What if...
Sep. 24th, 2009 11:09 pm... there were as many virulent diseases that affected European immigrants in the to-be United States as they brought with them? Would there have been a U.S.? Or more of a patchwork of smaller political entities, perhaps with a confederated region of different tribes through much of the western plains?
And why was the situation so unbalanced, anyway? Was it because the Europeans were coming from cities, which encouraged disease, so the Natives were comparatively disease-free?
And why was the situation so unbalanced, anyway? Was it because the Europeans were coming from cities, which encouraged disease, so the Natives were comparatively disease-free?
no subject
Date: 2009-09-25 03:18 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2009-09-25 10:20 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2009-09-25 01:26 pm (UTC)I've been working on some social studies product, noticing just how large the brushstrokes are in some textbooks.
no subject
Date: 2009-09-26 03:25 am (UTC)Diamond says--to oversimplify greatly--that it's because Eurasia is landscape-format, whereas, the Americas are portrait-format, which allowed beasties of all sizes to interact across vast distances in the same climatic stratum.
no subject
Date: 2009-09-25 03:28 am (UTC)IIRC from reading 1491 and such-like, the main contributing factors were (a) Europeans lived in close proximity to their domestic animals, so they had evolved more resistance to various kick-ass pathogens, especially smallpox, that leaped from animals to humans; (b) there was less genetic diversity and therefore less immune-system diversity among Natives; (c) there are two kinds of mojo (I don't remember the technical term) in the immune system, one that helps you against bacteria/viruses and the other that helps you against parasites, and Natives had more of the parasite mojo.
no subject
Date: 2009-09-25 03:32 am (UTC)Cf. the Wabanaki Confederacy.
no subject
Date: 2009-09-25 01:30 pm (UTC)Interesting alt-history you've suggested. If you ever write more and want editorial eyes on it, I'd be happy to look it over.
And in some ways, it makes a lot more sense that a place as large and diverse as the current US would be smaller countries. I have to admit, it would be great if more citizens saw the utility of understanding another culture, other languages, and so on.
no subject
Date: 2009-09-25 01:51 pm (UTC)So at least for the time being I am working on something Completely Different.
no subject
Date: 2009-09-25 01:54 pm (UTC)That makes sense. And I appreciate someone who does their research (or knows that they need research :-).
no subject
Date: 2009-09-25 06:04 pm (UTC)That, and the fact that Amazon rainforest technology was far more sophisticated than anyone ever taught me.
m.
no subject
Date: 2009-09-25 06:06 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2009-09-25 07:02 pm (UTC)It makes me wonder what the society was like before the devastation. And yes, I should read the book, but I always wonder how much is fact, and how much likely reconstruction, using logic that may or may not hold for people in other times/places.
(Ah, for a time machine :-)
no subject
Date: 2009-09-25 10:35 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2009-09-25 01:34 pm (UTC)If I'm remembering correctly, it wasn't just that the plague killed a huge percentage of the population; it was also that there were then not enough people to bring in the harvest, for instance, and many died of hunger.
If technology weren't affected, and we started thinking more globally, but with a much lower population, I suspect we would not have gotten ourselves as horribly close as we have to global warming and similar issues.