Why did the native americans lose

I want an answer to this question beyond the euro centric view that "they lost cause they were backwards"

If anything pisses me off historically, it's that. It's not a concrete answer and summarizes it all up in a simple sentence, but there's more to the tale.

To say that the natives were backwards is bullshit. For one, they had canoes, that could maneuver the waters while the Europeans were stuck with shit boats that didn't move. Just because it isn't made out of iron doesn't mean it's not better. If anything, the natives were backwards when it came to weaponry, not everything else.

Darwin sez;strongest kicks the most ass and wins. Otherwise, the Natives developed their own societies as well. But why wasn't their weaponry as advanced? Why did they lose?

They were furries.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/e6/Jaguar_warrior.jpg

Smallpox.  Natives had little-to-no immunity, so their populations were decimated.  By the time the Europeans decided to come in force, the native forces were too diminished and disorganized to pose sufficient resistance.

I have a theory thats founded in very little knowledge that says:Europeans were more advanced militarily because of constant feuding on their small piece of land for living space and resources

I might be wrong though

Europeans were genocidal maniacs with, unfortunately, more technology and a less human society and sent their DREGS to the New World to settle it.

They brought with them disease.

>>4 You are very wrong. Military tactics had naught to do with it; in fact, the Europeans were actually outmatched when it came to tactics, as the First Nations still had the upper hand in that department all the way into the conquest of the Seminole land by way of knowing how to survive where the Europeans did not and knowing how to surprise attacks.

They didn't "lose" because it wasn't a fight, it was a genocide.

The Spanish had GOD on their side.
The Indians worshipped demons.
Nuff said.

guns and disease

/thread

>>5
By "military" I meant gunpowder and steel

I mean, when you spend your time fighting all the time, you're bound to advance quite a bit in arms and weapons. Likewise, if I became a chef for the rest of my life, I'm bound to get good at that as well.

I don't know much about colonization  and the new world, but there had to have been steel, iron and such in the Americas. Why they didn't create weapons though, I would think because there weren't enough wars to advance technology in that department far enough cause it wasn't necessary. They obviously had technology to suit their surroundings and to by definition, make life easier and more convinient.

again, I know little about the new world. I'm just drawing up conclusions based on geography and just simple conclusions.

fuck, we/I may be looking at it all wrong. Why does everything have to be to kill like those BARBARIANS FROM YUROP.

>>8
You know, Guns, Germs, and Steel is a good primer on this sort of thing. They didn't develop technology on the level of Europe's not because they're inferior or anything like that, but because the things necessary for it to happen weren't in their environment. Like a source of animal labor power, for one. Or hell, agriculture in general in many cases -- not necessarily a bad thing

Also, invention is the mother of necessity. :)

Let's see.  Continent inhabited by a few hundred thousand inbred IQ-55 Eolithic cannibal cavemen who lived in widely scattered tiny bands, who never had a written language, never had the wheel, never even had copper or bronze, is conquered rapidly by millions of IQ-100 Europeans who had horses, gunpowder, and iron.  Hmm.  And >>1 is stumped, and can't figure it out.

Gee, I can't figure it out either.  Maybe their gods didn't love them.  Maybe they were just really unlucky.  I'm stumped too.  Anyone have any possible explanation?

>>10
you figured it all out the end whats the point of even studying anymore case closed on everything

everyone go home now this explains it all

>>10
who never had a written language
That's not exactly true.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indigenous_languages_of_the_Americas

Although technological superiority played a role, don't forget that the Europeans had been trading guns to the natives for years before they decided to just take over.  Natives had plenty of practice with them, and had the extreme advantage of knowing the land.

Too bad they were all diseased alcoholics by then.  Thanks, Europe, for your constant supply of cheap booze and viruses.

White bastards.

OP is some kind of retard who doesn't understand the significance of technology, guns germs and steel doesn't cover everything and genetic differences, while existant, are not significant.

The superior lives and the inferior is wiped out. No matter what factors wiped them out the Europeans were superior.

>>15
Superior genes or superior culture and technology?

>>15
Superior in the sense that they were plague carrying sickos?

>>15
Hey! Fuck you you ignorant child :)