• Kusimulkku@lemm.ee
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  2
                  arrow-down
                  1
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  Brazil certainly has seen a massive change.

                  A 2015 autosomal genetic study, which also analyzed data of 25 studies of 38 different Brazilian populations concluded that: European ancestry accounts for 62% of the heritage of the population, followed by the African (21%) and the Native American (17%). The European contribution is highest in Southern Brazil (77%), the African highest in Northeast Brazil (27%) and the Native American is the highest in Northern Brazil (32%).

                  Argentina too

                  Many genetic studies have shown that Argentina’s genetic footprint is primarily, but not overwhelmingly, European. In a genetic study involving 441 Argentines from across the North East, North West, Southern, and Central provinces (especially the urban conglomeration of Buenos Aires) of the country, it was observed that 65% of the Argentine population was of European descent, followed by 31% of indigenous descent, and 4% of African descent.

                  Another example would be Canada, but that’s a bit on the nose.

                  • diprount_tomato@lemmy.world
                    link
                    fedilink
                    arrow-up
                    1
                    ·
                    1 year ago

                    19th century migrations were a thing.

                    What you posted doesn’t reference any kind of genocide or ethnic cleansing, just people with a higher European percentage.

                    That’s my point, Americans are the exceptions. Most societies mixed instead of wiping each other out

        • Knightfox@lemmy.one
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          In all reality, the majority of Native Americans died from old world diseases brought over by Europeans prior to 1700, the idea of the modern American wouldn’t exist for at least 100 years by the time Europeans had killed most of the Natives.

          Cortez’s arrival in Mexico killed ~20 million Natives in Mexico between 1520 and 1570. Prior to his arrival there were an estimated 22 million Natives in Mexico.

          Contemporary estimates suggest that the USA population of Natives prior to the arrival of colonists was around 5-15 million. By 1800 that population had dropped to 600k.

          So by the numbers it looks like Europeans killed ~90-99% of Natives Americans prior to 1800 and ~47-75% by 1600.

            • Knightfox@lemmy.one
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              3
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              1 year ago

              Those are casualties from combat. My numbers were the resulting spread of disease

              https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Population_history_of_the_Indigenous_peoples_of_the_Americas

              What the US did was deliberate and with the intent of eradicating natives, what others did was collateral damage

              Care to point to something specific? Also, you wanna explain that collateral damage part a bit better?

              The US is responsible for the deliberate murder of a lot of Native Americans, but even if we put the biological warfare aside, Europeans deliberately killed magnitudes more.

              • diprount_tomato@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                edit-2
                1 year ago

                Collateral damage is dying due to the unintentional spread of diseases.

                Deliberate damage is sending the natives cloths that have been intentionally infected, then killing off their main source of food, then wiping out entire groups and then claim the natives are the savages when they fight back, while there were rewards for hunting natives like they were wild animals, and then confining the remaining few in bantustans or as the US called them “reserves” (know what wildlife reserves are?) that are put in areas chosen to deprive them from enough resources and where alcoholism was instigated by the government as a way to keep them weak. The people who made all of this possible are now regarded as national heroes.

                And no, not even the English killed as much as the US.

                • Knightfox@lemmy.one
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  edit-2
                  1 year ago

                  I originally had a really long message refuting individual points, but I thought I’d take it back a step because at it’s root we’re arguing who caused the most genocide which really sucks.

                  I’m not sure where you’re from, but based on your posts I’m gonna guess not the USA mainly because your argument really is missing a lot of important information.

                  Despite your opinions to the contrary most people in the USA know about the Native Americans, it’s a massive portion of our basic education. You’ll also have a hard time finding an American who thinks what was done to the Natives was ok. The people who caused the whole thing are not considered National Heroes, contrary to your statement. Most Americans think quite poorly of the likes of Custer and Jackson.

                  Your post in general seems to just be an anti-American post, while making large stereotypes and ignoring Europe’s own involvement in the Americas and the rest of the world. Next time save yourself the time and just say what you really want to say, you hate the USA.

                  • diprount_tomato@lemmy.world
                    link
                    fedilink
                    arrow-up
                    1
                    ·
                    1 year ago

                    Americans don’t consider the founding fathers and Lincoln to be heroes?

                    Also, feeling bad about something you’re perpetuating is worthless. It’s like killing someone but doing it with your eyes closed because you feel bad

      • interceder270@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        Woah, I didn’t know you were an expert on every single nation.

        My apologies. Everyone, we’re in the presence of greatness. Bow your heads.