what diseases could R1b people have spread to Western Europe ?

spongetaro

spongetaro

Elite member
Messages
717
Reaction score
42
Points
0
When the European settled in America they didn't exterminate all the indigenes but spread diseases found only in Europe so that the Amerindian could not be immunized to it. Similar phenomenon could have occured with the Arrival of nomadic Indo European in sedentarized Europe.
 
America with indigenous people was a special case. America was cut off pretty much from the rest of the world for millennia.
European colonists also went and conquered Africa and Asiatic countries but there was no mass dying there caused by European diseases. At least not on a scale that happened in America.

Do you have a link to a good scientific paper about this issue in America. What I've read so far is more anecdotal than scientific.

Africa, Asia and Europe was always continuously settled, therefore new diseases swept through these continents without stopping, but one sickness at a time. When europeans cam to America they've brought many at the same time. This was a very big on slot at once, that's why so many died.
On other hand the Black Death of middle ages started in Asia. When it arrived to Europe half of population died, about 60 million people. Who should we blame? Chinese I guess. :)

I don't want to scare you too much. But....first recorded pandemic hit Europe in 700AD and killed 40% of Constantinople population. Next big one was Black Death in 1350AD. Folks, if we add another 650 years (difference between them) it will get us to year 2000. We are due for one...
 
In response to the above - I just boarded up my windows and doors and refused to let my wife in the house. Nobody gets in out out until it runs its course.
 
Back on topic, smallpox was one that truly killed on a massive scale in the Americas. It was particularly deadly in urban areas, such as that of Mexico. Its spread was a much easier thing for the virus here.

To make it work on a large scale in rural parts of North America, it had to be introduced. That is when we hear of the accounts of Dutch and later English traders using blankets that had been "smallpox-infected".
The disease could only affect one village at a time, and was not likely to spread much otherwise as a person who was sick was probably not going to move until he or she got well (if at all). It would spread to Native American villages that were close to towns such as in New England. Smallpox would get more dangerous during times of war such as the American Revolution with the disease running amok through army camps and with those who could walk being marched to and fro. Washington was a major proponent of inoculation with his troops because of this.

An interesting note on anecdotal evidence - I heard long ago that the Visigoths succumbed to diseases (type unknown to me) more easily than those they ruled during their time in the Iberian Peninsula. If that is true, and I welcome anyone who knows more about it, then that could be an example of a group from Europe having little or no immunity from another illness that had been around on the same continent.
 
Maybe Wannabevikingitus...
 
Regulus said:
Back on topic, smallpox was one that truly killed on a massive scale in the Americas. It was particularly deadly in urban areas, such as that of Mexico. Its spread was a much easier thing for the virus here.

To make it work on a large scale in rural parts of North America, it had to be introduced. That is when we hear of the accounts of Dutch and later English traders using blankets that had been "smallpox-infected".
Click to expand...

Bullshit!
There were nearly no Dutch in America. Only in New Amsterdam.. What is now New York. And those people had a hard time to survive. It's a lie they did the things you suggest.
I guess the American army did those things.
Not the Dutch!!!
It's a typical British custom to blame all the crimes they committed themselves to The Dutch.
The British Empire was based on lies and propaganda.
 
Reinaert said:
Bullshit!
There were nearly no Dutch in America. Only in New Amsterdam.. What is now New York. And those people had a hard time to survive. It's a lie they did the things you suggest.
I guess the American army did those things.
Not the Dutch!!!
It's a typical British custom to blame all the crimes they committed themselves to The Dutch.
The British Empire was based on lies and propaganda.[/QUOTE

I will be happy to retract what I wrote if you can bring up reputable sources that exonerate the Dutch. Railing against the British and Americans will not suffice.

Also, note that I wrote of "accounts", not of fully memorialized events.

Click to expand...
 
Reinaert said:
Bullshit!
There were nearly no Dutch in America. Only in New Amsterdam.. What is now New York. And those people had a hard time to survive. It's a lie they did the things you suggest.
I guess the American army did those things.
Not the Dutch!!!
It's a typical British custom to blame all the crimes they committed themselves to The Dutch.
The British Empire was based on lies and propaganda.
Click to expand...



Besides, you seem to forget about New Jersey. You can't "swing a dead cat" here in this state without hitting a street sign that has a Dutch name, or a Dutch Reformed Church, or a person with a Dutch surname.
 
The next thing that we will hear is that the Dutch were never involved on the black slave trade.
 
Reinaert said:
Bullshit!
It's a typical British custom to blame all the crimes they committed themselves to The Dutch.
.
Click to expand...



Well, the British have "Guy Fawkes Day", "Boxing Day", etc.
Where on the calendar is "Blame the Dutch Day"?
 
Stop spamming Regulus!
 
Regulus said:
The next thing that we will hear is that the Dutch were never involved on the black slave trade.
Click to expand...

You are pathetically changing the subject.
Of course some Dutch traded slaves.
Mostly pirates from Zealand, Holland and Friesland.
The provinces that are close to the coast.

Those guys are related to the vikings from the north, and protestant.
 
Reinaert said:
You are pathetically changing the subject.
Of course some Dutch traded slaves.
Mostly pirates from Zealand, Holland and Friesland.
The provinces that are close to the coast.

Those guys are related to the vikings from the north, and protestant.
Click to expand...


I have never done anything pathetically in my life.
As I said I would, I have been glossing over your posts, but you apparently are free to jump all over mine. Play fair.

If you want to debate on the subject, then so be it. You may find a reputable source that says that accusations of such dealings by the Dutch are unfounded. That may in fact even be the case. I have seen many things long accepted as true fail to survive modern critical historical review. I will be happy to retract anything that I wrote if I see a reasonable refutation. A word of warning, though; from your statements about New Amsterdam, it is difficult to infer that you know much about your country's colonial history in North America. You may have rushed your statement about there being "nearly no Dutch in America", but it leads me to think that you either don't know or don't want to know.
Perhaps you can give me your position of the dealings of Dutch colonial administrators, such as Kieft and Stuyvesant, with the Native Americans.

If you want to submit that the smallpox outbreak that wiped out 90% of the Mohawks was accidently done by contact with Dutch children as some sources hold, then I would be willing to hear that.
 
Reinaert said:
Bullshit!
There were nearly no Dutch in America. Only in New Amsterdam.. What is now New York. And those people had a hard time to survive. It's a lie they did the things you suggest.
I guess the American army did those things.
Not the Dutch!!!
It's a typical British custom to blame all the crimes they committed themselves to The Dutch.
The British Empire was based on lies and propaganda.
Click to expand...

The British rarely even think of the Dutch. That is not intended as an insult, just a statement of fact. Aside from Advocaat, the rock band Focus and 'Tulips from Amsterdam', you do not even figure on the radar. I have honestly never heard any British person blame the Dutch for anything, though we do have a word for alcohol-induced bravado. It is called, 'Dutch courage'.
 
Ahhh.. Shut up.

The Brits are notorious liars.

Like Tony Bliar.. Who cooked the war in Iraq and Afghanistan together with his wicked fellow GW Bush.

And I guess it's only logic that CIA agents are busy on this forum.
And of course British agents.

Always busy to bend public opinion in the direction their governments want.
 
I would prefer to work with the Royal Marines or SAS.
 
I agree with Lebrok that the Indo-Europeans probably didn't bring any new disease since Eurasia is a single continent where infectious diseases travel beyond human borders.

On the other hand, we could try to figure out whether any modern genetic condition originated in the Indo-European people before they left the steppes. It is almost certain now that the genetic mutation enabling lactose tolerance originated in the Pontic-Caspian steppes shortly before the IE invasions.
 
Good to see us back on topic.

I had been thinking about the possibility of IE people possibly not so much bringing diseases on their persons but arriving with built-in immunities that the original inhabitants did not have. I am not an expert on this part and would welcome some correction, but I wonder if those who lived in Europe prior to the IE arrivals had enough of a pig or cattle economy to have developed an appreciable amount of resistance to animal-to-person transmission.

It is well known that stock rearing was a big part of IE culture. Also well known is that 15th and 16th century ACE Europeans had developed immunities not only to person-to-person communicable diseases, but also to diseases carried by animals common to the farm. I would understand if someone were to argue that any of these immunities could have been acquired in the generations after the IE arrivals, but the possibility that all or some of these immunities may have been developed by IE peoples closer to their homeland and prior to the migrations is intriguing.

If the latter was the case, we have the possibility of sort of an indirect form of bringing in diseases for which the original inhabitants had no immunity but would not otherwise spread across wide areas. Animal-to-person communicated diseases require, for the most part, long-term direct contact between the person and the carrying animal, so it is unlikely that that microbe is going to travel very far if those who work around those animals have any appreciable immunities.

Now, if we take these people and give them some motivation to pack up and leave, and they in turn bring their animals with them, we have the scenario where diseases may have been brought along. In this picture, we have IE people arriving with their stock rearing culture and animals and actually introducing new microbes into the area in which they settle. Pockets of these diseases would be set up all over the continent. They themselves do not generally get sick in this case since stock rearing has been with them for some time but the original inhabitants, not having the benefit of inherited resistance, may in fact get sick, possibly in relatively large numbers. In effect, we would be looking at immune people bringing their disease-carrying vectors along with them. Exposure of the original inhabitants to these vectors could have caused many people to get sick until immunities were acquired by successive generations. This scenario could also explain one reason that IE people became so populous relative to those who lived in Europe prior to the migrations.
 
Reinaert said:
Ahhh.. Shut up.

The Brits are notorious liars.

Like Tony Bliar.. Who cooked the war in Iraq and Afghanistan together with his wicked fellow GW Bush.

And I guess it's only logic that CIA agents are busy on this forum.
And of course British agents.

Always busy to bend public opinion in the direction their governments want.
Click to expand...

You don't need to worry. Why would 'British agents' or the 'CIA' be interested in a maladjusted, anti-social, insignificant little inadequate like you? :LOL:

Be off with you- go and arrange tulips or something. :LOL:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

This thread has been viewed 28142 times.

Back
Top