"Why didn't Indians infect the white man?" Topic

OK, we all know the story: White man discovered Native Americans (North American, Meso American, whatever) and, like, they got wiped out by Smallpox or something because they had never been exposed or developed an immunity.

In theory, you would have thought that this would work both ways and the Indians had some disease that White men had never been exposed to like Ebola-MayaAztec that should've wiped out a good chunk of white people.

How come this disease thing only went one way?

I have read that Whitey picked up syphilis in the New World. I have also read that this is a foul slur. I then read that in the New world, it was "relatively" harmless. I have also read that it appeared in Europe in 1494, and was devastating before it settled down to it's current chronic, but not lethal immediately, as in "relatively" harmless state.

Another guess is that Whitey was really from a crowded miserable germ-infested stock, and that the Indians had nowhere near the population density to brew germs. The reason they were so susceptibleto infection was their lack of exposure to germs. This is also the reason that so many more ACW soldiers died from camp diseases than battle.

A current theory is that many human disease organisms came from our domestic animals, when a micro-organism that was endemic in a domestic animal species mutated so that it could infect humans (i.e., cowpox/smallpox, tuberculosis (cows/humans), swine flu, avian flu, lots of others I'm too ignorant to specify). Since Native Americans had domesticated few animal species, they had not aquired diseases from their animals, and had no pool of endemic diseases that were more virulent to Europeans and Africans than to Indians.

Interestingly…West Africa is a tropical pesthole that killed most European visitors, prior to the development of modern medical technology. When European colonizers brought Africans to the New World, they also established African diseases in the American tropics. The 'burning West Indies' became a disease zone deadly to Europeans as well as to Indians. Today the population of the West Indies is substantially of African descent, and I think this is partly due to the effects of imported tropical African diseases on both natives and colonists.

Interesting point about the West Indies. Another 'benefit' of slavery, I guess. There was, at one point at least, a theory about the lack of genetic diversity among the tribes that also contributed to the lower resistance to new diseases. But I think the relative overcrowding in Europe, and exposure to disease early on, whatever its source, is a big factor. There are many today who say the prevalence of asthma and other immune diseases is due to our 'overly' hygienic childhood. If true, another of those unintended consequences that rise up to punish good deeds.

Raw numbers would account for most of the disparity. I don't know the exact numbers, but the "rest" of the world had something like 100 to 200 times the population of the America's at discovery. It's just a vastly larger group to develop disease within.

You will be well-served to read Jared Diamond, "Guns, Germs, and Steel," or at least check to see if your local library has the DVD of the PBS special derived therefrom. Its a nicely enhanced version of what zippyfusenet said.

That said, I'm not sure I buy Diamond's hypothesis that "geography determines history," though I like it a lot better than the old "racial superiority determines history" theory.

Pesonally, I like the "whole bunch of people running around doing what seems like a good idea with no notion of what the real consequences will be" theory, but some people find that unsatisfying.

Andrew

Some interesting history on Syphilis on wikipedia: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Syphilis

If you want to read a more intellectual analysis of geography determines history look for the next publication by Dr. Jonathan Scott. That is what he is looking at right now. If it is anything like his past works it will be spectacular.

But I second the advice to read Diamond, it is worth looking into. I think he is basically correct with the theory that Andrew put forward playing a big part too.

"geography determines history"

I consider his theory quite reasonable when sensibly applied. Geography sure is a factor.

OTOH: IIRC his explanation as to why Europe invaded China and not the other way around boild down to "bad timing for the chinese" which rather suggests that there are still big hunks of history geography didn't determine.

I shall keep an eye out for Jonathan Scott.

There is an earlier version of Diamond's argument in Third Chimpanzie, a book well worth reading in its own right. Collapse was OK, but IMHO not as exciting as the other two.

boild = boiled

Bad luck, basically.
-Kle.

Yes. The new world origin of Syphilis has been disputed in recent years, but I think the dna evidence now supports the original theory.

As to why Europe had so many diseases to contribute and the Americas (apparently) just one? Population density? Urbanisation (Europe had a lot of large cities with terrible sanitation which were perfect breeding grounds for diseases)? Yes there were some pretty big new World Cities, but there were more in Europe and they were closer together, and in germ-contact with China as well.

Or perhaps just the bad luck theory.

I've heard a theory that New Worlders were less prone to… umm… "have congress with other species".

Thus, more pathogen cross-over on the other side of the oceans.
-Kle.