Talk:Native American disease and epidemics

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 18 January 2022 and 27 May 2022. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): NativeBear4 (article contribs). Peer reviewers: JThomasAnthropologist, Nidaannes. This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 11 January 2022 and 6 May 2022. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): NJHaley1776 (article contribs).

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 4 September 2019 and 31 December 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Kaylinmariemarshall.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 01:28, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 29 August 2019 and 20 December 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Emga111. Peer reviewers: Weuerle.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 04:58, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

See also:

Talk:Modern social statistics of Native Americans Melchoir (talk) 01:56, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

This page is also under significant construction as a subset of the page listed above. It will also undergo significant changes to provide well documented information about Native American health, which plays a notable role in health services, the history of biological warfare, and more. Please allow some patience to bring the page up to par, and suggestions are appreciated :) Smgaynor (talk) 02:07, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Question about this page and the Contemporary Native American Issues page

I had a question about these two pages. It seems like there is a bit of an overlap when it comes to Native American health, as diseases such as diabetes and alcoholism are contemporary and prevalent issues. Should we clean up the two articles? Combine them? Let me know what you guys think!

Jjgotshwifty (talk) 08:26, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

Native American diseases?

The article is entitled "Native American disease and epidemics" and yet there is nothing about any native diseases or epidemics. There are, however, plenty of references to European diseases and epidemics brought to the new world. I think this needs to be re-titled, and the article's incorrect slant needs re-work. Proof of this is shown in part by the first section's statement of "Native Americans have been affected by disease and health concerns throughout their history...". This is left standing without any proof whatsoever. I don't know about other readers, but I come to the article for facts, not speculation. - KitchM (talk) 05:08, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Another thing, Discover Magazine wrote a piece a few years ago contradicting the theories posed in this article. It demonstrated first hand evidence that a lot of the diseases thought to be small pox and other "European" diseases were actually diseases born in the America's. It cited references of actual journals written by doctors at the time describing the diseases symptoms, and they were not symptoms of any disease that was European in origin. This article is so obnoxious in its bias that it even promotes the idea that Europeans intentionally tried to wipe them out with diseases, citing only one instance that's more likely the exception than the norm.66.234.60.139 (talk) 02:54, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

I expected to read about gonorrhea, syphilis, Chagas, leishmaniasis... and other american diseases.

Flagged as POV. Same for Siege of Fort Pitt which seems to have the same content pasted in. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.253.177.175 (talk) 09:11, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

Agree that the title is a little confusing. The article also does not proffer any explanation for why European diseases were so devastating to cause a Native die-off without developing resistance, while Native diseases (which surely exist) presumably did not have a corresponding impact on Europeans. Versus European colonists in other regions e.g. sub-Saharan Africa, South/Southeast Asia etc. where the toll of tropical diseases like malaria on Europeans is well-known. Surely there is something in the literature that discusses this and could be cited. NTK (talk) 06:04, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

Regarding the latter, apparently the controversial exception is syphilis, which was unrecognized in the Old World prior to contact, and it's not settled whether this was brought over like the potato (which seems to be the favored theory) or simply wasn't known previously. Either way this could probably be at least mentioned briefly here. NTK (talk) 06:11, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

Smallpox caused significant deaths among European colonists who were born in North America. The main difference is that some (mostly immigrant) Europeans had acquired some immunity, so you didn't usually see whole villages dying in the space of a few weeks. The problem of smallpox in a new population was not too different in kind from our current problem with the coronavirus pandemic: when it started, nobody had any immunity to it. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:40, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

Also, one of the 21st-century sources here notes that smallpox is transmitted by respiratory droplets in personal contact (similar to Covid-19), not blankets and objects. It would be useful to note actual transmission vectors of other diseases, as well, such as yellow fever and cholera. People had little understanding of these diseases until much later. Some diseases became controlled by improvements in mosquito control or sanitation infrastructure, not because of acquired immunity. In addition, the article overstates that Europeans/European Americans were not affected by these infectious diseases. There were repeated pandemics of cholera that reached the US into the early 20th century, often with very high mortality. In addition the yellow fever epidemic in 1793 took a very high toll in coastal cities, including Washington, DC; caused an estimated 5,000 deaths in Philadelphia, killing 10 percent of the population; and also hit New York. Five years later another outbreak killed a total of 5,000 in Philly, NY, and Boston together. There were repeated epidemics in the US until 1905. A pandemic of cholera is believed to have reached the US at New Orleans in Feb 1873, and the disease spread throughout the Mississippi River system and its tributaries to 264 towns and 18 states.Parkwells (talk) 21:43, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

References

Recent edits re: use of disease as a weapon

I've reverted this bold edit for reasons best described at WP:BRD. There are a number of issues with that problematic edit, including (but not limited to):

• It takes a simple sourced assertion of fact and prefaces it with "Elizabeth Fenn suggests...". This is attribution, which implies that the content is not factual and is merely the opinion of just that source, which is against policy (and against the cited sources). Further, neither cited source says Fenn "suggests" such a thing, as the assertion is actually the central argument of the source. It is the evidence and the broader context of the stigma which "suggests" the prevalence, not Fenn.
• You removed sourced content conveying that efforts have been made to reduce the stigma associated with being the perpetrators of these acts, claiming this was unsourced. Wheelis clearly conveys this point, and even offers examples of the earliest of such efforts. In addition, Mann has documented efforts to sanitize the records, removing or destroying them to change the narrative and redirect culpability. Mann further notes the efforts of "mediocre historians who replace their initial gasp of horror with mealy-mouthed dissimulation. They rationalize the crime, minimize the injury, and even deny that the event occurred at all, using arguments that may work in their day, but that fall flat on their ugly faces in a new milieu." (And like Wheelis, Mann also gives several examples.) Likewise, in Fenn's discussion of the possibility that the perpetrators "acted on some earlier communication from Amherst that does not survive today", the possibility that "documents relating to such a plan were deliberately destroyed" is asserted.
• You added in a sentence beginning with "Other scholars...", implying a significant amount of support, when the cited sources only referred to "some" scholars, which were previously described as "earlier historians", while current scholarship has reversed that archaic false narrative, noting that "Assertions that the Fort Pitt incident typifies widespread and effective uses of smallpox are pervasive." That is not at all reflected in your addition to our article.

Your edit summary warned me: "This is a direct misrepresentation of the cited sources." Um yeah, we don't allow that. And your deletion of sourced content while you cite an essay saying you "don't like it" doesn't work here. You'll need more substantive reasoning than that. Xenophrenic (talk) 23:36, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

The cited source quotes Fenn as saying "actual incidents may have occurred more frequently than scholars have previously acknowledged". Your version states instead "It is likely such incidents have occurred more frequently than scholars have acknowledged". This is a clear cut misrepresentation of the source by changing the word "may" to the word "likely". My version uses direct quotes to avoid editorial interpretation. If you have a problem with the word "suggests" I have no objection to changing it to "stated", but the source (Fenn) should be attributed either way, as both sources quote her for that assertion. The source also states that other scholars still disagree, a sentiment which your edit removed entirely. Representing only one half of what a source says is also misrepresenting the source in accordance with Wikipedia policy. If you have a problem with my substitution of "other" for "some", I likewise have no problem with using the word "some" but the disagreement is noted in the source and should be noted in the article. Could you also provide a direct quote as to where it states that "Efforts have ever since been made to reduce the stigma associated with being the perpetrators of such acts."? Because the only reference to stigma I could find in any of the sources states that the existing stigma could have been the basis for the lack of documentation, not that efforts have "ever since" been made to reduce the stigma of the acts themselves (i.e. no one has argued that biological warfare should not be stigmatized, they argue that because of the stigma evidence of biological warfare could have been suppressed)UnequivocalAmbivalence (talk) 00:09, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

My version uses direct quotes...

Using direct quotes to convey assertions of fact is discouraged. Especially the use of direct quotes which give no indication of the source of the quotation, as with your insertion of "remain unconvinced and maintain..." quote insertion. Quoting and attributing infers opinion or unique viewpoint, rather than assertion of fact, which leaves me very curious about the intent of your proposed wording. You say you are quoting the sources, but you omit a critical part from the Fenn quote: "...to attempt biological warfare with the smallpox virus. Many also adhered to a code of ethics that did not constrain them from doing so. Seen in this light, the Amherst affair becomes not so much an aberration as part of a larger continuum in which accusations and discussions of biological warfare were common...", which immediately precedes, clarifies and adds context to the part you presume to quote.

The source also states that other scholars still disagree...

No, it does not. "Still" is your editorial insertion. And it says "some", not "other", after explaining that those "some" were very early historians, and their narrative has been reversed with more current and broader scholarship. And have you bothered to read the footnote to which that assertion is cited?

...the disagreement is noted in the source and should be noted in the article...

But the way you noted it wasn't the way the sources did, as explained above.

...the source (Fenn) should be attributed either way, as both sources quote her for that assertion

Incorrect. One of those two sources is Fenn, and thus doesn't quote her, and the other only quotes her assertion after qualifying it as persuasive scholarly support. If you want to passively cast a shadow on the credibility of Fenn, a notably reliable source on these matters, by attributing or quoting her assertions of fact, you'll have to come up with an actual legitimate reason to do so. Xenophrenic (talk) 03:44, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

Also you seem to have misunderstood my edit summary, so I will repeat it here. You deleted a sourced quote for seemingly no reason other than your not liking it. The sentence I deleted was not because I personally don't like it or don't agree with it, but because I could not find evidence to directly support it in any of the cited sources, hence why I have now asked for a quotation. UnequivocalAmbivalence (talk) 00:13, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

Also you seem to have misunderstood my edit summary...

Not at all. Of course I knew what you were trying to say, and I found it mildly offensive. So I simply turned your words around and used them in my response to you. Rather than accept that a fellow editor may have reasonable, policy-compliant reasons for their edits, you jump straight to accusing them of editing based on personal "like it" motivation, rather than reliable sources. So please be specific and tell me which of the 10 bullet-point arguments listed at WP:IDONTLIKEIT I used? Quote me exactly, if you don't mind. Much appreciated, Xenophrenic (talk) 03:44, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

"Still" is not an editorial assertion, and the word does not appear in my edit. The source states "Some scholars, though remain unconvinced..." by Finn's assertions. The legitimate reason to attribute Finns assertions of fact is exactly that. They are her assertions that this is a fact. Furthermore, she clearly states that events such as this "may have occurred more often that previously acknowledged, which you have chosen to state as a definitive fact by removing the "may" and to do so in Wikipedia's voice without attributing said assertion to her. I am not "casting doubt" on what she says simple by attributing it to her, I have not added weasel words such as "claims" per WP:SAY, and have instead specifically followed the guideline set out in the policy you referenced, WP:YESPOV: "Avoid stating opinions as facts. Usually, articles will contain information about the significant opinions that have been expressed about their subjects. However, these opinions should not be stated in Wikipedia's voice. Rather, they should be attributed in the text to particular sources, or where justified, described as widespread views, etc. For example, an article should not state that "genocide is an evil action", but it may state that "genocide has been described by John X as the epitome of human evil.". The fact is, Finn states that it may be more prevalent, you have removed the "may" and all attribution to her, substantially changing the assertions put forth in the quoted material. You have also removed all mention of opposition to her assertion, something which is present in the same source you allow to definitively indicate that her evidence is persuasive. I do not see how it is okay to accept the part of the source that says she is reliable and reject entirely the part of the source that says there is opposition to her views. The way I noted it is exactly the way the source did. This is the full quote from the source. "This broader context, Finn argues, suggests that 'actual incidents may have occurred more frequently than scholars have previously acknowledged.'[11] Some scholars, though, remain unconvinced and maintain that Amherst's correspondence was mere musing and what happened at Fort Pitt remains a singular event.[12]". Could you explain how exactly my way of noting it differed from the source other than breaking it into two quotes? Can you explain to me how it is somehow not POV to change "may have" to "likely did"? If I was wrong about your reasons for deleting the sourced quote, can you offer a reason other than it contradicting your preferred narrative? And can you provide a direct quotation regarding the bit about "ever since efforts have been made to reduce the stigma..."?UnequivocalAmbivalence (talk) 04:54, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

If I was wrong about your reasons for deleting the sourced quote...

You were, and we could have moved past that if you'd left it alone. But instead you launch another volley by off-handedly suggesting I have some sort of "preferred narrative". Really? Why would you even say that? So what, exactly, is my "preferred narrative", and where did I present it? Quote me exactly, if you don't mind. Thanks in advance, Xenophrenic (talk) 21:06, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

I find your complaints to be highly hypocritical considering that this all started when you reverted me with an unsubstantiated accusation of WP:YESPOV. I also find your continued refusal to answer my questions with anything but more questions to be frustrating and not at all conducive to actual progress towards accurate representation of the sources. UnequivocalAmbivalence (talk) 02:28, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

...you reverted me with an unsubstantiated accusation of WP:YESPOV

Incorrect. Getting back to reality, here is my actual edit summary: (rmv attribution of sourced fact, per WP:YESPOV; +rtn sourced content) What I did was remove your attribution of pre-existing sourced fact, per WP:YESPOV which states "Avoid stating facts as opinions." The only "accusation" implied by my edit summary is that there was attribution added to assertions of fact by reliable sources, which is against policy. Not only is that a completely substantiated description of events, but you continued to argue for such attribution in the paragraphs above -- unless you are now contending that it was someone else who said "the source (Fenn) should be attributed". And "this all started" when you decided to apply attribution, which predates my response. (You are aware that all of these edits on Wikipedia are recorded and time-stamped, right?)

I also find your continued refusal to answer my questions with anything but more questions...

More fiction. I've never "refused" to answer any of your questions, nor have I answered any of them with more questions (I count exactly 5 question marks in your above comments). There is one question of yours to which I have intentionally not yet responded (your request that I do you the favor of providing you with a "direct quote" about the "reducing the stigma" content), because I have this nagging suspicion that you haven't even bothered to review the sources on that. And after you have accused me of editing based on "I Don't Like It" instead of policy and reliable sources; and after you accused me of editing based on some sort of "preferred narrative" instead of the narrative conveyed by cited sources; and now after you have accused me of "hypocritical" complaints for reasons even you can't seem to muster up intelligent support, I'm not inclined to do you any favors. But if you could see yourself ever returning to a collaborative state of mind, please let me know. Regards, Xenophrenic (talk) 18:48, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

You have ignored (better than refused to answer?) almost every question that is actually related to the article or its sources. I don't care what "nagging suspicion" you have, the responsibility is on you to provide verification of the source saying what you claim it says. Please do not re-add until a quote is provided so that this information can be verified and consensus for its inclusion has been reached per WP:ONUS which clearly states "The onus to achieve consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content." Also, until you can calmly focus on the article and accurate representation of sources, I feel no need to continue discussions with you.UnequivocalAmbivalence (talk) 23:41, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

You have ignored (better than refused to answer?) almost every question that is actually related to the article or its sources.

I appreciate that you are now trying to walk back your previous ridiculous hyperbole toward something more credible, but you are still falling short of reality: I've neither "refused" to answer, nor "ignored", your questions. As I previously noted, you have asked 5 questions during our discussion, so let's break it down: You asked, Could you explain how exactly my way of noting it differed..., so I explained to you that your way places unwarranted attribution on what should be an assertion of fact in Wikipedia's voice. Please let me know if you wish to revisit that. You also asked, Can you explain to me how it is somehow not POV to change "may have" to "likely did", and I explained to you that "may have" is just one quote from one sentence from one cited source. If taken in isolation as the only source (or indeed, the only thing said in that Fenn source) on that assertion, then you might have a valid concern, but that isn't the case. While Fenn diplomatically said biological warfare "may have occurred more frequently than scholars have previously acknowledged" in her opening summary, you are forgetting that (1) Kelton then elevated the likelihood beyond "may have", noting the "persuasive scholarly support" in the evidence that bio-warfare was actually more widespread, and (2) Mann then updated the "may have occurred" to "did occur" at least three more times, as noted by Johansen (see "the deliberate dissemination of disease, in these four cases"), and (3) and Fenn herself concluded, after noting the evidence, that it not only "may have" occurred more often, it actually had "an established, if irregular, place in late-eighteenth-century warfare". And Wheelis, who is cited by Fenn, Kelton and Mann (you really need to pay attention to the footnotes), notes that "it most likely occurred more frequently than is reported in surviving accounts." Based on the aggregate of cited reliable sources, not just the Fenn source, the "may have" wording is not accurate. You also asked about my reasons for deleting the sourced quote, which was already asked and answered (see my first comment in this thread, third bullet-point), and I further prompted you to pay closer attention to the footnote appended in support of the text you quoted. And lastly, there is one question of yours (asked twice) to which I have intentionally not yet responded (your request that I do you the favor of providing you with a "direct quote" about the "reducing the stigma" content), because you haven't indicated that you have even bothered to review the sources on that.

...do not re-add until a quote is provided so that this information can be verified...

No. A quote of what? A citation to reliable sources has been provided for your review, so that the information can be verified. If you have concerns that the reliably sourced content is verifiable but still not suitable for our article (which is what WP:ONUS is for), then please present your dispute reasoning here. Deleting sourced content without presenting an actual dispute is disruptive.

...until you can calmly focus on the article and accurate representation of sources, I feel no need to continue discussions with you

I've been quite comfortable multitasking so far: calmly focusing on article improvement and accurate representation of sources (as detailed above), while simultaneously calmly responding to your unsubstantiated personal attacks and incivilities (also detailed above). No one can force you to engage in discussions here, but if you feel you can resume without further personalizing our interactions as you have been, that would be most welcome. A reset, or fresh start, if you will. Regards, Xenophrenic (talk) 16:15, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

There certainly is a real problem here in that there is only evidence of smallpox-infected blankets ever being given to Indians once. Claims that it must have happened many times and the evidence must have been destroyed are 100% speculation because by definition there is no evidence. To make any claim about anything there must be some evidence, but here there is none at all. One might as well equally claim, say, that Aliens did it but wiped people's memories using mnemonic ray-guns. Logically a rewrite is I order |I believe. Cassandra. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.210.219.246 (talk) 13:39, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

In light of the fact that it wasn't until the mid 1800s before germ theory was widely accepted, how can it be possible that Biological warfare was intentionally used during the Siege of Fort Pitt in 1763? The accepted theory at the time would not have seen blankets as a disease carrier. This definitely looks like revisionist history to me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.123.208.30 (talk) 18:29, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

External links modified (February 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Native American disease and epidemics. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150403033815/http://www.politicsandthelifesciences.org/Biosecurity_course_folder/readings/fenn.html to http://www.politicsandthelifesciences.org/Biosecurity_course_folder/readings/fenn.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:11, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

"There is persuasive scholarly support that such incidents likely have occurred more frequently than scholars have acknowledged"

The article currently states, "There is persuasive scholarly support that such incidents likely have occurred more frequently than scholars have acknowledged". Is it just me or is this contradictory? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 23:28, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

I can imagine several sets of scholars with differing opinions (and knowledge and level of scrutiny and biases and axes to grind) in any discipline. So, not contradictory, just understated. Are there historical reasons to suspect more 'such incidents'? I suspect so. Scrutiny would probably show such tactics going back thousands of years ... and still ongoing in places. Man's inhumanity to man is fairly well-established, as is the dictum of 'MAnifest Destiny'. Twang (talk) 01:15, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

Shouldn't the sentence read "There is persuasive scholarly support that such incidents are likely to have occurred more frequently than primary evidence has revealed", or some such thing? Even if it's not a contradiction, it's certainly poor phrasing with the repetition of the word scholar.Enelson (talk) 01:22, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

I've spent some considerable time investigating and trying to find such 'persuasive scholarly evidence' but can't find any. The Fort Pitt incident is certainly real - but anything else is in the realm of legend and myth, unless some evidence actually turns up. My suspicion is that modern writers just can't grasp how contagious smallpox was quite naturally, and therefore simply assume some evil persons must have been responsible. Cassandra — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.149.174.141 (talk) 17:20, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

One key source of unfounded claims of genocide by smallpox has been the discredited writer Ward Churchill:

The "preponderance of evidence" standard of proof strongly indicates that Churchill fabricated events that never occurred—namely the U.S. Army's alleged distribution of smallpox infested blankets to the Mandan Indians in 1837. The analysis additionally reveals that Churchill falsified sources to support his fabricated version of events, and also concealed evidence in his cited sources ...

https://quod.lib.umich.edu/p/plag/5240451.0001.009/--did-the-us-army-distribute-smallpox-blankets-to-indians?rgn=main;view=fulltext — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.74.32.173 (talk • contribs) 15:14, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

Splitting proposal: Native American health

I propose that sections Native American disease and epidemics#Contemporary diseases and Native American disease and epidemics#Combating disease and epidemics be split into a separate page called Native American health. These issues are addressed separately and these sections are large enough to make their own page. Moreover, redirecting "Native American health" to "disease and epidemics" is a somewhat offensive and certainly astonishing shift. Carwil (talk) 19:22, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

I support this proposal. The current article is long and not well-organized; dividing it would offer a clearer focus on issues and history. Cmacauley (talk) 20:59, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

• Support There is a clear dividing line between historical issues and current health issues. I also note that the portion on current health issues seems to focus almost exclusively on Native Americans in the US. Should the article be retitled to take that into account, or should the discussion be broadened to include the rest of the Americas (probably a big job). Glendoremus (talk) 22:08, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
• I absolutely agree with the nominator and above. I Support a move and a split. I think suitable titles might be:
  • Health of Native Americans in the United States (clearly relates to contemporary health, has a more clearly defined scope, and is consistent also with some other article titles eg Native American cultures in the United States)
  • History of Native American health and disease (split contemporary and historical information per the excellent point by Carwil).--Tom (LT) (talk) 07:20, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

• Support Agree that there should be two articles, for reasons noted above, and retitling. I think the article on current health issues should be limited to the US and retitled as such. While some issues may be common to the Americas, it would be too broad. Also, there should be more acknowledgement in this current section of health patterns/issues among non-Native Americans. That is, rather than showing only Native American high rates of incidence of disease related to non-Native American populations, there should be acknowledgement of society-wide health issues in this same time period (since mid-20th c.), such as sedentary lifestyle, obesity, poor nutrition, and increasing teen suicide.Parkwells (talk) 19:28, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

• • Agree that "both" History and Contemporary articles need work. The History section has repetition and argues too much for intent related to the transmission of infectious diseases. Perhaps it should be briefly stated how some of these diseases are actually transmitted. e.g., 21st-century scientific sources here note that smallpox spreads by respiratory droplets. (Note: a transmission similar to that of Covid-19.) I added that to the article. Why perpetuate misinformation? Also, as noted, it has nothing about what diseases Native Americans dealt with before Europeans arrived. Archeological and other studies have revealed more information than that. Parkwells (talk) 19:28, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

Terminology Question

In sentences like "By 1832, the federal government of the United States established a smallpox vaccination program for Native Americans." for example, isn't it more accurate to say "American Indians"? The term was in common use at the time. The term is actually used in the official name of the program. And the federal government STILL uses that term. It seems misleading, the way that it is currently written.

Drsruli (talk) 07:16, 26 November 2021 (UTC)

There is a long history behind this term. For a complete background on this question, see Native American name controversy. Cmacauley (talk) 08:36, 27 November 2021 (UTC)

Yes, all of that history serves to support my question.

Drsruli (talk) 17:00, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

Major Overhaul Around Virgin Soil Theory

This page needs a major overhaul around the virgin soil THEORY.

For example, see recent work over at Population history of Indigenous peoples of the Americas related to germs and connection to physical violence. Crosby's virgin soil idea is a theory, and it is one that was bolstered and made famous in popular histories by Diamond's Guns, Germs, and Steel. However, it is not an accepted "effect." For example, see current representation of recent scholarship at the population history page:

"... recently scholars have studied the link between physical colonial violence such as warfare, displacement, and enslavement, and the proliferation of disease among Native populations. For example, according to Coquille scholar Dina Gilio-Whitaker, "In recent decades, however, researchers challenge the idea that disease is solely responsible for the rapid Indigenous population decline. The research identifies other aspects of European contact that had profoundly negative impacts on Native peoples' ability to survive foreign invasion: war, massacres, enslavement, overwork, deportation, the loss of will to live or reproduce, malnutrition and starvation from the breakdown of trade networks, and the loss of subsistence food production due to land loss."

Further, Andrés Reséndez of the University of California, Davis points out that, even though the Spanish were aware of deadly diseases such as smallpox, there is no mention of them in the New World until 1519, implying that, until that date, epidemic disease played no significant part in the depopulation of the Antilles. The practices of forced labor, brutal punishment, and inadequate necessities of life, were the initial and major reasons for depopulation. Jason Hickel estimates that a third of Arawak workers died every six months from forced labor in these mines. In this way, "slavery has emerged as a major killer" of the indigenous populations of the Caribbean between 1492 and 1550, as it set the conditions for diseases such as smallpox, influenza and malaria to flourish. Unlike the populations of Europe who rebounded following the Black Death, no such rebound occurred for the Indigenous populations.

Similarly, historian Jeffrey Ostler at The University of Oregon has argued that population collapses in the Americas throughout colonization were not mainly due to lack of Native immunity to European disease. Instead, he claims that "When severe epidemics did hit, it was often less because Native bodies lacked immunity than because European colonialism disrupted Native communities and damaged their resources, making them more vulnerable to pathogens." In specific regard to Spanish colonization of northern Florida and southeastern Georgia, Native peoples there "were subject to forced labor and, because of poor living conditions and malnutrition, succumbed to wave after wave of unidentifiable diseases." Further, in relation to British colonization in the Northeast, Algonquian speaking tribes in Virginia and Maryland "suffered from a variety of diseases, including malaria, typhus, and possibly smallpox." These diseases were not solely a case of Native susceptibility, however, because "as colonists took their resources, Native communities were subject to malnutrition, starvation, and social stress, all making people more vulnerable to pathogens. Repeated epidemics created additional trauma and population loss, which in turn disrupted the provision of healthcare." Such conditions would continue, alongside rampant disease in Native communities, throughout colonization, the formation of the United States, and multiple forced removals, as Ostler explains that many scholars "have yet to come to grips with how U.S. expansion created conditions that made Native communities acutely vulnerable to pathogens and how severely disease impacted them. ... Historians continue to ignore the catastrophic impact of disease and its relationship to U.S. policy and action even when it is right before their eyes.""

I'll get something written up in a little while, but would like to hear other opinions first. --Hobomok (talk) 21:13, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

All valid points, and the overhaul would be welcome in my opinion, but don't discount the lack of immunity as a factor in the severity of epidemics. There is plenty of evidence that influenza, smallpox and other infections are far more virulent in immunologically naïve populations. Cmacauley (talk) 23:28, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

Definitely agree that lack of immunity played a role, wouldn’t want to erase that at all, just add the new and relevant scholarship and move away from lack of immunity as the only cause. Way too prevalent a narrative. —Hobomok (talk) 01:03, 28 April 2022 (UTC)

References