4 ms·
> And yet, we are in such denial about our role in the death of natives. ( It was "smallpox" ) You make a good point but you're also wrong. The way the coloni
by xenadu02 8y ago
> And yet, we are in such denial about our role in the death of natives. ( It was "smallpox" )
You make a good point but you're also wrong.
The way the colonies (and later United States) treated the natives was absolutely deplorable and immoral. The US (from the founding fathers until very recent times) is as guilty as you say.
HOWEVER... it cannot be denied that the accidental spread of European diseases wiped out over 50% of all natives before the era of colonization even began. Even today if contact is made with isolated peoples great care must be taken and medical services kept on stand-by. A disease ravaging the isolated group is a very, very real possibility.
It also means if humanity does every colonize another planet (even in our own solar system), if the flow of people ever stops we may not be able to re-establish it due to disease risk.
- specializeded 8y agoIt’s also fun to think about the scenario where the Americans practiced husbandry when contact was made, we could have had a two way “genocide”!
- partycoder 8y agoFor that you would need an animal that breeds in captivity, reaches maturity quickly, eats inexpensive food (not meat), with good temperament, and that can be handled in a farming environment (not as agile as deer or as strong as a bison). In the Americas, the only animal that responds to that description are llamas, guinea pigs, capybaras, etc. None of them found in North America.
- specializeded 8y agoYes, I’ve read 1491 as well :)
- partycoder 8y agoAnd I assume 1491 was not all original research :)