3 ms·

The cultural devastation wrought on the indigenous peoples of the Americas was tragic. But it was also largely inevitable. The colonization of Africa left many

The cultural devastation wrought on the indigenous peoples of the Americas was tragic. But it was also largely inevitable. The colonization of Africa left many more Africans alive than the colonization of America because America was biologically isolated from Eurasia while Africa was not. The epidemics, particularly of smallpox, that depopulated the Americas were so brutal largely because the indigenous Americans had neither the biological nor the cultural adaptation to infectious disease that was common among Eurasians and Africans. Most indigenous causes of illness in the Americas were due to parasites rather than viruses and bacteria, allowing the evolution of cultural practices like having the entire extended family of a sick person keep them company and try and comfort them through their illness. One consequence of this is that the indigenous cultures that we’ve actually had the chance to study don’t really represent the pre-Colombian cultures that well, because by then, there was already substantial disruption from the infectious diseases and wildlife that spread throughout the continent well in advance of explorers and colonists.

AlotOfReading 6y ago
This narrative gets trotted out anytime this subject comes up. It's not reflective of the actual literature. Here's an older perspective from 2009 [1]: > the available evidence clearly indicates that the demographic collapse was not uniform in either timing or magnitude and may have been caused by factors other than epidemic disease. ... Despite the trauma of conquest, Native Americans continued to have their own histories, intertwined with but not entirely determined by Europeans and their pathogens. Since that was written, the evidence has swung even more strongly towards the idea that disease was intimately associated with the close, persistent contacts needed for the "conquest" and missionary activities of colonial powers. Not to mention, similar epidemics were observed among indigenous southern africans and siberians during their respective colonizations. The Americas were unique in the scale and completeness of their disruption, but not in the mechanisms. [1] https://doi.org/10.1007/s10814-009-9036-8 https://doi.org/10.1007/s10814-009-9036-8
- jariel 6y ago
  This is a wayward argument. You're arguing from the quote that 'it's other than disease' and then two sentences later that it was, but due to 'persistent contact needed for conquest'. None of this adds up to a coherent argument. If Aboriginals weren't dying en mass from disease, then what from? Because we have crude records of interaction. There were very few violent fights between Aboriginals and newcomers in Canada, for example. And where is the evidence that Colonialists had 'consistent, closer contact' in hew New World, than in Africa? I'm all for more nuanced history, we're learning stuff every day, but I think a lot of it is also speculative, and ideologically driven.
  - Grieving 6y ago
    I agree largely with your response, but > And where is the evidence that Colonialists had 'consistent, closer contact' in hew New World, than in Africa? In Africa, Europeans died off rapidly due to local diseases. Consequently, the early slave trade was centered in the islands off of Africa itself, and mediated by a mulatto class who were less susceptible.
- philwelch 6y ago
  I suppose if you posit an alternate history where the entire rest of humanity completely left the Americas alone after discovering them and quarantined the entire Western Hemisphere until achieving a 20th century understanding of infectious disease and medicine, the demographic collapse would not have happened. The likelihood of this happening seems fairly remote to me. Otherwise, it seems that any “close, persistent contacts” would inevitably happen and inevitably lead to the same results.
Tiktaalik 6y ago
No. The Canadian government forcibly took indigenous children away from their parents to be taught at religious schools where they'd be beaten if they spoke their indigenous language. The goal was literal cultural genocide and to erase indigenous nations and cultures from the continent. This was not "inevitable" but instead an active policy goal the government persued.
- philwelch 6y ago
  > The Canadian government forcibly took indigenous children away from their parents.... By the time a Canadian government even existed, most of the damage had already been done. One might question why this policy was undertaken in Canada but not the African colonies. Perhaps because Canada’s indigenous population was already a minority. But how did that happen?
  - Tiktaalik 6y ago
    If Canada's First Nations had been less susceptible to disease things probably would have played out differently though things would have played out quite a bit differently. Things also would have played out differently if the Canadian government and/or colonial precursors hadn't engaged in active genocide. Engaging in genocidal polices is of course not inevitable but an active policy choice.
    - philwelch 6y ago
      > Engaging in genocidal polices is of course not inevitable but an active policy choice. It was an active policy choice, and an abominable one at that, but it was not the primary cause of the destruction of indigenous cultures. If it weren’t for the residential schools, Canada’s First Nations would still be a marginalized minority in their own homeland, displaced by English and French-speaking settlers. Without the wholesale depopulation of North America via infectious disease, English and French-speaking settlers would have never been able to come here in great numbers at the time they did in the first place.
      - 6y ago

AlotOfReading 6y ago

This narrative gets trotted out anytime this subject comes up. It's not reflective of the actual literature. Here's an older perspective from 2009 [1]: > the available evidence clearly indicates that the demographic collapse was not uniform in either timing or magnitude and may have been caused by factors other than epidemic disease. ... Despite the trauma of conquest, Native Americans continued to have their own histories, intertwined with but not entirely determined by Europeans and their pathogens. Since that was written, the evidence has swung even more strongly towards the idea that disease was intimately associated with the close, persistent contacts needed for the "conquest" and missionary activities of colonial powers. Not to mention, similar epidemics were observed among indigenous southern africans and siberians during their respective colonizations. The Americas were unique in the scale and completeness of their disruption, but not in the mechanisms. [1] https://doi.org/10.1007/s10814-009-9036-8 https://doi.org/10.1007/s10814-009-9036-8

jariel 6y ago
This is a wayward argument. You're arguing from the quote that 'it's other than disease' and then two sentences later that it was, but due to 'persistent contact needed for conquest'. None of this adds up to a coherent argument. If Aboriginals weren't dying en mass from disease, then what from? Because we have crude records of interaction. There were very few violent fights between Aboriginals and newcomers in Canada, for example. And where is the evidence that Colonialists had 'consistent, closer contact' in hew New World, than in Africa? I'm all for more nuanced history, we're learning stuff every day, but I think a lot of it is also speculative, and ideologically driven.
- Grieving 6y ago
  I agree largely with your response, but > And where is the evidence that Colonialists had 'consistent, closer contact' in hew New World, than in Africa? In Africa, Europeans died off rapidly due to local diseases. Consequently, the early slave trade was centered in the islands off of Africa itself, and mediated by a mulatto class who were less susceptible.
philwelch 6y ago
I suppose if you posit an alternate history where the entire rest of humanity completely left the Americas alone after discovering them and quarantined the entire Western Hemisphere until achieving a 20th century understanding of infectious disease and medicine, the demographic collapse would not have happened. The likelihood of this happening seems fairly remote to me. Otherwise, it seems that any “close, persistent contacts” would inevitably happen and inevitably lead to the same results.

Tiktaalik 6y ago

No. The Canadian government forcibly took indigenous children away from their parents to be taught at religious schools where they'd be beaten if they spoke their indigenous language. The goal was literal cultural genocide and to erase indigenous nations and cultures from the continent. This was not "inevitable" but instead an active policy goal the government persued.

philwelch 6y ago
> The Canadian government forcibly took indigenous children away from their parents.... By the time a Canadian government even existed, most of the damage had already been done. One might question why this policy was undertaken in Canada but not the African colonies. Perhaps because Canada’s indigenous population was already a minority. But how did that happen?
- Tiktaalik 6y ago
  If Canada's First Nations had been less susceptible to disease things probably would have played out differently though things would have played out quite a bit differently. Things also would have played out differently if the Canadian government and/or colonial precursors hadn't engaged in active genocide. Engaging in genocidal polices is of course not inevitable but an active policy choice.
  - philwelch 6y ago
    > Engaging in genocidal polices is of course not inevitable but an active policy choice. It was an active policy choice, and an abominable one at that, but it was not the primary cause of the destruction of indigenous cultures. If it weren’t for the residential schools, Canada’s First Nations would still be a marginalized minority in their own homeland, displaced by English and French-speaking settlers. Without the wholesale depopulation of North America via infectious disease, English and French-speaking settlers would have never been able to come here in great numbers at the time they did in the first place.
    - 6y ago