3 ms·

This is incorrect and not really supported by the literature. Europeans were intimately involved with most regions that had high fatality rates and moreover, ac

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.
  - throwaway894345 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." I interpret that as "many tribes lost 25-50%" but that doesn't necessarily mean that this generalizes to all Native Americans, so I took the 90% figure which made the more precise (if inaccurate) claim. > 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. Fair enough, I'm not a subject matter expert. I'm at the mercy of Wikipedia editors here. > 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. Assuming that cocolizti was directly caused by failing sanitation infrastructure, looking at the graph I would assume that the infrastructure failed due to the preceding smallpox-induced population crash. At least without more information there's nothing clearly pointing to Spanish violence, if that's your implication. Of course, the Spanish conquest was abhorrent and devastating, but I don't have any reason to believe that the Spanish military was more effective than disease at devastating the Mexican population. To answer the disease vs violence question, maybe we could find good points of comparison in the Old World Spanish conquests, where disease was presumably much less significant?

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.
- throwaway894345 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." I interpret that as "many tribes lost 25-50%" but that doesn't necessarily mean that this generalizes to all Native Americans, so I took the 90% figure which made the more precise (if inaccurate) claim. > 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. Fair enough, I'm not a subject matter expert. I'm at the mercy of Wikipedia editors here. > 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. Assuming that cocolizti was directly caused by failing sanitation infrastructure, looking at the graph I would assume that the infrastructure failed due to the preceding smallpox-induced population crash. At least without more information there's nothing clearly pointing to Spanish violence, if that's your implication. Of course, the Spanish conquest was abhorrent and devastating, but I don't have any reason to believe that the Spanish military was more effective than disease at devastating the Mexican population. To answer the disease vs violence question, maybe we could find good points of comparison in the Old World Spanish conquests, where disease was presumably much less significant?