Something will never broadcasted in the west

[Straybow]

Originally posted by Oerdin
QFT. By 1700 some 90% of the native American population was dead from disease without ever even seeing a white man nor without either side even having a clear understanding of what caused disease or how it spread.

Hardly the stuff of an organized genocide.

Not so. Recent archeological studies show of Great Lakes tribes show that both the number of settlements and their populations was relatively stable from the 14th century to the 18th century.

What happened is that the life expectancy dropped, and a higher percentage of deaths came from communicable diseases rather than pneumonia and other age-related pandemic diseases.

By the 18th century, native populations had nearly the same level of resistance to smallpox as the European settlers. If that weren't true, they wouldn't have needed smallpox blankets to raise the infection rate higher than that among the settlers themselves.

When the disease exchange is compared, Europe came off worse than America. The virulent strains of syphlis resulting from the cross between New World and Old World strains spread through Europe in about a decade and decimated the population.

Experts believe the super-strains literally burnt themselves out, killing off hosts before they could transmit the disease to another victim (less than 1.0 transmissions per host killed). Only the milder cross strains survived.

Super-strains probably did exist in the New World after European contact, but the lower population density and lack of substantial trade means any super-strains would've been restricted to local populations.

[Patroklos]

So what your saying is those nasty Native Americans committed genocide

[Arrian]

Originally posted by Straybow

Originally posted by Oerdin
QFT. By 1700 some 90% of the native American population was dead from disease without ever even seeing a white man nor without either side even having a clear understanding of what caused disease or how it spread.

Hardly the stuff of an organized genocide.

Not so. Recent archeological studies show of Great Lakes tribes show that both the number of settlements and their populations was relatively stable from the 14th century to the 18th century.

What happened is that the life expectancy dropped, and a higher percentage of deaths came from communicable diseases rather than pneumonia and other age-related pandemic diseases.

By the 18th century, native populations had nearly the same level of resistance to smallpox as the European settlers. If that weren't true, they wouldn't have needed smallpox blankets to raise the infection rate higher than that among the settlers themselves.

When the disease exchange is compared, Europe came off worse than America. The virulent strains of syphlis resulting from the cross between New World and Old World strains spread through Europe in about a decade and decimated the population.

Experts believe the super-strains literally burnt themselves out, killing off hosts before they could transmit the disease to another victim (less than 1.0 transmissions per host killed). Only the milder cross strains survived.

Super-strains probably did exist in the New World after European contact, but the lower population density and lack of substantial trade means any super-strains would've been restricted to local populations.

It would seem the disease impacts varied quite a bit. This does not surprise me. The Aztecs and Inca got hit really, really hard, though. And I thought there were entire groups in the Mississippi valley that were largely wiped out... so while one study of Great Lakes tribes indicates less of an impact, it doesn't necessarily prove that a huge percentage of the NA population was done in by European diseases (I'm talking about the 15th-17th centuries).

The assertion that Europe was hit harder by disease (syphillis) is a new one to me. I did know that initially the disease was far nastier than its current incarnation, but I wasn't aware that it "decimated" the population of Europe.

-Arrian

[aneeshm]

The moral of the whole sad story?

It's a good thing the world is a connected place now, so that diseases can't evolve in isolation, then decimate unexposed people later.

[Arrian]

But, on the other hand, a really nasty one gets to hit us all at once! Yay!



Oh, and that isn't a moral...

-Arrian

[Lorizael]

Like SARS and West Nile?

[Imran Siddiqui]

Originally posted by Riesstiu IV
My question is why do people care so much? Of all the places in the world, why such strong opinions for Israel and Palestine?

A few reasons, that are not necessarily found in many other places. First of all, it concerns a very, very holy area to three religions, and two of those religions are very intimately involved in the Isreali/Palestinian conflict. Religion tends to make things seem a bit more important and the value assigned to Jerusalem and the area around it (including Bethlahem) elevates its an extraordinary level.

Secondly, oil. OPEC is dominated by Islamic countries. The Palestinians are mostly an Islamic peoples. And the Palestinians have been used as a reason to cut off the oil spigot in the past.

[Shrapnel12]

Genocide is the killing off of an entire race. While I won't dispute that some Americans tried to do exactly that to the Indians, putting them on reservations and attempting to assimilate them is not genocide, but perhaps I'm arguing semantics as the end result was pretty much that. It was effective enough such that on e of my teachers actually told us that there was no such thing a true Indian anymore. I don't know what that teacher actually meant as I was too young and took it literally. I used to think Indians were extinct.

Regardless of whether genocide against the Indians happened or not, it is ridiculous and indeed anti-semetic to compare this to the ME situation. If anyone is guilty of attempted genocide, it is the Islamist extremeists. Jews may be guilty of oppression, but not genocide (cue the person who replies and says I'm reciting Zionist propagand ).

[Patroklos]

Also, Isreal is a country with very many connections to the Western world, both cultural and family. Being a developed Western nation ethnic strife there is as readily evening news viewable as US bridge collapses.

[Straybow]

Originally posted by Arrian
It would seem the disease impacts varied quite a bit. This does not surprise me. The Aztecs and Inca got hit really, really hard, though. And I thought there were entire groups in the Mississippi valley that were largely wiped out... so while one study of Great Lakes tribes indicates less of an impact, it doesn't necessarily prove that a huge percentage of the NA population was done in by European diseases (I'm talking about the 15th-17th centuries).

It was Great Lakes and coastal populations down to Virginia who were targetted with smallpox blankets and were directly involved in European trade and fighting for either the French or British in the 18th century.

There were so many tribes that survived without signs of significant die-off. People tend to focus on the ones that disappeared without much evidence of a cause and assume it must have been European diseases.

The idea that the indigenous populations were wiped out was popular in the 20th century, but it turns out they were assimilated rather than exterminated. Lots of people had indian blood but it wasn't a bragging point back in the 19th century, or even the 20th. Until they found out they could get a share of casino revenues. Then they started coming out of the woodwork.

The assertion that Europe was hit harder by disease (syphillis) is a new one to me. I did know that initially the disease was far nastier than its current incarnation, but I wasn't aware that it "decimated" the population of Europe.

Knocking off one in ten was probably comparable to some of the smaller bubonic plague outbreaks.

[Straybow]

Originally posted by Shrapnel12
It was effective enough such that one of my teachers actually told us that there was no such thing a true Indian anymore. I don't know what that teacher actually meant as I was too young and took it literally. I used to think Indians were extinct.

For most of the Eastern tribes that is true. Some tribes have not one member without an admixture of European blood. On reservations there are still some pure indians, and some who are mixed but still 100% indians (Cherokee-Creek, etc).

[Dinner]

Originally posted by Spec
Aren't you supposed to be gone forever?


Spec.

No, obviously you don't understand what a "leaving forever" thread means. It's a joke and people come back thus the "leaving forever; I'll see you after lunch" sort of things. For further explanation ask one of the dozen or two people who do understand this inside joke.

[Dinner]

Originally posted by Straybow

Not so. Recent archeological studies show of Great Lakes tribes show that both the number of settlements and their populations was relatively stable from the 14th century to the 18th century.

I'm quoting from books like 1491 and other popular history books of the period. The high counters estimate that around 95% of the native population was killed by disease while the low counters are saying "only" 70% or so died of disease. It's a great book and very well cited.

[Patroklos]

It was Great Lakes and coastal populations down to Virginia who were targetted with smallpox blankets and were directly involved in European trade and fighting for either the French or British in the 18th century.

There was no large scale targeting of Indian populations with small pox blanckets. In fact I think there is only one proven historically verifiable incident, and it was in the Great Lakes, well after 1700 (we are talking about epidemics before then).

[Arrian]

We are, in essence, talking apples & oranges. However, Straybow's orange is relevant, b/c all of this goes back to the question of American genocide of NA's. The huge death tolls of the very early colonial period were, IIUC, mostly outside of the boundaries of the present-day USA (I did bring up the Mississippi Valley tribes, but I don't know enough about it to really say much) - the Aztecs, Inca, etc. Of course, those were the high-pop, relatively urbanized empires, which didn't exist up here.

So the question is how much damage the initial disease impact did up here in the USA versus how much damage was done BY the USA. It's not going to be 95%/5%. It's probably closer to 50/50.

Not that it changes things from a morality standpoint. It's just interesting (to me, at least).

-Arrian