Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Foreign Affairs Discussion Group -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: bentway who wrote (235304)	7/4/2007 7:20:45 PM
From: epicure	Respond to of 281500

Indians didn't make good slaves and servants. I think that plays a large part in the "problem" Indians posed in the Americas, and in the end why their numbers were so decimated. The fact that they lacked resistance to European diseases certainly played a part, but that must also have been true of at least some Africans. When you have what you think is a useful "resource", you conserve it, you might even breed it- the Indians were never considered such.

To: bentway who wrote (235304)	7/4/2007 8:09:30 PM
From: neolib	Respond to of 281500

Depends on the African groups. The San of southern Africa (Hottentots & Bushman) were largely wiped out by both disease and hunting at the hands of Europeans. Both had small social clan structures. The Bantu were far more numerous, were more resistant to european disease, and had larger social structures (think Zulus). Malaria might also be a factor in favor of black vs white in Africa. Edit: It is interesting to note that although europeans ruled africa, the amount of european genes in africa today is far lower than the amount of african genes spread about the rest of the globe during the same time period.