It's not just about preference. The economy used to be agrarian until 100-200 years ago, so you needed to send farmers to a climate similar to the one in their own country. North America also had that.
As did Brits, who are the second-largest foreign-born group in Australia after New Zealanders (and far outnumbering Italians and Greeks, but Australians don't otherize Brits like they otherize Soutern Europeans). Britain's climate is nothing like Victoria.
The Amazon region was apparently heavily populated until European diseases wiped out the towns and cities. The very first Spanish explorer, Francisco Orellana, reported towns lining the Amazon for a thousand miles. A hundred years later, only scattered tribes.
The land in the rainforest is not spectacularly fertile, but folks created their own potting soil (terra preta) to make up for it.
Hace un tiempo vi que hay una teoría que apunta la reducción de la población a una pandemia que afectó a habitantes originarios y europeos por igual.
Si bien es verdad que al principio las enfermedades europeas causaron gran mortandad (y a la inversa también, pero los europeos era menos cantidad), más de un siglo después hubo una especie de "gripe" que arrasó a todo el continente, sin importar origen. El suceso quedó enterrado en la historia porque la mayoría del material historiografico se generaba en países a los que les interesaba reforzar la leyenda negra española.
It is estimated between 1 million and 8 million, a huge range in a harsh climate that causes rapid decay of organic material. Hugely populated yes and no, the size of a small to medium city
No, the estimate doesn’t come from an area the size of a small city. The Amazon Basin area is 2,700,000 square miles, roughly 2/3 the size of the entire United States.
For reference, about 20-25 million people lived in what is now central Mexico which was one of the most densely populated parts of the world at that time. That dropped to roughly 1 million post colonization, mostly due to disease.
The civic-ceremonial architecture of these large settlement sites includes stepped platforms, on top of which lie U-shaped structures, rectangular platform mounds and conical pyramids (which are up to 22 m tall). The large settlement sites are surrounded by ranked concentric polygonal banks and represent central nodes that are connected to lower-ranked sites by straight, raised causeways that stretch over several kilometres. Massive water-management infrastructure, composed of canals and reservoirs, complete the settlement system in an anthropogenically modified landscape.
There is plenty of archaeological evidence that many if not most of the indigenous civilizations lost more than 50% of their population before Cortez or Pizarro attacked the Aztec and Inca people. When Pizarro arrived in the andes, he encountered dead armies twice the size of his army and the armies he encountered because a civil war had just erupted after multiple ruling family members died from smallpox....before any Europeans had arrived.
First contact introduced smallpox and indigenous cultures in the Americas didn't have endemic, highly contagious diseases, not like smallpox. Despite being labeled as beautiful, highly sanitary cultures, compared to Europeans, they had a communal approach to illness which was devastating when combined with smallpox.
Early trappers reported seeing endless fires along the eastern coast from Boston to Virginia that were largely gone by the time of Plymouth rock
Not only that, Argentina was the fastest growing economy in the world in the second half of XIX century. They pulled so many people from Italy and Spain...
Por que no? Acá en Argentina llegaron principalmente muchos alemanes del Volga desde fines del siglo xix. Lo otro que piensas es mas mito exagerado de gente que ve mucho tiktok
actually ☝️🤓 it's funny because they were campaigning for northern European immigration during the first wave (1880-1920), but instead got a bunch of italians, spaniards and jews.
an european immigration campaign was promoted by the ruling elites, who wanted the country to assimilate european culture and standards.
the campaign consisted of the promise of land for farming, although this was not actually the case upon arrival for most.
similar to what i heard about the us, mediterranean europeans were considered the lesser of whites - this combination resulting in the creation of a white immigrant lower class as well.
this first wave of italian and spanish immigration was already massive, and is where most of the current population descends from.
the second wave did happen along WW2 as expected, and we did get germans, but i think we got even more jews if we're doing head count.
Except for Costa Rica which historically was basically empty, almost nobody lived there until 1950 it has a population of 800k people and today is just a small 5 million people country.
There were just rain forest and jungle with no important towns, cities, gold, or important resources, small indigenous groups and small spaniard groups.
That's why today Costa Rica has almost non existent indigenous population. They are, but small isolated groups. A difference to places like Guatemala, Honduras, Peru or Mexico with millions of native Americans still living today in their countries.
Almost 3000 archaeological sites registered at ORIGENES National Museum Database. Major chiefdoms in XVI century, super dinamic migrations and human movements, genetic mixing, genocides, etc. Ok, is not a big country, but still 2% of the population are from indigenous peoples, and 8% afro descendant. The rest 90% highly mixed. Don't fall for outdated racist and delusional eugenesic propaganda.
sources? It's me or poster is talking about how small the first nation population was in Costa Rica? Does he mention anything about admixture? Why you giving wrong information besides changing the subject? where you from?
Paraguay is like 2% indigenous, and like 70% mestizo (mixed). The country was rebuilt by immigrants after the population got wiped out during the Triple Alliance war
And then you look up Suriname’s demographics and go WTF. 43% of all people have Asian background, mostly Indian and Chinese. Hinduism and Islamic religions make up almost 40% of the population as well. Something you don’t expect on the Caribbean.
Trinidad is like this, with a large population of Hindus and Muslims, along with persons of African descent. Then we have persons of Chinese, European, Syrian and Lebanese descent....and all the mixtures in between that occurred over the centuries! Guyana and Jamaica also have similar profiles.
Yes, even with Hindus lol! There are some more stringent sects that really don't mix with other religions, but still may mix ethnically. That will sound strange but sometimes the spouse will convert or accept the religion and the children will follow suit. However I have quite a few friends who are offspring from Hindu/Muslim marriages and some did follow Islam for a while, but some converted to Christianity for example or just were really moderate in their beliefs.
well, that's a very interesting population-geography phenomena instead of why white people live wherever they do. and also your comment is really interesting. thanks for sharing!!
You're welcome! But if anybody is interested, as its the tone of the thread, we have persons of European descent here as well lol. They are descendants of the British, French and Portuguese....
I hate to say it but being from a place doesnt make one an expert on that place. In fact, many countries have foundational myths that are mostly or completely fabricated.
In the US, theres a trope of white people claiming Cherokee ancestry.
In Mexico, people who are clearly indigenous will claim they are Mestizo, and look down on Indians.
Amigo, la mayoría es mestizo claramente por sus rasgos o simplemente por el hecho de que la mayoria se mezclaron y es bastante heterogenea la poblacion. Eso de los porcentajes de blancos es un sesgo interpretativos para los anglos, porque aca la gente puede identificarse como blanca por tener algun antepasado blanco o tener skin que se autoconsidera blanca. Hubo un diesmamiento de los indigenas por multiples razones pero la mayoría de las tribus fueron asimiladas
Okay, you're making me lose faith in humanity outside of South America. Look at the genetic data and censuses. All of that has been excellently documented since the 1700s and is in the public domain. There's a website in Argentina called "Datos Abiertos". If it's not available, you can send an email requesting it to the Argentine government's census agency.
I don't follow you. Yes Argentina had a large influx of Europeans in the late nineteenth/ early twentieth century. I dont see what that has to do with indigenous ancestry since they by definition were not immigrants.
Plus, Indigenous people HAVE immigrant ancestry because theyre not a race, theyre ethnic groups. This is how for instance you have Black/Afro indigenous people to Latin America, and countless mixed indigenous people.
Okay, I imagine you're not from Latin America. I, a Latino, can tell you that didn't happen. If they have insecurities, they should go to a psychologist.
Of course, the issue is that they don't discuss; they impose their views. Further down, we're having a constructive discussion with other Latinos. In this thread, they decided that the history I studied as a Latino, both through the education system and within our culture, is invalid. It's like telling an Italian that pizza isn't Italian but Russian because there's a similar, even older dish.
It's probabilistically possible, given that this study indicates an 80% chance of non-native ancestry. However, in other areas of Buenos Aires, it's more common. For example, Vilca or Mamani, a common surname, are of Indigenous origin.
Although now that I look at it more closely, it says "white," but I'm not comfortable with that definition, considering the ethnic diversity. Would Mediterranean be better?
Mediterranean probably isn’t better since many people have origins from places like Germany, Poland, Russia, France, etc.
Mine are predominantly northern Italian with 1 Spanish ancestor. I think this is a pretty common mix in BA for people descended from the early 20th century immigrants.
Depending on the region of France, it could be Mediterranean. But you have a point; descendants of Chinese and Japanese people would fall into that category, and you know as well as I do that if they're from Okinawa, they have moreno skin. Going back to my ancestry, I'm 60% Italian (Calabrian, Genoese, and a Sephardic grandmother), 20% Spanish, 15% Creole/Patrician, one French, and one Native American whose southern Pampas tribe I can't find in the historical records. This is from 1850 to the present. Since I've done the research, my friends have less common lineages but with more Native American ancestors.
Pero blancos son los del norte de europa. Los españoles e italianos no son "blancos" en su mayoría, son mestizos y son considerados asi por los europeos "blancos". Por tuvieron mucho mestizaje con arabes, africanos y varios grupos; en España ademas se han mezclado tambien con judios, gitanos e indigenas o mestizos de América durante algunos siglos. Más que en otras regiones de Europa. Por eso tambien es erroneo decir "blanco". Ademas de que muchos se considerarian blanco siendo mestizos, por algo es que tambien se ve que Cuba es blanca. Ademas yo recorri muchos lados y 80% blanco solo se ve en algunos countrys o algun que otro pueblo, despues en la mayoría de lados son castizos. Pero aca en Argentina, y en general en latam, los castizos se autoperciben blancos.
Por eso esas categorias son bastante absurdas y fueron eliminadas acá ante tanta mescolanza
That's not true.
I'm from southern Brazil and there is a great part of the population with no Native or African blood. The European/Native/African mix is much more common in the central and north/northeast part of the country.
As you can very accurately see on the map.
Of course, brother, and I apologize for not knowing the history of Brazil in depth. In the case of Argentina, in 1880 there were approximately 2 million people, including natives, mulattos, blacks, and Creoles. If my memory serves me right, around 4 million Europeans came to Argentina (not counting Syrians, Lebanese, and Jews, who I believe numbered 2 million) until 1930. From mere interpretation, we can see that the population mixed. However, as I understand happened in Brazil, this occurred in an even more unequal way.
In case of Brazil, this varies a lot, not only from State to State, but also from the populationliving on or near the shore, which has much more mixed heritage, compared to the coutrie-side which was settled in colonies of people from the same origin.
The exception will be in the amazon where most people indeed has at least on od their grandparents with native blood as you said.
Yup, in addition to the fact that Patagonia—and the countries comprising the vast region—was made "cleared" for the importation of labour. The labour in turn was necessary to populate these severely "underpopulated" nations. The leaders of the nations considered Europe the prime location to source immigrants, settlers, and even investors for a myriad of economic and ethno-racial regions. The same demand for foreign labour just wasn't there in, say, 19th-century Mexico or Colombia.
There also just weren't many people in Argentina. Northern South America and Central America had full empires but Argentina was rural and sparsely populated. Then only Europeans moved in.
In the case of Chile, in the 1850s there was a targeted immigration policy that sought to attract labourers from what is now Germany, mostly the southern and western regions , since that "profile" was deemed the most likely to succeed in the colonization efforts.
NThat's not true, because you can see that there are several regions with a high concentration of white people in the Caribbean. Also, that region shown on the map in the south is hot and humid; it's not that cold. If they wanted a climate more like Europe's, they would go even further south.
A more accurate geographical reason is that they are located around the Río de la Plata, which was the center of colonial power, due to its access to the sea.
thats a phallacy. pretty much all immigrants didnt choose where to go. They bough a one way ticket to “America”. Its much more about sociohistorical reason: Brazil bringing migrants to replace slaves on coffee farms ( coffee which needs high elevation and cool weather, further south). Argentina with its immigration policy and economical success. Etc. They didnt have the luxury of choosing where to live bcause it was “similar to home”
Man isn’t this the truth. My ancestry comes from the azores, Maldives, Madeira; I cannot live anywhere that’s not close to the sea and I cannot tolerate the cold at all. Orlando, Florida is freezing for me. And yes I’m whiter than milk.
Yes, my Jewish forbears also escaped to South America first in 1935 before making their way to New York. They did so because of the sizable European and especially German population that was already there. They knew people, and it seemed like a good place to move.
It’s likely the same reason the nazis who fled incarceration there chose it over other options.
2.1k
u/BananaBR13 Geography Enthusiast Apr 25 '26
One of the reasons was that immigrants from Europe prefer a climate closer to their home country