Started By
Message

Why is it that Europeans brought diseases to the new world but didn't catch any?

Posted on 3/29/17 at 11:47 am
Posted by Hawgnsincebirth55
Gods country
Member since Sep 2016
16035 posts
Posted on 3/29/17 at 11:47 am
I mean you'd think the natives would have some diseases and viruses that our immune systems had never seen either
Posted by RB10
Member since Nov 2010
43811 posts
Posted on 3/29/17 at 11:48 am to
They caught racism. It didn't exist until America.
Posted by el Gaucho
He/They
Member since Dec 2010
52970 posts
Posted on 3/29/17 at 11:48 am to
we got syphilis from the indians
Posted by Jim Rockford
Member since May 2011
98180 posts
Posted on 3/29/17 at 11:48 am to
Do you even syphillis, bro?
Posted by NWLA Tiguh12
Member since Jul 2015
2402 posts
Posted on 3/29/17 at 11:48 am to
Sorry to hear you have AIDS
Posted by fr33manator
Baton Rouge
Member since Oct 2010
124117 posts
Posted on 3/29/17 at 11:48 am to
They did.


Guns Germs and Steel answers your question


This post was edited on 3/29/17 at 11:50 am
Posted by Ed Osteen
Member since Oct 2007
57474 posts
Posted on 3/29/17 at 11:48 am to
Who said they didn't?
Posted by OWLFAN86
The OT has made me richer
Member since Jun 2004
175830 posts
Posted on 3/29/17 at 11:49 am to
Indians had better hygiene, just like today, it was the immigrants that stunk.
Posted by Hawgnsincebirth55
Gods country
Member since Sep 2016
16035 posts
Posted on 3/29/17 at 11:49 am to
Ahh thanks didn't know that but ibwas mainly talking about deadly diseases
Posted by Tigeralum2008
Yankees Fan
Member since Apr 2012
17132 posts
Posted on 3/29/17 at 11:50 am to
The short answer is that Europeans simply had more robust immune systems. Several factors contributed to this: first, Europeans had been the caretakers of domestic animals for thousands of years, and had over time grown (somewhat) immune to the common diseases that accompanied the domestication of such food sources. Native Americans, on the other hand, were largely hunters and gatherers, and even in some domestication cases, it’s thought exposure was limited.

Second, Europeans lived in more densely populated areas than Native Americans. When so many humans live together in relatively close quarters (particularly with lack of good, or any, sewage systems and the like), disease spreads quickly with the general population continually getting exposed to numerous pathogens. The Europeans’ bodies had to adapt to dealing with many of those diseases, and for those who survived, their immune systems thrived as a result.

The third factor is travel and exchange. Groups of people and animals moved around a lot in Europe and had interactions particularly through war and trade, resulting in the spread of disease across continents—and, eventually, some level of immunity for the survivors.
Posted by tide06
Member since Oct 2011
11177 posts
Posted on 3/29/17 at 11:51 am to
Well things like Yellow Fever were huge issues for most of our history and had a huge impact on major projects like the Panama Canal.

But back then people just died due to "bloody flux" and the like, not as through the CDC was testing samples of lung tissue.
Posted by LucasP
Member since Apr 2012
21618 posts
Posted on 3/29/17 at 11:51 am to
LINK

Really good video that explains it in detail. The gist is that Europeans lived in cities which were good for creating diseases where the nomadic natives didn't.

But CPG Gray is a great YouTube channel, you should subscribe then you wouldn't have to ask stupid questions like this.
Posted by GetCocky11
Calgary, AB
Member since Oct 2012
51270 posts
Posted on 3/29/17 at 11:51 am to
The Old World was not nearly as isolated as the New World and had been exposed to a lot more than the New World inhabitants.
Posted by TheCaterpillar
Member since Jan 2004
76774 posts
Posted on 3/29/17 at 11:51 am to
quote:

Ahh thanks didn't know that but ibwas mainly talking about deadly diseases



Syphilis was bad, bad news before penicillin.

Posted by Hopeful Doc
Member since Sep 2010
14960 posts
Posted on 3/29/17 at 11:52 am to
quote:

mainly talking about deadly diseases


Syphilis is quite lethal. It's just not rapid.
Posted by StrongBackWeakMind
Member since May 2014
22650 posts
Posted on 3/29/17 at 11:52 am to
That book is boring AF. I've tried to get through it a couple times now.
Posted by Nado Jenkins83
Land of the Free
Member since Nov 2012
59623 posts
Posted on 3/29/17 at 11:52 am to
its still hilarious to me that NYC was sold for some glass beads and trinkets.
Posted by Ed Osteen
Member since Oct 2007
57474 posts
Posted on 3/29/17 at 11:53 am to
You gotta skip the chapter on almonds
Posted by joshnorris14
Florida
Member since Jan 2009
45213 posts
Posted on 3/29/17 at 11:53 am to
quote:

Ahh thanks didn't know that but ibwas mainly talking about deadly diseases


You think Syphillis wasn't deadly back then? Talk to Fredrich Neitzsche
Posted by fr33manator
Baton Rouge
Member since Oct 2010
124117 posts
Posted on 3/29/17 at 11:54 am to
quote:

Ahh thanks didn't know that but ibwas mainly talking about deadly diseases



And whole crews of Spanish were wiped out by various island fevers.

Just because you don't know about something doesn't mean it doesn't happen.

Think about it like this.

A crew of 300 sails across an ocean to a new world with a population of millions.

They each have their own indigenous diseases and immunities.

The crew of sailors get wiped out by the native disease. All 300 dead. No one tells their tale. But that's as far as it goes.

The explorers disease has a population of hundreds of thousands, maybe millions to ravage through. They can't escape it, it can mutate, etc.

That's why the native populations suffered more from disease.
first pageprev pagePage 1 of 3Next pagelast page

Back to top
logoFollow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News
Follow us on Twitter, Facebook and Instagram to get the latest updates on LSU Football and Recruiting.

FacebookTwitterInstagram