You are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

0
1

[–] Weasel_Soup 0 points 1 points (+1|-0) ago  (edited ago)

Weird. One would thing an anthropologist is unbiased. It is true, natives should have killed every European on sight. They would have still lost because of their lack of defenses against old world deceases, but at least they would have gone fighting.

0
0

[–] variable 0 points 0 points (+0|-0) ago 

It's not so clear. Much of the initial disease extermination happened extremely early. It was only after major land concessions were made that Europeans had enough foothold to move forward. They'd have to fight the Spanish incursion in the south after Cortez, but the general European advance could have easily been halted. It's just that Europeans had iron and such that the native bands wanted.

An additional factor is that the natives weren't a single nation. The last great nation-ish thing they had was the Mississipian Empire, which collapsed relatively shortly before Europeans arrived. Largely there was no stable tribe or governing entity anywhere. It was basically a warlord kind of scenario.