A more recent theory suggests it was Spanish pigs that were behind the spread of plague deep into the interior of North America so the Old World civilizations would need to leave a sustainable population of feral pigs behind
Native American Survival Chances
- Thread starter UnassumingCivilian
- Start date
A more recent theory suggests it was Spanish pigs that were behind the spread of plague deep into the interior of North America so the Old World civilizations would need to leave a sustainable population of feral pigs behind
Lusitania
Donor
The idea that Europeans at the start of colonization knowingly spread disease is ludicrous and ignorant of the fact that people at that time had no idea how disease spread. As far as majority thought it was God’s intervention or will while others were completely ignorant. It was not till the 19th century that knowledge of diseases and how they spread became known.
Now in the 19th century there were isolated cases of people targeting certain groups by providing contaminated blankets and such but that was 200-300 after initial contact.
Now in the 19th century there were isolated cases of people targeting certain groups by providing contaminated blankets and such but that was 200-300 after initial contact.
Or the Norse, since they had quite the taste for pork. More likely than a lot of other scenarios involving Vinland and disease.
U.N. definition of genocide
Total and absolute annihilation isnt always violent and direct.
Though we do have examples of this exact thing happening regionally in the Americas, the accumulative effects of European colonial expansion were such that the consistent and oft repeated viewpoint by countless individuals was
"They are weak and powerless and will in time fade away"
We see this with the destruction of traditional lifeways, faith, language and culture by the disruption of cultural transmission through war, forced removal of children, the stripping of tribal sovereignty and the assimilationist eugenicist processes that occur after the above mentioned circumstances for complete annihilation.
Funny enough Rapheal Limpkin who coined the term genocide and formulated the processes of genocide utilized the example of European Colonialism on the Americas among others.
Oh, I agree what genocide is, in fact the UN definition is almost certainly too restrictive (Stalin more or less wrote it to ensure it fit, almost exactly, the Reich, but ignored ALL of his varied mass deportations, the Ukrainian Famine, etc.) and should include actions like the Holomodor and post WW II ethnic cleansing of ethic Germans from Eastern Europe. I have no problem in calling the treatment of Native American groups genocide, have called it such both here and elsewhere on more than one occasion..
What I was addressing (and disagreeing with) was the posters position that "subjugation" required the utter obliteration of a people, and that, by extension, conquest required liquidation. Neither it true. If they were, then even GeneralPlan Ost regarding General Government could not be considered subjugation since it "only" called for the elimination of 85% of the Slavic population and the elimination of the Polish written language. Since this is clearly incorrect, no one has ever questioned that the Reich conquered Poland and subjugated its people, the poster's definitions are, IMO, overly broad (and ironically afford far more wiggle room to those doing the conquering).
No. Plenty of other religions have done that throughout history. You point to the Assyrians, who I agree are a fantastic example. I might also point to Zoroastrianism under certain persian regimes. Hinduism and Buddhism have both had shades of this at various times, including today as I understand it.
The reason that I don't bring up other homogenizing religions isn't because I don't realize they exist, but rather because I do not consider them to be the topic at hand. Further, if they were the topic at hand, I would be wise to refrain from offering my opinions on them (ie: not comment in the thread), for I am far less well-informed on those topics. I'm not talking about other religions though, just the one, which I have done quite a bit of reading on.
I rationalize nothing: I am speaking of variable Q. In the process of speaking about variable Q, I mention subject H, whom in an attempt to avoid variable Q implemented variable V. Subsequently, Q did not arise within the affected area. Was this worth it? Was this the best way to avoid Q? Well, that's outside the realm of that I'm talking about. I'm just talking about Q. In so doing, I mention that H avoided Q. Which is significant to me only in so far as I am talking about how subject J might hypothetically avoid Q under T conditions.
The atrocities committed by the Japanese government against christians are not fundamentally relevant to my point, just like the assassination of Franz Ferdinand is not relevant to my point. And so, like the dead archduke, I didn't spend time on it. My reasons were no more sinister than that, and no less.
I'm not saying that christians are unique in their capacity to commit evil, that's not why I draw a connection. I'm saying that its the same basic sort of evil being committed by the descendants of the perpetrators of the other one. Thus, I draw a connection. I'm saying that they're both going "A->B->C," but the one with more experience is better at it.
Pre-christianity Rome (for example) had a very persistent tendency to be just the worst, but they did different terrible things in different ways. As long as you said their gods were bigger than yours, they didn't really care about your religion; They were much more concerned with you being "Roman," which had much more to do with speaking Latin than anything about Jovis. Contrast the later christians, who were almost the complete opposite: they didn't necessarily care what language you speak so long as you kowtow to the dead priest (and do it the right way). Both evil, but different.
My purpose in drawing the connection isn't to be inflammatory, its to argue that we've got more data than most people think to model how the overall system works. Roman atrocities aren't uniquely helpful with wrapping your head around Zulu atrocities. But if tenth century christian atrocities are part of a patern with seventeenth century european atrocities, then that's uniquely helpful.
I fully agree that the crimes committed by christians throughout history contravene their stated group beliefs, but for an outsider the distinction is somewhat semantic. A Jewish woman being driven into a river to drown isn't going to feel better if you point out that the people murdering her are also hypocrites. Her main concern is the "people murdering her" part.
I get your point, and I am sympathetic to it, but I'm also skeptical of the practical distinctions.
Anecdote: I was reading something by a Jewish writer recently who was talking about how one of the most common things they'll hear from gentiles when they bring up instances of antisemitism they've suffered from christians is the retort that any christian who would do that is no true christian. The writer argued that this was not useful to them. They argued that the refrain "no christian would do that" is useful for a christian to say to other christians when talking about what they should do about antisemites, but when used as something to say to the victims it becomes as excuse for antisemitism. Or, rather, an excuse not to do anything about it.
So, yes, the people who do these things are strictly speaking breaking the rules. But well, if the rules are never enforced because the refs are always crooked, then its the rulebreakers who define the trajectory of the community, at least to the outside.
I would go so far as to bet money that if you tallied up all of the assholes vs non-assholes in christian vs non-christian societies, the ratios would be dead even. People are fundamentally people wherever you go. So insofar as that your point is that blaming individual christians is unhelpful and inaccurate, I fully agree with you.
But I disagree with your position that there is nothing about christianity that encourages these negative behaviors. The concept of, say, Hell is fundamentally f&^%ed up. Telling children that there's a giant torture dimension where you will be sent till the end of time if you deviate from the norm in the wrong way is not the basis for any good things.
I don't think there's some secret puppet master or whatever driving any of what I describe. I think its more of a memetic mutation thing: Coherent religions are essentially Memes (in the classic sense, not the internet one), a collection of ideas that spread from one person to another with high fidelity. At some point, through the course of human history, one of these collections of ideas was going to take on some set of traits that gave it the tendency to spread from one person to another better.
Circle back to the Hell thing I touched on a second ago: Someone who grew up primarily worshiping, say, Hestia can relatively painlessly transition to primarily worshiping Isis or Ishtar or whatever later in their life. There's nothing about the Meme of Hestia Worship that tells you that swapping it out for a different Meme is inherently harmful. But the Meme of Jesus Worship is different, as this Meme has mutated a trait to discourage people from swapping it out: Hell.
If you convert from worshiping Hestia to worshiping Jesus, you can rest easy with the knowledge that if you got that wrong Hestia won't take it terribly personally. Might want you to apologize, but that's about it. This was a low fitness adaptation for the Hestia Worship Meme. Meanwhile, if a worshiper of Jesus wants to convert to worshiping Hestia, the Jesus Worship Meme will vigorously oppose this by telling them that they will suffer horrible consequences if they're wrong. This was a high fitness adaptation, and the Jesus Worship Meme subsequently spread around quite successfully.
The Hell adaptation also had another benefit to the Jesus Worship meme: since people who don't subscribe to the Meme also go to Hell, rationally it is inherently a moral decision to try and spread the Meme around to as many other people as possible in order to save them from Hell. This was great for the Meme, less great for the people in the way.
You seem to broadly understand my point fairly well. Most of the stuff you don't seem to quite get seem to be issues with how I expressed my point the first time, which I hope I've cleared up some here. We seem to disagree on the subject, but you're awfully civil and there's certainly nothing wrong with two people calmly disagreeing. I'm enjoying debating with you thus far.
I can't agree that disease would remain, in the long term such a devestating factor. I mean if the Norse in Vinland lose contact with Europe and survive it presumes they have built up a significant base which probably includes domesticated animals like pigs. In which case the Norse might be negatively affected by renewed contact with Europe but not nearly to the same extent as the OTL native Americans. Similarly, if the Norse retain contact with Europe then new settlers will presumably arrive but it seems likely they won't be able to expand across the continent as quickly, which gives the native societies more time to adapt. That said, I think we can safely say that the surviving native societies, particularly in the north-east, will have significant Norse influences.
If the norse have pigs and other livestock, more likely there would be dieseases passed the other way as well. From my ametuer knowledge, a lot of the major plagues jump from livestock to humans. Although at the same time, they require cities to really develop. Which... likely they would have when it hits Central America.
Actually, that begs the question of how fast would feral pigs spread from Canada to Central America? Is there any data on how fast pigs spread OTL? Although I do recall something about them not spreading all the way North. Also, would 500 years be enough for new plagues to develop? I would think so.
You might not need Vinland to survive for the Native Americans to survive. If pigs have been domesticated in Central and North America, then if the entire planet gets hit by two waves of plagues (one europe->america and the other america->europe) then a global dark age might ensue, which both can recover from at similar rates. Something the scale of the black death hitting europe would certainly discourage colonization for a while.
Actually, that begs the question of how fast would feral pigs spread from Canada to Central America? Is there any data on how fast pigs spread OTL? Although I do recall something about them not spreading all the way North. Also, would 500 years be enough for new plagues to develop? I would think so.
You might not need Vinland to survive for the Native Americans to survive. If pigs have been domesticated in Central and North America, then if the entire planet gets hit by two waves of plagues (one europe->america and the other america->europe) then a global dark age might ensue, which both can recover from at similar rates. Something the scale of the black death hitting europe would certainly discourage colonization for a while.
I think I understand your point now. You are drawing a connection between the atrocities committed by 'Christian'* societies in the tenth century (presumably referring to the forceful 'Christianisation' of Europe) and the colonial mindset of many seventeenth century 'Christian' Europeans. If I have understood you correctly, then I see no fundamental flaw in the theory (though conversely I have yet to be fully convinced one way or the other).
*I use inverted commas to make the distinction between societies that one might describe as 'culturally Christian' (i.e. predominantly European within the time period in question) as opposed to what we might call 'Biblical Christian' (i.e. consistent with doctrines as established in the Bible).
I completely agree. Sad cases such as those are all too common throughout history, and the hypocrisy of the perpetrators is hardly relevant to the act itself. What I would argue that it does make clear, however, is that the doctrines outlined in the Bible are not consistent with those atrocities. This makes the murderers 'Christian' in the cultural sense only, rather than in the Biblical or scriptural sense.
I concur insofar as even Christians who adhere to Biblical doctrine are fallible human beings that may, at times, commit great evil. That is why I think relying on Church authority and tradition rather than basic doctrinal tenets is a very unwise course - humans are flawed. We must all strive to take responsibility for the wrongs that we do, and refusal to oppose wickedness is itself a wrongdoing.
I agree, if you refer to the group I have been labelling 'cultural Christians' (for want of a better term). In my view, everyone is imperfect, across all societies.
The characterisation of Hell as a 'torture dimension' has unfortunately been a common mistake made by many Christians, including some that strive to follow Biblical doctrine rather than tradition or human leaders. This view is not actually very consistent with the Biblical portrayal of Hell, which (while still a place one desperately ought to avoid) is framed more as the fulfilment of the exercise of free will - if a person rejects their own Creator, then they also reject His attributes (i.e love, peace, fellowship etc.). Conversely the thought that an ultimate form of justice exists may be of some comfort to the victims of crimes never paid for.
I certainly agree that human belief systems (religious, political or ideological) can and do encourage negative behaviours. For example, the atheism of the Soviet Union did (to some extent) serve to justify many of its atrocities. Likewise, the influence of Church authority and 'cultural Christianity' doubtless drove some aspects of many historical wrongs. I would argue, however, that a purely Biblical form of Christianity would disallow such crimes.
I should note that I regard myself as a very flawed human being, much like any other. If I sound self-righteous, I apologise! Yet another manifestation of my own imperfection.
Again, the treatment of apostates by Christians and 'Christians' throughout history has been inconsistent. With regards to the doctrinal question, certainly apostates would fall into the category of 'Creator-rejection'. Perhaps the issue is best addressed by saying this: Christians ought not to dissuade apostasy by emphasising hadeophobia, but rather by highlighting the doctrine of salvation (i.e. God taking the required penalty upon Himself) and the love of God as described in the Bible.
I certainly agree with you that the historical success of 'cultural Christianity' is due in part to a damaging tendency towards using fear as a tool of evangelism (which comes naturally to flawed humanity) rather than love (which is far more Biblically sound).
I'm glad, and I certainly feel I understand your point better now. I thank you in turn for your civility - and it is unfortunately true that sensible disagreement on the matter of religion (or politics, for that matter) is all too rare.
Apologies for the length and almost theological nature of this response!
Lusitania
Donor
I find these comments about what Christians did against others over 2,000 completely out of context and in many ways incorrect. This threat is not about the “evil” Christians did but about the chance of survival of natives be they what ever religion (pagan or christian). Also bringing up things that happen in Europe without context or understanding of people beliefs and knowledge of word is wrong. I do not want to hijack this thread on a religious discussion of people beliefs for we could discuss Islamic attacks both since their start to today or Hindu attacks as well as attacks against Christians both in past or today.
Many of the points you identified were not done on context of religious beliefs but solely for profit, conquest or just plain bad behavior. Let’s stick to the topic at hand and leave theological discussion to the chat forum.
I agree that "no true Christian" thing is useless to anything else but intra-Christian polemic. There is no such things as a consistent "purely Biblical" sense of Christianity, since the Bible is a whole library of many books written by different authors, and in any case, no text save well-written math or physics tracts is free from reader interpretation. You can only get rid of Biblical ambiguities completely by stating that every time the Bible seemingly suggests something you think to be wrong, it doesn't really suggest it, which can result in a mindset as narrow-minded as your usual Bible-trumping fundamentalism.
Having said this, if Sachmis implies that the Japanese saved themselves from subjugation or genocide by persecuting their own Christians (their phrasing is not completely clear to me), they're demonizing Christianity too much. As already pointed out, most pre-colonial Christianizations are top-down, although there are exceptions (Old Saxony, to add to already mentioned Prussia). Something like a top-down scenario would most likely occur in a Christianized Japan.
In any case, I doubt pagan Romans would treat Native Americans differently, if they somehow happened to colonize the continent. Their ideological motivations would be somewhat different, however.
Lemkin indeed took pains to ensure the Soviet Union wouldn't oppose his definition, but he later switched to pushing it to various anti-Soviet emigre groups, insisting (implausibly, I may add) that Soviet treatment of Eastern European peoples in its vassal states amounts to genocide. See http://inogs.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/05/WeissWendt.pdf
Having said this, if Sachmis implies that the Japanese saved themselves from subjugation or genocide by persecuting their own Christians (their phrasing is not completely clear to me), they're demonizing Christianity too much. As already pointed out, most pre-colonial Christianizations are top-down, although there are exceptions (Old Saxony, to add to already mentioned Prussia). Something like a top-down scenario would most likely occur in a Christianized Japan.
In any case, I doubt pagan Romans would treat Native Americans differently, if they somehow happened to colonize the continent. Their ideological motivations would be somewhat different, however.
Lemkin indeed took pains to ensure the Soviet Union wouldn't oppose his definition, but he later switched to pushing it to various anti-Soviet emigre groups, insisting (implausibly, I may add) that Soviet treatment of Eastern European peoples in its vassal states amounts to genocide. See http://inogs.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/05/WeissWendt.pdf
Sachmis and I were clarifying our respective positions regarding the influence of Christianity on the atrocities committed by Europeans against Native Americans. Assuming I have not misunderstood him, this theory is that the colonialist mindset had its roots in the forceful 'Christianisation' of Europe in earlier centuries, and I was commenting on his ideas.
I agree, that was supposed to be my point so I'm glad that came through!
I concur, though I would argue that several key doctrines shine through extremely clearly - e.g. the specific example of 'do not murder' is and was (AFAIK) universally upheld in all Christian denominations (and yet was frequently ignored for the convenience of European colonists). I was trying to draw a distinction between those in the Church(es) who historically observed inarguable tenets such as that, and those who gave lip-service but conveniently forgot them when it suited their purposes (including many within the various Church hierarchies).
Essentially I was arguing the position that Christian doctrine did not inform the 'Christian' European colonists' poor treatment of the indigenous peoples. Apologies if my post came across as too theological! Don't want to derail.
Regarding personal hygiene of Europeans throughout the Medieval era, following the Crusades there was a big upswing in the desire for public baths that came from seeing Roman public baths still in use in the collapsing Byzantine and emerging Islamic worlds. The knights came back home and brought the custom with them and public bath houses began springing up everywhere, and became popular to attend.
So then, if during the Medieval period everyone was regularly going to the equivalent of a spa, why did they stop by the time the Renaissance rolled around? Three things:
The Black Death
The theory that bathing opened one's pores up to potential sicknesses spread through the air (response to the black death)
The association of public bath houses with women of loose morals
By the time Shakespeare was writing Measure for Measure, the scene that takes place in a bath house is blatantly portrayed as a brothel. And so on the religious mood of the Reformation, closing all the bath houses became a moral rallying cry.
By the Elizabethan era, good personal hygiene became about washing your clothes and wearing and changing your under garments religiously, rather than bathing.
Lusitania
Donor
But this does not equate to living like pigs. People did not walk around with dirt and excrement on them. There is actually a debate going on that today’s hygiene is most derived from marketing to sell grooming and cosmetics. That washing everyday actually takes away one natural oils. So we need to understand and be cautious of making general statements. It’s not like the natives had better hygiene, it could be argued that in some cases Europeans did.
Lusitania
Donor
If we want to make American natives have the best chance of survival then we need a geologic change and keep Siberia connected to Alaska that way diseases and people would of continuously migrated eastward and people in the Americas would be in many ways as protected and imune as someone living in Siberia.
Which isn't very much given how the Kamchatkans, Chukchi, and others got ravaged by diseases in much the same way as the American Indians while put under similar conditions.
Lusitania
Donor
Which brings to the point that exposure 200 years ago does not stop you from being ravaged again. The issues would arrive if Chinese, Arabs or Africans discover America. It does not mater what religion all that maters us we have contact and I breath on you. Norse in North America just means either earlier disease and another group that going to be attacked.
The only advance of the land bridge would mean potential import if horses and other animals which would mean they have their own diseases that could attack colonizers but spread of diseases be very similar. With infected native group infecting others.
Going back somewhat to the topic at hand for the thread, i think the Mapuche example offers an interesting pathway. Lets say that Pizarro was less successful in exploiting tensions within the Inca's imperial succession to conquer the empire, does the Inca state manage to coalesce under new leadership, have a grace period to deal with the disease and create effective quarantines, and survive? Maybe. I think a more interesting case would be if they pulled from the Mapuche playbook. Let the spanish settle in, then rise up in revolt behind an offshoot of the Incan royal family that survived. Keep the Spanish crops and livestock, hell keep Catholicism if you want to sidestep some of the religious tensions that the Incas were grappling with, and use the period after the Spanish are thrown out to consolidate. You already know that the Europeans have an inexaustible appetite for silver and gold, use the silver from Potosi and buy the secrets of gunpowder and metallurgy from the French or English. Play your cards right and you can create a durable Andean super state.
I did not say that they did. My purpose in posting was to provide a more complex view that hygiene wasn't a static thing in the Medieval period like is commonly believed. Opinions and trends came in and out of fashion as the period of time progressed and by the time you get to the Age of Discovery era there were reasons people had the habits they did.
And further, your point has shown that the subject is still dynamic and evolving to this day as opinions, tastes and fashions to in and out of style. Our current opinions on bathing come from the 1930s Hollywood films depicting luxurious private baths in films.
My point was never to say Medieval period had people living like pigs. That's a value judgment I did not say.