How do we know it was European diseases that killed the native Americans

[Northern_Piper]

@Exapno_Mapcase

The stories, which go on for about four pages, are all about misery, starvation, snow, and disease.

Mon pays, ce n’est pas un pays, c’est l’hiver!

[Exapno_Mapcase]

@Northern_Piper

Mon pays, ce n’est pas un pays, c’est l’hiver!

I’m from Rochester, dude. Don’t try to one-up me about snow.

[DrDeth]

@Colibri

The article I linked to provides a lot of independent evidence for the presence of smallpox among Northwest Coast Indians, including eyewitness accounts by European and American explorers, between 1787 and 1806 (Lewis and Clark). The authors proposes that the disease was probably brought in by the Spanish expeditions of the 1770s (although possibly by the Russians or by other Indians). The inclusion of the account is merely to provide a native oral history that may indicate a major epidemic took place in the area about that time. That account is not necessary to the conclusion that major smallpox epidemics swept the area after contact with Europeans, which is what I cited it for. DrDeth’s post has served mainly to muddy the waters instead of clearing things up. He’s the one alleging that the epidemic happened before the arrival of Europeans, in direct contradiction to what the article says, on what basis I don’t know. I think he simply must have misread the article.

No, I didnt say before the arrival, I said before contact. That tribe got hit by smallpox before any recorded direct contact. True, it could have been second hand.

However, we have only that record to say it was smallpox- the same record that sez the naives caught it from the fish.

Perhaps the record is wrong *both times. *

[Bridget_Burke]

@DrDeth

No, I didnt say before the arrival, I said before contact. That tribe got hit by smallpox before any recorded direct contact. True, it could have been second hand.

However, we have only that record to say it was smallpox- the same record that sez the naives caught it from the fish.

Perhaps the record is wrong *both times. *

What record are you referring to? This article, linked in post #30, shows the evidence for a 1770’s smallpox epidemic in the Northwest & nearby areas. Depopulated villages are mentioned–which could have multiple causes. But several later explorers report locals showing the aftereffects of smallpox. Europeans & Americans from the East would have had no trouble recognizing the ravages of the disease.

And contact with Europeans *had *occurred–although smallpox could have also been transmitted from Indians who’d contacted the disease elsewhere.

[Colibri]

@DrDeth

No, I didnt say before the arrival, I said before contact. That tribe got hit by smallpox before any recorded direct contact. True, it could have been second hand.

The article says nothing of the kind. It doesn’t identify when exactly the story took place relative to contact, because that’s not mentioned in the story. It could have happened before contact, it could have happened afterward. You’re the only one who’s claiming it must have happened before contact, based on nothing at all in the story or the article.

However, we have only that record to say it was smallpox- the same record that sez the naives caught it from the fish.

The oral history doesn’t say it was smallpox. That’s just an inference because the oral history mentions an epidemic, and smallpox is known to have caused epidemics in the area roughly around that time.

Perhaps the record is wrong *both times. *

Maybe it is, but it’s rather irrelevant, since it’s not the main evidence that smallpox hit the tribes about then. The story is merely being mentioned as a possible oral account of the smallpox epidemic. Clearly the account of the fish disease is not really connected to the human epidemic, based on everything we know about fish diseases and smallpox.

I’m not really sure what your point is in continuing to harp on this. It’s not really that significant a point.