Has North America really done "better" than South America?

Niall Fergusson essentially says that the North did better cos it adopted the Hegemonic View. 

"The reason North America’s ex-colonies did so much better than South America’s was because British settlers established a completely different system of property rights and political representation in the North from those built by Spaniards and Portuguese in the South. (The North was an ‘open access order’, rather than a closed one run in the interests of rent-seeking, exclusive elites.)"

https://www.msnbc.com/morning-joe/excerpt-niall-fergusons-msna37090

I've argued at length in this blog that the Hegemonic view did not prevail cos it was better but quite obviously on the back of global warfare where the West fought virtually every people on Earth to impose its view. After gaining control of the oceans and all trade routes the UK was able to command every people on Earth. Unfortunately we will never know what would have happened had the Spanish or Portuguese won the Imperial Wars. Surely had the Spanish or Portuguese controlled world trade South America would have done better than North?

But that aside another huge difference between North America and South America is the genocide. North Americans cleared the native humans off the land, killing the majority and pushing the remaining ones into reservations. In contrast in the South the natives were allowed to continue living their traditional ways of of life. Contrary to Niall Fergusons entirely Hegemonic view South America is the success from the perspective of the original inhabitants. Europeans Property rights did not drive them off the land and did not lead to their almost complete extermination in an American Holocaust.

So we know that both North America and South American native populations suffered heavily from the import of European diseases but clearly not enough because in the North the settlers began a long and difficult campaign to remove them entirely. Washington at one point was offering $1 per scalp to encourage people to kill Indians. And to finally rid the plains of Indians, Buffalo Bill almost completely eradicated the buffalo on which they depended. No such Holocaust occurred in the South. As we compare Holocausts to get a sense of the gravity, it is worth remembering of the Nazis Holocaust that a major killer was disease also.

Very hard to calculate the scale of this Holocaust just as it is hard to do the same for the Nazis. But a random graph off the internet suggests over 95% of the global population of American Indians were exterminated by Europeans settlers in the North making it one if the worst Holocausts in Human History. To put that in some context the Nazis at most killed 63% of European Jews and far less of the global population. But worth noting the decline in American Indians was over centuries not years!

The current population of North American Indians after a huge recovery in recent decades is 6.79 million. By contrast the population of Indigenous people in South America is currently 32 million.

North America covers 24.71 km^2 while South America covers 17.84km^2. This makes South America only 3/4 the size of North America. Yet South America supports almost 5 times as many indigenous people as North America. This very much rejects Niall Fergusons assessment of the success of North America, and rather suggests that in fact South America is the success story here.