Native American

> Native American
> dies from European viruses with no hopes
> Native European
> just okay with native bacterias and illness
Explain this meme to me, why it wasn't two way road, like in Africa where epidemy would kill you even if you white.

Other urls found in this thread:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medieval_demography#Demographic_tables
youtube.com/watch?v=JEYh5WACqEk
twitter.com/SFWRedditImages

Whitey got syphilis instead.

Also, Eurasia + Africa gives you a lot more opportunity for disease compared to the Americas.

The New world had a relatively low population and very low population density. Infectious diseases occurred, of course, but they very rarely spread to large communities which would develop immunity.

Over in the Old World, however, you had a lot more communication between population groups, and a lot more urbanization. Consequently, you had a lot more disease in general, which led to greater immunity.

European diseases were much nastier because Europeans were much less sanitary and had more domesticated animals. European settlements were literally covered in feces. That didn't happen in the Americas.

>The New world had a relatively low population and very low population density.

Tenochtitlan was one of the biggest cities in the world. So was Cusco.

Yea and in between that you have thousands of square miles of Amazon and mountains. Unlike Europe which is relatively close to each other.

And how many other cities existed in the New World that hit 5 digit population counts? Meanwhile, over in the old world, you've got dozens in Europe alone, nevermind places like Persia, India, and China.

I also recall that it had an excellent sewage system compared to European cities. Maybe that was a factor?

Those weren't isolated cities, they were the largest cities in large regions that were densely populated. More so than Europe, in fact.

It had more to do with

Domestication breeds disease.
Most deadly household name diseases bar smallpox had domesticated animals as hosts. They thrived in their hosts, not killing them or doing so at a much slower rate. However, when these microbes underwent one or two mutations that allowed them to thrive in humans.

It's what didn't change that is the deadliest though. What allowed them to keep their lesser hosts alive was still deadly to humans.

People lived in cities in the Old World for far longer than than the New, giving diseases much longer to evolve. Also, Old Worlders kept much more livestock than New Worlders, and had much greater mobility thanks to horses and sailing.

Even so, some New World diseases /did/ travel to the Old, notably Syphilis.

>it's the Europeans had inherited resistance to smallpox meme

Old World populations died at a similar rate during smallpox epidemics.

Europe specifically had some nasty diseases like small pox, which over centuries, most Europeans had become somewhat immune to it, at least enough that most survived it. Native Americans hadn't developed any nasty diseases other than the general ones around since the dawn of humanity which everyone was resistant to but they had never encountered anything like small pox before, so with absolutely no resistance except in a few, (probably the ancestors of the ones who are still around now) it wiped them out.

European diseases can come from a wide landmass because of widespread trade. Lots of local regions where deadly diseases crop up, and lots more where it can easily spread.

In the Americas, the total land area influenced by urban communities was less, and probably more concentrated. That can make it less likely for disease to spread. Though there are diseases that originate in tropical areas of the new world, these aren't necessarily as deadly as some of the ones that had their way with Europeans.

It's hard to say why deadly diseases arose in one area and not another, it seems perfectly possible that it could have been the other way around. Maybe then we'd all be speaking Mayan.

WE

WAS RACIST SHITPOSTERS

Then name a few. Let's hear some other cities in the New world with at least 10,000 people in them.

smallpox is both deadlier and easier to transmit than syphilis

I've heard this meme before but it was certainly not true in the English colonies, and I suspect it was untrue for the Mexica and others as well. The English remarked on how especially devastating diseases were to the Indians, and interpreted it as God clearing the land for them. The explorer Daniel Denton remarked “How strangely they [the Indians] have decreased by the Hand of God… and it hath generally been observed that where the English come to settle, a Divine Hand makes way for them.”

Yeah, medieval Europe was a melting pot of disease. Roman hygiene was really fantastic, but frankish, slavic, and anglo-saxon hygiene was awful.

India was worse.

>meme

Not every fucking thing is a meme.

Europeans, Africans, and Asians had thousands of years of sneezing and sitting on each other and built up resistance to disease.
What I wonder about is Australian Aboriginals. Did they lose a lot of ppk to smallpox and other things?

Why were they so bad with hygiene, anyway? Isn't it a natural biological reaction to be repelled by bodily waste?

The Aztecs controlled many settlements that size. You seem to think that's very big, but it's not. Tenochtitlan had a population of hundreds of thousands. There were tens of millions living in present day Mexico, over all. The Inca Empire was ~15 million.

>The Aztecs controlled many settlements that size.

Name two.

> You seem to think that's very big, but it's not. Tenochtitlan had a population of hundreds of thousands.

Yes, and it was an exception, what with the canalization agriculture that was practiced there and pretty much nowhere else on the continent.

Furthermore, that puts it on par with Paris and Naples in the early 16th century.

>There were tens of millions living in present day Mexico, over all.

[citation needed] Even the most generous estimate I can find online quickly puts them at about 5 million. France, by comparison, had a population of about 15 million in the 16th century.

>The Inca Empire was ~15 million.

And again, so what? Even accepting both of your estimates, that puts them combined at about 25 million, plus scattered tribes in the Amazon and the great plains, where the extremely limited spread of agriculture means that populations aren't going to rise that high.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medieval_demography#Demographic_tables

Meanwhile the estimated European population in 1500 is a bit over 90 million, more than three times your combined Inca/Aztecs. And that's not even touching Asia or Africa.

One or two very large cities won't shift the larger balance. No city back then was big enough to do that.

>hundreds of millions
Lol no. Even the highest estimates for Mexico are approximately 20 million.

>Name two.

Texcoco
Tlacopan

Happy? What was the point of that? Why can't you look things up yourself?

>on par with Paris and Naples

Yes, exactly....

>the most generous estimate I can find online quickly

Lol, ok.

>so what?

So your central claim is wrong, that's what.

It says tens of millions you idiot.

>Texcoco

At most, 1/5th the size of Tenochitlan, and people like Bernardino de Sahagún had even smaller population estimates.

>Tlacopan

Can't find any sort of population estimate. Considering it got way less in terms of plunder and prestige than the other two members of the triple alliance, assuming it had a similar population to Tenochitlan seems unlikely.

>Yes, exactly....

Pic related

>Lol, ok.

Provide a source to back up your claims then, jackass.

>So your central claim is wrong, that's what.

No, my central point, brought up hereis that the Old World had a much higher population and population density than the New World.

Even assuming that the Aztecs and Incas combined had a population of 25 million, that makes them much, much smaller than Europe alone, nevermind places like China and India.

So no, you haven't refuted the central point. You haven't even ADDRESSED the central point. You've claimed that just because there were a couple of very large cities in the New World, it must therefore have an equal population.

That's like saying that because the New York City Metropolitan area is larger than any Metropolitan area population for any city in China, the U.S.A. has more people living in it than China does.

Do you see how stupid that argument is?

youtube.com/watch?v=JEYh5WACqEk

CGP Grey describes it best

youtube.com/watch?v=JEYh5WACqEk

tl:dw: the great killers of humanity are animal-to-human transmitted diseases, which are deadly to humans due to the biological miscommunications when it comes to a human dealing with Cow-native Cholera, where as human-to-human transmissions are very good at not killing humans.

Native Americans didn't have many animals to domesticate and spend large amounts of time around, whereas the Old World relied on your barnyard staples for food and work.

So Europeans got the stray Syphilis, while the natives got destroyed by smallpox and measles, which are absolutely deadly if your genetic makeup has never experienced such a disease in its history, and thus has no form of defense against it.

>Considering it got way less in terms of plunder
1/5 while Tenochtitlan and Texcoco had 2/5 each

On another note, in 1519 the Aztec Empire was 200 000 km2 smaller than Spain (500 000 km2).

This.

Natives were too dumb and killed all of theirs.