Read for the argument--how does Crosby prove his points
- cause and effect
- natural experiments--if the conditions were different was the outcome different
- science of ecology--eg. European crops needed bees
- argue from exceptions or extreme examples that illustrate a point clearly
Third part of the story of the ecological success of the Europeans in the neo-Europes
- why in some places but not others were the Europeans able to nearly eliminate the native population
- there were more natives
with more sophisticated civilization than we often realize
Aztec
smallpox victims- endemic=widespread and constantly present
- in Europe people usually got smallpox before they were 2, 10-15% died
- because of lack of immunity among the native people it became an epidemic
- among natives not previously exposed, 1/3 to 1/2 died
"The role of disease in American
conquest was threefold: firstly, it reduced the fighting capability of
the Aztec and Incan armies as they became sick and died. Secondly, the
deaths of their heads of political leadership left power vacuums, and
much of the attention of vassal leaders was occupied with civil wars.
The conquistadors played factions against each other. Thirdly, the
prevailing beliefs of these cultures led them to believe that the
European forces were employing supernatural powers, and many miltary
leaders decided to either join the conquistadors, or flee, rather than
fight them. Consequently, resistance was weak, disorganized, and
usually nonexistant." (Graeme Kennedy, Smallpox,
History)
the southeastern US had a dense elaborate native civilization before Columbus, perhaps as sophisticated as the Mayans
- Mississippi Moundbuilders approx. 900-1550 AD
- closest major site is Etowah Mounds in
northern Georgia
- they didn't use much stone for building and the settlers didn't meet them so we know little about them
- elaborate pottery and stone tools
- they had cities and systems
of government
- that civilization was wiped out and the land significantly depopulated before settlers arrived
- that was the result of Europeans diseases which spread faster than settlers did
- the settlers found a land
with very low population--with an empty ecological niche ready for
human beings--their competition had already been wiped out
- the Europeans brought lots of dangerous diseases
- video: Conquest
of the Incas
- they didn't catch local diseases
- why weren't there local diseases--because there were very few domestic animals and less crowding
- even the theory that syphilis came from the Americas is now debated:
- people in Europe at the
time believed that syphilis came from the Americas
- there is good evidence of syphillis in Europe before Columbus
- the trick is that the disease has changed over time, sometimes becoming more serious, sometimes less
- a disease can mutate into
something more dangerous
- Europe was more crowded and so epidemic diseases became endemic
- any area where people
aren't crowded enough for diseases to become endemic will have problems
with epidemics
- Europeans had more diseases because they had more domestic animals
- and they often shared the
same building with their animals
- diseases that evolved in different places came together in Europe
- Europeans had come to an
ecological balance with their diseases
it doesn't explain how they were able to remake the entire ecosystem to look like Europe
How we live with diseases--consider chickenpox
- chicken pox isn't a dangerous disease, so we used to just let people catch it
- now we have a vaccination
- it can be dangerous for certain people
- the recommendation to
vaccinate was justified on cost benefit analysis--lost work time of
parents