Early American settlers, Indians, and disease

In My Humble Opinion
1

I have heard some startling statistics regarding the early American settlers and the diseases they brought into contact with the Indians (a recent thread discussed whether Indians or Native Americans was more appropriate, BTW). As I recall, something ridiculous like 95% of the population died due to small pox and other diseases that the Indians had not encountered before.

My question is as follows. If the Indians had the proper immunities, how much would the course of history be changed? Without the disease factor, would the Indians have been able to repel the European invasion, or would things have taken the same course, but just taken longer and been more violent?

2

Well forst of all for an indepth look at your very question please read Guns, Germs, and Steel - Jared Diamond. The linked site gives a good synopsis of how the Europeans came to conquer so much in such a little bit of time.

The long and the short of it is that the conquistadors (Pizzaro for one) were able to defeat legions of warriors because they had two things. Steel swords, and knowledge of warfare. With something like 168 men, Pizzaro defeated 8,000 warriors in Cajamarca because they simply didn’t know what to do when all these men with steel swords just started killing people. That and the fact that they were on horseback, it was over before it even started.

Then came the diseases. Don’t think of it as the indians not having the proper immunities…I mean do you have the proper immunities against something like small pox now? No. Back then there was no medicine, no immunizations etc…e.tc…

So to answer your question, No, even without the disease factor, the indigeonous people would still have lost. They had warriors, but not warriors on horseback. It was terrible, the spanish could maul down hundred of people in a matter of a few hours, whilst on horseback…

This is all a gross overgeneralization, but a good overview, I highly recommend Diamonds book…

3

Just look around you, and see all the people, cars, highways, stores, cities, traffic, industry, factories, trains, airports, etc.

The indians never had a chance. They would have been overwelmingly outnumbered by floods of immigrants and eurpean technology. Some indians who traveled east, and saw the eastern cities, saw that it was hopeless to ever entertain the idea that the indian could even think of stopping the inevitable.

If there was no disease, it only would have slowed eurpean expansion by a few years, at best.

4

Depending on how far back you want to go, I can recommend a book called Born to Die about the spread of disease in Central America during the time of the Spanish conquest. It’s a fairly academic read, but it’s pretty interesting.

Robin

5

There is also American Holocaust by David E. Stannard - discusses the whole issue of the indigenous people in the Americas once the Europeans turned up.

6

Huge numbers of Native Americans were wiped out by disease before the Pilgrims even arrived. The Mass. colonists settled onto land that had once been full of people but was empty by the time they got there (the immediate vicinity, I mean). On the other side of the continent and years earlier, when the Spaniards showed up, lots of people started dying, thus frightening and weakening the populace so that they were easier to conquer.

If the natives had had immunity to the diseases that wiped them out, and survived instead, I think it’s quite likely that America would have turned out something like India. The British conquered India–with similar technology/power disparity–and ruled for a long time, but never really subdued the people or moved in in large numbers to fill up the place, because there were too many native Indians. The country was already full of people. So eventually the British lost power and had to leave; they had never established themselves enough to be immovable, the way American white folks became.

The American continent, however, suffered an enormous population loss, which severely weakened the communities that were left and made huge areas of land available for settling. It’s much easier to shove (relatively) small numbers of natives out of desirable land than to move large groups. So the American settlers had a much easier time establishing themselves and exerting power.

Just IMO, though. I could be wrong.

7

Another second for Jared Diamond’s book; it’s one of my favorites and it addresses this issue superbly.

India had its own diseases to which the population had immunity and the incoming Europeans did not, so it kind of evened out. I’ve never heard of the Europeans catching any disease from the original inhabitants of the Americas, although I think it’s been suggested that syphilis may have been. If the natives had some germs that were deadly to Europeans, perhaps things might have been different.

Anyway, the truly deadly diseases such as smallpox spread well in advance of the newcomers themselves and made the takeover much, much easier. However, IMHO had there been no such diseases the advanced technology and cohesiveness of the Europeans would have eventually overcome the original inhabitants of the continents.

8

I’m going to have to disagree with that, based on what I’ve read. I haven’t read Guns, Germs, & Steel, but my guess is that I’d disagree with that as well, at least in part.

I would recommend reading A History of Warfare by John Keegan. He is an eminent military historian, and when I first started wanting to learn about military tactics & strategy, this is the book I was directed to. It is very readable, and very interesting.

The notion, as partly eluded to above, is strictly cultural. The Persians didn’t stand a chance against the Greeks. Not because they were technologically backward, but because the Greeks had learned to fight with fatalistic resolve, seek a decisive decision, and to operate with great coordination. They threw themselves into the enemy ranks with total abandon, minds set, not on surviving, but on killing the enemy there and then. The Persians were much more hesitant and “timid,” for lack of a better word. They were unprepared for what was to come.

Very few Native American cultures had a sense of cohesion or attitude toward warfare that matched what had developed in Europe (and elsewhere). Many South Americans (I’ve forgotten which empire was in S.A.) were familiar with warfare en masse; however, it was for getting prisoners rather than dominating another society. In North America, many, if not most, of the cultures used no battlefield tactics and treated warfare as a sort-of full-contact sport. I have no doubts that even if it were the Native Americans who had the steel, the Europeans would have dominated them because of their cultural attitudes toward warfare. Compare two fit individuals. One has a steel breastplate, a low-tech metal helmet, and a rapier. The other has a loincloth and a baseball bat. The first man’s purpose is to look good in battle to impress his friends and, if he can, injure the second man enough to take him prisoner. The second man, however, has abandoned his life to Fate and is solely concerned with killing the first man. Who would you put your money on?

If you can find a copy of it, Harry Turney-High’s Primitive Warfare is a fascinating discussion of the subject.

9

js_africanus, your points are quite in line with GG&S. Add to all of what you’ve described that the defenders are more than decimated by a mysterious illness that the invaders are immune to, and the inequality becomes even greater.

It took quite a longer time for Europeans to gain control over areas of the world where tropical diseases such as yellow fever and malaria are endemic, and the original population has a degree of resistance.