Diseases have been deliberately used in colonization since at least the 16th century.
Meh. Deliberately is a heavy word. Suffice it to say that wars are notorious vectors for disease transmission.
The US didn't need to intentionally spread the 1917 flu across Europe. Smallpox had decimated Native communities no Western even knew about, long before they arrived to seize territory. The Ottomans didn't unleash the Black Death on Europe. China didn't cook COVID up in a lab. All these kingdoms had to do was export the surplus males and let nature run its course.
Weaponized disease was considered a clumsy, self-destructive weapon when Americans and Soviets were researching it in earnest 50 years ago. King George and King Ferdinand likely don't know Germ Theory existed at the time his subjects were infecting half the New World.
If I remember correctly, there are actual documents/letters from the time who show that diseases were deliberately being used against the native population in what is today the USA.
It may have been "clumsy" or whatever, but that doesn't mean it didn't happen.
By the time it was being deployed as military policy, Smallpox had been ravaging the continent for centuries. We're talking about a disease introduced in the 16th century with documents of deliberate spread dating to the 18th and 19th. The bulk of the damage in the Columbian Exchange had already been inflicted.
It may have been “clumsy” or whatever, but that doesn’t mean it didn’t happen.
The primary and most deadly wave of infections was not intentional. Nor could it have been effectively averted given the medical science of the period.
We’re talking about a disease introduced in the 16th century with documents of deliberate spread dating to the 18th and 19th. The bulk of the damage in the Columbian Exchange had already been inflicted.
I honestly don't get what you're trying to say here. Do you think the fact that a disease was inadvertently introduced in the 16th century somehow excuses the fact that it was deliberately used as a weapon in subsequent centuries?
I usually agree with your comments that I've seen here on hexbear, but this weird.
i think the idea is that initial contact plague was when natives had the limited immunity that so disproportionately affected natives
after those centuries and contact it wouldn't have been disproportionate anymore so when europeans ordered smallpox blankets it mightve been effectively the same as handing them to white people
im not an epidemiologist so i dont know if thats true but i believe that's the line of argumentation
I honestly don’t get what you’re trying to say here
That disease spread wasn't a deliberate decision.
Do you think the fact that a disease was inadvertently introduced in the 16th century somehow excuses the fact that it was deliberately used as a weapon in subsequent centuries?
Of all the genocidal policies implemented by colonial actors, this was approaching the least consequential.
I usually agree with your comments that I’ve seen here on hexbear, but this weird.
Fixating on the spread of disease following First Contact turns a lesson about managing and mitigating disease from a public policy problem into a morality myth.
It gets on my nerves because it confuses the necessary response - particularly in the wake of another big global pandemic - as "Don't trust evil foreigners!" rather than "Develop a modern medical system and health care policy".
No one here is "fixating" on anything. This is like me saying "burning Vietnamese villages with flamethrowers was horrible" and you going "but what about agent orange?"
It's possible to have two or more thoughts at the same time.
It gets on my nerves because it confuses the necessary response - particularly in the wake of another big global pandemic - as “Don’t trust evil foreigners!” rather than “Develop a modern medical system and health care policy”.
This is all in your head. No one here has suggested anything even close to this. WTF are you on about?
First Contact guaranteed an exchange of pathogens. Continuous contact guaranteed propagation.
This is like me saying “burning Vietnamese villages with flamethrowers was horrible” and you going “but what about agent orange?”
No. This is akin to claiming Vietnam was caused by fossil fuels, asserting fossil fuels are colonialist, and then repeatedly pointing to Mai Ly to make your case while calling anyone who disagrees a Colin Powell apologist.
No. This is akin to claiming Vietnam was caused by fossil fuels, asserting fossil fuels are colonialist, and then repeatedly pointing to Mai Ly to make your case while calling anyone who disagrees a Colin Powell apologist.
You're right that most of it wasn't deliberate and it's clumsy, but intentional incidents of biological warfare have occurred since at least antiquity, like Roman soldiers dipping their swords/arrows in corpses to spread tetanus. The smallpox blankets incident occurred in 1763 and there are documents showing the commander of Fort Pitt ordering his soldiers to give the blankets to the Seneca people.
I don't know much about Hawaii specifically, but I know there was an increase in syphilis among the indigenous Hawaiians around when they started getting colonized.
The smallpox blankets incident occurred in 1763 and there are documents showing the commander of Fort Pitt ordering his soldiers to give the blankets to the Seneca people.
Sure. But this was literally centuries after the initial and most lethal waves of infection.
I know there was an increase in syphilis among the indigenous Hawaiians around when they started getting colonized.
Ironically enough, Syphilis was likely a New World disease brought back by Italian sailors in the 1490s.
The real crime here was the rampant unchecked sexual assaults that colonists perpetrated on native people. This wasn't biological warfare. It was a secondary consequence of military conquest.
the black death story actually starts with Jani Beg Khan intentionally throwing plaguebearing corpses over the walls of Caffa, and fleeing Genoese ferried it across the Medd
historians dispute that it was that clean now but its a nice story
Meh. Deliberately is a heavy word. Suffice it to say that wars are notorious vectors for disease transmission.
The US didn't need to intentionally spread the 1917 flu across Europe. Smallpox had decimated Native communities no Western even knew about, long before they arrived to seize territory. The Ottomans didn't unleash the Black Death on Europe. China didn't cook COVID up in a lab. All these kingdoms had to do was export the surplus males and let nature run its course.
Weaponized disease was considered a clumsy, self-destructive weapon when Americans and Soviets were researching it in earnest 50 years ago. King George and King Ferdinand likely don't know Germ Theory existed at the time his subjects were infecting half the New World.
If I remember correctly, there are actual documents/letters from the time who show that diseases were deliberately being used against the native population in what is today the USA.
It may have been "clumsy" or whatever, but that doesn't mean it didn't happen.
By the time it was being deployed as military policy, Smallpox had been ravaging the continent for centuries. We're talking about a disease introduced in the 16th century with documents of deliberate spread dating to the 18th and 19th. The bulk of the damage in the Columbian Exchange had already been inflicted.
The primary and most deadly wave of infections was not intentional. Nor could it have been effectively averted given the medical science of the period.
I honestly don't get what you're trying to say here. Do you think the fact that a disease was inadvertently introduced in the 16th century somehow excuses the fact that it was deliberately used as a weapon in subsequent centuries?
I usually agree with your comments that I've seen here on hexbear, but this weird.
i think the idea is that initial contact plague was when natives had the limited immunity that so disproportionately affected natives
after those centuries and contact it wouldn't have been disproportionate anymore so when europeans ordered smallpox blankets it mightve been effectively the same as handing them to white people
im not an epidemiologist so i dont know if thats true but i believe that's the line of argumentation
That disease spread wasn't a deliberate decision.
Of all the genocidal policies implemented by colonial actors, this was approaching the least consequential.
Fixating on the spread of disease following First Contact turns a lesson about managing and mitigating disease from a public policy problem into a morality myth.
It gets on my nerves because it confuses the necessary response - particularly in the wake of another big global pandemic - as "Don't trust evil foreigners!" rather than "Develop a modern medical system and health care policy".
Yes it fucking was.
No one here is "fixating" on anything. This is like me saying "burning Vietnamese villages with flamethrowers was horrible" and you going "but what about agent orange?"
It's possible to have two or more thoughts at the same time.
This is all in your head. No one here has suggested anything even close to this. WTF are you on about?
First Contact guaranteed an exchange of pathogens. Continuous contact guaranteed propagation.
No. This is akin to claiming Vietnam was caused by fossil fuels, asserting fossil fuels are colonialist, and then repeatedly pointing to Mai Ly to make your case while calling anyone who disagrees a Colin Powell apologist.
:hasan-ok-dude:
:what-the-hell:
You're right that most of it wasn't deliberate and it's clumsy, but intentional incidents of biological warfare have occurred since at least antiquity, like Roman soldiers dipping their swords/arrows in corpses to spread tetanus. The smallpox blankets incident occurred in 1763 and there are documents showing the commander of Fort Pitt ordering his soldiers to give the blankets to the Seneca people.
I don't know much about Hawaii specifically, but I know there was an increase in syphilis among the indigenous Hawaiians around when they started getting colonized.
Sure. But this was literally centuries after the initial and most lethal waves of infection.
Ironically enough, Syphilis was likely a New World disease brought back by Italian sailors in the 1490s.
The real crime here was the rampant unchecked sexual assaults that colonists perpetrated on native people. This wasn't biological warfare. It was a secondary consequence of military conquest.
the black death story actually starts with Jani Beg Khan intentionally throwing plaguebearing corpses over the walls of Caffa, and fleeing Genoese ferried it across the Medd
historians dispute that it was that clean now but its a nice story
Sure. But that doesn't explain how the disease gets all the way to the Atlantic Coast.