NetNews Usenet Archive 1992 #31/NN_1992_31.iso/spool/alt/rushlim/12216

Text File | 1992-12-23 | 3.7 KB | 74 lines

Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
Path: sparky!uunet!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!sdd.hp.com!ux1.cso.uiuc.edu!usenet.ucs.indiana.edu!psygate.psych.indiana.edu!nate
From: [e-mail] (Nathan Engle)
Subject: Re: Columbus vs Indians (was Re: PC lives)
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Sender: [e-mail] (USENET News System)
Nntp-Posting-Host: mushroom.psych.indiana.edu
Organization: Psych Department, Indiana University
References: <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
Date: Wed, 23 Dec 1992 20:31:37 GMT
Lines: 61

[e-mail] (Dave Bernard) writes:
>Nathan Engle writes:
>>    Your theory concerning cannibalism amongst the Carribs is hardly
>>sufficient to account for the deaths of over 95 million people in scarcely
>>30 years

>Er, what theory was that?  I never said anything about a dinner with 95,000,000
>entrees... perhaps you're getting me confused with someone else?

    No, I must obviously have misunderstood your reference to cannibalism
amongst the Carribs. They would certainly have had to have been
exceptionally voracious to eat that many people.

>Are you saying that 95% of the American population was wiped out by
>Smallpox? That seems incredibly high!

    Smallpox and a few others. Basically all those great Old World
diseases like tuberculosis, plague, measles, mumps, malaria, and yellow
fever. A 95% die-off rate is certainly demographically devastating; I
would agree that it boggles the mind to imagine such widespread
catastrophe, but it's not without historical precedent. Some provinces
and cities in China may well have suffered 99% die-offs during waves
of pneumonic plague. Pneumonic plague is related to bubonic, but whereas
bubonic lesions occur on the skin, pneumonic (which is airborne) causes
its lesions in the lungs where the infection occurs and the lungs fill
with fluid. In the absense of anti-biotics pneumonic plague is almost
invariably fatal, and it can spread like wildfire.

    The important thing to bear in mind is that the inhabitants of the
Americas were faced with the prospect of catching up with thousands of
years of Old World micro-parasitic evolution in a couple years.

>Estimates of European deaths from the Plague during the Middle Ages range
>up to 2/3 of the population.  Rumors were that the most virulent forms
>came from the Central Asian steppes, spread by various waves of your
>basic Huns and Mongols. Are Europeans then justified in despising
>Asiatics?

    Perhaps they used to be. These days we have a more or less global
disease pool. Population densities have gotten high enough that diseases
which used to be fearsome epidemic diseases are now endemic "childhood"
diseases (which increases the incidence of immunity and limits the chance
of epidemic spread).

>If Plague-suffering is so conducive to conversion, why didn't Europeans
>convert en masse to whatever animistic religions were practiced by the
>Central Asian nomads?

    Perhaps because the Mongols themselves weren't immune to the plague.
The Mongols "inherited" their plague problems when they conquered vast
regions of central Asia whose rodent populations carried the disease.
Previous occupants of at least some of those areas appear to have had
social taboos against killing or even associating with the host species,
but these taboos were lost or ignored by Mongol conquerors. The vast
extent of the Mongol empire enabled the creation of long distance
overland caravan routes which catalysed the infection's spread.

--
Nathan Engle                        Software Juggler
Psychology Department               Indiana University
[e-mail]      [e-mail]