It's pretty clear that contact with European diseases after the 1490's decimated populations of indigenous peoples in the US, Caribbean, and Canada (namely Influeza, Smallpox etc.). Most native populations fell to a fraction of their pre-Columbian levels due to disease.
However, to date in places like Mexico, Peru, Brazil. Bolivia, Guatemala etc. there are still very sizable populations that identify as indigenous. Indigenous languages are still widely spoken by these groups. Why did the indigenous groups in such places fare much better than their North American counterparts? I would assume both regions had not built up sufficient immunity to diseases, so what caused the large discrepancy in population decline?
I know that regions like Peru, Mexico, and Bolivia has substantially higher population levels than North American tribes, but is population the primary reason, or are there other factors as well? Does the fact that civilization was more developed in Central and South America play a factor?
*Side Note: Apologies if the wording of this is incendiary or if the terminology used is not proper (or politically correct) I'm trying to not be offensive. I'm fairly unfamiliar with this topic, and I'm just really curious and can't seem to get a good answer from googling online.
It is a common myth that Indigenous peoples "disappeared" in North America, but most of them survived the colonial shock. Of Course, the Arawaks in the Caribbean were destroyed by a mix of diseases, murder and forced labor, but it is not the situation for most nations in the US and Canada. For example, nations like the Crees or the Innus (not the same as the Inuit) in Northern Canada are probably more numerous now that they ever were in precolumbian times.
Sedentary groups like the Iroquois (Hodenausaunee) or the Wyandot were more likely to suffer from the biological impacts of contact, and they did die a lot around the XVIIth Century (Dickinson gives us an estimate of 90% decline for the Wyandot). Then, warfare was a big problem, as many groups like the Pequots, the Natchez, the Behotuks or the Mesquaki were severely reduced during wars with colonists or other nations, sometimes to the point of extermination. But these tragic examples aren't the norm as many groups did manage to navigate through the different regimes and forms of colonial invasions. There are around five million Native Americans in the US and about 1,6 million in Canada (these number are contested, as the way of counting is a bit controversial), a number probably roughly similar to precolumbian population. Most indigenous populations hit an all time low during the XIXth Century, when active genocide was taking place in the Western US and Canada, but these populations mostly recovered. The problem is that the settler population grew exponentially during that time. It is also the case in some other places in the Americas like Argentina or Brazil.
In places where indigenous peoples were more numerous, the Spanish crown didn't bother sending a lot of settlers, as extracting wealth from the natives was done by a few administrators. Countries in the Vice-Royalty of Peru for example, such as Bolivia or Peru have high rate of indigenous people. On the other hand, indigenization was a deep process in many newly created States following the bolivarian revolutions. The new States defined themselves by their "criollos" status in opposition to Spanish administrators, and Indigenous identity was part of the national identity. Countries like Canada or the US had a definitely "White" national narrative, and Native identity wasn't part of it. Thus the myth of the "disappearing" Natives. Many settlers fancied a "drop of Indian blood" in their lineage to finalize the replacement and give them some sort of authority over the land that newer settlers didn't enjoy. But Native Americans were there all along, even though they were relegated to the opening chapters of History books.
tl;dr They died out in the national narratives, not IRL.