OK. That is not splitting hairs but continents. I meant the U.S. If you meant all the way down to Chile, you're probably right.

Have a good weekend. I have a nice weekend coming up and will put my argumentative nature aside ;-)

>Actually wasn't apologizing, was disagreeing with your statement of when the history was.
>
>Splitting hairs, I was quoting figures for North, Central, and South America. Again, I was taking what is considered the 'average' between the low and high estimates (apparently some people are estimating upwards of 100 million) - but even at the figure I quoted the Americas probably had close to the same population as was in the Old World.
>
>>There is no need to apologize at all. I was just disagreeing amiably.
>>
>>Here is a link with some speculation about the Indian population in the U.S. pre-colonization. All of them are higher than I thought and lower than you say. So I have learned something.
>>
>>Estimating the number of Native Americans living in what is today the United States of America before the arrival of the European explorers and settlers has been the subject of much debate. While it is difficult to determine exactly how many Natives lived in North America before Columbus,[44] estimates range from a low of 2.1 million (Ubelaker 1976) to 7 million people (Russell Thornton) to a high of 18 million (Dobyns 1983).
>>
>>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Native_Americans_in_the_United_States
>>
>>>Um...sorry...even a little bit of Google-fu will show you that 'history' goes up to today. And latest trends in guessing how many Indians there were in the Americas when European colonization started is upwards of 40-50 million compared to the approx 75 million living in the Old World.
>>>
>>>And yes, people have always migrated, much to the detriment of either group - the migrators or the migratees, if you will, but please remember who moved in on whom, were generally welcomed until they proved to be greedy with the resources, then relationships got rocky.
>>>
>>>>Please see my reply to Al. Generally I agree with you but I don't here. Although not entirely unsympathetic, the history you mention was 150 years and longer ago. It's no longer a valid excuse IMO.
>>>>
>>>>People have always migrated. Is it realistic to think a few hundred thousand Indians, however many there were, were going to have a country this big to themselves forever? It's like thinking Australia would still be populated solely by aborigines.
>>>>
>>>>>I think the Tribes are trying to make a point - that the beer companies are going out of their way to make alcohol available in a location that is convenient for consumption by the Tribes. In some ways, it's no different from the liquor stores on the county lines between wet and dry counties in other states. Unfortunately, we're talking about a group of people who have been historically 'left behind' in almost all of the forward steps of 'civilization'.
>>>>>
>>>>>Please understand, I don't want to get into any discussion of "there's nothing stopping them from 'joining' the American society" or anything like that. I think history will pretty much blow many such arguments out of the water and, let's do remember, their civilization was here first.
>>>>>
>>>>>>I think the lawsuit is without merit - like how you gonna sue someone for selling you a beer when you're the one who wanted to buy it?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/46329414/ns/business-retail/#.TzR1kxxA9fA
>>>>>>
>>>>>>...and if I ever decide to open a liquor store I know where to do it now.