The Irish are Not Celts

[-Praetor-]

It also involves doing what the Spanish did in the Latin America: kill the men, rape the women.

Comparing the spanish conquest of south america with a mass genocide is hardly a good historical analysis technique. That would ignore the chapters of the intervention of the church, the leyes de indias and most of the regulatory normative that arose after the spanish conquest of America. There was killing, as in any conquest, but not genocide, and the interpretation you are proposing is a caricaturized perspective of the spanish conquest, more according to the colonization process of North America.

This:

Also the Spanish didn’t directly kill millions of potentially loyal and income producing Mexica, Mixtec, Maya, Tlaxcalan, Zapotec, Tlaxcalans, and of course Tarascan subjects. For the most part it was Variola vera that did the lion's share of the killing.

is a more accurate description to what happened.

Well the most of population of latin american have not spanish ancestors.

What?

Yeah I wanted to say that there werent *almost natives in Argentina and in the south of Chile. It was an almost deserted region. So nowadays you can find a good number of european population there.

It was so deserted that the mapuche people continued to fight against the spanish conqueror from the time of their arrival into Chile until they departed after the South American independence, resulting into an effectively unconquerable people. The mapuche were only assimilated into the Chilean state on 1881, 63 years after the declaration of independence of Chile. At the time of their assimilation, they numbered around 500.000 people, and at the time of the spanish arrival, around 1 million. And yes, south of Chile was deserted.

What are you talking about?? Do you have some kind of source that I've never heard of? One that omits the existence of the Inca empire?

The inca empire never got as far as southern Chile. There were other peoples here, namely the araucanos or mapuches.

I don't see why Argentina would be less populated than any other area. It's pretty fertile, AFAIK.

A large part of Argentina is pampa, a large steppe (52% of total surface) fit only for cattle and hydrocarbon exploitation. And another large part is Andine mountains. Most of the fertile land lies to the northeast.

correct me if I am wrong. Isn't Argentina covered in thick jungle and quite mountainous. kinda like Vietnam, Cambodia and Laos?

Yup, you're wrong.