• count_dongulus
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    26
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 month ago

    To be more accurate, smallpox killed somewhere between like 65-95% of the native american population after contact with Europeans. And, of course, many of their remaining descendants ended up concentrated into reservations.

    So, I imagine if you were going to find native american cuisine restaurants, they’d be rare but typically in and around reservations.

    • Boomer Humor Doomergod
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      29
      ·
      1 month ago

      The initial Spanish expeditions had herds of pigs with them, which transmitted a ton of diseases to the natives. A hundred years later when other Europeans came the cities were almost completely depopulated.

      • pimento64@sopuli.xyz
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        24
        ·
        1 month ago

        People are weirdly against this idea, I think because they believe it diminishes the deliberate genocide that came later, which it doesn’t. The horrible truth is that disease spread through completely biologically defenseless populations starting in the late 15th century. By the time European countries were consolidating colonial power, the Native population had been obliterated by somewhere between 65–89%. Those aren’t extremes, that’s a range of completely plausible figures. The variance is so large because it’s hard to tell how many people used to live in a place when disease, unaided, killed every person in every settlement in unthinkably huge areas. To say entire tribes disappeared is an understatement, entire networks of multiple cultures were wiped out so thoroughly that their memory is lost forever. The Native American population in 1800 was a small fraction of the number of people who once lived.

        • inverted_deflector@startrek.website
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          17
          ·
          1 month ago

          Even in the american mythos of the mayflower it mentions them surviving off established food caches and stores from abandoned settlements. People dont think much about that, but they werent left behind because the natives were so welcoming to the Pilgrims.

        • Boomer Humor Doomergod
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          9
          ·
          1 month ago

          Their diminished population just made it a whole lot easier for Europeans to commit further atrocities

          • kersploosh@sh.itjust.works
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            11
            ·
            1 month ago

            Not sure about Lewis and Clark, but I have read that David Thompson did.

            George Vancouver recorded beaches strewn with old human bones. Around the same time he wrote journal entries along the lines of, “Wow, look at all this rich, uninhabited land that would be ideal for settlements!” I don’t recall Ol’ George ever putting two and two together.

    • Mouselemming@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      17
      ·
      1 month ago

      Many reservations are far from the original habitat of the people living in them, (see Trail of Tears) so the food materials for their original cuisine can’t be found or grown

    • kersploosh@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      16
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      1 month ago

      Guns, Germs, and Steel covers that in a brief but eye-opening way. When Hernando de Soto’s crew first explored the Mississippi river in 1541 they wrote about all the people they found, but did not mention bison. A century later another set of Spanish explorers revisited the Mississippi and didn’t record much at all about people, but commented on how prolific the bison were.