How long were Native Americans in the US?

[SpcGuts]

actually there was some american cultures, that had kind of culture cities and agriculture in the copper age, i think it dates back 3000 years or so, no expert on american history. But of course, everything was way later than in europe / africa, because americans were less people, and more stupid people. They did never invent iron hutting, stayed on copper until the spains came and laughed them out for beeing copper age in 1500 ac.

You're trolling. Right?

[Kujako]

According to Joseph Smith the first nat...

Dum, dum, dum, dum, dum!

[Deleted]

See even in a best case scenario while I conceed the viral genocide was key to clear the continent of most of it's population you would instead get your BelgianBrazilian Nightmare and so forth countrys plagued by diseases and civil war.

Not to mention that Northamerica would be still fairgame because its climate is much more temperate and the civilisation was on the average more simple.

[Lilly32]

Native Americans were in the United States since 1776 when we formed the United States

they were on our land before we got here.

- - - Updated - - -

Imagine where the world would be today if the reverse happened. Settlers came to the Americas got diseases from the native americans most died and so the survivors went home but then spread it to others because they were carriers.. then a new black death spread across all of Europe destroying the civilization. What would happen? How would America look today.. how would Europe look? How far behind in the times would we be? Fun thought

dont think it would work like that. If they were so weak to their disease very few people would survive the long boat trip home. Also Europe had a black death and it wasnt the end all for them.

- - - Updated - - -

since when was eskimo a racial slur? is it like how we cant say indians now?

http://www.rsdb.org/race/eskimos

i actually laughed at a few, mainly Harpoon Chucker.

[Nathiest]

" How long were Native Americans in the US?"

That's a loaded question.

[GodlyBob]

See even in a best case scenario while I conceed the viral genocide was key to clear the continent of most of it's population you would instead get your BelgianBrazilian Nightmare and so forth countrys plagued by diseases and civil war.

Not to mention that Northamerica would be still fairgame because its climate is much more temperate and the civilisation was on the average more simple.

The native further North had their development stalled because of the same plague that had destroyed mesoamerica. But again "simple" technology does not equate to "inferior," context matters more than anything else. Look at the difficulty English colonists experienced 100 years after the Spanish were finished dealing with the Aztecs. In 100 years, one would expect that European technology would have improved such that they should have been able to easily get a foot hold anywhere they wanted if raw technological development really is the only yardstick that you need to judge the quality of a culture by. The issue here, of course, is that English technology, including healthcare and agricultural practices were developed to maximize survival in England. Plymouth colony was on the verge of collapse before the local natives voluntarily assisted the settlers.

Those people whom had been wracked by disease to the point of near extinction still possessed technology and practices suited to where they lived that the English, who had another 100 years of incredible advancement whilst the natives had stalled to cope with their crisis, still did not possess.

you cannot point to a single facet of technology and say "My culture is better because I can make X and yours cannot," especially when your X technology does nothing to stop starvation or disease that technology Y does for that "inferior" group of people. The weapons, stone homes, religious texts and what-not are great, but those really don't mean much when the guy who traded furs for your guns knows how to not starve in the winter.