6 ms·

When they deliberately gave diseased blankets to indigenous peoples, I think that checked off both boxes. Curiously, the Viking are often portrayed as bloodthi

When they deliberately gave diseased blankets to indigenous peoples, I think that checked off both boxes. Curiously, the Viking are often portrayed as bloodthirsty brutes raping, pillaging, and burning their way through towns. The reality is different. There was brutality, but it was generally limited. Vikings were more likely to conquer and settle than to burn things down to the ground. They were vengeful though, so any killing of Viking captives or civilians could result in a disproportionate and brutal retaliation. For example, Aella, the King of Northumbria killed Viking King Ragnar Lothbrok not by combat, but by having him thrown into a pit of poisonous snakes. As a result, when Ragnar's son Ivar the Boneless sought revenge and captured Aella a quick death wasn't deemed appropriate. Instead, Ivar created the Blood Eagle ritual and used it on Aella. It was a gruesome and painful method of execution, but one the Viking probably felt justified in using giving the cowardly death Aella gave Ragnar. This is not to say they weren't brutal, but much of what we know about the Vikings comes from their enemies, which colors the history. Some links for more information, the first is a really good rundown by a history professor specializing in Vikings: https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/dzioe8/were_vikings_really_that_violent_or_is_it_just_a/ https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/dzioe8/were_... https://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-26431858 https://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-26431858 https://www.nationalgeographic.com/history/article/140926-vikings-norse-raiding-berserkers-scandinavia-winroth https://www.nationalgeographic.com/history/article/140926-vi... My own amateur research shows England and English-colonies had the most violent behavior (Norman raids, Irish subjugation, Botany Bay, violence against Indians, American violence against indigenous peoples (including trail or tears, smallpox blankets, etc.), etc. Essentially, any time a culture sets up a belief in itself as superior to all others a violence against those believed inferior often occurs, sometimes even in the name of helping those believed inferior. E.g., we'll take these poor children from them and give them to god-fearing Christian homes - I could be talking about events during colonial times with native americans, or I could be talking about separating of children at the detention centers.

throwaway894345 6y ago
> When they deliberately gave diseased blankets to indigenous peoples, I think that checked off both boxes That's certainly horrific, but the diseases that the colonists brought killed 90% of the indigenous population at the time, most of whom died without ever setting eyes on a European. As for "which people group was the most evil", that seems like an exercise in subjectivity and bias or worse, so I don't see what good could come from debating it, but I am a little surprised you don't locate it anywhere in the 20th century with its hundreds of millions of deaths between fascism and communism.
- AlotOfReading 6y ago
  This is incorrect and not really supported by the literature. Europeans were intimately involved with most regions that had high fatality rates and moreover, actively created conditions that made these diseases endemic. The "90%" numbers are also highly speculative and include all causes of mortality, including European warfare over a period of centuries. It's not just diseases.
  - throwaway894345 6y ago
    Not according to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Native_American_disease_and_epidemics#Effect_on_population_numbers https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Native_American_disease_and_ep... > The loss of the population was so high that it was partially responsible for the myth of the Americas as "virgin wilderness." By the time significant European colonization was underway, native populations had already been reduced by 90%. This resulted in settlements vanishing and cultivated fields being abandoned. Since forests were recovering, the colonists had an impression of a land that was an untamed wilderness
    - AlotOfReading 6y ago
      The page you've linked says as much (though it's quite misleading without background knowledge). > Many Native American tribes suffered high mortality and depopulation, averaging 25–50% of the tribes' members lost to disease. The line you've linked is discussing the Northeastern colonization and it links to Denevan, who isn't looking at the actual mechanics of depopulation, but rather the pristine myth. Luckily we can look at this with some simple modeling. Assuming persistent epidemics with constant 25% mortality every 10 years and no developed immunity (big assumptions), while maintaining a 2% growth rate in-between (this is low), over 2 centuries the population would shrink by 88%. At that point, the epidemics stop and populations begin to recover. Using the same numbers, it would recover to pre-epidemic levels in only 85 years. If the growth rate is merely 3%, population actually grows the whole time. Let's pay closer attention to the Mexican population graph though. Notice the 3 waves of disease? Two of those, labeled "cocolizti", are thought to be (at least partially) Salmonella. You know, that disease of failing sanitation infrastructure? Hopefully it's clear why sanitation issues might have surfaced around then.
gsej 6y ago
I've always been curious about the pit of venomous snakes. We only have one venomous snake in the UK - the common adder. It's bite is nasty, but very rarely fatal. I wonder if the story is made up, based on foreign tales of poisonous snakes, or perhaps they used imported snakes.
- boomboomsubban 6y ago
  The source for that is a Norse legendary saga written hundreds of years later, I doubt it's factual.
inglor_cz 6y ago
> When they deliberately gave diseased blankets to indigenous peoples, I think that checked off both boxes. While this event has been documented, it wasn't an everyday occurence. "Normal" violence and raids were much more typical during the 400 years of the conquest of both Americas. The first infectious diseases were introduced onto the continent in early 16th century. At that time, neither Europeans nor Natives had much understanding about the root causes and applied magical thinking (witches, wrath of heaven, acts of God/Satan, punishment for sins). Western understanding of epidemics has been a mess, arguably until today - see contemporary Covid deniers etc. I have just read a report about a Slovak member of government (Labor Minister) wanting to open the churches and arguing with a 1710 wave of black plague in Trnava that was purportedly stopped by the citizens praying to the Holy Virgin. And this is a Central European EU member state in 2021! Now try 1521. And massive die-outs of native population was a cause for concern in the Spanish parts of the empire; the Spanish took two well-operated indigenous empires (Aztec and Incan) with all the infrastructure, resources and mines to get rich off, only to see their workforce melting away. They weren't happy about that - any more than today's Facebook would be about half of their users dying.

throwaway894345 6y ago

> When they deliberately gave diseased blankets to indigenous peoples, I think that checked off both boxes That's certainly horrific, but the diseases that the colonists brought killed 90% of the indigenous population at the time, most of whom died without ever setting eyes on a European. As for "which people group was the most evil", that seems like an exercise in subjectivity and bias or worse, so I don't see what good could come from debating it, but I am a little surprised you don't locate it anywhere in the 20th century with its hundreds of millions of deaths between fascism and communism.

AlotOfReading 6y ago
This is incorrect and not really supported by the literature. Europeans were intimately involved with most regions that had high fatality rates and moreover, actively created conditions that made these diseases endemic. The "90%" numbers are also highly speculative and include all causes of mortality, including European warfare over a period of centuries. It's not just diseases.
- throwaway894345 6y ago
  Not according to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Native_American_disease_and_epidemics#Effect_on_population_numbers https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Native_American_disease_and_ep... > The loss of the population was so high that it was partially responsible for the myth of the Americas as "virgin wilderness." By the time significant European colonization was underway, native populations had already been reduced by 90%. This resulted in settlements vanishing and cultivated fields being abandoned. Since forests were recovering, the colonists had an impression of a land that was an untamed wilderness
  - AlotOfReading 6y ago
    The page you've linked says as much (though it's quite misleading without background knowledge). > Many Native American tribes suffered high mortality and depopulation, averaging 25–50% of the tribes' members lost to disease. The line you've linked is discussing the Northeastern colonization and it links to Denevan, who isn't looking at the actual mechanics of depopulation, but rather the pristine myth. Luckily we can look at this with some simple modeling. Assuming persistent epidemics with constant 25% mortality every 10 years and no developed immunity (big assumptions), while maintaining a 2% growth rate in-between (this is low), over 2 centuries the population would shrink by 88%. At that point, the epidemics stop and populations begin to recover. Using the same numbers, it would recover to pre-epidemic levels in only 85 years. If the growth rate is merely 3%, population actually grows the whole time. Let's pay closer attention to the Mexican population graph though. Notice the 3 waves of disease? Two of those, labeled "cocolizti", are thought to be (at least partially) Salmonella. You know, that disease of failing sanitation infrastructure? Hopefully it's clear why sanitation issues might have surfaced around then.

gsej 6y ago

I've always been curious about the pit of venomous snakes. We only have one venomous snake in the UK - the common adder. It's bite is nasty, but very rarely fatal. I wonder if the story is made up, based on foreign tales of poisonous snakes, or perhaps they used imported snakes.

boomboomsubban 6y ago
The source for that is a Norse legendary saga written hundreds of years later, I doubt it's factual.

inglor_cz 6y ago

> When they deliberately gave diseased blankets to indigenous peoples, I think that checked off both boxes. While this event has been documented, it wasn't an everyday occurence. "Normal" violence and raids were much more typical during the 400 years of the conquest of both Americas. The first infectious diseases were introduced onto the continent in early 16th century. At that time, neither Europeans nor Natives had much understanding about the root causes and applied magical thinking (witches, wrath of heaven, acts of God/Satan, punishment for sins). Western understanding of epidemics has been a mess, arguably until today - see contemporary Covid deniers etc. I have just read a report about a Slovak member of government (Labor Minister) wanting to open the churches and arguing with a 1710 wave of black plague in Trnava that was purportedly stopped by the citizens praying to the Holy Virgin. And this is a Central European EU member state in 2021! Now try 1521. And massive die-outs of native population was a cause for concern in the Spanish parts of the empire; the Spanish took two well-operated indigenous empires (Aztec and Incan) with all the infrastructure, resources and mines to get rich off, only to see their workforce melting away. They weren't happy about that - any more than today's Facebook would be about half of their users dying.