European disease in America

[Salem1]

So by now, we know that the largest cause of death amongst Indians was quite probably European disease. But why didn't this work the other way too? I never hear about American diseases decimating Europe, like the black plague and such. Or had Europeans simply developed immunities from experiences with stuff like said black plague, etc.? I mean, the Indians might not have had experiences with such devastating plagues before, which European peoples had already endured.

[D.B. Cooper]

They gave Europeans syphilis, but that's it.

[pwf224]

because the Americas didn't have as many diseases. They were generally isolated and had basically no domesticated animals. Alot of the "European" diseases have their origins in the domesticated animals such as pigs, cows, chickens, sheep, etc. Eventually being in close contact with these animals, the diseases jumped to humans. Over time, Europeans began to develop immunities to these diseases or sufficient enough immunities so that the diseases wouldn't kill them. However, when the Europeans arrived in America, they introduced the diseases to the natives who had no prior exposure to them, hence no immunity. The diseases then swept through the continent and killed off a large portion of the population. For example, the site of Plymouth Colony in Massachusetts was formerly an indian village of Patuxet, which was wiped out from disease only a few years prior to the Pilgrims landing there. Situations like this weren't uncommon as the Europeans made first contact with the natives.

[Maca]

But the New World had it's own animals, and not all diseases come from domesticated ones. Surely Europeans would have no immunity to diseases from these "new" creatures, regardless of what had happened in the past.

Add to this the fact that the natives did have domesticated animals as well.

[Manco]

I remember reading that Eurasians have developed stronger immunity systems because of their close proximity to farm animals and other common carriers. Not being a biologist and not remembering if I read this in a reliable source, I can't vouch for it.

It probably helped that quite a substantial part of 'weaker' (immunity wise) Europeans died in the previous centuries.

[Salem1]

Must have been a horrible experience to be an Indian during this time. Really, really horrible.

[Bwaho]

Were African slaves also decimated by European diseases?

But the New World had it's own animals

I only know of bird and pig flu mutations.

and not all diseases come from domesticated one

Being around the animals all the time (domesticated ones) greatly increases the chances of mutations taking place.

[pwf224]

@ Manco- I know I learned this from having to read Guns, Germs, and Steel for a class once. Perhaps you came across the book as well. I also know they have a NatGeo documentary on the book too so you may have seen that.

@ Maca- I said they had basically no domesticated animals, which means yes there were a FEW (keyword) but certainly not the amount found in Eurasia and not to the extent that animals were domesticated in the Old World.

I just found this wiki article that is a good read and explains the reasons further. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Populat...n_from_disease

Apparently some estimated put the death toll at 90% in the hardest hit regions.


EDIT: @Bwaho- The African-European difference is another good example. Sub-Saharan Africa had some contact with Europeans and others over the ages, and had some similar domesticated animals. What is interesting about this examples is that in South Africa the Europeans initially had an easier time because of the similar climate to Europe. However, when they began to move north and into the tropics, they came into contact with new tropical diseases, and along with their livestock, began to drop like flies. So its not like Europeans are super-immune beings. This is why heavy European colonization (in terms of settlers) of Africa didnt extend past South Africa.

[Tiberius Tosi]

Many scientists believe Syphillis which they gave Europeans took a toll on a lot of monarchs. That's about it though.

Many theorize it was the hunter gatherer style of living that actually hurt the Native Americans not build up immunities centuries earlier like, say, the Europeans did. Personally I don't really buy in to that theory however, because the Spanish arriving in Mexico was killing Indians in northern Oregon within a few years, so it was more than possible for diseases to spread amongst Indians centuries earlier.
But it is also important to remember that disease took a huge toll on Europeans as well, such as yellow fever and the likes.

[Farnan]

Could it also be that the Europeans that caught American diseases died before they made it back across the Atlantic?

[Tiberius Tosi]

Could it also be that the Europeans that caught American diseases died before they made it back across the Atlantic?

That is highly likely, but those Europeans with natural immunities would still be carriers. Also natives were brought back, and they would most likely be carriers as well.

[Farnan]

That is highly likely, but those Europeans with natural immunities would still be carriers. Also natives were brought back, and they would most likely be carriers as well.

But travel back to Europe was far less common than the other way around. And Europe had developed rudimentary measures during the Black Plague to contain epidemics.

[Tiberius Tosi]

But travel back to Europe was far less common than the other way around. And Europe had developed rudimentary measures during the Black Plague to contain epidemics.

Well, there as several theories, one of which claims that Europeans had no better sanitation than the Native Americans (which by the 1600's I mostly disagree with). Since the Native Americans lived a more spread out lifestyle than the Europeans, America was therefore not a breeding ground for disase like Europe had been in the past. Therefore, diseases that did run their course in America simply killed off those immediately effected, but never really spread and so the Native Americans were not carriers or immune to many diseases.

This, I guess, could be true since Native Americans did not die out at a rapid rate like Europeans did when they were struck by the same diseases centuries earlier. The Native Americans rather died out over a century and a half or so, and usually followed the advancement inland of Europeans. This, I supposed, somewhat proves the theory that Native Americans had little contact with widespread plagues, so plagues that did pop up in America in the past that never did in Europe on affected small regions, and never spread outside of there, and so the Europeans did not experience any major new diseases like the Native Americans did in contrast.

[conon394]

I know I learned this from having to read Guns, Germs, and Steel for a class once. Perhaps you came across the book as well. I also know they have a NatGeo documentary on the book too so you may have seen that.

Problem is Guns Germs and Steel does precious little to prove anything but Diamond's assertions.

@ Maca- I said they had basically no domesticated animals, which means yes there were a FEW (keyword) but certainly not the amount found in Eurasia and not to the extent that animals were domesticated in the Old World.

Few large ones, not few in general mice carry vectors just as easily as cows... The real thing one needs to look is all domestics and all pets of any sort and all vermin and hunted species. Hanta virus is a new world illness and it comes not from a domestic species but from rodents same as the black plague. It useful to note that some speculation suggests that perhaps the Aztecs were already suffering from a Hanta like issue and had sort of pile on effect from smallpox sine the estimated death rate in the New world tends to exceed any known virgin population death rate in the old.

Smallpox in any case may have come form domestics or monkeys thus a bush meat kind of transfer...