Population figures for theIndigenous peoples of the Americas before Europeancolonization have been difficult to establish. Estimates have varied widely from as low as 8 million to as many as 100 million, though by the end of the 20th Century, many scholars gravitated toward an estimate of around 50 million people.^[1][2]

The monarchs of thenascent Spanish Empire decided to fundChristopher Columbus' voyage in 1492, leading to theestablishment of colonies and marking the beginning of the migration of millions of Europeans and Africans to the Americas. While the population ofEuropean settlers, primarily fromSpain,Portugal,France,England, and theNetherlands, along withAfrican slaves, grew steadily, the Indigenous population plummeted. There are numerous reasons for the population decline, including exposure to Eurasian diseases such asinfluenza,pneumonic plagues, andsmallpox; direct violence by settlers and their allies throughwar andforced removal; and the general disruption of societies.^[3][4] Scholarly disputes remain over the degree to which each factor contributed or should be emphasized; some modern scholars have categorized it as agenocide, claiming that deliberate, systematic actions by Europeans were the primary cause.^[5][6][7] Traditional interpretation of the decline by scholars have disputed this characterization, maintaining that incidental disease exposure was the primary cause.^[6][8][9] This is supported by evidence where 50-80 percent of the population died from waves of diseases caused by Europeans in places such as Mexico in the 16th century.^[10]

Pre-Columbian population figures are difficult to estimate because of the fragmentary nature of the evidence. Estimates range from 8–112 million.^[11] Scholars have varied widely on the estimated size of the Indigenous populations prior to colonization and on the effects ofEuropean contact.^[12] Estimates are made by extrapolations from small bits of data. In 1976, geographerWilliam Denevan used the existing estimates to derive a "consensus count" of about 54 million people. Nonetheless, more recent estimates still range widely.^[13] In 1992, Denevan suggested that the total population was approximately 53.9 million and the populations by region were, approximately, 3.8 million for the United States and Canada, 17.2 million for Mexico, 5.6 million for Central America, 3 million for the Caribbean, 15.7 million for the Andes and 8.6 million for lowland South America.^[14] A 2020 genetic study suggests that prior estimates for the pre-Columbian Caribbean population may have been at least tenfold too large.^[15] HistorianDavid Stannard estimates that the extermination of Indigenous peoples took the lives of 100 million people: "...the total extermination of many American Indian peoples and the near-extermination of others, in numbers that eventually totaled close to 100,000,000."^[16] A 2019 study estimates the pre-Columbian Indigenous population contained more than 60 million people, but dropped to 6 million by 1600, based on a drop in atmospheric CO₂ during that period.^[17][18] Other studies have disputed this conclusion.^[19][20]

The Indigenous population of the Americas in 1492 was not necessarily at a high point and may actually have already been in decline in some areas. Indigenous populations in most areas of the Americas reached a low point by the early 20th century.^[21]

Using an estimate of approximately 37 million people in Mexico, Central and South America in 1492 (including 6 million in theAztec Empire, 5–10 million in the Mayan States, 11 million in what is now Brazil, and 12 million in theInca Empire), the lowest estimates give a population decrease from all causes of 80% by the end of the 17th century (nine million people in 1650).^[22] Latin America would match its 15th-century population early in the 19th century; it numbered 17 million in 1800, 30 million in 1850, 61 million in 1900, 105 million in 1930, 218 million in 1960, 361 million in 1980, and 563 million in 2005.^[22] In the last three decades of the 16th century, the population of present-day Mexico dropped to about one million people.^[22] TheMaya population is today estimated at six million, which is about the same as at the end of the 15th century, according to some estimates.^[22] In what is now Brazil, the Indigenous population declined from apre-Cabraline high of an estimated four million to some 300,000. Over 60 million Brazilians possess at least one Native South American ancestor, according to aDNA study.^[23]

While it is difficult to determine exactly how many Natives lived inNorthern America (modern day US and Canada) before Columbus,^[24] most estimates range from 2.5 million to 7 million^[25][26] people, with one study estimating up to 18 million.^[27] Scholars vary on the estimated size of theIndigenous population inwhat is now Canada prior to colonization and on the effects ofEuropean contact.^[28] During the late 15th century is estimated to have been between 200,000^[29] and two million,^[30] with a figure of 500,000 currently accepted by Canada's Royal Commission on Aboriginal Health.^[31] Although not without conflict,European Canadians' early interactions withFirst Nations andInuit populations were relatively peaceful.^[32] However repeated outbreaks of Europeaninfectious diseases such as influenza, measles, and smallpox (to which they had no natural immunity),^[33] combined with other effects of European contact, resulted in a twenty-five percent to eighty percent Indigenous population decrease post-contact.^[29] Roland G Robertson suggests that during the late 1630s, smallpox killed over half of theWyandot (Huron), who controlled most of the earlyNorth American fur trade in the area ofNew France.^[34] In 1871 there was an enumeration of the Indigenous population within the limits of Canada at the time, showing a total of only 102,358 individuals.^[35] From 2006 to 2016, the Indigenous population has grown by 42.5 percent, four times the national rate.^[36] According to the2011 Canadian census, Indigenous peoples (First Nations – 851,560,Inuit – 59,445 andMétis – 451,795) numbered at 1,400,685, or 4.3% of the country's total population.^[37]

The population debate has often hadideological underpinnings.^[38] Low estimates, such as those from Kroeber in 1939, claiming only 8.4 million inhabitants in the entire western hemisphere,^[39] were often reflective of European notions of cultural andracial superiority, especially in the early 20th century whenwhite supremacist ideology still had a strong influence on fields such as anthropology. HistorianFrancis Jennings argued, "Scholarly wisdom long held that Indians were so inferior in mind and works that they could not possibly have created or sustained large populations."^[40] Most scholars held these lower estimates as factual until the 1960s, when anthropologistHenry Dobyns published research applying historical and archaelogical data to assert a far higher pre-Columbian population of possibly over 100 million, including up to 9-12 million in what is now the US and Canada, setting off significant academic debate over the question.^[41] Despite widespread acceptance that the early estimates were too low, multiple researchers have also called very high estimates such as Dobyns into question as well.^[42] In 1998, Africanist HistorianDavid Henige claimed that many population estimates are the result of "arbitrary formulas" applied from unreliable sources.^[43] Most newer estimates of the pre-Columbian population in the Americas fall between 45 and 60 million people, including those from Denevan (1992)^[44] and Alchon (2003),^[45] while a 2018 study estimates a population of just over 60 million, based on carbon records.^[17]

Population size for Native American tribes is very difficult to state definitively, but at least one writer has made estimates, often based on an assumed proportion of the number of warriors to total population for the tribe.^[54] Many of these estimates are based on observations by contemporary European explorers or settlers passing through Native American territories. Typical proportions were 5 people per one warrior and at least 1 up to 5 warriors (therefore at least 5–25 people) per lodge, cabin or house.

The total peak population size only for the tribes listed in this table is 3,529,240 in the US and Canada (including 507,675 in Canada). This number is very similar to Snow's estimate for the US and Canada^[51] and to Alchon's, Denevan's and Milner's estimates.^[44][45][53]

Genetic diversity and population structure in the American land mass usingDNA micro-satellite markers (genotype) sampled from North, Central, and South America have been analyzed against similar data available from otherIndigenous populations worldwide.^[123][124] The Amerindian populations show a lowergenetic diversity than populations from other continental regions.^[124] Decreasing genetic diversity with increasing geographic distance from theBering Strait can be seen, as well as a decreasing genetic similarity toSiberian populations fromAlaska (genetic entry point).^[123][124] A higher level of diversity and lower level of population structure in western South America compared to eastern South America is observed.^[123][124] A relative lack of differentiation betweenMesoamerican andAndean populations is a scenario that implies coastal routes were easier than inland routes formigrating peoples (Paleo-Indians) to traverse.^[123] The overall pattern that is emerging suggests that the Americas were recently colonized by a small number of individuals (effective size of about 70–250), and then they grew by a factor of 10 over 800–1,000 years.^[125][126] The data also show that there have been genetic exchanges between Asia, theArctic andGreenland since the initialpeopling of the Americas.^[126][127] A new study in early 2018 suggests that theeffective population size of the original founding population of Native Americans was about 250 people.^[128][129]

Early explanations for the population decline of the Indigenous peoples of the Americas include the brutal practices of the Spanishconquistadores, as recorded by the Spaniards themselves, such as theencomienda system, which was ostensibly set up to protect people from warring tribes as well as to teach them the Spanish language and theCatholic religion, but in practice was tantamount toserfdom andslavery.^[130] The most notable account was that of theDominicanfriarBartolomé de las Casas, whose writings vividly depict Spanish atrocities committed in particular against theTaínos.^[131] The second European explanation was a perceived divine approval, in which God removed the Indigenous peoples as part of His "divine plan" to make way for a new Christian civilization. Many Native Americans viewed their troubles in a religious framework within their own belief systems.^[132]

According to later academics such asNoble David Cook, a community of scholars began "quietly accumulating piece by piece data on early epidemics in the Americas and their relation to the subjugation of native peoples." Scholars like Cook believe that widespread epidemic disease, to which the Indigenous peoples had no prior exposure or resistance, was the primary cause of the massive population decline of the Native Americans.^[133] One of the most devastating diseases was smallpox, but other deadly diseases includedtyphus,measles, influenza,bubonic plague,cholera,malaria,tuberculosis,mumps,yellow fever, andpertussis, which were chronic in Eurasia.^[134]

However, recently scholars have studied the link between physical colonial violence such as warfare, displacement, and enslavement, and the proliferation of disease among Native populations.^{[4][135][136]} For example, according toCoquille scholarDina Gilio-Whitaker, "In recent decades, however, researchers challenge the idea that disease is solely responsible for the rapid Indigenous population decline. The research identifies other aspects of European contact that had profoundly negative impacts on Native peoples' ability to survive foreign invasion: war, massacres, enslavement, overwork, deportation, the loss of will to live or reproduce, malnutrition and starvation from the breakdown of trade networks, and the loss of subsistence food production due to land loss."^[137]

Further,Andrés Reséndez of theUniversity of California, Davis points out that, even though the Spanish were aware of deadly diseases such as smallpox, there is no mention of them in the New World until 1519, implying that, until that date, epidemic disease played no significant part in the depopulation of theAntilles. The practices of forced labor, brutal punishment, and inadequate necessities of life, were the initial and major reasons for depopulation.^[138]Jason Hickel estimates that a third ofArawak workers died every six months from forced labor in these mines.^[139] In this way, "slavery has emerged as a major killer" of the Indigenous populations of the Caribbean between 1492 and 1550, as it set the conditions for diseases such as smallpox, influenza, and malaria to flourish.^[138] Unlike the populations of Europe who rebounded following theBlack Death, no such rebound occurred for the Indigenous populations.^[138]

Similarly, historian Jeffrey Ostler at theUniversity of Oregon has argued that population collapses in North America throughout colonization were not due mainly to lack of Native immunity to European disease. Instead, he claims that "When severe epidemics did hit, it was often less because Native bodies lacked immunity than because European colonialism disrupted Native communities and damaged their resources, making them more vulnerable to pathogens." In specific regard toSpanish colonization of northern Florida and southeastern Georgia, Native peoples there "were subject to forced labor and, because of poor living conditions and malnutrition, succumbed to wave after wave of unidentifiable diseases." Further, in relation toBritish colonization in the Northeast,Algonquian speaking tribes in Virginia and Maryland "suffered from a variety of diseases, including malaria, typhus, and possibly smallpox." These diseases were not solely a case of Native susceptibility, however, because "as colonists took their resources, Native communities were subject to malnutrition, starvation, and social stress, all making people more vulnerable to pathogens. Repeated epidemics created additional trauma and population loss, which in turn disrupted the provision of healthcare." Such conditions would continue, alongside rampant disease in Native communities, throughout colonization, the formation of the United States, and multiple forced removals, as Ostler explains that many scholars "have yet to come to grips with how U.S. expansion created conditions that made Native communities acutely vulnerable to pathogens and how severely disease impacted them. ... Historians continue to ignore the catastrophic impact of disease and its relationship to U.S. policy and action even when it is right before their eyes."^[6]

HistorianDavid Stannard says that by "focusing almost entirely on disease ... contemporary authors increasingly have created the impression that the eradication of those tens of millions of people was inadvertent—a sad, but both inevitable and "unintended consequence" of human migration and progress," and asserts that their destruction "was neither inadvertent nor inevitable," but the result of microbial pestilence and purposeful genocide working in tandem.^[140] He also wrote:^[141]

...Despite frequent undocumented assertions that disease was responsible for the great majority of indigenous deaths in the Americas, there does not exist a single scholarly work that even pretends to demonstrate this claim on the basis of solid evidence. And that is because there is no such evidence, anywhere. The supposed truism that more native people died from disease than from direct face-to-face killing or from gross mistreatment or other concomitant derivatives of that brutality such as starvation,exposure, exhaustion, or despair is nothing more than a scholarly article of faith...

In contrast, historianRussel Thornton has pointed out that there were disastrous epidemics and population losses during the first half of the sixteenth century "resulting from incidental contact, or even without direct contact, as disease spread from one American Indian tribe to another."^[142] Thornton has also challenged higher Indigenous population estimates, which are based on the Malthusian assumption that "populations tend to increase to, and beyond, the limits of the food available to them at any particular level of technology."^[143]

The European colonization of the Americas resulted in the deaths of so many people it contributed toclimatic change and temporaryglobal cooling, according to scientists fromUniversity College London.^[144][145] A century after the arrival ofChristopher Columbus, some 90% of Indigenous Americans had perished from "wave after wave of disease", along with massslavery and war, in what researchers have described as the "great dying".^[146] According to one of the researchers, UCL Geography ProfessorMark Maslin, the large death toll also boosted the economies of Europe: "the depopulation of the Americas may have inadvertently allowed the Europeans to dominate the world. It also allowed for the Industrial Revolution and for Europeans to continue that domination."^[147]

When Old World diseases were first carried to the Americas at the end of the fifteenth century, they spread throughout the southern and northern hemispheres, leaving the Indigenous populations in near ruins.^[134][148] No evidence has been discovered that the earliest Spanish colonists and missionaries deliberately attempted to infect the American Natives, and some efforts were made to limit the devastating effects of disease before it killed off what remained of their labor force (compelled to work under theencomienda system).^[134][148] The cattle introduced by the Spanish contaminated various water reserves which Native Americans dug in the fields to accumulate rainwater. In response, theFranciscans andDominicans created public fountains and aqueducts to guarantee access todrinking water.^[22] But when the Franciscans lost their privileges in 1572, many of these fountains were no longer guarded and so deliberatewell poisoning may have happened.^[22] Although no proof of such poisoning has been found, some historians believe the decrease of the population correlates with the end of religious orders' control of the water.^[22]

In following centuries, accusations and discussions of biological warfare were common. Well-documented accounts of incidents involving both threats and acts of deliberate infection are very rare, but may have occurred more frequently than scholars have previously acknowledged.^[149][150] Many of the instances likely went unreported, and it is possible that documents relating to such acts were deliberately destroyed,^[150] or sanitized.^[151][152] By the middle of the 18th century, colonists had the knowledge and technology to attempt biological warfare with the smallpox virus. They well understood the concept of quarantine, and that contact with the sick could infect the healthy with smallpox, and those who survived the illness would not be infected again. Whether the threats were carried out, or how effective individual attempts were, is uncertain.^{[134][150][151]}

One such threat was delivered by fur traderJames McDougall, who is quoted as saying to a gathering of local chiefs, "You know the smallpox. Listen: I am the smallpox chief. In this bottle I have it confined. All I have to do is to pull the cork, send it forth among you, and you are dead men. But this is for my enemies and not my friends."^[153] Likewise, another fur trader threatenedPawnee Indians that if they didn't agree to certain conditions, "he would let the smallpox out of a bottle and destroy them." The ReverendIsaac McCoy was quoted in hisHistory of Baptist Indian Missions as saying that the white men had deliberately spread smallpox among the Indians of the southwest, including the Pawnee tribe, and the havoc it made was reported to General Clark and the Secretary of War.^[153][154] Artist and writerGeorge Catlin observed that Native Americans were also suspicious of vaccination, "They see white men urging the operation so earnestly they decide that it must be some new mode or trick of the pale face by which they hope to gain some new advantage over them."^[155] So great was the distrust of the settlers that the Mandan chiefFour Bears denounced the white man, whom he had previously treated as brothers, for deliberately bringing the disease to his people.^{[156][157][158]}

During thesiege of British-heldFort Pitt in theSeven Years' War, ColonelHenry Bouquet ordered his men to take smallpox-infested blankets from their hospital and gave them as gifts to two neutralLenape Indian dignitaries during a peace settlement negotiation, according to the entry in the Captain's ledger, "To convey the Smallpox to the Indians".^{[151][159][160]} In the following weeks,Sir Jeffrey Amherst conspired with Bouquet to "Extirpate this Execreble Race" of Native Americans, writing, "Could it not be contrived to send the small pox among the disaffected tribes of Indians? We must on this occasion use every stratagem in our power to reduce them." His Colonel agreed to try.^[150][159]

Most scholars have asserted that the1837 Great Plains smallpox epidemic was "started among the tribes of the upper Missouri River by failure to quarantine steamboats on the river",^[153] and Captain Pratt of theSt. Peter "was guilty of contributing to the deaths of thousands of innocent people. The law calls his offense criminal negligence. Yet in light of all the deaths, the almost complete annihilation of the Mandans, and the terrible suffering the region endured, the label criminal negligence is benign, hardly befitting an action that had such horrendous consequences."^[157] However, some sources attribute the 1836–40 epidemic to the deliberate communication of smallpox to Native Americans, with historian Ann F. Ramenofsky writing, "Variola Major can be transmitted through contaminated articles such as clothing or blankets. In the nineteenth century, the U. S. Army sent contaminated blankets to Native Americans, especially Plains groups, to control the Indian problem."^[161] In Brazil, well into the 20th century, deliberate infection attacks continued as Brazilian settlers and miners transported infections intentionally to the Native groups whose lands they coveted.^[148]

AfterEdward Jenner's 1796 demonstration that thesmallpox vaccination worked, the technique became better known and smallpox became less deadly in the United States and elsewhere. Many colonists and Natives were vaccinated, although, in some cases, officials tried to vaccinate Natives only to discover that the disease was too widespread to stop. At other times, trade demands led to broken quarantines. In other cases, Natives refused vaccination because of suspicion of whites. The first international healthcare expedition in history was theBalmis Expedition which had the aim of vaccinating Indigenous peoples against smallpox all along theSpanish Empire in 1803. In 1831, government officials vaccinated theYankton Dakota atSioux Agency. TheSantee Sioux refused vaccination and many died.^[38]

While epidemic disease was a leading factor of the population decline of the American Indigenous peoples after 1492, there were other contributing factors, all of them related to European contact and colonization. One of these factors was warfare. According to demographer Russell Thornton, although many people died in wars over the centuries, and war sometimes contributed to the near extinction of certain tribes, warfare and death by other violent means was a comparatively minor cause of overall Native population decline.^[162]

From the U.S. Bureau of the Census in 1894, wars between the government and the Indigenous peoples ranged over 40 in number over the previous 100 years. These wars cost the lives of approximately 19,000 white people, and the lives of about 30,000 Indians, including men, women, and children. They safely estimated that the number of Native people who were killed or wounded was actually around fifty percent more than what was recorded.^[163]

There is some disagreement among scholars about how widespread warfare was in pre-Columbian America,^[164] but there is general agreement that war became deadlier after the arrival of the Europeans and their firearms.^{[citation needed]} The South or Central American infrastructure allowed for thousands of Europeanconquistadors and tens of thousands of theirIndian auxiliaries to attack the dominant Indigenous civilization. Empires such as theIncas depended on a highly centralized administration for the distribution of resources. Disruption caused by the war and the colonization hampered the traditional economy, and possibly led to shortages of food and materials.^[165] Across the western hemisphere, war with various Native American civilizations constituted alliances based out of both necessity or economic prosperity and, resulted in mass-scale intertribal warfare.^[166] European colonization in the North American continent also contributed to a number of wars between Native Americans, who fought over which of them should have first access to new technology and weaponry—like in theBeaver Wars.^[167]

According tothe Cambridge World History, the Oxford Handbook of Genocide Studies, and the Cambridge World History of Genocide, colonial policies in some cases included the deliberate genocide of indigenous peoples in North America.^{[168][169][170]} According to the Cambridge World History of Genocide,Spanish colonization of the Americas also included genocidal massacres.^[171]

According toAdam Jones, genocidal methods included the following:

• Genocidal massacres
• Biological warfare, using pathogens (especially smallpox and plague) to which the indigenous peoples had no resistance
• Spreading of disease via the 'reduction' of Indians to densely crowded and unhygienic settlements
• Slavery and forced/indentured labor, especially, though not exclusively, in Latin America, in conditions often rivaling those of Nazi concentration camps
• Mass population removals to barren 'reservations,' sometimes involving death marchesen route, and generally leading to widespread mortality and population collapse upon arrival
• Deliberate starvation and famine, exacerbated by destruction and occupation of the native land base and food resources
• Forced education of indigenous children in White-run schools ...^[172]

Some Spaniards objected to theencomienda system of labor, notablyBartolomé de las Casas, who insisted that the Indigenous people were humans with souls and rights. Because of many revolts and military encounters,Emperor Charles V helped relieve the strain on both the Native laborers and the Spanish vanguards probing the Caribana for military and diplomatic purposes.^[173] Later onNew Laws were promulgated in Spain in 1542 to protect isolated Natives, but the abuses in the Americas were never entirely or permanently abolished. The Spanish also employed the pre-Columbian draft system called themita,^[174] and treated their subjects as something between slaves andserfs. Serfs stayed to work the land; slaves were exported to the mines, where large numbers of them died. In other areas the Spaniards replaced the ruling Aztecs and Incas and divided the conquered lands among themselves ruling as the newfeudal lords with often, but unsuccessful lobbying to theviceroys of theSpanish crown to pay Tlaxcalan war indemnities. The infamousBandeirantes fromSão Paulo, adventurers mostly of mixed Portuguese and Native ancestry, penetrated steadily westward in their search for Indianslaves. Serfdom existed as such in parts of Latin America well into the 19th century, past independence.^[175] HistorianAndrés Reséndez argues that even though the Spanish were aware of the spread of smallpox, they made no mention of it until 1519, a quarter century after Columbus arrived in Hispaniola.^[176] Instead he contends that enslavement in gold and silver mines was the primary reason why the Native American population of Hispaniola dropped so significantly^[175][176] and that even though disease was a factor, the Native population would have rebounded the same way Europeans did following theBlack Death if it were not for the constant enslavement they were subject to.^[176] He further contends thatenslavement of Native Americans was in fact the primary cause of their depopulation in Spanish territories;^[176] that the majority of Indians enslaved were women and children compared to the enslavement of Africans which mostly targeted adult males and in turn they were sold at a 50% to 60% higher price,^[177] and that 2,462,000 to 4,985,000 Amerindians were enslaved between Columbus's arrival and 1900.^[178][177]

• ThePequot War in early New England.
• In mid-19th centuryArgentina, post-independence leadersJuan Manuel de Rosas andJulio Argentino Roca engaged in what they presented as a "Conquest of the Desert" against the Natives of the Argentinian interior, leaving over 1,300 Indigenous dead.^[179][180]
• While some California tribes were settled on reservations, others were hunted down andmassacred by 19th century American settlers. It is estimated that at least 9,400 to 16,000 California Indians were killed by non-Indians, mostly occurring in more than 370 massacres (defined as the "intentional killing of five or more disarmed combatants or largely unarmed noncombatants, including women, children, and prisoners, whether in the context of a battle or otherwise").^[181][182]

Throughout history, Indigenous people have been subjected to the repeated and forced removal from their land. Beginning in the 1830s, there was the relocation of an estimated 100,000 Indigenous people in the United States called the "Trail of Tears".^[183] The tribes affected by this specific removal were theFive Civilized Tribes: The Cherokee, Creek, Chickasaw, Choctaw, and Seminole. The treaty of New Echota,^[184] was enacted, which stated that the United States "would give Cherokee land west of the Mississippi in exchange for $5,000,000".^[183] According to Jeffrey Ostler, "Of the 80,000 Native people who were forced west from 1830 into the 1850s, between 12,000 and 17,000 perished." Ostler states that "the large majority died of interrelated factors of starvation, exposure and disease".^[185]

In addition to the removal of the Southern Tribes, there were multiple other removals of Northern Tribes also known as "Trails of Tears." For example, "In the free labor states of the North, federal and state officials, supported by farmers, speculators and business interests, evicted Shawnees, Delawares, Senecas, Potawatomis, Miamis, Wyandots, Ho-Chunks, Ojibwes, Sauks and Meskwakis." These Nations were moved West of the Mississippi into what is now known as Eastern Kansas, and numbered 17,000 on arrival. According to Ostler, "by 1860, their numbers had been cut in half" because of low fertility, high infant mortality, and increased disease caused by conditions such as polluted drinking water, few resources, and social stress.^[185]

Ostler also writes that the areas that Northern tribes were removed to were already inhabited: "The areas west of the Mississippi River were home to other Indigenous nations—Osages, Kanzas, Omahas, Ioways, Otoes and Missourias. To make room for thousands of people from the East, the government dispossessed these nations of much their lands." Ostler writes that when Northern Nations were moved onto their landing 1840, "The combined population of these western nations was 9,000 ... 20 years later, it had fallen to 6,000."^[185]

On 8 September 2000, the head of the United StatesBureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) formally apologized for the agency's participation in theethnic cleansing of Western tribes.^{[186][187][188]}In a speech before representatives of Native American peoples in June 2019, California governorGavin Newsom apologized for the "California Genocide." Newsom said, "That's what it was, a genocide. No other way to describe it. And that's the way it needs to be described in the history books."^[189]

Region	Percentage	Total population	Country	Year
Between 75% and 100%
Totonicapán	97.99%	410,195	Guatemala	2018[190]
Ngäbe-Buglé	97.85%	207,540	Panama	2023
Guna Yala	97.83%	31,323	Panama	2023
Emberá-Wounaan	97.47%	12,038	Panama	2023[191]
Sololá	96.37%	406,295	Guatemala	2018
Alta Verapaz	92.95%	1,129,369	Guatemala	2018
Puno	90.81%	857,351	Peru	2017
Quiché	89.17%	846,500	Guatemala	2018
Apurímac	86.97%	273,947	Peru	2017
Gracias a Dios	82.70%	75,121	Honduras	2013[192]
Vaupés	81.68%	30,787	Colombia	2018
Ayacucho	81.48%	388,476	Peru	2017
Huancavelica	80.88%	215,812	Peru	2017
Chimaltenango	78.17%	481,335	Guatemala	2018
Cusco	75.91%	721,430	Peru	2017
Between 50% and 75%
Guainía	74.90%	33,280	Colombia	2018
Bocas del Toro	73.08%	116,369	Panama	2023
Potosí	69.50%	572,314	Bolivia	2012
Oaxaca	69.18%	2,858,620	Mexico	2020
Yucatán	65.18%	1,512,761	Mexico	2020
Huehuetenango	64.99%	760,871	Guatemala	2018
Baja Verapaz	60.02%	179,746	Guatemala	2018
Vichada	58.16%	44,578	Colombia	2018
Amazonas	57.72%	38,130	Colombia	2018
La Paz	55.70%	110,854	Honduras	2013
La Paz	54.49%	1,474,654	Bolivia	2012
Intibucá	53.10%	123,440	Honduras	2013
Amazonas	52.10%	76,314	Venezuela	2011
Oruro	51.08%	252,444	Bolivia	2012
Quetzaltenango	50.86%	406,491	Guatemala	2018
Chuquisaca	50.29%	289,728	Bolivia	2012
Between 25% and 50%
La Guajira	47.82%	394,683	Colombia	2018
Cochabamba	47.52%	835,535	Bolivia	2012
Campeche	47.26%	438,744	Mexico	2020
Huanuco	43.34%	239,049	Peru	2017
Boquerón	41.88%	29,774	Paraguay	2022[193]
Tacna	40.32%	108,469	Peru	2017
Sacatepéquez	40.17%	132,762	Guatemala	2018
Pasco	39.87%	78,455	Peru	2017
Madre de Dios	39.47%	41,646	Peru	2017
Suchitepéquez	38.05%	211,103	Guatemala	2018
Darién	37.80%	20,501	Panama	2023
Moquegua	36.71%	52,205	Peru	2017
Chiapas	36.65%	2,031,812	Mexico	2020
Hidalgo	36.60%	1,128,319	Mexico	2020
Junin	36.45%	353,192	Peru	2017
Arica y Parinacota	36.2%	87,816	Chile	2024[194]
Arequipa	34.74%	388,476	Peru	2017
Ancash	34.15%	290,420	Peru	2017
Araucania	34.5%	347,285	Chile	2024
Quintana Roo	33.23%	617,408	Mexico	2020
Puebla	33.22%	2,186,964	Mexico	2020
Guerrero	33.14%	1,173,383	Mexico	2020
Beni	33.14%	134,025	Bolivia	2012
San Marcos	30.81%	318,093	Guatemala	2018
Petén	30.20%	164,814	Guatemala	2018
Izabal	28.21%	115,296	Guatemala	2018
Aysén	29.2%	29,230	Chile	2024
Los Lagos	26.7%	236,886	Chile	2024
Veracruz	26.90%	2,168,833	Mexico	2020
Chiquimula	26.83%	111,368	Guatemala	2018
Delta Amacuro	25.1%	41,543	Venezuela	2011
Los Ríos	25.03%	96,382	Chile	2024
Between 10% and 25%
Cauca	24.81%	308,455	Colombia	2018
Morelos	24.55%	484,008	Mexico	2020
Tarapacá	24.5%	89,987	Chile	2024
Pando	23.78%	26,261	Bolivia	2012
Magallanes	23.4%	38,658	Chile	2024
Tabasco	21.36%	513,194	Mexico	2020
Michoacán	20.75%	985,385	Mexico	2020
San Luis Potosí	20.33%	573,764	Mexico	2020
Santa Cruz	19.65%	521,814	Bolivia	2012
Atacama	25.8%	76,616	Chile	2024
Putumayo	17.90%	50,694	Colombia	2018
Lima	17.82%	128,632	Peru	2017
Lima province	17.16%	1,211,490	Peru	2017
Tlaxcala	16.46%	221,054	Mexico	2020
Nayarit	15.94%	196,931	Mexico	2020
Mexico	15.75%	2,676,305	Mexico	2020
Nariño	15.46%	206,455	Colombia	2018
Chocó	14.96%	68,415	Colombia	2018
Retalhuléu	14.95%	48,871	Guatemala	2018
Ica	14.77%	97,863	Peru	2017
Tarija	14.49%	69,872	Bolivia	2012
Roraima	14.12%	89,882	Brazil	2022
Antofagasta	14.5%	91,280	Chile	2024
Alaska	13.46%	98,745	United States	2023
Guatemala	13.34%	402,376	Guatemala	2018
Sonora	13.31%	391,958	Mexico	2020
Colima	13.17%	96,324	Mexico	2020
Querétaro	13.15%	311,453	Mexico	2020
Córdoba	13.03%	202,621	Colombia	2018
Sucre	12.14%	104,890	Colombia	2018
Zulia	12%	443,544	Venezuela	2011[195]
Baja California Sur	11.87%	94,775	Mexico	2020
Callao	11.02%	88,081	Peru	2017
Chihuahua	10.48%	392,147	Mexico	2020
Jujuy	10.07%	81,538	Argentina	2022
Between 5% and 10%
Salta	9.96%	142,870	Argentina	2022
Santiago	7.36%	545,700	Chile	2024
Guaviare	9.38%	6,856	Colombia	2018
Sinaloa	9.35%	283,019	Mexico	2020
New Mexico	9.34%	197,425	United States	2023
Biobío	9.4%	150,917	Chile	2024
Mexico City	9.28%	854,682	Mexico	2020
Durango	8.87%	162,556	Mexico	2020
Coquimbo	11.2%	92,753	Chile	2024
Loreto	8.10%	50,493	Peru	2017
Baja California	7.97%	300,390	Mexico	2020
Chubut	7.92%	46,670	Argentina	2022
Formosa	7.84%	47,459	Argentina	2022
Amazonas	7.74%	305,243	Brazil	2022
South Dakota	7.72%	70,936	United States	2023
Neuquén	7.68%	54,436	Argentina	2022
Jalapa	7.25%	24,891	Guatemala	2018
Oklahoma	7.21%	292,095	United States	2023
Ucayali	7.06%	25,181	Peru	2017
Jalisco	7.04%	587,709	Mexico	2020
Tamaulipas	6.67%	235,299	Mexico	2020
Valparaíso	5.5%	103,716	Chile	2024
Cajamarca	6.47%	66,473	Peru	2017
Río Negro	6.45%	48,194	Argentina	2022
Nuevo León	6.40%	370,204	Mexico	2020
Guanajuato	6.39%	394,067	Mexico	2020
O'Higgins	5.2%	50,681	Chile	2024
Aguascalientes	6.17%	87,959	Mexico	2020
Caldas	6.04%	55,801	Colombia	2018
San Martín	5.85%	35,613	Peru	2017
Montana	5.62%	63,693	United States	2023
Escuintla	5.06%	37,100	Guatemala	2018
Amazonas	5.04%	14,182	Peru	2017
Between 2.5% and 5%
Zacatecas	4.88%	79,160	Mexico	2020
Chaco	4.78%	53,798	Argentina	2022
Lambayeque	4.77%	44,613	Peru	2017
Maule	4.3%	47,811	Chile	2024
Cesar	4.66%	51,233	Colombia	2018
Catamarca	4.60%	19,668	Argentina	2022
North Dakota	4.40%	34,505	United States	2023
La Pampa	4.36%	15,659	Argentina	2022
Arizona	3.96%	294,583	United States	2023
Bolívar	3.9%	54,686	Venezuela	2011
Ñuble	3.9%	20,145	Chile	2024
Santa Cruz	3.73%	12,525	Argentina	2022
Tolima	3.68%	45,269	Colombia	2018
Risaralda	3.56%	29,909	Colombia	2018
Acre	3.51%	29,163	Brazil	2022
Mato Grosso do Sul	3.48%	96,029	Brazil	2022
Tierra del Fuego	3.21%	5,942	Argentina	2022
La Libertad	3.19%	43,960	Peru	2017
La Rioja	2.78%	10,645	Argentina	2022
Arauca	2.74%	6,573	Colombia	2018
Santiago del Estero	2.65%	28,022	Argentina	2022
Sucre	2.50%	22,213	Venezuela	2011
Apure	2.50%	11,559	Venezuela	2011
Between 0% and 2.5%
Caquetá	2.45%	8,825	Colombia	2018
Buenos Aires City	2.41%	74,724	Argentina	2022
Piura	2.35%	33,196	Peru	2017
Mendoza	2.24%	45,389	Argentina	2022
Anzoátegui	2.3%	33,848	Venezuela	2011
Meta	2.23%	20,528	Colombia	2018
Tucumán	2.18%	37,646	Argentina	2022
Buenos Aires	2.14%	371,830	Argentina	2022
Coahuila	2.13%	67,026	Mexico	2020
Tumbes	2.10%	3,5946	Peru	2017
Misiones	2.04%	26,006	Argentina	2022
Monagas	2.0%	17,898	Venezuela	2011
Santa Rosa	1.98%	7,863	Guatemala	2018
Zacapa	1.94%	4,769	Guatemala	2018
Córdoba	1.82%	69,218	Argentina	2022
Casanare	1.81%	6,893	Colombia	2018
San Juan	1.76%	14,457	Argentina	2022
Atlántico	1.67%	39,061	Colombia	2018
Magdalena	1.66%	20,938	Colombia	2018
Santa Fe	1.63%	57,193	Argentina	2022
Mato Grosso	1.55%	56,687	Brazil	2022
San Luis	1.54%	8,340	Argentina	2022
El Progreso	1.48%	2,627	Guatemala	2018
Amapá	1.41%	10,340	Brazil	2022
Entre Ríos	1.32%	18,693	Argentina	2022
Corrientes	1.31%	15,808	Argentina	2022
Tocantins	1.24%	18,735	Brazil	2022
Huila	1.21%	12,194	Colombia	2018
Rondônia	1.09%	17,278	Brazil	2022
Jutiapa	0.97%	4,768	Guatemala	2018
Pernambuco	0.92%	83,667	Brazil	2022
Pará	0.85%	25,478	Brazil	2022
Valle del Cauca	0.81%	30,844	Colombia	2018
Maranhão	0.81%	54,682	Brazil	2022
Alagoas	0.64%	20,095	Brazil	2022
Paraíba	0.64%	25,478	Brazil	2022
Antioquia	0.63%	37,628	Colombia	2018
Boyacá	0.63%	7,151	Colombia	2018
Bahia	0.59%	83,658	Brazil	2022
Quindío	0.57%	2,883	Colombia	2018
Ceará	0.45%	39,982	Brazil	2022
Nueva Esparta	0.40%	2,200	Venezuela	2011
Cundinamarca	0.36%	9,949	Colombia	2018
Norte de Santander	0.34%	4,545	Colombia	2018
Rio Grande do Sul	0.31%	34,184	Brazil	2022
Espírito Santo	0.30%	11,617	Brazil	2022
Mérida	0.30%	2,103	Venezuela	2011
Rio Grande do Norte	0.28%	9,385	Brazil	2022
Bogotá	0.27%	19,063	Colombia	2018
Bolívar	0.27%	5,204	Colombia	2018
Santa Catarina	0.25%	19,294	Brazil	2022
Paraná	0.24%	28,000	Brazil	2022
Sergipe	0.21%	4,580	Brazil	2022
Federal District	0.20%	5,536	Brazil	2022
Falcón	0.20%	1,377	Venezuela	2011
Piauí	0.19%	6,198	Brazil	2022
Minas Gerais	0.16%	31,885	Brazil	2022
Goiás	0.15%	10,432	Brazil	2022
São Paulo	0.11%	50,528	Brazil	2022
Rio de Janeiro	0.10%	15,904	Brazil	2022
Miranda	0.10%	3,348	Venezuela	2011
Distrito Capital	0.10%	2,888	Venezuela	2011
Carabobo	0.10%	2,198	Venezuela	2011
Lara	0.10%	2,112	Venezuela	2011
Aragua	0.10%	1,453	Venezuela	2011
Barinas	0.10%	1,095	Venezuela	2011
Guárico	0.10%	948	Venezuela	2011
Trujillo	0.10%	888	Venezuela	2011
Portuguesa	0.10%	666	Venezuela	2011
Táchira	0.10%	589	Venezuela	2011
Yaracuy	0.10%	496	Venezuela	2011
Vargas	0.10%	336	Venezuela	2011
Cojedes	0.10%	289	Venezuela	2011
Santander	0.06%	1,262	Colombia	2018
San Andrés y Providencia	0.04%	20	Colombia	2018
Dependencias Federales	<0.01%	1	Venezuela	2011
Source: Censuses of American countries (Not includingmixed-race people ormestizos).[196][197][198][199][200][201][202][203]