PDA

View Full Version : Why do Bolivia, Peru and Guatemala have so many pure Indians?



Bonaoense
2010-05-19, 22:37
Is it because these countries are mountainous? But there are many mountanious countries such as the DR where most people are not of mainly purely african or amerindian descent. What happened in their history that created a majority 'pure' amerindian population?

Incanal
2010-05-19, 22:54
Well, you can't compare the tiny mountains of DR with the Andes, 1.

We should add the rough weather up there too, 2.

In precolumbian Peru there were a LOT of indians, it was an Empire after all, 3.

And after Independence immigration from Europe was not as favored as in other countries such as Argentina or Chile, 4.

pinguin
2010-05-19, 22:55
South America had a lot more Native American populations and densities that other regions. In the Inca Empire and also in the Aztec Empire there were several million peoples, which was a large population for the time. In comparison, the Caribbean has less than 100.000 native Americans.

Ubirajara
2010-05-19, 23:11
The mountains, the terrain, helped Peru and Bolivia to preserve their populations, which were already quite large, as compared to other regions, just like Guatemala and Southern Mexico, which were also densely populated, more developed than other regions, and also with a more difficult geographical barrier (forests, weather, continental land, etc). Islands populations are always the easiest to be wiped out, when a much more technologically superior invader comes in. Space is limited, it is easier for the invader to come in, and there is nowhere for the invaded to escape to. That's why the Tainos suffered the most, and also the Guanche. They do not exist anymore. World population estimation, 2000 years ago (I guess it is relatively safe to assume that by the time the European invaders came in to the Americas the distribution of the Native American population was about the same as it was 2000 years ago, roughly).

CAONABO
2010-05-19, 23:39
Is it because these countries are mountainous? But there are many mountanious countries such as the DR where most people are not of mainly purely african or amerindian descent. What happened in their history that created a majority 'pure' amerindian population?

:| ...

Fedex
2010-05-20, 00:19
Peru, Bolivia and Guatemala were civilization, with cities and advanced agriculture systems, capable to hold large population. Most of the rest of the Americas was habited by tribes of hunters and gatherers. Chilean Indians had agriculture, but they were tribal barbarians, always in war killing each others, that's why the population was low.

pinguin
2010-05-20, 02:07
Chilean Mapuche population wasn't small, Fedex. From 200.000 to half million for the Mapuches alone. And that was a large population at a time when Spain only has about 5 million people.

---------- Post added 2010-05-19 at 21:13 ----------


The mountains, the terrain, helped Peru and Bolivia to preserve their populations, which were already quite large, as compared to other regions, just like Guatemala and Southern Mexico, which were also densely populated, more developed than other regions, and also with a more difficult geographical barrier (forests, weather, continental land, etc). Islands populations are always the easiest to be wiped out, when a much more technologically superior invader comes in. Space is limited, it is easier for the invader to come in, and there is nowhere for the invaded to escape to. That's why the Tainos suffered the most, and also the Guanche. They do not exist anymore. World population estimation, 2000 years ago (I guess it is relatively safe to assume that by the time the European invaders came in to the Americas the distribution of the Native American population was about the same as it was 2000 years ago, roughly).

Taino's population was very small, less than 100.000; perhaps no more than 50.000 people. Still, 30% of the Cuban and PR mtDNA, and 18% of Dominicans still carry that heritage.

Cuetlachtli57
2011-04-25, 04:59
guatemala, peru, bolivia, southern mexico = very native american

Lasituacion
2011-04-25, 19:07
who cares

Nordenskjöld
2011-04-25, 22:57
Well, you can't compare the tiny mountains of DR with the Andes, 1.

Totally. It isn't comparable at all.

El Andullero
2011-04-25, 23:14
Because they were exploitation colonies rather than settlement ones. In exploitation colonies, you have a tiny elite (in this case, european) living from the wealth of the land (gold, silver), while employing their military forces and auxiliaries from the land in case (in this one, indios auxiliares) to enforce the work in the mines. Of course, a % of these metallic proceeds would go to the Spanish Crown in the form of the heavily armed Treasure Fleets and Silver Trains waiting for the cargo in the ports of Portobelo, Cartagena and Nombre de Dios, to mention the most famous ones. One thing that discouraged further European settlement is that the Spaniards encountered a slave system in place (Yanaconas), which was the one established by the Incas on the other Native American populations they got to subjugate.