1491, or, Was Pre-European "White Man" America Really

[jbg]

There is a fascinating discussion going on elsewhere on this forum about aboriginal issues. An excerpt from this discussion, quoted below, includes many recently debunked beliefs about aboriginals and the effect of their interaction with Europeans.

News Flash River - They didnt NEED, ask, or want help from the Europeans. They had a fully functioning society for centuries before the Europeans showed up.

Some time ago, Charles Mann wrote an article in Atlantic Magazine destroying many myths about aboriginals. Among those myths that he effectively demolished are:

1. That the Europeans deliberately killed or subjugated many of the aboriginals;
   
2. That there were many thriving and viable aboriginal cultures destroyed by Europeans;
   
3. That the aboriginals were "light on the land" and did not effect the "balance of nature" very much; and
   
4. That super-abundant numbers of buffalo, wolves and passenger pigeons (now extinct) were the natural state of affairs.
   

Now that 1491 has come out in book form, I decided that it was time to post the entire Atlantic Magazine preview, from, I believe, the April 2002 issue. It is fascinating and definitely worth the read, even if you have to pay some money to the Atlantic Magazine website for the excerpt.

Better yet, buy the book.

===========================================

1491

Before it became the New World, the Western Hemisphere was vastly more populous and sophisticated than has been thought—an altogether more salubrious place to live at the time than, say, Europe. New evidence of both the extent of the population and its agricultural advancement leads to a remarkable conjecture: the Amazon rain forest may be largely a human artifact

BY CHARLES C. MANN

.....

A few years ago it occurred to me that my ancestor and everyone else in the colony had voluntarily enlisted in a venture that brought them to New England without food or shelter six weeks before winter. Half the 102 people on the Mayflower made it through to spring, which to me was amazing. How, I wondered, did they survive?

In his history of Plymouth Colony, Bradford provided the answer: by robbing Indian houses and graves. The Mayflower first hove to at Cape Cod. An armed company staggered out. Eventually it found a recently deserted Indian settlement. The newcomers—hungry, cold, sick—dug up graves and ransacked houses, looking for underground stashes of corn. "And sure it was God's good providence that we found this corn," Bradford wrote, "for else we know not how we should have done." (He felt uneasy about the thievery, though.) When the colonists came to Plymouth, a month later, they set up shop in another deserted Indian village. All through the coastal forest the Indians had "died on heapes, as they lay in their houses," the English trader Thomas Morton noted. "And the bones and skulls upon the severall places of their habitations made such a spectacle" that to Morton the Massachusetts woods seemed to be "a new found Golgotha"—the hill of executions in Roman Jerusalem.

*snip*

Smallpox was only the first epidemic. Typhus (probably) in 1546, influenza and smallpox together in 1558, smallpox again in 1589, diphtheria in 1614, measles in 1618—all ravaged the remains of Incan culture. Dobyns was the first social scientist to piece together this awful picture, and he naturally rushed his findings into print. Hardly anyone paid attention. But Dobyns was already working on a second, related question: If all those people died, how many had been living there to begin with? Before Columbus, Dobyns calculated, the Western Hemisphere held ninety to 112 million people. Another way of saying this is that in 1491 more people lived in the Americas than in Europe.

His argument was simple but horrific. It is well known that Native Americans had no experience with many European diseases and were therefore immunologically unprepared—"virgin soil," in the metaphor of epidemiologists. What Dobyns realized was that such diseases could have swept from the coastlines initially visited by Europeans to inland areas controlled by Indians who had never seen a white person. The first whites to explore many parts of the Americas may therefore have encountered places that were already depopulated. Indeed, Dobyns argued, they must have done so.

Peru was one example, the Pacific Northwest another. In 1792 the British navigator George Vancouver led the first European expedition to survey Puget Sound. He found a vast charnel house: human remains "promiscuously scattered about the beach, in great numbers." Smallpox, Vancouver's crew discovered, had preceded them. Its few survivors, second lieutenant Peter Puget noted, were "most terribly pitted ... indeed many have lost their Eyes." In Pox Americana, (2001), Elizabeth Fenn, a historian at George Washington University, contends that the disaster on the northwest coast was but a small part of a continental pandemic that erupted near Boston in 1774 and cut down Indians from Mexico to Alaska.

Because smallpox was not endemic in the Americas, colonials, too, had not acquired any immunity. The virus, an equal-opportunity killer, swept through the Continental Army and stopped the drive into Quebec. The American Revolution would be lost, Washington and other rebel leaders feared, if the contagion did to the colonists what it had done to the Indians. "The small Pox! The small Pox!" John Adams wrote to his wife, Abigail. "What shall We do with it?" In retrospect, Fenn says, "One of George Washington's most brilliant moves was to inoculate the army against smallpox during the Valley Forge winter of '78." Without inoculation smallpox could easily have given the United States back to the British.

*snip*

The question is even more complex than it may seem. Disaster of this magnitude suggests epidemic disease. In the view of Ramenofsky and Patricia Galloway, an anthropologist at the University of Texas, the source of the contagion was very likely not Soto's army but its ambulatory meat locker: his 300 pigs. Soto's force itself was too small to be an effective biological weapon. Sicknesses like measles and smallpox would have burned through his 600 soldiers long before they reached the Mississippi. But the same would not have held true for the pigs, which multiplied rapidly and were able to transmit their diseases to wildlife in the surrounding forest. When human beings and domesticated animals live close together, they trade microbes with abandon. Over time mutation spawns new diseases: avian influenza becomes human influenza, bovine rinderpest becomes measles. Unlike Europeans, Indians did not live in close quarters with animals—they domesticated only the dog, the llama, the alpaca, the guinea pig, and, here and there, the turkey and the Muscovy duck. In some ways this is not surprising: the New World had fewer animal candidates for taming than the Old. Moreover, few Indians carry the gene that permits adults to digest lactose, a form of sugar abundant in milk. Non-milk-drinkers, one imagines, would be less likely to work at domesticating milk-giving animals. But this is guesswork. The fact is that what scientists call zoonotic disease was little known in the Americas. Swine alone can disseminate anthrax, brucellosis, leptospirosis, taeniasis, trichinosis, and tuberculosis. Pigs breed exuberantly and can transmit diseases to deer and turkeys. Only a few of Soto's pigs would have had to wander off to infect the forest.

*snip*

Throughout eastern North America the open landscape seen by the first Europeans quickly filled in with forest. According to William Cronon, of the University of Wisconsin, later colonists began complaining about how hard it was to get around. (Eventually, of course, they stripped New England almost bare of trees.) When Europeans moved west, they were preceded by two waves: one of disease, the other of ecological disturbance. The former crested with fearsome rapidity; the latter sometimes took more than a century to quiet down. Far from destroying pristine wilderness, European settlers bloodily created it. By 1800 the hemisphere was chockablock with new wilderness. If "forest primeval" means a woodland unsullied by the human presence, William Denevan has written, there was much more of it in the late eighteenth century than in the early sixteenth.

*snip*

Guided by the pristine myth, mainstream environmentalists want to preserve as much of the world's land as possible in a putatively intact state. But "intact," if the new research is correct, means "run by human beings for human purposes." Environmentalists dislike this, because it seems to mean that anything goes. In a sense they are correct. Native Americans managed the continent as they saw fit. Modern nations must do the same. If they want to return as much of the landscape as possible to its 1491 state, they will have to find it within themselves to create the world's largest garden.

Edited April 28, 2009 by jbg

[jbg]

Deleted - Posted by mistake

[jbg]

I read the whole book last summer; quite fascinating. I wonder how Jennie and Posit would respond to arguments that it wasn't "whitey" who ended Indian culture; it was smallpox.

[kengs333]

Do we really need another thread about this kind of subject?

[mikedavid00]

1. That the Europeans deliberately killed or subjugated many of the aboriginals;
   
2. That there were many thriving and viable aboriginal cultures destroyed by Europeans;
   
3. That the aboriginals were "light on the land" and did not effect the "balance of nature" very much; and
   
4. That super-abundant numbers of buffalo, wolves and passenger pigeons (now extinct) were the natural state of affairs.
   

I agree. Natives teamed up and did business with Americans. They actually faught along side Americans also.

Same with India and the British.

These people learned trade and enjoyed material items. They learned how to work in exchange of something. And they like it.

I'm sure natives back then weren't whining and crying about saving trees and such. They were probably too busy enjoying new found riches and a new quality of life.

Even till this day, supposedly the natives are in amazing positions of prosparity becuase they have land which contains forestry and minerals but refuse to create industry. Natives just act like Indian from India. Both act like a visible minority group who panders to political party for political gain and handouts.

They should go and smoke the 'peace pipe' and let it all go and move on.

[jbg]

Do we really need another thread about this kind of subject?

Yes. And this one is from a far different point of view. It isn't about some outlaws burning tires, kicking the bejesus out of people and calling that "doing security".

[jennie]

I read the whole book last summer; quite fascinating. I wonder how Jennie and Posit would respond to arguments that it wasn't "whitey" who ended Indian culture; it was smallpox.

I would say, bluntly, that the people of the west coast and elsewhere recorded in memory the deliveries of the piles of blankets to their villages, and the devastation. I have read a report that says the patterns of infection and death are not consistent with normal patterns of transmission from one person through a village, but indicative of many being infected all at once.

You may refute this with Euro-Canadian literature, but can it ever be the ultimate authority, being in conflict-of-interest?

[jbg]

I would say, bluntly, that the people of the west coast and elsewhere recorded in memory the deliveries of the piles of blankets to their villages, and the devastation. I have read a report that says the patterns of infection and death are not consistent with normal patterns of transmission from one person through a village, but indicative of many being infected all at once.

You may refute this with Euro-Canadian literature, but can it ever be the ultimate authority, being in conflict-of-interest?

And what of the authorities that say that FN culture and populations were already devastated by the spread of disease between the early 1500''s and the early 1600's, paving the way for relatively easy colonization? How else do you explain the relatively resistance-free colonization of the New World and Australia (no immunity from Euro/Asia/Africa diseases) with the fact that the Europeans made comparitively little headway in Asia and Africa, even in primitive areas?

I speculate that some of this may be due to the fact that those areas remained densely populated with indigenous people whereas the people who were earlier in the New World and Australia simply died off.

[jennie]

And what of the authorities that say that FN culture and populations were already devastated by the spread of disease between the early 1500''s and the early 1600's, paving the way for relatively easy colonization? How else do you explain the relatively resistance-free colonization of the New World and Australia (no immunity from Euro/Asia/Africa diseases) with the fact that the Europeans made comparitively little headway in Asia and Africa, even in primitive areas?

I speculate that some of this may be due to the fact that those areas remained densely populated with indigenous people whereas the people who were earlier in the New World and Australia simply died off.

Agreed, the epidemics were likely was very early in the colonization process, the fur trade era ...

when the Euro presence was primarily churches and the military, 'clearing the way' for settlers ... perhaps?

Carrying out their mandates perhaps?

[jbg]

Agreed, the epidemics were likely was very early in the colonization process, the fur trade era ...

when the Euro presence was primarily churches and the military, 'clearing the way' for settlers ... perhaps?

Carrying out their mandates perhaps?

I'm thinking that De Soto's pigs did more damage than a few urban legend "smallpox" blankets.

[jennie]

I'm thinking that De Soto's pigs did more damage than a few urban legend "smallpox" blankets.

I have read a report that says the patterns of infection and death are not consistent with normal patterns of transmission from one person through a village, but indicative of many being infected all at once.

I am sure this is an ongoing area of study. I think dna evidence and oral records may have the edge over your hypothesis, but prove me wrong.

[kengs333]

I would say, bluntly, that the people of the west coast and elsewhere recorded in memory the deliveries of the piles of blankets to their villages, and the devastation. I have read a report that says the patterns of infection and death are not consistent with normal patterns of transmission from one person through a village, but indicative of many being infected all at once.

You may refute this with Euro-Canadian literature, but can it ever be the ultimate authority, being in conflict-of-interest?

Yeah, this was predictable enough. I think there is only one verifiable instance of the British using disease to do away with a few tribes, but this in Michigan, I believe.

The accidental introduction of European diseases would have spread through the Native populations on their own accord, and just because it was rapid--it is supposed--doesn't mean it was deliberate. Whatever the case, the population of North America can only be surmised, and of course those who want to make the coming of Europeans more brutal than it was like to conjure up nice large figures.

[kengs333]

I have read a report that says the patterns of infection and death are not consistent with normal patterns of transmission from one person through a village, but indicative of many being infected all at once.

I am sure this is an ongoing area of study. I think dna evidence and oral records may have the edge over your hypothesis, but prove me wrong.

Again, oral histories have nothing much to offer on this subject. I'm not sure where dna evidence comes into this; how exactly can it contribute to the understanding of how disease spread among Indians? And why is it that "whitey" science suddenly has merit when it supposedly can bolster one of your claims?

One thing dna evidence has shown is that the Indians were not native to NA at all; they originated from around Mongolia and Siberia. Except for the Ojibway, who evidently come from southern Europe. The true first invaders from Europe...

[jbg]

I have read a report that says the patterns of infection and death are not consistent with normal patterns of transmission from one person through a village, but indicative of many being infected all at once.

I am sure this is an ongoing area of study. I think dna evidence and oral records may have the edge over your hypothesis, but prove me wrong.

But if pigs were the vectors of spread of infection, it would occur all at once, not person to person. Also, smallpox has an incubation period of about 10-14 days, from what I remember. Thus if people are infected, they are spreading the disease while healthy. Thus many may get sick simultaneously. And without the resistance some Europeans had, the fatality rates were around 95%, not 30-40%.

[jbg]

Does anyone want an e-mail of the entire PDF of the article? PM me me withyou e-mail address and I'll send it.

[jennie]

But if pigs were the vectors of spread of infection, it would occur all at once, not person to person. Also, smallpox has an incubation period of about 10-14 days, from what I remember. Thus if people are infected, they are spreading the disease while healthy. Thus many may get sick simultaneously. And without the resistance some Europeans had, the fatality rates were around 95%, not 30-40%.

That was the point of the argument I read: According to the incubation period, the infection was not normal person-to-person transmission.

Explain why pigs as 'vectors' would result in infection all at once.

[jefferiah]

Great job promoting the book, JBG. Mann and his publisher can thank you. You are responsible for the sale of one copy. And I had to drive a "distance" of 2 hours and 15 minutes to get it.

Edited October 2, 2007 by jefferiah

[jennie]

Great job promoting the book, JBG. Mann and his publisher can thank you. You are responsible for the sale of one copy. And I had to drive a "distance" of 2 hours and 15 minutes to get it.

http://www.bcgeu.bc.ca/Aboriginal_Rights/A...l_dates_history

The practice of payment in blankets:

# 1850 - James Douglas makes 14 land purchases from Aboriginal peoples. The Douglas treaties cover 576 square kilometers of land on Vancouver Island. Aboriginal people are paid in blankets and promised the right to hunt on unsettled lands and allowed to carry on fishing. A policy is established to allow no more than 10 acres of land per Aboriginal family – settlers are allowed 320 acres.

# 1858 - Mainland BC is declared a colony of Britain

# 1859 - New Westminster becomes the first capital of BC.

# 1862 - Smallpox kills one of every three Aboriginal people.

# 1864 - Joseph Trutch is appointed commissioner of land and work.Trutch denies Aboriginal title and prohibits rights of pre-emption of Aboriginal people and adjusts the size of reserve land.

http://www.dfait-maeci.gc.ca/culture/arts/ss_boyer-en.asp

Although Boyer has worked in several styles, he is best known for his "Blanket Statements". These politically charged paintings are a subtle form of anti-colonial criticism: during the XVIIth century, European settlers distributed blankets infected with smallpox to Aboriginal people in order to contaminate and exterminate them.

Edited October 2, 2007 by jennie

[jennie]

http://www.indiancountry.com/content.cfm?id=1093893563

Kind of off the topic of blankets, but it is interesting that the US seems to have no difficulty calling what it did "genocide" as this museum will attest to.

[M.Dancer]

Small Pox via blankets is a myth.

Paul et al.:

A CDC website I just consulted says the most common form of transmission

is direct contact with respiratory droplets from the infected person; much

rarer is airborne transmission of such droplets over greater distances;

also documented is the possibility of transmission via clothing or bedding

bearing dried respiratory or lesion secretions. One of the problems with

sending or delivering infected blankets, as Harold Forsythe noted, is that

there was no way to ensure that the bearers of these "gifts" would not be

infected instead of the intended recipients.

http://listlva.lib.va.us/cgi-bin/wa.exe?A2...hist&P=6965

[M.Dancer]

http://brneurosci.org/smallpox.html

One more.

[Canadian Blue]

http://media.newscientist.com/article/mg13...-with-them.html

[kengs333]

http://www.indiancountry.com/content.cfm?id=1093893563

Kind of off the topic of blankets, but it is interesting that the US seems to have no difficulty calling what it did "genocide" as this museum will attest to.

Oh, that's interesting. I'm wondering if genocidal behvaiour committed by Indians against other Indians is going to be included in its mandate. Probably not. Nor will it dwell on the fact that many of the earliest colonists, who came here in peace and who were in no position to defend themselves were routinely slaughtered. I guess the only way to fight biased, one-sided history is with biased, one-sided history. How will such a museum accomplish anything positive?

[kengs333]

http://www.bcgeu.bc.ca/Aboriginal_Rights/A...l_dates_history

The practice of payment in blankets:

# 1850 - James Douglas makes 14 land purchases from Aboriginal peoples. The Douglas treaties cover 576 square kilometers of land on Vancouver Island. Aboriginal people are paid in blankets and promised the right to hunt on unsettled lands and allowed to carry on fishing. A policy is established to allow no more than 10 acres of land per Aboriginal family – settlers are allowed 320 acres.

# 1858 - Mainland BC is declared a colony of Britain

# 1859 - New Westminster becomes the first capital of BC.

# 1862 - Smallpox kills one of every three Aboriginal people.

# 1864 - Joseph Trutch is appointed commissioner of land and work.Trutch denies Aboriginal title and prohibits rights of pre-emption of Aboriginal people and adjusts the size of reserve land.

http://www.dfait-maeci.gc.ca/culture/arts/ss_boyer-en.asp

Although Boyer has worked in several styles, he is best known for his "Blanket Statements". These politically charged paintings are a subtle form of anti-colonial criticism: during the XVIIth century, European settlers distributed blankets infected with smallpox to Aboriginal people in order to contaminate and exterminate them.

Honestly, if you tried to prove a point this way in a university classroom, you'd be laughed at and ridiculed. The outbreak of smallpox would most likely have come as a result of direct contact with contageous people. Payment in blankets was done because it was considered an object of value. Had the European really wanted to "exterminate" the Indians, it could easily have been done. The fact that every known Indian group in Canada except the Beothuk and the Neutrals (who were largely exterminated by the Five Nations) remain indicates that this was not the policy.

Edited October 2, 2007 by kengs333

[jennie]

But if pigs were the vectors of spread of infection, it would occur all at once, not person to person.

Why?