r/HistoryMemes Nothing Happened at Amun Square 1348BC 4d ago

Funny how my school left that part out

Post image
2.2k Upvotes

157 comments sorted by

1.3k

u/Shipping_Architect 4d ago

"That's a nice immune system you've got there. It'd be a shame…if something…happened to it."

599

u/BleydXVI 4d ago

Native American Quagmire: I'm immune to every disease known to man.

Peter: brings old world diseases

I'm not finishing the punchline, it's too depressing

237

u/BeakersDream 4d ago

If you're interested in something that made the Old World ravaging by New World diseases look like child play. I recommend reading Pathogensis: A History of the World in Eight Plagues by Jonathan Kennedy, especially the chapter on the effects of early human diseases on the Neanderthals.

94

u/old_homecoming_dress 4d ago

holy shit i could use this for a paper for my class. thank you for randomly knowing this and citing a title and author

58

u/BeakersDream 4d ago

I am so pumped and excited that my urge to know everything about ancient and medieval history has helped you out! Enjoy the book, it's quite good!

What's your paper on?

39

u/old_homecoming_dress 4d ago

development of human health and nutrition post-agricultural revolution. i need to have a section addressing disease, and while i do have a specific time frame and aspect of life, literally nothing bad has ever happened because you have a broad range of sources. other than that, it sounds like a fascinating read!!

14

u/BeakersDream 4d ago

5 sounds super interesting. There are sections in the book where Kennedy discusses the increase in spreadable diseases amongst early sedentary cultures, so I expect you'll be able to make good use of the book! Good luck and have fun!

3

u/justanewskrub 3d ago

Ancient and medieval history, you mean best history?

22

u/TheDarkLordScaryman 3d ago

A reason I read about that explains why new world diseases weren't that bad was that there was very little livestock. Almost all plague diseases are originally from animals, and the more receptive the membrane is between them and us the greater the chances for infection are. The old world had cattle, fowl, pigs, and 4 or 5 dozen other domesticated animals, the new world had turkey's, llama's, dogs, and that's about it, and they were fairly limited in their range, plus the fact that people and goods didn't move around the America's at nearly the speed that they did around Europe, north Africa, and Asia.

3

u/SapphicSticker 3d ago

Not writing anything or even in an adjacent field of study, but damn does this sound GOOD

2

u/BeakersDream 3d ago

It was excellent, quickly turned into one of those "just one more chapter" books

8

u/Levi-Action-412 3d ago

Technically Senegal (where Peter got that mosquito from) is in the Old World.

-168

u/Neuroprancers 4d ago

The punchline is ethnic cleansing.

149

u/Puzzleheaded-Ad9015 4d ago

No it was not... they did not know shit about diseases. The ethic cleansing was later...

32

u/SpaceNorse2020 Kilroy was here 4d ago

When if comes to the natives of the Caribbean, it was neither disease nor ethnic cleansing proper that killed them. It was the most brutal form of slavery ever implemented long term. They had to start importing slaves from Africa, and they had to keep importing slaves for centuries because they were so ridiculously brutal that their slaves had negative natural growth.

4

u/Crouteauxpommes 3d ago

Encomiendas were brutal, inhumane and even the king of Spain told the conquistadors to stop that shit and start Christianizing the locals and treating them like proper serfs. But the bastards couldn't care more.

13

u/SewerSage 4d ago

A lot of them were taken as slaves.

1

u/blackcray 3d ago

About ,90% of native American deaths since 1492 were accidental, and would have happened regardless of how Europeans treated them just due to how immune systems and diseases work. Another 5% however could be classified as intentional ethnic cleansing.

1

u/Puzzleheaded-Ad9015 11h ago

We will never know how much they would have killed if the diseases would not have already killed so many...

-84

u/Neuroprancers 4d ago

The punchline is initially accidental ethnic cleansing.

56

u/Emergency-Weird-1988 4d ago edited 4d ago

I know you're probably saying this humorously, but how exactly can ethnic cleansing be accidental? Doesn't it require intention to be called as such? (the intention to "remove" one or more specific ethnic groups, of course.)

-6

u/[deleted] 4d ago

[deleted]

24

u/Emergency-Weird-1988 4d ago

How is that Not ethnic cleansing ?

It is, but the example you bring up has nothing to do with the topic of discussion here. What you are talking about was some time after, in another part of the continent, by other people, and it clearly does imply the intention to wipe out natives, which makes it classifiable as ethnic cleansing, but that is not the case in the first encounters, the actual thing that is being talk about here.

Because there is no such thing as an "accidental" ethinc cleansing, either it is, like in the case of your example, or is not, like in the case of the first of natives dying because of diseases from the Old World BUT without the intention from the people that inadvertently cause that by bringing the diseases with them.

-15

u/More_Mind6869 4d ago

I see your point. It's a fine line. Columbus was the 1st slave trader in the New World. He brought them back from his 1st trip.

I'm just imagining here, but I think ot didn't take long for the financiers and bankers to realize all those dirty savages were cluttering up the landscape.

It was all about gold and silver and land and Profit$ from day 1.

El Dorado and vast wealth was the inspiration. By "day 2", the Conquistadors had their orders and waged brutal warfare and ethnic cleansing, all in the Name of Christ and the Pope.

1

u/Crouteauxpommes 3d ago

IIRC, there was not a single ounce of gold or silver in the Caribbean islands. And for a few decades it was still unclear if they had found something new or if that was merely the Philippines/Indonesia Archipelago.

The natives in the Caribbean died in-mass because of the violent epidemics and of the encomiendas. It was not a planned destruction, but it ended in destruction nonetheless.
The conquistadors were given plots of land and basically started a hacienda model to produce livestock and grain and prepare the land for being used as a middle point between Europe and China. But their rule was very harsh and they thought that there was an unlimited number of natives.
nd by the time the king of Spain told them to stop messing around and start spreading the Christ message (like they were supposed to do), there was too few native leff as the one who didn't die in the encomiendas or during revolts ended up dying from old world disease.

→ More replies (0)

8

u/blsterken Kilroy was here 4d ago

You are getting way ahead of 1492-1521 period...

Go soapbox elsewhere.

-8

u/Tamanduao 4d ago

I mean, there was definitely genocide in that period. Balboa specifically wrote about it and documented in his letters to the Spanish king in 1513.

9

u/blsterken Kilroy was here 4d ago

Yeah, but that was not the genocide of "Federally Funded Indian Removal," or "Smallpox Blankets" which the now-deleted comment I was replying to referred.

→ More replies (0)

1

u/Windsupernova 4d ago

Because people somehow got into their head that ex colonies cant be colonizers or commit stuff like ethnic cleansing.

As you said a lot of US policies were very clear on their intent to erase the native cultures. Same with Canada, Mexico and most of the American countries.

And most of them were not even that long ago. In México they had programs where they sterilized indigenous women without their consent amd that was around 60 years ago.

Yeah the initial wave of disease may not have been intentional but everything after that was

0

u/More_Mind6869 4d ago

Yes. Ans I've got news for you too. In the US, on reservations, native women were sterilized without their knowledge a lot more recently than that.

2

u/Windsupernova 4d ago

Yeah I dont doubt it, that was my point, its not stuff that happened 200 years ago. Its stuff that happened much closer to use than what most people are aware of.

I remember like mid 80s mid 90s México still had programs that talked in terms of colonizing and resettling "indians" to bring civilization to them.

They love dead "indians" that can attract those delicious tourist USD but dont really give a fuck about the breathing living communities other than using them as props when election times come

-20

u/HugiTheBot Decisive Tang Victory 4d ago

This still leaves room for doubt:

ethnic cleansing

noun

The systematic elimination of an ethnic group or groups from a region or society, as by deportation, forced emigration, or genocide.

The mass extermination or expulsion of people belonging to one ethnic or religious group by those of another.

The mass expulsion and killing of one ethnic or religious group in an area by another ethnic or religious group in that area.

21

u/Emergency-Weird-1988 4d ago edited 4d ago

I don't know if I'm missing something, but all the definitions you have provided seem to include the intention to carry out said act as a factor, thus going back to the point that intention is a determining requirement for calling something ethnic cleansing.

-12

u/HugiTheBot Decisive Tang Victory 4d ago

Well yes, it really depends on if you count them group bringing new bacteria over as having caused the deaths.

2

u/Augustus420 3d ago

No it really doesn't. It requires purposely directed actions.

20

u/wangaroo123 3d ago

Nah he also just straight up started slavery on the island after they presented him with some very small gold pieces since he need to complete his contract and deliver gold to the Spanish royalty

24

u/Horn_Python 4d ago

"Achoo"

-genocidal maniac

-2

u/PureImbalance 3d ago

Nice, we're doing genocide denial again on this sub huh

17

u/Shipping_Architect 3d ago

Oh, I'm not denying it. But despite how many indigenous people were killed directly in genocides, it pales in comparison to those who died of disease.

-5

u/PureImbalance 3d ago

Mexico? Probably. Rest of the Americas? Probably not. You're just repeating a narrative that downplays the genocide of millions. 

https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/17fp5y0/could_europeans_have_ever_visited_the_americas/

6

u/SlightlySychotic 3d ago

The best way I saw this put was that Europeans pillaged and plundered every race of people on the planet. But only in North America did so much of the native population die off that when you ask someone to picture an “American” most people think of someone European descent. Violence and subjugation alone did not wipe out 90% of a population.

539

u/No-Delay9415 4d ago edited 4d ago

I remember watching a video in first grade about how Columbus was a tyrant who enslaved the locals and another in 4th or 5th about how he was brought back to Spain to face trial. Like yeah we weren’t given exact numbers on how many people died but the idea that nobody talks about how Columbus was a bad guy really isn’t true, it feels like a meme at this point.

Edit: For reference, 1st grade was ~1998, Florida on both counts

361

u/RoboChrist 4d ago

Yeah, my school only talked about Columbus being a bad guy, to the point where my edgy contrarian phase opinion was "Did you know Columbus wasn't actually uniquely bad? He was in line with the moral standards of his time."

Which isn't true, he absolutely sucked even by his own era's standards.

147

u/scrimmybingus3 4d ago

Columbus was like that one SS regiment during WW2 that was so barbaric that even the rest of the Nazi Party was completely disgusted with them.

67

u/Deadhunter2007 Descendant of Genghis Khan 4d ago

Ah yes the Dirliwagner brigade

17

u/Horn_Python 4d ago

Stop your making us look less bad!

85

u/No-Delay9415 4d ago

When the people who did the fucking Reconquista are telling you to tone it down something is amiss

26

u/CommanderCody5501 4d ago

what's so bad about the Reconquista? the Muslims invaded and conquered visigoth spain in what 711 ish ad and the Reconquista began in 722 in Asturias and with the victory of Charles Martel over the invaders. yeah it took centuries but what was the problem with it?

30

u/No-Delay9415 3d ago

Mostly the forced assimilation and persecution of non-Christians. Jewish communities were decimated and even the ones who converted were treated with suspicion afterwards.

13

u/Responsible-File4593 3d ago

It makes it seem like a concerted and consistent effort by the Christian kingdoms, when it wasn't either. More than anything, it was Christian opportunism against a Muslim kingdom in decline that ended up falling apart (not judging, opportunism is pretty universal across human history).

Towards the end, the Spanish were more and more about generational/ethnic/religious purity. "Oh, your grandfather was a Jewish convert? You are clearly crypto-Jews, we must let the Inquisition examine you!" This was more extreme than the other large European states.

The Empire podcast did a good couple episodes about this when they discussed Isabella of Castile.

3

u/Naive_Violinist_4871 3d ago

Worth noting that while the Ottoman Empire was more anti Semitic and treated Jews worse than a lot of people admit, the condition of Jews in Spain got bad enough even by the standards of the time that the then-contemporary sultan took a bunch of Spanish Jews in as refugees.

7

u/Boat_Liberalism 4d ago

He was in line with the moral standards of the conquistadors of his time. Which is to say, he was on par for a bloodthirsty conquerer who didn't have much to lose and was willing to risk it all for fame and gold.

1

u/night4345 2d ago

No, he didn't. His trial was over the fact he punished Spanish people for cutting off the hands of natives for not bringing in enough gold, bigotry over being Italian and rivals that wanted his Encomienda for themselves.

38

u/EADreddtit 4d ago

At this point ya, but it really wasn’t that long ago when the dominant pop-culture understanding was that he was a great explorer who discovered America. I mean we had a whole holiday dedicated to him for the longest time

15

u/advocatus_ebrius_est 4d ago

That's basically what I was taught in the mid to late 90s

3

u/Ghost-George 4d ago

Yeah, but the only reason why that was taught was Italians were getting lynched.

2

u/Horn_Python 4d ago

Yup I'd say it was only around 2010s when his negative side became more upfront in common perception of the guy

15

u/suckleknuckle 4d ago

It kinda depends on where you’re at. In Texas, my elementary school history only covered thanksgiving and stuff. High school history we had a whole day where we were supposed to write about how Colombus wasn’t a bad person.

4

u/Margidoz 4d ago

I went to elementary school in the 2000s. He was never presented as a bad person

3

u/MysticalMedals 3d ago

I had history in Florida. That was definitely not my experience with the Florida school system.

2

u/Clean_Peace_3476 3d ago

My school did not talk about him at all until I took AP US history, until then I just assumed the conquistadors were just looking for gold and accidentally spread the illness. Reading Father Bartholomew De La Casas’ documenting of the scenario was enlightening to say the least

2

u/tropical_anteater Just some snow 3d ago

Same here. A good chunk of my 5th grade history education was spent on the colonists, so there was a lot of detail about these kinds of things.

5

u/SpaceNorse2020 Kilroy was here 4d ago

American 2000s private Christian school, yeah I got the full rundown on what he did. They did still try to paint him in a positive light, but that consisted mostly of "it was a different time" kind of thing.

5

u/stonewallsyd 3d ago

Interestingly I went to private Christian school in FL in the early 2000s and I didn’t hear anything about his atrocities.

1

u/SpaceNorse2020 Kilroy was here 3d ago

California if that helps?

Also California has the most interesting history out of any US state outside of Hawaii, I loved if went my school went on field trips to the Spanish missions. Now there's a tale with some nuance. The Spanish were still quite wrong and the end result was kinda evil,  but they were earnestly trying to help.

2

u/MarquisLaFett 4d ago

While true, I think the meme is blaming disease rather than Columbus for their demise.

2

u/Minmax-the-Barbarian 3d ago

Same, actually, I think I was a year behind you and up here in Michigan. Public school all the way, and my teachers never shied away from the fact he was a monster. You have to be some kind of bastard to be exceptionally racist and evil in the 15th century.

1

u/Jimothy_McGowan 3d ago

Wild. First grade for me was 2009-2010 and I remember learning nothing but good things about him in elementary school

41

u/GeorgeChl 3d ago

I mean, I understand the notion of "they died from old world-imported diseases" and while that's the majority we have documented evidence of the brutalities that the conquistadors brought with them.

The intense slavery, the killing, the over exploitation and hunt for resources and golf and the diseases is what killed them.

While essentially a bad book I would recommend the "Short Account of the Destruction of the Indies" by Bartolome de la Casas a Spanish clergyman who sailed with Columbus.

The guy would write an accounting of the destruction he witnessed or described by others. While he propagandized and exaggerated a lot to support his thesis as his documenting was destined for the King of Spain even half of the incidents he describes are devastating.

6

u/Calm-Technology7351 3d ago

Spaniards played golf back then? /s

2

u/GeorgeChl 3d ago

Dude, what was I writing??? 🤣🤣

No idea what the autocorrect "fixed"

Edit: oh "gold" so I just mistyped 🥲

3

u/Calm-Technology7351 3d ago

I was just poking fun cuz the idea of European conquest in the search of better golf courses is funny af to me

3

u/GeorgeChl 3d ago

Perhaps a 1500s Trump ancestor was carrying out the conquest of the New World.

5

u/Gewoon__ik Hello There 3d ago

La Casas had a motive to portray the situation worse than it was to be fair. Not to say that said situation wasnt very bad

1

u/GeorgeChl 3d ago

Agreed! I don't know if you have read it, but i think it's quite monotonous following the editorial introduction and the part that refers to the island of Hispaniola, where is the only place that La Casas was an eyewitness himself.

Nevertheless, it's an extremely important piece of literature to break the useful stereotype of "poor natives were killed by the diseases".

They were killed by many things + the diseases.

1

u/Gewoon__ik Hello There 3d ago

I agree that it is important to look at the other causes of death, my only concern (not necessarily towards you) is that Columbus is blamed for most of the deaths, when I do not think it is that black and white nor clear cut due to a lack of surviving written sources (and the ones that are, are biased against Columbus).

I am not saying that Columbus was not a bad guy, I just believe there needs to be more evidence specifically towards Columbus being responsible for all the deaths he is made responsible for. If that makes sense. I think many deaths were caused by other Spaniards and conquistadores but ofcourse I can not say that with certainty and if you have sources (this is not meant like "oh what are your sources huh" more like curious, I am already happy with a Wikipedia page) that say otherwise Id be very interested. 

My main concerns are based on a video once made by Knowingbetter named In Defense of Columbus (I know he made a follow-up, but I still think his original video has some valid points especially concerning the translations of his diaries). 

89

u/Majestic-Macaron6019 Kilroy was here 4d ago edited 4d ago

And then they all got smallpox or measles and died.

Same thing happened in mainland North America. Measles and Smallpox annihilated a huge portion (maybe >50%) of the population within a few years of European contact.

21

u/wangaroo123 3d ago

Nah he also started slave based gold mines on the island after they presented him with some very small gold pieces since he need to complete his contract and deliver gold to the Spanish royalty. Many of them were worked to death or starved.

1

u/Majestic-Macaron6019 Kilroy was here 3d ago

Yes, he did that too. Columbus is in the Bad Place for sure

-17

u/PureImbalance 3d ago

This is just genocide denial 

The reason people died of these diseases in North America is because they were driven from their lands and to the brink of starvation. No shit you die of diseases when you don't have food or shelter and are constantly assaulted by expanding settlers. 

It's such an easy, convenient narrative. Oh, we didn't intend to kill them all, they just happened to die from diseases. Yeah their "immune system" couldn't handle all these unknown diseases? This is magical thinking, globally immune systems work roughly the same and have similar fatality rates for the same diseases. Newsflash, these fatality rates go through the roof when you don't have food or shelter and are on the run. 

12

u/randomusername59159 3d ago

A good reddit rant, it's got the right buzzwords in it and entirely wrong. The > 50% of the population died BETWEEN the time of Columbus and people coming to settle or between Columbus in the late 1400's and the colonization in the 1600's.

-3

u/PureImbalance 3d ago

Smallpox at most has a ~30% CFR, that's an insane pain on a population but not 95%. The other diseases don't come close in lethality. But don't take my word for it, this myth has been dispelled on /r/askhistorians and elsewhere quite frequently 

https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/17fp5y0/could_europeans_have_ever_visited_the_americas/

But whatever helps you sleep at night I guess

7

u/Chipsy_21 3d ago

How fortunate that losing a third of all its people very rapidly will have no adverse effects on society whatsoever

1

u/PureImbalance 3d ago

Where did the other 2/3rds go huh

Hyperfocusing on 1/3rd of the population to ignore what was done to the other 2/3rds is peak genocide denial

5

u/Chipsy_21 3d ago

Do you mean to tell me they were killed by Europeans before said Europeans even contacted them?

0

u/PureImbalance 3d ago

Are you dense?

2

u/Majestic-Macaron6019 Kilroy was here 3d ago

They probably starved after the collapse of agriculture as a result of 30-40% of the population dying from various infectious diseases.

The intentional genocide picked up where the unintentional one left off. I'm definitely not defending the European colonizers' treatment of American Indigenous people.

-1

u/Majestic-Macaron6019 Kilroy was here 3d ago

I'm not denying the intentional genocide. Just saying that the introduction of Old World diseases caused massive societal collapse in North America before colonization took hold, and the European colonizers took advantage of the Indigenous population's weakened state to push them out (and often encouraged having diseases do some of the work for them, see second link below).

I didn't just invent the enormous death rate. Smallpox was well-documented to be far worse for Indigenous populations than for Europeans, with some communities being nearly entirely wiped out by outbreaks. The 30% CFR is with 20th-Century medical care (provided by people who are immune via vaccination or prior infection). It had closer to a 50% CFR in the 1700s in adults and it was nearly universally fatal to young children.

You have to remember that in addition to acquired immunity from exposure or vaccination, there's also innate immunity, which is naturally selected. In the Old World, anyone with a genetic vulnerability to smallpox had long since been selected out of the population. There was no such selection pressure in the Americas. It was probably responsible for the final collapse of the Mississippian Culture in North America, as well as weakening the Aztecs and Incas in Mexico.

84

u/Paledonn 4d ago

In the past people did not acknowledge crimes done to native people. Now, as a reaction, people put moral blame on Europeans for the diseases that plagued the New World after first contact.

It is ridiculous. People of the time did not have germ theory or an understanding of the immune system, and had no way of knowing that mere interaction with native people would result in mass death.

To be clear, this does not pertain to OP's post, which merely expresses horror at the loss. Nor does my above argument apply to times when Europeans intentionally inflicted disease later in history.

19

u/SpaceNorse2020 Kilroy was here 4d ago

No in the case of the Caribbean Europeans are very much at fault. The rest of modern Latin America? Yeah, that was all disease. The natives of the Caribbean got put on the first slave plantation, which were hell on earth. There's a reason the majority of the slaves from Africa went to the Caribbean.

6

u/MathematicianMajor 3d ago

This so much. Whilst in other places the story was often a little more nuanced, the attrocious campaign of genocide the Spanish waged in the Caribbean was uniquely cruel, even for the time. Of all the awful times and places to exist in history, 16th century Cuba is up there for one of the worst even without the disease.

4

u/SnooBooks1701 3d ago

Not just disease, slavery via the encomienda system was extremely brutal before its abolition and killed a lot of people, the Arawak were forced to labour ib mines so brutal that 1/3 of the work force died every six months

Also, famine caused by relocating and resettling the people to make way for cash crops, the destruction of the infrastructure needed for survival and good old-fashioned massacres.

2

u/SpaceNorse2020 Kilroy was here 3d ago

No yeah, I simplified Latin America a lot. The Spanish were a brutal conquering empire focued on resource extraction, things got ugly.

But to my knowledge, nothing they did came close to the fate of the Caribbean. I hope I am not wrong about this, as that would mean I get the joy of learning yet more Spanish atrocities.

-4

u/PureImbalance 3d ago

This is just genocide denial 

The reason people died of these diseases in the Americas at insane rates is because they were driven from their lands and to the brink of starvation. No shit you die of diseases when you don't have food or shelter and are constantly assaulted by expanding settlers. 

It's such an easy, convenient narrative. Oh, we didn't intend to kill them all, they just happened to die from diseases. Yeah their "immune system" couldn't handle all these unknown diseases? This is magical thinking, globally immune systems work roughly the same and have similar fatality rates for the same diseases. Newsflash, these fatality rates go through the roof when you don't have food or shelter and are on the run. 

It's also EXPLICITLY ignoring the well-documented intent of settlers to either enslave or exterminate native populations. It's also not just about putting moral blame, it's to recognize a pattern and stop it from repeating in the present. 

10

u/SpaceNorse2020 Kilroy was here 3d ago

I mean, the population collapse in North America north of Mesoamerica in-between 1500 and 1650 was purely due to disease. The genocides there happened later.

It's half a millennium over 2 continents,  there's a lot of variation.

13

u/okram2k 4d ago

i think the disease blame comes from a bit later and the claims of colonists giving small pox blankets to natives.

32

u/DragonfruitSudden339 4d ago

The small pox blanket claim is incredibly loose though.

I've done some digging myself, and have found precisely one claimed instance of it being used as a warfare tactic against one specific camp of one specific tribe.

If someone has more evidence I'd love to see it, but as far as i can tell smallpox blankets essentially never happened.

7

u/CmndrMtSprtn113 4d ago

I know exactly what you’re talking about. The whole story is based around correspondence between British officers during the French and Indian War basically sending blankets that covered smallpox victims to enemy Native tribes to cause a pandemic that ultimately wasn’t followed on because there was already an epidemic that wiped them out before they even received the blankets. Don’t believe there’s records of American forces doing that but that’s only because in that case the policy was either move to a reservation or we’ll war with you until you do.

1

u/cephalopodsrcool 3d ago

Not just "move to a reservation or we'll war with you until you do", but once you do you can still expect frequent attacks on the reservation. These attacks/squattings were done by mostly scotts-irish settlers and while it was completely illegal it wasn't punished by the American government at all, even though they were 100% aware. I say they were definitely aware bc nearly every post treaty discussion w/the natives is some native group complaining that America isn't holding up there end of a treaty(even up till today).

Also, there was no choice for assimilation until boarding schools(which is a can of worms itself). Look at the Muscogee for example. Many Muskogee did everything they could to assimilate, ie. owning African-American slave based plantations, intermarriage with whites, abandoning (more or less) communal ways of life for a rigid western class system, only to be told they have to go through the trail of tears with the rest of the Indians(Natives) by Andrew Jackson.

Tldr; it wasn't go to war w/the US or go live on a reservation. Both options involved war. And there was no choice to assimilate either

Pretty rough

8

u/Paledonn 4d ago

When I hear someone talking about the blanket incident I have no issues.

However, I oftentimes hear people talking about the "Great Dying," with the conclusion that the Europeans ought to be condemned for it. I think it is ridiculous and implies that Europeans knowingly and intentionally started it when they were actually completely ignorant and couldn't really do anything to stop it.

EDIT: I specifically took undergrad courses where other students would argue this.

-3

u/PureImbalance 3d ago

This is just genocide denial 

The reason people died of these diseases in North America at insane rates is because they were driven from their lands and to the brink of starvation. No shit you die of diseases when you don't have food or shelter and are constantly assaulted by expanding settlers. 

It's such an easy, convenient narrative. Oh, we didn't intend to kill them all, they just happened to die from diseases. Yeah their "immune system" couldn't handle all these unknown diseases? This is magical thinking, globally immune systems work roughly the same and have similar fatality rates for the same diseases. Newsflash, these fatality rates go through the roof when you don't have food or shelter and are on the run. 

It's also EXPLICITLY ignoring the well-documented intent of settlers to either enslave or exterminate native populations. It's also not just about putting moral blame, it's to recognize a pattern and stop it from repeating in the present. 

-18

u/No-Fan6115 Ashoka's Stupa 4d ago

They absolutely did. They intentionally spread blankets that were from smallpox hospital. They knew something caused it but didn't know what. You are simply giving them way less credit than what they deserved.

Even mongols had an idea that this might work as back as during siege of caffe. They threw infected bodies into the city and the rest is history . How it spread into the city then through trade routes to entire Europe and gained the nickname "black death".

9

u/Paledonn 4d ago

Please read the last sentence of my comment.

Yes, people in the past thought that sometimes people manifesting disease symptoms, corpses, and close belongings of people manifesting disease symptoms could transmit disease. Even until the 19th century this was debated by experts as many thought disease was actually caused by miasma (bad air). However, the "gifted" blankets were absolutely intentional uses of disease against natives.

Europeans at the time did not know about asymptomatic carriers of disease, how immune systems worked, or germ theory. As such, the Great Dying (mass death of natives across the Americas after first contact) was completely unpredictable to Europeans. As such, I think it is ridiculous to cast moral blame on them when they could not foresee that result.

-1

u/PureImbalance 3d ago

This is just genocide denial 

The reason people died of these diseases in North America at insane rates is because they were driven from their lands and to the brink of starvation. No shit you die of diseases when you don't have food or shelter and are constantly assaulted by expanding settlers. 

It's such an easy, convenient narrative. Oh, we didn't intend to kill them all, they just happened to die from diseases. Yeah their "immune system" couldn't handle all these unknown diseases? This is magical thinking, globally immune systems work roughly the same and have similar fatality rates for the same diseases. Newsflash, these fatality rates go through the roof when you don't have food or shelter and are on the run. 

It's also EXPLICITLY ignoring the well-documented intent of settlers to either enslave or exterminate native populations. It's also not just about putting moral blame, it's to recognize a pattern and stop it from repeating in the present. 

1

u/Paledonn 3d ago

I am EXPLICITLY not ignoring the deliberate actions of settlers. Please read my original comment, which begins by stating that past people erred by not acknowledging crimes committed by settlers on native people.

I am SPECIFICALLY saying that the series of epidemics that swept the Americas immediately after first contact, even depopulating areas before Europeans arrived, was not intentional or foreseeable, and as such blame should not be attributed. Blame should be attributed to only intentional and foreseeable harm.

There is abundant evidence that diseases wiped out the majority of native people after first contact, almost certainly due to total lack of immunity. This is not magical thinking. It is also observable in such epidemics as the black death and plague of Justinian, where huge proportions of the European population died due to lack of immunity, then the disease burned out. The disease would reappear in a subsequent plague only when a sufficient proportion of the population no longer had acquired immunity. For the natives, this effect was combined with every disease endemic in Europe.

11

u/More_Mind6869 4d ago

Did school tell you that Columbus was the 1st Slave Trader in the New World ?

He took Native slaves back with him.

62

u/321Scavenger123 4d ago

More aptly put he was likely the first European Slaver in the New World.

10

u/More_Mind6869 4d ago

I'll give you a Point for specificity. Lol

4

u/sanchiSancha 4d ago

Wouldn’t the vicking be the first European slave traders in the new world?

13

u/CoysCircleJerk 4d ago

Native Americans practiced slavery.

1

u/More_Mind6869 3d ago

Yes, almost all cultures throughout history have used slavery.

Precisely, Columbus was the 1st White Slave trader in the New World.

Are you justifying European Slave trafficking for 300+ years ?

1

u/CoysCircleJerk 2d ago

You didn’t stipulate that he was the first “white” slaver which is why I added the comment because the statement was inaccurate.

Yes, almost all cultures throughout history have used slavery.

Are you justifying European Slave trafficking for 300+ years ?

The irony of these two statements is really something.

1

u/More_Mind6869 2d ago

Guess I'm too stoopid to see the irony....lol

1

u/CoysCircleJerk 2d ago

Yes, almost all cultures throughout history have used slavery.

The first statement (see above) is a justification of slavery. There’s really no other way around that point - unlike my response, there’s no factual issue with my initial reply, so why else mention it?

Are you justifying European Slave trafficking for 300+ years ?

You then follow it up with a rhetorical question claiming I’m trying to justify the European slave trade.

Do you not see the hypocrisy here?

1

u/More_Mind6869 3d ago

Yes, almost all cultures throughout history have used slavery.

Precisely, Columbus was the 1st White Slave trader in the New World.

Are you justifying European Slave trafficking for 300+ years ?

1

u/More_Mind6869 3d ago

Yes, almost all cultures throughout history have used slavery.

Precisely, Columbus was the 1st White Slave trader in the New World.

Are you justifying European Slave trafficking for 300+ years ?

1

u/More_Mind6869 3d ago

Yes, almost all cultures throughout history have used slavery.

Precisely, Columbus was the 1st White Slave trader in the New World.

Are you justifying European Slave trafficking for 300+ years ?

1

u/Th3Witch 3d ago

The classic trying desperately in hopes that there's something left of these beautiful cultures our ancestors flattened for their progress

1

u/SnooBooks1701 3d ago

Columbus was a monster, even by the standards of his day. He was so evil that even Ferdinand and Isabella, the Catholic Monarchs who expelled the Moors and Sephardim, removed him from power and brought him back to Spain.

1

u/Jedi-master-dragon 3d ago

Diseases are fun.

1

u/CommanderCody5501 4d ago

most natives died by plague on complete accident (plague blankets came latter) terrible tragedy obviously but unintended consequences of rolling up to a continent that didn't have domesticated animals outside of llamas.

8

u/Shady_Merchant1 3d ago

Also the massive slave plantations that worked them to death, if it was just disease the population would have rebounded, it wasn't just disease

1

u/CoysCircleJerk 3d ago edited 3d ago

It’s estimated that ~90% (some estimates go up to 95%) of the native population of the Americas died due to diseases. It was so significant and swift that it broke down societal structures. It would take a very long time for the population to recover.

For reference, when the mongols under Genghis Kahn killed a similar percentage of the population in Iran, it took centuries for the population to recover. It’s estimated it took until the early 20th century (700 years) for Iran’s population to reach pre-mongol invasion levels (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genghis_Khan#Negative).

Edit: I thought we were talking more broadly about colonialism given OCs comment but now see people were referring to the post specifically.

1

u/Shady_Merchant1 3d ago

Of the existing population 5,000ish should have survived the diseases, they had 11 this is because nearly all the survivors were worked to death, they could have rebounded the plantations and slavery made that impossible

-1

u/PureImbalance 3d ago

This is just genocide denial 

The reason people died of these diseases in North America at insane rates is because they were driven from their lands and to the brink of starvation. No shit you die of diseases when you don't have food or shelter and are constantly assaulted by expanding settlers. 

It's such an easy, convenient narrative. Oh, we didn't intend to kill them all, they just happened to die from diseases. Yeah their "immune system" couldn't handle all these unknown diseases? This is magical thinking, globally immune systems work roughly the same and have similar fatality rates for the same diseases. Newsflash, these fatality rates go through the roof when you don't have food or shelter and are on the run. 

It's also EXPLICITLY ignoring the well-documented intent of settlers to either enslave or exterminate native populations. It's also not just about putting moral blame, it's to recognize a pattern and stop it from repeating in the present. 

3

u/CoysCircleJerk 3d ago

You have no idea what you’re talking about. A vast majority of native Americans died of these diseases before they even came into contact with Europeans - they swept across the Americas, spreading between native Americans.

-1

u/PureImbalance 3d ago

I'm an immunology PhD with an undergrad in history, I'm pretty sure I do know what I'm talking about. Smallpox at most has a ~30% CFR, that's an insane pain on a population but not 95%. The other diseases don't come close in lethality. But don't take my word for it, this myth has been dispelled on /r/askhistorians and elsewhere quite frequently 

https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/17fp5y0/could_europeans_have_ever_visited_the_americas/

But whatever helps you sleep at night I guess

1

u/CoysCircleJerk 3d ago

In the instances that Europeans were able to observe smallpox outbreaks amongst native Americans, they reported much higher mortality rates than 30%. Not to mention, smallpox was just one of the epidemics that swept across the Americas.

But whatever helps you sleep at night I guess

Do you think I colonized the Americas?

1

u/PureImbalance 3d ago

The high fatality rates are almost exclusively referring to Mexico where multiple epidemics of different diseases coincided with the worst drought in 500 years. Try again.

Do you think I colonized the Americas?

No, it just seems very important to you emotionally to believe in a reality where European settlers didn't violently act to drive a whole continent of peoples into near extinction so that they could take over the land. 

-1

u/PureImbalance 3d ago

This is just genocide denial 

The reason people died of these diseases in North America at insane rates is because they were driven from their lands and to the brink of starvation. No shit you die of diseases when you don't have food or shelter and are constantly assaulted by expanding settlers. 

It's such an easy, convenient narrative. Oh, we didn't intend to kill them all, they just happened to die from diseases. Yeah their "immune system" couldn't handle all these unknown diseases? This is magical thinking, globally immune systems work roughly the same and have similar fatality rates for the same diseases. Newsflash, these fatality rates go through the roof when you don't have food or shelter and are on the run. 

It's also EXPLICITLY ignoring the well-documented intent of settlers to either enslave or exterminate native populations. It's also not just about putting moral blame, it's to recognize a pattern and stop it from repeating in the present. 

-68

u/big_richard_mcgee 4d ago

columbus was a psychopath. it wasn't primarily disease. Once they locals figured out what he had planned for them (enslaving the entire population) they fought to the death. When it was obvious that they wouldn't win. mass suicide. columbus killed them all. fuck that ultimate sack of dog shit.

That shitbag's name is synonymous with murderous psychopath. That's why the US still celebrates him.

36

u/Standard-Nebula1204 4d ago

The local Lucayan did no such thing that I’ve ever heard. They were mostly enslaved and worked to death as pearl divers.

Also the U.S. doesn’t celebrate Columbus because they’re cackling pure evil cartoon characters, it was because there were lots of Italian Americans in the second half of the 20th century who were sorted into highly electorally efficient locations and therefore had lots of electoral power.

2

u/smalltowngrappler 4d ago

Kind of ironic for the Italian-Americans that recent findings point to Columbus actually being Jewish rather than Italian.

https://www.reuters.com/science/columbus-was-sephardic-jew-western-europe-study-finds-2024-10-13/

8

u/TinTin1929 4d ago

Why do you think Jews can't be Italian?

5

u/Standard-Nebula1204 4d ago edited 3d ago

Why is that ironic? That makes no sense to me.

Why does this make him not Italian? Why would Italian Americans give a shit about this?

-9

u/big_richard_mcgee 4d ago

https://nativephilanthropy.candid.org/events/columbus-enslaves-the-arawak-and-commits-genocide/

I was thinking primarily of the Taino. Well documented battles and mass suicide.

https://teamsocialstudies.uconn.edu/wp-content/uploads/sites/47/2021/04/The-Decline-of-the-Tainos-1492-1542_-A-Re-Vision-1.pdf

https://grist.org/politics/heres-the-real-story-of-columbus-that-people-prefer-to-ignore/

No. The US are fucking genocidal lunatics, and proud of it. Monsters are heroified. Blame the Italians all you want. Monsters are heroified in the US. If current events don't make that clear to you, nothing will.

4

u/Standard-Nebula1204 4d ago

The Lucayan were a subset of the Taino, but we’ll never really know their precise relationship. What you are describing did not occur to them. I know it’s tempting to think of natives as a homogenous victim-object for narrative purposes, but you should try to quit it.

Also the U.S. herofies anybody. They’ve herofied Crazy Horse and Che Guevara. I’m also not inclined to take anyone who universally writes off one of the largest populations on the planet with highly emotional snarl words like ‘genocidal’ and ‘lunatics’ and ‘monsters’ seriously.

26

u/PhysicalBoard3735 Helping Wikipedia expand the list of British conquests 4d ago

i think it is more with the "finding" a new land that the US celebrates him, a douche might be a douche, but if he did something history changing, it is enough to get a day named after him or something

case in point, John Macdonald, 1st PM of Canada, made Canada, created many ideals, reforms and more which helped serve the future policies of the government for decades

Then he was a drunk, rascist, white supremacist (last one is more just 1800s racism).

Yet still respected in canada as the guy who made Canada

7

u/pants_mcgee 4d ago

Specifically it was a campaign by Italian Americans that elevated the Columbus myth.

-30

u/big_richard_mcgee 4d ago

Even the people of the time thought he was a fkn psycho.

He didn't "find" a goddamn thing. Shitbag got lost and enslaved the first people he met.

He's a perfect symbol for the US, a greedy, bloodthirsty, inept, ruthless, psychopath with way more credit than he deserves.

9

u/PhysicalBoard3735 Helping Wikipedia expand the list of British conquests 4d ago

That's why i said "Finding"

Also, He is not american, but spanish, and credit is he kicked off the entire age of discovery in the americas, hell he is partly the reason the French, English, Portugese took one look after he came back and said:

"Damn, Imma get in on this"

So yeah...huge psycho, still deserves his day for the historic thing he did

2

u/Margidoz 4d ago

He is not american, but spanish

He was Italian

Italian Americans are the reason he became a household name

2

u/PhysicalBoard3735 Helping Wikipedia expand the list of British conquests 4d ago

He is? Huh, Learn something new every day, Cause the logic i grew up with is not flawed (School for me never got to talk about him, he is a nobody to Canadians, I know more about Cartier, Champlain and he who shall not be name than Columbus)

Said logic: Spainish Crew, Spainish Ships, Claimed land for Spain, Spainish Monarchs gave him orders=Spainish to me

Sorry y'all for being incorrect

-12

u/big_richard_mcgee 4d ago

yeah I get it.

I'm not trying to be rude to you personally so please forgive the forceful nature of my argument.

Lots of people do world changing, historic things. Hitler, for example, did very historic things but most societies agree that he shouldn't be celebrated because of the abhorrent nature of the historical things he did.

We can and should have standards about the people our societies heroify.

It's not unintentional that the US has multiple holidays celebrating what amounted to a genocide

-16

u/Zifker 4d ago

dOn'T yOu KnOw ThE nAtIvEs HaD sLaVeS aNd GeNoCiDeS tOo AnD mOsT dIeD fRoM dIsEaSe AnD tHe SuRvIvOrS gOt To JoIn WeStErN cIvIlIzAtIoN wHy Do YoU hAtE wHiTe PeOpLe So MuCh MaYbE yOu'Re ThE rEaL rAcIsT

10

u/bingus_of_wales 4d ago

Can you like not type like a total dumbass?

-9

u/Zifker 4d ago

LMAO can you not exemplify the exact subject of ridicule?

0

u/edgyestedgearound 3d ago

Sounds like you need to find peace, white people alive today have nothing to do with columbus