So their population dropped to a couple 100 thousand due to poverty and disease?
No, not just poverty and disease. The other factor in depopulation was the birth rate. Allow me to quote David Stannard, author of American Holocaust, the expert you cite. He disagrees with you:
"on tribute rolls married couples were frequently entered as having no children at all or only one [...] in even the most healthful of environments birth rates of this level will mean zero population growth at first, and then increasingly precipitous decline [...]
birth rates this low were a blueprint for extinction. And that is precisely what happened"
They lived off the land, there was no poverty.
David Stannard, author of American Holocaust, disagrees with you. Here's what he had to say about "the Spanish gifts of plague and famine":
"in the New World as in the Old,
massive epidemics brought starvation in their wake, because the reduced and debilitated populations were unable to tend their crops."
"There were various ways in which the mission Indians died.
The most common causes were the European-introduced diseases [...] and malnutrition." "The resulting
severe malnutrition, of course, made the natives all the more susceptible to the bacterial and viral infections."
My focus isn’t on who murdered them all, my point is it occurred
No one murdered them all. Again I'll cite David Stannard, author of American Holocaust, who disagrees with you.
"the native population of Florida was reduced by more than 95 percent,
primarily by Spanish-introduced diseases"
"
Spanish-introduced diseases ran wild: measles, smallpox, typhoid, and influenza epidemics occurred and re-occurred, while syphilis and tuberculosis became, as Sherburne F. Cook once said, "totalitarian" diseases:
virtually all the Indians were afflicted by them."
"the imported
pathogens moved among the native people with a relentlessness that nothing ever had in all their history. "So many Indians died that they could not be counted," wrote Gonzalo Fernandez de Oviedo, adding that "all through the land the Indians lay dead everywhere. The stench was very great and pestiferous."
and due to the US involvement, cause they did play a role, there is an attempt to “white wash” it from history.
As to assigning blame for the precipitous decline of the native population in the wake of the invasion of the new world, allow me to cite David Stannard, author of American Holocaust, who disagrees with you:
"in central Mexico the population fell by almost 95 percent within seventyfive years following the Europeans' first appearance-
from more than 25,000,000 people in 1519 to barely 1,300,000 in 1595.""Peru and Chile, home of the Incas and one of the wealthiest and largest empires anywhere, covering virtually the entire western coast of the South American continent, had contained at least 9,000,000 people only a few years before the Europeans arrived [...] as elsewhere, the conquistadors' diseases preceded them-smallpox, and probably other epidemics swept down through Mexico and across the Andes in the early
1520s [...] even before Pizarro's first foray into the region [...] barely 1,000,000 Peruvians remained alive. A few years more and that fragment was halved again. At least 94 percent of the population was gone"
"For Andean society [...]
Within a century following their first encounter with the Spanish, 94 to 96 percent of their once-enormous population had been exterminated; along their 2000 miles of coastline, where once 6,500,000 people had lived, everyone was dead."
"in 1520 the number of Timucuan people in the area totaled over 720,000;
following a century of European contact they numbered barely 36,000." All of these things happened before the United States was a gleam in Thomas Jefferson's eyes.
Look at foad logic in determining the number of indigenous deaths during the Indian war. Thats the most idiotic arbitrary calculation I’ve seen, yet somehow you believe it to be reasonable accurate. That’s what the “Man” would call mission accomplished.
According to David Stannard, author of American Holocaust, who disagrees with you, ""by [1769] only about one-third of one percent of America's population - 250,000 out of 76,000,000 people - were natives." Weird huh, that's the exact figure I cited. And according to the 1900 US census the native population was 100,000. 250K minus 100K, you do the math. Remember to carry the one.
Same thing regarding African slavery. The point isn’t the majority didn’t come to North America you imbeciles, the point is it happened
Thanks Dan Rather, but I don't think anyone's disputing that slavery "happened."
and the US played a role and again the figures are systematically being downplayed.
No. The US played a role and you're overstating it by a factor of 800.
I’ve seen low ball estimates of Africans being sold into slavery around 12-13 million and of those 1-2 million died being captured or during transportation. News flash...they all died as slaves, again there using a distinction to skew the numbers. If a Jew in a concentration camp
I'm sorry, did you say if a Jew? A
jew in a concentration camp? Thanks Herr Goebbels.
in a concentration camp died of natural causes, are they not still counted among the victims? Why isn’t this same rational not applied to African slaves?
Let's leave aside absurd idea of anyone dying of "natural causes" in Auschwitz. Nobody's disputing that slavery was icky and nobody's disputing that an obscene number of slaves - five million is a number I'm comfortable with but I'm not going to quibble - were murdered during the disapora. What I'm disputing is who the culprits are. Survey says: Eurotrash, number one answer. Slavery existed in half the United Stated for 75 years and slave owners comprised a quarter of citizens in southern states. Those are facts. You want to blame those folk for the diaspora - some of whom were
Jews black - for the murder of X number of millions of people , knock yourself out. But you'd be wrong. As you usually are.