General knowledge, but I checked your link in your previous comment, and that article put 55M of the 60M on disease in the (early, pre-british) timeframe they're discussing.
Sources of death, wider timeframe:
* Disease
* Columbus on one tiny island
* Spaniards in general who are not Columbus (who was italian but sponsored by Spain)
* British/Americans
Disease sounds like #1 from what I can tell. Spaniards might edge out Americans, or maybe we're worse, I don't know. We left fewer survivors but they were in a larger area. Columbus for a few years on one island is clearly last place.
Nothing in that link puts 55 million of the 60 on disease.
It claims that 55 million of the population of 60 million was killed by “violence and disease”.
> Following Christopher Columbus' arrival in North America in 1492, violence and disease killed 90% of the indigenous population — nearly 55 million people — according to a study published this year.
Given that the other source claims that 25-50% of most tribes was lost to disease, I find the idea that disease caused almost all of the deaths to be unsupported unless you have something else than “general knowledge” which is contradicted by sources, which, admittedly, are estimates as they always are.
Sources of death, wider timeframe:
Disease sounds like #1 from what I can tell. Spaniards might edge out Americans, or maybe we're worse, I don't know. We left fewer survivors but they were in a larger area. Columbus for a few years on one island is clearly last place.