European colonizers killed so many indigenous Americans that the planet cooled down, a new study reveals

jack_spratt

Expert Member
Joined
May 21, 2018
Messages
1,042
#1
Prior to Columbus's arrival in the Americas in 1492, the area boasted thriving indigenous populations totaling to more than 60 million people.

A little over a century later, that number had dropped close to 6 million.

European contact brought with it not only war and famine, but also diseases like smallpox that decimated local populations. Now,a new study published in the journal Quarternary Science Reviewsshows that those deaths occurred on such a large scale that they led to a "Little Ice Age": an era of global cooling between the 16th and mid-19th century.
Link
 

ToxicBunny

Honorary Master
Joined
Apr 8, 2006
Messages
74,967
#4
Hmmmmm...

This was largely the Spanish and Portuguese... Lets be specific and just call them what they are, Mediterranean. Probably could even call them coloured cos of the Moorish invasion of the area hundreds of years before.
 

EADC

Expert Member
Joined
Apr 10, 2018
Messages
2,772
#8
Hmmmmm...

This was largely the Spanish and Portuguese... Lets be specific and just call them what they are, Mediterranean. Probably could even call them coloured cos of the Moorish invasion of the area hundreds of years before.
Spain and Portugal are still in Europe.
 
Joined
Apr 8, 2006
Messages
59,713
#12
Don't put your comment in your original post...



If you want to add an opinion put it in a separate post so people can clearly see it's not part of the original story.
It's a retarded rule, why they changed it only they would now. It causes link dropping...
 

Cray

Honorary Master
Joined
Oct 11, 2010
Messages
18,139
#13
It's a retarded rule, why they changed it only they would now. It causes link dropping...
Problem is people tend to editorialize, same as when they put their own spin on a story by adding their own headline. Link dropping is also against the posting guidelines so if people simply followed all the guidelines there wouldn't be an issue.
 

Gordon_R

Executive Member
Joined
Jul 5, 2009
Messages
5,213
#14
The story broke more than a week ago, but I didn't post a link on this forum, because I expected the predictable response...

Its only a theory (or correlation), and certainly not accepted by all scientists: https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-47063973

Ed Hawkins, professor of climate science at Reading University, was not involved in the study. He commented: "Scientists understand that the so-called Little Ice Age was caused by several factors - a drop in atmospheric carbon dioxide levels, a series of large volcanic eruptions, changes in land use and a temporary decline in solar activity.
 
Joined
Apr 8, 2006
Messages
59,713
#15
Problem is people tend to editorialize, same as when they put their own spin on a story by adding their own headline. Link dropping is also against the posting guidelines so if people simply followed all the guidelines there wouldn't be an issue.
As long as the quoted section is 100% unedited, and your comment outside of the quote I see no reason why you need to have a second post to give an opinion. Makes no sense. The previous rules, was exactly that. You need to quote the source and the quoted section needs to be unedited. And your view needed to accompany the article.

I can't see an issue with what he posted, but I guess you do, so no idea why?

Anyway, just my pet peeve.
 

Cray

Honorary Master
Joined
Oct 11, 2010
Messages
18,139
#16
As long as the quoted section is 100% unedited, and your comment outside of the quote I see no reason why you need to have a second post to give an opinion. Makes no sense. The previous rules, was exactly that. You need to quote the source and the quoted section needs to be unedited. And your view needed to accompany the article.

I can't see an issue with what he posted, but I guess you do, so no idea why?
Anyway, just my pet peeve
Are the guidelines really that complex to follow? Is it really that difficult to put your comment in a new post to make absolutely clear that it's not part of the original story? You may find that putting it below is fine, others might disagree - putting your comment in a separate post clears up any possible confusion.
 

Cray

Honorary Master
Joined
Oct 11, 2010
Messages
18,139
#18
Yes, it was that initial first contact that killed them all. By the time the colonists arrived most of the people were already dead.
Not always, and was not always accidental...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nativ...#Disease_as_a_weapon_against_Native_Americans

This event is well known for the documented instances of biological warfare. British officers, including the top British commanding generals, ordered, sanctioned, paid for and conducted the use of smallpox against the Native Americans. As described by one historian, "there is no doubt that British military authorities approved of attempts to spread smallpox among the enemy", and "it was deliberate British policy to infect the indians with smallpox
 
Joined
Apr 8, 2006
Messages
59,713
#19
Are the guidelines really that complex to follow? Is it really that difficult to put your comment in a new post to make absolutely clear that it's not part of the original story? You may find that putting it below is fine, others might disagree - putting your comment in a separate post clears up any possible confusion.
Yes,

I need to create two posts where I could just create one, quote a section from the source, add a link and put my opinion. Why a second post needs to be created is stupid. And it means there is a lapse between the two posts and someone can jump in quickly and take the second post. Now what? It's moronic.
 
Top