way an "evisceration" or something that "stops people from getting a job" Arthur Grenke has a PhD in History and Sociology, and remains a respectable scholar.

Anderson's work likewise has positive reviews.

See: Carroll P. Kakel III (2016) Ethnic cleansing and the Indian: the crime that should haunt America; Native America and the question of genocide, Settler Colonial Studies, 6:1, 99-105, DOI: 10.1080/2201473X.2015.1015929

Wikipedia demands reasoning and neutrality. You need to provide a justification beyond calling a critical review that still admits the sections on the declines of pre-Columbian American populations were "well-written," as being a "really, really bad review." PresidentCoriolanus (talk) 23:55, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

Does someone watching this page want to take over on this? I'm not going around and around about Ostler with someone whose main goal over the last week has been questioning settler colonial studies and quoting studies out of context here and elsewhere to favor their own ideas about history. I'm also not going down the disease rabbit hole when it's been done over and over again on this page. I've got better ways to spend my time.--GeraldineSeinfeld (talk) 01:17, 20 August 2023 (UTC)

If there’s no other commentary on this besides going around and around about quoting Ostler out of context and quoting a book (Grenke) after it got terrible reviews, I’m going to go ahead and restore the previous version soon.—GeraldineSeinfeld (talk) 14:59, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

Geraldine, I understand you are going through my edits from land-use to gun-control pages, and from the justifications you have given, I have no choice but to conclude that this is POV-pushing. As I comprehensively went over your arguments, providing multiple scholarly sources and review articles (to show that a single review article that is mildly critical of Genke is not "terrible reviews" but one mixed review), I suggest you request administrator attention as I have quite clearly demonstrated the quotes from Ostler are not out of context, but are *the direct verbatim context.* PresidentCoriolanus (talk) 21:25, 30 August 2023 (UTC)

I’ve not touched any articles you’ve edited about gun control, nor did I know you edited those articles.

If you think that review of Grenke is “mildly critical” I’m not sure what to tell you. I’ll also point out that “New Academia Publishing LLC” isn’t even a University Press, and doesn’t measure up to many of the other books or peer-reviewed sources cited on this page. The source doesn’t past muster.

I’m done going round and round about Ostler with you. I’ll post a request for comment regarding your out-of-context quote and the Grenke source. I’ll also make mention that you’ve got a history of quoting sources out of context, like you did over at Native American Use of Fire in Ecosystems, specifically regarding Brunelle et al. which I see you’ve stopped responding to. GeraldineSeinfeld (talk) 00:42, 31 August 2023 (UTC)

The ideas of genocide are biased and do not represent mainstream scholarship generally. Neither does the current information about colonialism working with disease to depopulate. It is biased and partisan especially the work from Whitaker. I’m going to remove it for now. If someone has issue with it it should be discussed here.—FloopyNoopers (talk) 15:54, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

I would recommend against that approach. If you've asked for comments and consensus, it wouldn't make sense to remove and THEN seek consensus. CMacMillan (talk) 15:57, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

Well those who are deleting my revisions should at least be writing here instead of deleting. They are not. That’s against policy. FloopyNoopers (talk) 00:54, 4 October 2023 (UTC)

Pre-Columbian population of NA less than pre-Famine Ireland?

Is there a theory as to why that would have been? There seems to have been a fair amount of natural resources and supposedly that is the way humans came to the Americas.108.28.226.250 (talk) 03:21, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

Technology. The Irish at the time were farmers. Most of the population of North America at the time were hunter-gatherers. Hunter-gatherer societies are far less efficient at the use of land and therefore a set area of land can sustain a much smaller population of hunter-gatherers than of farmers. 46.172.251.166 (talk) 19:33, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

Put it in chronological perspective. Ireland's population in 1500 was 750,000; North American Indian population that same year was probably about 3.4 million. Most of the land of Ireland is suitable for agriculture; far less than one-half of the land in North America is suitable for agriculture. Moreover, unlike Ireland, North America lacked domestic animals such as horses and cattle, thus further reducing the amount of land that was productive for food. Good agricultural land in North America was heavily populated, possibly more heavily populated than Old War farmland. Maize was a more productive crop that the Old World wheat and barley. Smallchief (talk) 11:57, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

"Exploration", "expedition", etc.

The extensive usage of such terms (rather than the more accurate "military operation / invasion / COLONIZATION") across most wiki articles dealing with anything from their entirety to only a sentence about western colonial actions in the "America's" (also a european term/concept, like 'Asia' or 'Africa') and other parts of the world should be corrected at the least for it in some cases sounds really as farcical as putin calling his Ukraine war as a "special military operation" (of course the Ukraine war has nothing to do with colonization, I KNOW but still...)

Look u wikiites may rightly/wrongly see this as confusing opinionated ("NOTAFORUM")/OR text (and for that very possibility I'll ofc not insist to have this on the article already) but atleast it will hopefully provide some thought provoking debate on including sources/text for this widely held perspective across WP articles

So, a humble suggestion - pls atleast don't remove this from the talk pages on NOTFORUM grounds or something, these places are meant for such suggestions to improve the article 2402:E280:3D1D:5B0:A931:9CB8:4420:455 (talk) 08:04, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

Title is misleading based on article

I came to this article expecting to learn about demographics, migrations, technologies, and wars that explain indigenous population changes over time. However, this article is exclusively focused on how contact with Europeans beginning in 1492 caused the population to decline thereafter. Even if we assume European colonization caused 100% of the population decline starting in 1492 (which doesn't make sense given the timeline of colonization and scale, spread, and diversity of indigenous populations), there should still be hundreds of years of population history before then to explore without any mention of Europeans.

I recommend either changing the title of the article to reflect its current contents; for example, "Population decline of indigenous American peoples during European Colonization;" or, this article should be completely rewritten to include the rich history of these populations before contact with Europeans. Matthew Cho (talk) 20:18, 9 July 2024 (UTC)