3 ms·

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 a

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.

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.