AHC: Minimize Settler Colonization of the Americas

Lusitania

Donor
Yes, but without colonization-and the ensuing enslavement, wars, and ecological disruption-the Native populations bounce back within a few generations.



I think you're thinking of malaria here. Yellow fever exists in the Americas and Africa South of the Sahara. It does not exist in Europe or Asia, and short of visiting Africa there isn't a way for Europeans to be exposed to it.



I think the Andes could stop the Europeans. The Inca would need to avoid some of the blunders they made IOTL, but they could defend themselves from invasion.



What about a disease that gives cross-immunity? There are orthopox viruses that are native to North America, such as volepox and raccoonpox. A scenario where they jump to humans could see many Natives given immunity to smallpox, since orthopox viruses generally give cross-immunity.

Ok we had this discussion repeatedly every month and we keep getting the same arguments and ideas. Introduction of diseases does not help them it simply gives them diseases for Europeans to get sick or to take back to Europe. It’s not going to give people immunity and diseases mutate over decades and then when it has mutated enough attack the same group again.

As for yellow fever, Europeans were already exposed to it in west Africa and it did not stop them. They brought thousands of infected Africans to Europe as slaves and again not stop the Europeans. The technology advantage and the affect of the diseases to great. There are documented cases of explorers passing through the Ohio and Tennessee area and encountering Indian tribes that encompasses 20-50 villages in the 17th century. When Americans visited areas these tribes were a former shadow of themselves.

So for you to say they recuperate yes in few centuries but with exposure to Europeans affecting 70-90% of the population it would take centuries for these numbers to recuperate and many of the advances that these tribes might of had could or would have is gone.

As for Aztec and Inca the Spanish conquest was a fluke and 9/10 times not turn out the same. But that does not mean that these tribes would of been imune to the affects of Spanish or other Europeans contact. Many of these tribes had risen to their place of power by conferring other tribes. Any weakness on their part mean they be subject to attacks by neighboring tribes.

So settlement be different but outcome would similar to the iotl. Even contact with traders, and missionaries brings danger of disease and social upheaval.

Example when Hudson Bay company setup shop in Canada north they had strict rules on not trading alcohol with natives for the affect was awful. They drink till they could not function and then do anything to get more alcohol including raiding other tribes for more furs to buy alcohol. They be too drunk to hunt and take care of their families.
 
Ok we had this discussion repeatedly every month and we keep getting the same arguments and ideas.

Because people have read histories that are too focused on biological pre-determinism and don't consider how choices and policy were made (not necessarily consciously) that exacerbated contact for native peoples. For example, you claim that Europeans were not stopped by yellow fever because they exported slaves from Africa. But they were. Yellow fever killed off thousands of European soldiers during wars in the Caribbean, and helped turn the tide of some wars such as the Haitian Revolution. And European attempts to colonize west Africa did not result in successful settler colonies due to the lethality of the disease. The reason they were able to export so many slaves is because Africans traded slaves to them to get prestige goods. It was the cumulation of decisions by African political leaders to gain wealth and power that led to Europeans establishing the slave trade despite their inability to carry out mass invasions of West Africa for most of history.

So for you to say they recuperate yes in few centuries but with exposure to Europeans affecting 70-90% of the population it would take centuries for these numbers to recuperate

The article "virgin soil revisited" (Jones, 2003, William and Mary Quarterly) shows that the claims that European diseases would kill off 90% of any given population of Indian are very exaggerated. Without the encomienda system and without genocidal violence, Native American populations did not necessarily drop that much in response to European contact. There are other scholars who reject that diseases purely caused a 90% drop in population, and state that the Native populations could have bounced back.

And while people do take cross-immunity too far in these discussions quite often, one of the traits of the orthopox genus is that its members grant cross-immunity to each other, so I stand by that solution.
 

Lusitania

Donor
Because people have read histories that are too focused on biological pre-determinism and don't consider how choices and policy were made (not necessarily consciously) that exacerbated contact for native peoples. For example, you claim that Europeans were not stopped by yellow fever because they exported slaves from Africa. But they were. Yellow fever killed off thousands of European soldiers during wars in the Caribbean, and helped turn the tide of some wars such as the Haitian Revolution. And European attempts to colonize west Africa did not result in successful settler colonies due to the lethality of the disease. The reason they were able to export so many slaves is because Africans traded slaves to them to get prestige goods. It was the cumulation of decisions by African political leaders to gain wealth and power that led to Europeans establishing the slave trade despite their inability to carry out mass invasions of West Africa for most of history.



The article "virgin soil revisited" (Jones, 2003, William and Mary Quarterly) shows that the claims that European diseases would kill off 90% of any given population of Indian are very exaggerated. Without the encomienda system and without genocidal violence, Native American populations did not necessarily drop that much in response to European contact. There are other scholars who reject that diseases purely caused a 90% drop in population, and state that the Native populations could have bounced back.

And while people do take cross-immunity too far in these discussions quite often, one of the traits of the orthopox genus is that its members grant cross-immunity to each other, so I stand by that solution.
It is not disease alone that cause the huge drop. You did not read all my posts. It is the weakening of the tribe by the disease which then made them target for attacks by animals and other tribes which in turn infected them. Slowly over 1-2 generations population drop substantially. Add to this that starvation in hunter gather tribes and we get the high 70-90%.

While in west Africa The Europeans did not establish settler colonies but still controlled the land. Here the idea is that settled colonies in North America and South America the most fertile for Europeans to settle are able to be resistant. The carribean were not settler colonies but economic trading colonies with natives pushed off and both europeans and Africans take their place.

So nothing short of no contact by Europeans or Chinese who also carriers of same diseases would prevent the weakening of natives and the opening for Europeans and their skates from taking over.
 
Top