History questions not worth their own thread V

[Flying Pig]

On the contrary, it makes the British Empire hypothetical totally irrelevant to the question that it is being suggested to solve.

 

[Wrymouth3]

What was the best zoo in history? I wanna go with the Berlin Zoo since Fredrich Wilhelm IV was essentially a non-human animal who opened a zoo But yeah, what's the best zoo? Gotta keep true to this thread in any way possible by asking questions truly not worth a thread.

 

[Lord Baal]

What was the best zoo in history? I wanna go with the Berlin Zoo since Fredrich Wilhelm IV was essentially a non-human animal who opened a zoo But yeah, what's the best zoo? Gotta keep true to this thread in any way possible by asking questions truly not worth a thread.

Taronga Zoo has two different kinds of tapirs. Tapirs are awesome.

I think the zoo in Vienna is the oldest in the world, though that could just be some of their tourist propaganda. Other than that, San Diego seems pretty popular. If you want to steal an animal and bring it home, the London Zoo is apparently ridiculously easy to break into.

 

[H4run]

what do you think about the book call "guns, germs and steel" by Jared Diamond?

Also his view like

"there many natives american die after the colonies is not solely because of the holocaust, but also it is because their anti-body fail to evolve thus the 10.000 isolation so they are more sensitive to bacteria ;( "

I find this argument is funny and sound like apology or kind like finding a way out for the slaughter that they done in the past.

I really don't fancy at all the black campaign of the natives American, like the monstrous picture of Aztec civilization, while their hospitality to the colonies were amazing, these kind of image building sound like just to make a way for the Spanish conquistador to genocide the Aztec population. Also this bacteria and anti body notion I find it very annoying.

But as Imam Shafi say

"I believe my opinion is right with the possibility that it is wrong and I believe the opinion of those who disagree with me is wrong with the possibility of that being correct."

So is this germs notion is just an "excuse" or the argument do "legitimate"?

 

[H4run]

I had a talk with my friend he quote this book and tell me about Jared Diamond view, while me myself never read his book, but he recommend me. That's why I asking in this forum.

 

[say1988]

I havent read the book. But your quote is generally correct. There were many more natives that died from disease with no ill intent from the explorers (and in many cases decades before any Europeans entered the areas where they lived) and they had know way to understand what would happen.

Now the important part would be the context and how he treats that fact.

 

[TheLastOne36]

Lots of people hate on Jared Diamond on here for various reasons but the Native Americans being introduced to old world diseases is pretty well established. Pre-Colombus America had no(relevant) indigenous or introduced animals able to be domesticated, and therefore had no diseases introduced to them from their animals unlike in the Old-World, and were geographically isolated from the Old-World peoples who carried such diseases. So they had none of the immunities the Old-World had evolved through their co-existence with domesticated animals or people who had domesticated animals.

Native Americans got introduced to small pox, measles, influenza, the plague and a host of other deadly old-world epidemic inducing diseases at the same time. The number of Native Americans to die before even direct colonial intrusions by Europeans is commonly cited at in excess of 90% IIRC.

This isn't a rarity. Similar things happened when Europeans found Australia and Polynesia, Bantu farmers spreading into Southern Africa, and presumably Austronesians spreading to various Indonesian islands. (With the notable exception of New Guinea, who had previously adopted agriculture and domesticated animals and already had immunities to the diseases the Austronesians carried.)

edit:

Now the important part would be the context and how he treats that fact.

He uses it to support his sub-thesis that starting geography and situation (ie; the lack of domesticable animals in the New World) matters when determining why it was Europeans to colonize the Americas and not the other way around.

 

[H4run]

maybe I'm wrong but I can't remember if during the colonialism in Indonesia the foreigner also carried with them disease resulting plague.

Colonialism victim in Indonesia mostly die because of force labor take for example tanam paksa, torture or even genocide like happen in Aceh for example when the Dutch used the Ambon (Kenil) soldier to butcher the civilian to break down the stubbornness (in positive meaning) of the Aceh freedom fighter, after that they cannot stand it themselves (seeing the carnage was carry over border). Or during the puputan war in Bali. I can point out many example. But I can't remember there were massive plague like the Aztec suffer when the Spanish conquistador appear.

As I recall the Indonesia Islands also pretty open with the outer world, the south Sumatera area like Palembang once been largely populated by the Chinese immigrant. Or Minangkabau in west sumatera had an old trade route with Chinese, Persian and Arab, even they were mixing with each other there lots of Chinese culture influence can be found in Minang Kabau culture. But I write this just depend on my memory that I found by random reading and engaging various discussion.

About the Natives American, what do you think about the immigrant that came before Colombus? for example, there's a notion of muslim sailor that arrive before colombus that came from North Africa. Or even before that, they said there even an old viking ruin that find in America, so America is not really as isolated as we think? or it is not?

:s

 

[H4run]

and about the 90 percent, do you mean the 90 percent from the total 100 percent death is cause by disease and plague that been carry by the old world?

 

[Masada]

maybe I'm wrong but I can't remember if during the colonialism in Indonesia the foreigner also carried with them disease resulting plague.

Nope. The reverse was, sorta, true: about one-third of Europeans arriving in Batavia died within a year up the Dutch fixed the canal system and drained the swamps. Malaria, dysentery and poor general health were the big killers.

 

[H4run]

Nope. The reverse was, sorta, true: about one-third of Europeans arriving in Batavia died within a year up the Dutch fixed the canal system and drained the swamps. Malaria, dysentery and poor general health were the big killers.

I agree with you that's true, including blood fever or demam berdarah. I think it even an English man who found the cure for this disease. That's true Masada but not the reverse notion which I object.

 

[History_Buff]

maybe I'm wrong but I can't remember if during the colonialism in Indonesia the foreigner also carried with them disease resulting plague.

Well, Indonesia was well connected with the rest of Eurasian society. So it had already been exposed to the plagues that Europeans passed on to Native Americans.

But I can't remember there were massive plague like the Aztec suffer when the Spanish conquistador appear.

There were very big plagues, though most of them arrived slightly before the Conquistadors. There had been some contact between Europeans and Mesoamericans some time before Hernan Cortes invaded Mexico. Those earlier contacts had spread disease, which had already taken it's toll before Cortes arrived.

About the Natives American, what do you think about the immigrant that came before Colombus? for example, there's a notion of muslim sailor that arrive before colombus that came from North Africa. Or even before that, they said there even an old viking ruin that find in America, so America is not really as isolated as we think? or it is not?

Aside from the Viking settlements in northeastern Canada, the evidence for pre-Columbian contact is pretty dubious. As for why viking visitors to North America didn't transmit diseases, there's a few probable reasons.

First, the area where we know they landed (there may have been more, we don't know) is extremely remote. It's possible any transmitted diseases might have killed the locals, but not spread any further. Secondly, the diseases that probably killed most of the native population, Smallpox and Bubonic Plague, didn't really exist in Scandinavia at the time. Both had broken out in Europe before, but population densities in Europe were fairly low at the time, so there was no way for a plague to constantly be active among it's population. Scandinavia was almost among the most remote areas of Europe at the time. By the time those diseases became prevalent in Northern Europe, viking travels to the new world had all but stopped.

 

[TheLastOne36]

maybe I'm wrong but I can't remember if during the colonialism in Indonesia the foreigner also carried with them disease resulting plague.

Colonialism victim in Indonesia mostly die because of force labor take for example tanam paksa, torture or even genocide like happen in Aceh for example when the Dutch used the Ambon (Kenil) soldier to butcher the civilian to break down the stubbornness (in positive meaning) of the Aceh freedom fighter, after that they cannot stand it themselves (seeing the carnage was carry over border). Or during the puputan war in Bali. I can point out many example. But I can't remember there were massive plague like the Aztec suffer when the Spanish conquistador appear.

As I recall the Indonesia Islands also pretty open with the outer world, the south Sumatera area like Palembang once been largely populated by the Chinese immigrant. Or Minangkabau in west sumatera had an old trade route with Chinese, Persian and Arab, even they were mixing with each other there lots of Chinese culture influence can be found in Minang Kabau culture. But I write this just depend on my memory that I found by random reading and engaging various discussion.

I meant Austronesian populations whom replaced dark-skinned Melanesian populations in Indonesian islands between 3000 and 2000 BC.

As History Buff and Masada pointed out, these Austronesian populations were already exposed to the plague (they came from China originally, where many of these diseases probably originated), and a subsequent long history of contact with Eurasia ensured that they were up to-date with all the latest plagues.

About the Natives American, what do you think about the immigrant that came before Colombus? for example, there's a notion of muslim sailor that arrive before colombus that came from North Africa. Or even before that, they said there even an old viking ruin that find in America, so America is not really as isolated as we think? or it is not?

To add to that, it is very plausible that Polynesians accidentally discovered the Americas from the Pacific side before Columbus which is cool.

But these were isolated encounters in localized regions with very presumably little impact. After Columbus there was considerable more impact and interaction between disease carrying would-be colonists and Native Americans.

and about the 90 percent, do you mean the 90 percent from the total 100 percent death is cause by disease and plague that been carry by the old world?

I believe it was 90% of the total population. You must understand though that such numbers are estimates, it's not exactly easy to determine the population history of Pre-Colombian Americas.

We do know that Mexico and Peru suffered from massive epidemics that completely destabilized and probably depopulated those regions, which arguably was one of the several reasons why the Spanish were able to conquer those civilizations with such ease.

We also know that the very heavily populated Mississippi river cultures were virtually completely wiped out by disease that arrived from European contact on the Eastern Seaboard before Europeans even came into contact with them.

Likewise, we are just discovering that the Amazonian river basin harbored similarly developed and densely populated cultures that were wiped out due to disease before European contact. Any trace of them, having been lost due to the rainforests regrowth.

 

[History_Buff]

To add to that, it is very plausible that Polynesians accidentally discovered the Americas from the Pacific side before Columbus which is cool.

Indeed, the one really plausible pre-Columbian contact (other than the vikings, which we've covered) is Polynesians. But we don't have any evidence of Polynesians on the ground in South America (or South Americans in Polynesia), it's mostly they had Sweet Potatoes (which are native to South America) and nobody is particularly sure how.

I believe it was 90% of the total population. You must understand though that such numbers are estimates, it's not exactly easy to determine the population history of Pre-Colombian Americas.

Yeah, it was >90% of the original population wiped out by disease. Which is crazy. They must have been sure there were divine powers they had really pissed off somehow.

 

[TheLastOne36]

Indeed, the one really plausible pre-Columbian contact (other than the vikings, which we've covered) is Polynesians. But we don't have any evidence of Polynesians on the ground in South America (or South Americans in Polynesia), it's mostly they had Sweet Potatoes (which are native to South America) and nobody is particularly sure how.

There was actually a whole thread on this in this subforum before. IIRC there were other supporting evidence such as chicken bones of a certain type of chicken or something.

Yeah, it was >90% of the original population wiped out by disease. Which is crazy. They must have been sure there were divine powers they had really pissed off somehow.

Yah and the diseases didn't discriminate, killing their nobility, peasants and even emperors and their heirs all alike. (Which was further troublesome as that led to conflicts over succession)

And at the same time as having been torn apart by disease which killed most of the population, seemingly facing the wrath of the gods, and having a massive political and socio-economical crisis, they see these pale white gods in shiny steel armor sitting upon tamed terrifying wild beasts (horses) with magic boomsticks(guns) after having arrived by massive ships from the ocean, who were completely immune to the plague affecting everyone else.

I don't know about you, but I'd be absolutely terrified/submit to my new overlords if I hadn't died to disease/died in the civil wars that followed first. IIRC from the reports of the conquistadors, many of the Americans actually worshiped them as living gods.

 

[Joecoolyo]

many of the Americans actually worshiped them as living gods.

I'm pretty sure a lot of that was mystification and propaganda, to a degree, on behalf of the Spanish who documented the natives. A myth that has lived around to modern times for some reason.

 

[TheLastOne36]

I'm pretty sure a lot of that was mystification and propaganda, to a degree, on behalf of the Spanish who documented the natives. A myth that has lived around to modern times for some reason.

Ahh, was not aware. Wouldn't mind seeing some more comprehensive accounts on the matter though.

 

[Lord Baal]

edit:


He uses it to support his sub-thesis that starting geography and situation (ie; the lack of domesticable animals in the New World) matters when determining why it was Europeans to colonize the Americas and not the other way around.

That sub-thesis is incorrect, by the way, since groups don't need immunities from disease in order to cross an ocean. Domestic animals certainly help a society to thrive and develop technologically, but groups such as the Incas developed large empires with complex social and technological structures despite having only a handful of domestic animals, none of which are nearly as useful as the horse, pig or cow.

Nope. The reverse was, sorta, true: about one-third of Europeans arriving in Batavia died within a year up the Dutch fixed the canal system and drained the swamps. Malaria, dysentery and poor general health were the big killers.

This tended to happen everywhere the Europeans ran into a truly hostile environment, such as the Patzinal, Amazon, Central America and Equatorial Africa. I'm honestly shocked more Portuguese didn't die in the Kingdom of Kongo than did historically.

As History Buff and Masada pointed out, these Austronesian populations were already exposed to the plague (they came from China originally, where many of these diseases probably originated), and a subsequent long history of contact with Eurasia ensured that they were up to-date with all the latest plagues.

It sounds like you're talking about the latest fashions, just off the runway in Milan and Paris.

We also know that the very heavily populated Mississippi river cultures were virtually completely wiped out by disease that arrived from European contact on the Eastern Seaboard before Europeans even came into contact with them.

Likewise, we are just discovering that the Amazonian river basin harbored similarly developed and densely populated cultures that were wiped out due to disease before European contact. Any trace of them, having been lost due to the rainforests regrowth.

I'm very interested in both these things. I'd never actually heard of the latter example as more than a myth, to be honest. Do you have any sources?

There was actually a whole thread on this in this subforum before. IIRC there were other supporting evidence such as chicken bones of a certain type of chicken or something.

There's also similarities in canoe constructon between Californians and Hawaiians, other forms of plant life (I think cotton) that shouldn't exist in both areas and certain studies on skeletons in Peru and Easter Island that seem similar. There was also a DNA study that found that the Rapanui (Easter Islanders) share native South American genes, but as there's been no follow-up study it's impossible to determine if these results were accuarate or not. It seems likely that both Hawaiians and Rapanui made it to the American coast, but there's nothing definitive as of yet.

I don't know about you, but I'd be absolutely terrified/submit to my new overlords if I hadn't died to disease/died in the civil wars that followed first. IIRC from the reports of the conquistadors, many of the Americans actually worshiped them as living gods.

Many - though by no means all - of the native groups contacted by both Cortes and Pizarro saw the Spanish as gods. It is quite the coincidence that both Aztec and Incan cultures had the legend of a god who went to the sea and would return, only to have the Spanish come from the same direction at correct time of year. Montezuma II himself seemed to believe the rumours, at least initially. The priesthood of Quetzlcoatl even used the cross as a symbol, which came in very handy for the Catholic Conquistadores.

Only the Incas actually seemed capable of putting up an organised fight against the Conquistadores - the Tlaxcalans did so as well, but they are obviously a much smaller group, and they ended up allying with the Spanish - and they had the misfortune of being in the middle of a bloody civil war right when the Spanish turned up. The Aztec's system of government - a loose confederacy under Tenochtitlan's hegemony for only thirty years or so - was very prone to interference from outsiders, whereas the Incan system was very closed. This made it far more difficlut to infiltrate, though the fact that the Incas had very light skin for Native Americans - and red and blonde hair and beards - seems to helped the Spanish somewhat, especially in establishing their own government after the Incas were ousted.

It seems Atahualpa actually ordered certain of his generals not to butcher Pizarro's men until he'd seen them himself, out of curiosity. He definitely wanted their horses for himself, which some of his lieutenants referred to as "super-llamas" (I swear I'm not making that last part up, it's the actual translation). Pizarro carefully kept his guns hidden until he was ready to use them, which was a pretty wise decision on his part, as the Incas used a variety of ranged weapons which would have rendered his guns useless in a set-piece battle against them.

 

[Lord Baal]

I'm pretty sure a lot of that was mystification and propaganda, to a degree, on behalf of the Spanish who documented the natives. A myth that has lived around to modern times for some reason.

The Spanish certainly blew it out of proportion, but such worship certainly existed, especially among coastal peoples. Many diaries of Conquistadores support this. While they probably lied in letters and their statements to officials, it's unlikely they lied in the own diaries and personal correspondence amongst each other.

This worship tended to give way to confusion very quickly, however, since the Conquistadores certainly didn't act like gods. Gods don't rape that much, unless they're Ancient Greek. The Incas, in particular, seem to have complained about their odour. It should also be noted that the Incas seem to have intimidated the hell out of the Conquistadores whent hey first met, since they didn't act in the fashion the Spanish had grown accustomed to in their previous interactions with the natives. Several Conquistadores commented that the Incans treated them as inferiors, or at best as equals. This would seem to indicate that it was unusual for the Spaniards to be considered mere mortals by the natives when first contact was made.

 

[Masada]

I meant Austronesian populations whom replaced dark-skinned Melanesian populations in Indonesian islands between 3000 and 2000 BC.

That didn't actually happen, lah.

This tended to happen everywhere the Europeans ran into a truly hostile environment, such as the Patzinal, Amazon, Central America and Equatorial Africa. I'm honestly shocked more Portuguese didn't die in the Kingdom of Kongo than did historically.

Java wasn't actually that hostile to life. Batavia was because it surrounded by malarial swamps and had huge sanitation problems until the 1800s. Bogor which is about an hour away from modern Jakarta was positively healthy and became the seat of Dutch government for part of the year as a result.

There's also similarities in canoe constructon between Californians and Hawaiians, other forms of plant life (I think cotton) that shouldn't exist in both areas and certain studies on skeletons in Peru and Easter Island that seem similar. There was also a DNA study that found that the Rapanui (Easter Islanders) share native South American genes, but as there's been no follow-up study it's impossible to determine if these results were accuarate or not. It seems likely that both Hawaiians and Rapanui made it to the American coast, but there's nothing definitive as of yet.

It all seems rather unlikely to me.