More Mass shootings

[Hoss]

With Cherokee ancestry, yes. Assume away.

The winners always get to write the history. If they could have annihilated the Europeans, they would have. And then what would you say about the "genocide" the Indians committed against the Euros?

Never assuming, nor unassuming.  I'm four generations removed from my 3rd great grandmother who was full blood Cherokee, however since she lived in Kentucky and married my 3rd great grandfather, she wasn't forced on the walk and never got on the rolls, so I have no card (nor do I care to have one).  I also have Lakota Sioux lineage.

I guess sarcasm never translates well over the internet.

[erfalf]

Never assuming, nor unassuming.  I'm four generations removed from my 3rd great grandmother who was full blood Cherokee, however since she lived in Kentucky and married my 3rd great grandfather, she wasn't forced on the walk and never got on the rolls, so I have no card (nor do I care to have one).  I also have Lakota Sioux lineage.

I guess sarcasm never translates well over the internet.

It doesn't for me apparently. No problem. Honestly, it doesn't give me a leg to stand on anyway or somehow validate my opinion. For the record, my Grandmother's Grandmother was full blood. And no card for me either, not that I care.

[heironymouspasparagus]

Well, I guess this thread demonstrates exactly why we as a nation can't actually solve any of our problems.  Every conversation devolves into an incoherent shouting match about irrelevant bullsh*t.

Here are topics to consider instead:
1. I have to get a license to operate a car, a motorcycle, a boat, to fish, and to shoot a deer, but not to purchase and operate a deadly weapon designed solely for killing humans.  My drivers license and my car tag do not infringe on my right to own and drive a car.  Why are guns different?  There is a problem when our laws make it easier to buy a gun than to vote.  When the founders talked about a well-regulated militia and the right to bear arms, it was because they did not want the United States to have a standing army.  They needed to know who the able-bodied men were, and who owned a gun...so they kept track!

2. Military weapons belong in the military only.  Average citizens have no reason to own military grade weapons. Again, the founders were dealing with a reality where people had muskets, the same guns were used for hunting as war, and it took about 15-20 seconds to re-load and fire again. We live in a different world, and our laws need to adapt to that reality.

3. In general, we underfund mental health services and health care.  Better access to mental health services and support might help prevent people who are suffering from taking last resort, batsh*t crazy, lone wolf actions.

4. Homophobia is real and is fed by the political right and far too many members of various organized religions for reasons that have nothing to do with Christ.

My father was a gun collector and I was raised around guns.  My first lessons took place when I was in 3rd grade, and safety was paramount.  Back then, being a member of the NRA meant that you cared about the safe and responsible operation of guns.  It wasn't about gun manufacturers fueling a paranoid campaign of fear to instigate gun sales.  And it wasn't a political ploy.

This devolvement evolved from the idea being advanced by the historically ignorant - or maybe just the intellectually dishonest - premise that this Orlando thing was the worst shooting we have ever seen.  It is not, as has been covered.


1.  I agree completely about the voting thing - it is too hard to register - it should be automatic!  As soon as a person reaches 18, they are immediately eligible and automatically registered to vote unless they choose to opt out.  This is a right of citizenship and in the exact same way as the right to free speech accrues fully at 18, so should voting!!

As for the second amendment part - well, you have re-written plain English.  The first part is a subordinate clause.  Meaning that it cannot stand alone as a sentence because it does not provide a complete thought.  It is used to explain, clarify, or add additional detail to the main clause, which must be a complete sentence and the main reason the sentence is written.  It is saying "why" the right of the people exists.  The SAME "people" of First Amendment fame....   As for the redefinition of the word 'militia', well that argument goes on and on into the future - but it was NOT then as so many are trying to define it now.

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

2.  Yeah...and the First Amendment should be adapted to our instant media world in much the same way.... they also did not have cell phones, ipads, internet, or video cameras, so Free Speech should probably be regulated - or better yet, eliminated.

And I use my 'military' gun as a hunting weapon - it is the ideal solution to a particular thorny problem evolving in Oklahoma.  And it is also very good for deer!  Right now in particular, with the explosion of the feral hog population in the US, it has become important to try to get that under control by whatever means necessary.  Even Oklahoma is looking at allowing night hunting in addition to open daytime hunting - no limits, please kill as many as possible.  Feral hogs have not been seen much - relatively speaking - from Collinsville to Nowata and either side of highway 169 for at least a few miles.  I was in Talala a few weeks ago, just walking along a county road enjoying a nice spring day and found a dead feral hog in a ditch.  There are many more where you see the one - like cockroaches.  Talking to some of the neighbors, there have been sightings this year where there have been none before.  What that tells me is that I will have some good hunting opportunities very soon and the only safe way to approach that is to either trap them or have a rifle with enough power to stop them and enough capacity to possibly deal with 6, 10, or more really cranky wild hogs.  Ever seen those tusks up close??  Whew!!  I am in process of getting an AR-10 type rifle with multiple 30 round magazines (7.62 x 51), since the 5.56 isn't quite up to that job.  Anyone want a hog for a cookout??

3.  100% alignment and agreement.  Maybe 200%...I would probably say that more emphatically.

4.  100% alignment and agreement.  Maybe 200%...I would probably also say that more emphatically.  If anyone has their rights abridged, then no one really has any rights.  And Jesus even addressed that...don't remember if you are religious or not, but this fits....

"Then shall he answer them, saying, Verily I say unto you, Inasmuch as ye did it not to one of the least of these, ye did it not to me."    -Matthew 25:45.

I read that as 'do unto others as you would have them do unto to you".  (Another Matthew quote.)


As for the NRA, well, that hasn't changed much - that is still their main goal - safety in the shooting sports.  What has driven the political side, the ILA, is the incessant, ongoing efforts by extremely well funded organizations like the Brady Bunch Clown Show to eliminate private ownership of firearms in the United States.  It takes only the most modest review of their propaganda to see what their agenda is....

[heironymouspasparagus]

Never assuming, nor unassuming.  I'm four generations removed from my 3rd great grandmother who was full blood Cherokee, however since she lived in Kentucky and married my 3rd great grandfather, she wasn't forced on the walk and never got on the rolls, so I have no card (nor do I care to have one).  I also have Lakota Sioux lineage.

I guess sarcasm never translates well over the internet.

She probably hid out in the hills so she didn't get rounded up.  That's what some of my family did in southern KY and TN.  No card either, but the kids have theirs through the female DNA donor.

[heironymouspasparagus]

It doesn't for me apparently. No problem. Honestly, it doesn't give me a leg to stand on anyway or somehow validate my opinion. For the record, my Grandmother's Grandmother was full blood. And no card for me either, not that I care.

I wouldn't mind having the card for health care upon occasion...one can never get enough of waiting in line!!



Sorry...just couldn't resist the temptation to be just a tiny bit sarcastic....

[TulsaMoon]

As for most evil country - please reread what I said.  I did NOT say we are the most evil country in all of history.    I made no judgement about our relative moral position - just stated facts.    THIS is what I said....not the same.

"I have said it before and repeat - no other country in the history of this planet has done as much good as the US.  And no other country has done as much evil.  Maybe that's why we are so politically schizoid...."

Forgive me but maybe I can't understand plain English. In your statement you said no other country in the HISTORY of this planet has done so much good AND no other country has done as much evil. Your words.

This idea that the FL shooting was the worst ever on American soil p'ssed me off as well since I know we have had worse dating back to the Native American days and I would also say that certain events in the civil war would also surpass such a statement of being the worst.

I still can't agree with the 90 million figure, but I will do my homework and research this more to see how accurate you may be.

[swake]

It is difficult to know what the numbers were - in great part because so many times, new settlers would come into an area of neat, orderly park like forest where the original population had lived, but been eradicated by disease brought by mostly Jesuit priests acting as missionaries.  They would look around and say, 'look at this great area...we will take it!"  And with only cursory wonder at why there were no people living in such an ideal location. 

The Natives did manage the eastern forests using fire to allow transportation, encourage/manage game populations, etc.  They weren't just the "savages" that your history lessons and John Wayne would have you believe.

Your math is just a tad off. No civilization including ours could sustain a growth rate of 27% every three years. Unchecked a population of 15 million growing at the rate you propose would result in a population of more than 367 quintillion by 1899. That's only 122 trillion times more people than the 7 billion people on earth today.

And I am not ignorant to the history of Natives in America. I guarantee you I am closer to native issues than just about anyone on this board and my education is not through John Wayne movies. Even though I am very white.

[Red Arrow]

Your math is just a tad off.

Are you  surprised?

[swake]

Are you  surprised?

That he was wrong? No.

That he was wrong on the order of 122 trillion times more people than the 7 billion people on earth today, yeah. That's not exactly a rounding error.

[heironymouspasparagus]

Your math is just a tad off. No civilization including ours could sustain a growth rate of 27% every three years. Unchecked a population of 15 million growing at the rate you propose would result in a population of more than 367 quintillion by 1899. That's only 122 trillion times more people than the 7 billion people on earth today.

And I am not ignorant to the history of Natives in America. I guarantee you I am closer to native issues than just about anyone on this board and my education is not through John Wayne movies. Even though I am very white.

Show some better math, then.  Just 'speculating' about "a tad off" is just 'trolling'.  And peanut gallery posts from others who also have a math background, but provide no alternative calculations.  Well, that's just Republicontin....

And actually read what is written.  Trillions??  Geez...come on - that's not you.  At least I didn't think so...

This is a pretty rough estimate - just a quick 'off the cuff' through the numbers - as a starting point.  Making a discussion of it would mean presenting other information.  But these numbers would reflect a pretty steady 15 to 30 million absolute max at any given point in time.  No one said anything about unchecked - except you.  The one thing all the population people seem to agree on is that world population was relatively stable and slow growing for a long time - ranging from a couple hundred million to under 1 billion from thousands of years BC until about 1800.  Came up with an upper limit of 800 million possible living people spread over that 400 year time.  Not at all implausible.  Could it be 300 million?  Sure - easily.  Could it have been 400 million.  Maybe.  What we DO know is that by 1900, the entire Native population had spanned 400 years of 15 to 30 million average, with large exterminations due to European Conquerers introduction of Weapons of Mass Destruction to the continent.  And it pretty much all European - English, Dutch, Spanish, French, etc.  All illegal immigrants.  (Maybe the Natives should have built a wall...!!)

With an ending population of about 350,000 by 1900 - when, as I said, the bounties were mostly removed from killing of Native Americans.

If you know so much about Native history, give some numbers that you feel are more representative of the extermination and genocide.


More info - that you could have found easily...

"World population has experienced continuous growth since the end of the Great Famine of 1315–17 and the Black Death in 1350, when it was near 370 million."

Since there are only 6 continents that have full time populations, a simple divide by 6 would put 60+ million in North America.  So there are likely to be differences in population density, lets say that it was 1/2 the density of every other continent - or 30 million in 1350.  I wouldn't be surprised if that were still a little high, but am always open to new information.  Got any??




https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_population

And since so many are dismissive about Wikipedia...

https://www.guibord.com/democracy/files-html/world-population-growth-through-history-graph.html

http://homepage.smc.edu/buckley_alan/population/worldpop.htm

[heironymouspasparagus]

Forgive me but maybe I can't understand plain English. In your statement you said no other country in the HISTORY of this planet has done so much good AND no other country has done as much evil. Your words.

Exactly.  Not the same as saying we are the most evil country in history.  One must balance evil with the good.  Not on a 1:1 basis though.  Come on...read it some more.


If I were gonna place the label of most evil, it would probably be a transitory 'title'.  Maybe some of the religious human sacrifice societies...that's just catering to a seriously sick, societally self destructive, fetish.  But then one runs into a semantics issue since we did a little bit of what could definitely be called religious human sacrifice, even leaving the Native extermination out... (Witch trials.)

Maybe Cambodia with Pol Pot?  Russia with Stalin?  More evil as percentage of total population, even if smaller absolute numbers.  Not really sure that a "most evil country in history" could be named.

Got any ideas for the title??  And reasons why you would choose that?

[swake]

Show some better math, then.  Just 'speculating' about "a tad off" is just 'trolling'.  And peanut gallery posts from others who also have a math background, but provide no alternative calculations.  Well, that's just Republicontin....

And actually read what is written.  Trillions??  Geez...come on - that's not you.  At least I didn't think so...

Your estimate was a growth rate of 15 million to 20 million minus natural attrition of 1 Million or actual growth from 15 to 19 million in three years. That's a growth rate of 26.6667% in three years. Again, your numbers:

Do you really think those 15 million in 1492 all stayed alive in a static situation until about 1900 when most of the bounties were lifted??  Leaving only 15 million to die over those 400 years???

When one thinks about how populations grow - let's make some rough estimates...  Maybe 1/3 were breeding age?  (Plus 1/3 kids and 1/3 old)  If ya wanna argue a little more or little less, that is fine with me, but I will start there for this example.

So 5 million were having kids probably at least once every 2 to 3 years (actually would have likely been more often), so in 3 years we have the original 15 million plus 5 million kids - 20 million.  Say 20% die in every 3 year group.  Consider adulthood of 21 years old just to make the math come out a little more even - letting many of that generation actually have kids.  End of first 3 year increment, we end up with 20 - 1 million....19 left. 

You forgot that half the population would have been men, roughly.  But this is your growth number, 15 to 19 million in three years. That again is 26.6667% in just three years.

Run that out over four hundred years and that's where my numbers come from. It's your growth rate, not mine.

This is a pretty rough estimate - just a quick 'off the cuff' through the numbers - as a starting point.  Making a discussion of it would mean presenting other information.  But these numbers would reflect a pretty steady 15 to 30 million absolute max at any given point in time.  No one said anything about unchecked - except you.  The one thing all the population people seem to agree on is that world population was relatively stable and slow growing for a long time - ranging from a couple hundred million to under 1 billion from thousands of years BC until about 1800.  Came up with an upper limit of 800 million possible living people spread over that 400 year time.  Not at all implausible.  Could it be 300 million?  Sure - easily.  Could it have been 400 million.  Maybe.  What we DO know is that by 1900, the entire Native population had spanned 400 years of 15 to 30 million average, with large exterminations due to European Conquerers introduction of Weapons of Mass Destruction to the continent.  And it pretty much all European - English, Dutch, Spanish, French, etc.  All illegal immigrants.  (Maybe the Natives should have built a wall...!!)

With an ending population of about 350,000 by 1900 - when, as I said, the bounties were mostly removed from killing of Native Americans.

If you know so much about Native history, give some numbers that you feel are more representative of the extermination and genocide.


More info - that you could have found easily...

"World population has experienced continuous growth since the end of the Great Famine of 1315–17 and the Black Death in 1350, when it was near 370 million."

Since there are only 6 continents that have full time populations, a simple divide by 6 would put 60+ million in North America.  So there are likely to be differences in population density, lets say that it was 1/2 the density of every other continent - or 30 million in 1350.  I wouldn't be surprised if that were still a little high, but am always open to new information.  Got any??

Personally, from what I have read 15 million is way high for the US. The largest civilization in North America in pre-Columbian times was that of the Mississippian people that were centered at Cahokia Mound east of St Louis. Cahokia collapsed in the century before the European invasion, probably due to war. Cahokia had a population of about 40,000 at its peak and with it being by far the largest city in what is today the US does not lead someone to think that there were anything like 15 million people by 1492.

As for how many people died because of the European invasion in what is the US today? All I can reliably say is "millions", but nothing like 90 million.

Your numbers are out of sight. The trail of tears resulted in something close to probably 20k dead out of about 75k people that were forced to Oklahoma. That is a terrible death rate but that also shows how small the Native population was at the time. That huge collapsed Mississippian civilization? The descendants of the Mississippian people are the ones who made the march minus the Cherokee. The Creeks, Seminoles, Choctaw and Chickasaw are the descendants of the Mississippian civilization, along with a few other smaller tribes like the Osage. The Cherokee, the Sioux, the Navajo and the various descendants of the Mississippian people make up the large majority of the Natives living in the US today and also in pre-Colombian days. Those civilizations simply didn't have millions of people back then and if they didn't, then the idea that there were 10-15 million people in the US in 1492 makes no sense. 2-3 million makes much more sense and most of those people died early on leaving a very small population, one like the 75k that went on the trail of tears.


There were 2-3 million at the time of contact, and probably something like 2-3 million were killed, mostly in the first or second generation after contact. Disease works that way as the people that don't die build up tolerance and dead people don't have kids.

An easier way to do the math would be this: First off, let's say there were three million people in the US in 1492 and only half a million were left after all the those killed by the diseases and by settlers that spread after initial contact. That's about 2.5 million people killed in say the first 50 years. That's sadly probably about accurate.

Let's assume that there was a median population of say 500,000 people over the next 350 years, that's probably a little high when by 1900 the population was only 350k, but it's round number. Let's then assume the average lifespan was 45 years during that interval of 350 years. That means that about 3.9 million Natives lived during that 350 year period. If you want to assume that 25% of that population was killed by Europeans in some way then that's about 970k deaths. 970k plus 2.5 million, call it 3.5 million deaths due to European invasion.

Even if your 15 million number in 1492 were correct, the death toll still only goes to 16.5 million. Nowhere close to 90 million. There just weren't enough people for that to be true.

[cannon_fodder]

Well, this thread took an interesting turn.

ON NATIVE AMERICANS, a brief fact finding mission...

I have had the pleasure of being in great discussions with a person very knowledgeable on this issue. The person advocates for the tribes on a professional level. We do not see eye to eye on many of the issues, but he knows his stuff. This is only relevant because I've (we've) gone back and forth with data on the issue.

Direct action in "Indian wars" in North America resulted in the death of as many as 20,000 "white people," and the deaths of as many as 30,000 Natives. When you think of Custer, Wounded Knee, or the much hyperbolized "Indian attacks" on white settlers... we are talking about 50,000 deaths over 350 years. You can use any number of sources, and I'm sure you can find varying numbers (though the 30k number is wildly used), but the number of "fighting" deaths were relatively low given that it occurred over ~15 generations.

How many Native's were there to start with in North America (North of the Rio Grande)? Estimates range from 900,000 to 13,000,000. Central America was densely populated for the era, with some estimates saying more than 50,000,000 people (or as few as 3.5mil). South America has estimates from 4mil to 48 million. 

So if we are talking about Natives in the entirety of the Americas, 90,000,000 is a possibility. If we are talking about total native deaths over the 350 years of conflict between natives and Europeans, including disease... 90 million is possible. But the land was not depopulated, even if the Spanish gave it their best efforts. So if the argument is Europeans intentionally killed 90 million Natives, that's very likely false.

Was it a genocide?  No, I don't think in the sense of the Nazi or Armenian genocides. There was not a concerted effort to kill all Native Americans. They certainly suffered horrible abuses, in some incidents groups certainly were massacred, and there is evidence that disease, exposure, and malnutrition were disregarded in some/many circumstances, if not passively used as a tool of oppression against some Native Populations (Trail of Tears anyone?). In North America, there was certainly a concerted effort at cultural genocide - to eliminate Native languages, religions, and ways of life. An effort that was hugely successful (see, e.q., every Tribal Member you know practicing their conqueror's religion and speaking English).

There are US government transcripts detailing plans for the cultural genocide. Of course, at the time, they spoke in terms of forcing them to assimilate. But it was a concerted effort. And even when they did assimilate nearly perfectly, the US Government was happy to facilitate theft of their lands if it suited the "white" population. Its so easy to abuse "them" when they aren't "us."

[heironymouspasparagus]

Well, this thread took an interesting turn.

ON NATIVE AMERICANS, a brief fact finding mission...


Was it a genocide?  

I think so.  (Interesting turn...)

It is massively difficult to predict actual populations - there just aren't any real records to find out for sure.  It's almost like the argument of how many people does it take to build the Giza pyramids?  And were they slaves or valued craftspeople?  

Some of the Aztec cities were said to have been able to support populations of 200,000 people.  Who knows for sure - there was no census that I can find evidence of.  The infrastructure was there to support that number based on what we see in similar primitive cultures today.  

DNA studies will probably give us better insight into what populations have done in the past - I read about a DNA investigation that said the earth's population suffered a mass extinction somewhere in the 150,00 years ago range that left as few as 10,000 to 50,000 humans alive on the planet - total!!  That's an event!!

Nat Geo has some interesting insights into this fairly new field of study (from 2011 - compared to traditional methods) and may get us a better view of the entire planet someday.  And this is pre-Rupert, so it is more likely to be real science!!

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2011/12/111205-native-americans-europeans-population-dna-genetics-science/

When you look at the number of tribes in North America, and the minimum population required to maintain a discrete population (there were said to be 120,000 Jews taken to Egypt by Ptolemy, leaving many behind and we know that was a very healthy tribe) it would seem that at least a few thousand per tribe would be required just to maintain viability...maybe as low as 10,000 total per tribe?  I don't know...any geneticists out there who can enlighten?   (Oh, wait - I forgot...the minimum number is 2.  Plus the wives from other lands.  Or 8 after a big flood.)   And there are over 600 known tribes.  How many more have been forgotten?  (Feds recognize 592 at last count).  Maybe twice that??  That would amount to about 6 million at any given time, and as big as the "holding capacity" of North America is, I bet it was a lot higher - closer to the 15 or maybe even 30 million.  We pretty much know there were many millions running around a much smaller, much less agriculturally productive area - the mediterranean/Europe.  The Roman Empire was estimated to have 85,000,000 people in Augustus' time.  Why would we think that this land would have so much smaller a population than that?  I think the people that advance the hundreds of thousands numbers have some background agenda going on - probably to minimize the perceived impact.  

The DNA evidence that shows a dramatic drop in population (about half), eventual recovery to pre-decline levels (for a while), and no real reduction in genetic diversity (still a lot of different tribes....).  No number estimates given yet.

Map of tribes.
http://www.npr.org/sections/codeswitch/2014/06/24/323665644/the-map-of-native-american-tribes-youve-never-seen-before


http://www.bible-history.com/maps/roman_empire.html

[swake]

I think so.  (Interesting turn...)

It is massively difficult to predict actual populations - there just aren't any real records to find out for sure.  It's almost like the argument of how many people does it take to build the Giza pyramids?  And were they slaves or valued craftspeople?  

Some of the Aztec cities were said to have been able to support populations of 200,000 people.  Who knows for sure - there was no census that I can find evidence of.  The infrastructure was there to support that number based on what we see in similar primitive cultures today.  

DNA studies will probably give us better insight into what populations have done in the past - I read about a DNA investigation that said the earth's population suffered a mass extinction somewhere in the 150,00 years ago range that left as few as 10,000 to 50,000 humans alive on the planet - total!!  That's an event!!

Nat Geo has some interesting insights into this fairly new field of study (from 2011 - compared to traditional methods) and may get us a better view of the entire planet someday.  And this is pre-Rupert, so it is more likely to be real science!!

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2011/12/111205-native-americans-europeans-population-dna-genetics-science/

When you look at the number of tribes in North America, and the minimum population required to maintain a discrete population (there were said to be 120,000 Jews taken to Egypt by Ptolemy, leaving many behind and we know that was a very healthy tribe) it would seem that at least a few thousand per tribe would be required just to maintain viability...maybe as low as 10,000 total per tribe?  I don't know...any geneticists out there who can enlighten?   (Oh, wait - I forgot...the minimum number is 2.  Plus the wives from other lands.  Or 8 after a big flood.)   And there are over 600 known tribes.  How many more have been forgotten?  (Feds recognize 592 at last count).  Maybe twice that??  That would amount to about 6 million at any given time, and as big as the "holding capacity" of North America is, I bet it was a lot higher - closer to the 15 or maybe even 30 million.  We pretty much know there were many millions running around a much smaller, much less agriculturally productive area - the mediterranean/Europe.  The Roman Empire was estimated to have 85,000,000 people in Augustus' time.  Why would we think that this land would have so much smaller a population than that?  I think the people that advance the hundreds of thousands numbers have some background agenda going on - probably to minimize the perceived impact.  

The DNA evidence that shows a dramatic drop in population (about half), eventual recovery to pre-decline levels (for a while), and no real reduction in genetic diversity (still a lot of different tribes....).  No number estimates given yet.

Map of tribes.
http://www.npr.org/sections/codeswitch/2014/06/24/323665644/the-map-of-native-american-tribes-youve-never-seen-before


http://www.bible-history.com/maps/roman_empire.html

Sorry, but no.

Recognized tribes is not the same thing as distinct different groups of people. By far most of those "tribes" are tiny bands or villages. The majority of natives today belong to just 10-15 tribes and even those are not completely or historically distinct.

There today, per Wiki, there are 2.9 million registered tribal members with the 566 federally recognized tribes. The 2010 census has it as 3.4 million people identified themselves as being part of a particular tribe. But of those 3.4 million 2.2 million indicated they belong to just 11 tribes. And that's not the complete story either.

Here are the tribes with more than 50k people according to the 2010 census:
1   Cherokee   819,105
2   Navajo   332,129
3   Choctaw   195,742
4   Chippewa   170,742
5   Sioux   170,110
6   Apache   111,810
7   Blackfeet   105,304
8   Creek   88,332
9   Iroquois   81,002
10   Pueblo   62,540
11   Chickasaw   52,278

http://www.census.gov/history/pdf/c2010br-10.pdf


But that's not the whole story. In the Pre-Columbian era the Choctaw, Chickasaw and Creek on this list would have seen themselves as a single people. The Blackfeet and the Chippewa are closely related, as are the Navajo and Apache. Today there might be "500 Nations" but 500 years ago you would have seen six or so large "Civilizations" that covered huge areas larger than modern states with related bands or towns speaking similar languages or dialects living in similar fashion to each other. After that there were several dozens of smaller civilizations that were sometimes autonomous or semi-autonomous from the larger civilizations. Wars were fought, land and resources captured. A really cool idea among some was that games could be played to take the place of destructive war. The games often could be deadly, but they didn't kill entire cities or towns. Lacrosse is a derivative of this. Often these civilizations acted as countries with very sophisticated political organizations and trade, especially for example The Sioux Nation, Cherokee and The Muscogee Confederacy (Creek, Seminole, Chickasaw, Choctaw).

The division into "500 Nations" is a construct of Europeans to divide up, define and name tribal groups that they might want to steal from. Divide and Conquer.