A BLOG ABOUT HISTORY, THE ENVIRONMENT, AND THE PROBLEMS OF HUMAN DOMINION
Friday, January 21, 2011
HIST300A: Post-Crosby Lecture Comments
Hey guys--if you have any comments or questions regarding this past week's material and would like to share them with me and the rest of the class, please feel free.
When we were talking about the Old World diseases being introduced into the New World, we briefly discussed why smallpox was more prominent than yellow fever or bubonic plague. On page 49 in The Columbian Exchange, Crosby mentions an epidemic in Guatemala with "fearsome nosebleeds" as its most prominent symptom, but Crosby doesn't say that it is smallpox. I think there is a slight possibility that this disease may have been the bubonic plague. In the introduction of The Decamaron, Boccaccio talks about the plague and says "It did not assume the form it had in the East, where bleeding from the nose was a manifest sign of inevitable death..." I know Boccaccio is not a scientist by any stretch of the imagination, but I thought it was an interesting connection nonetheless. Also, in regards to the Native American blood types (even though we only touched briefly on that), it makes sense that a large portion of the population was type O, just because it's recessive and the modes of inheritance and all that fun biology/genetic stuff that I won't really delve into. But it is possible for a recessive genetic trait to become the so-called "dominant" trait, if through many generations the offspring only receive the recessive alleles and/or individuals with the dominant alleles die before they can pass them on to offspring (for example, having 5 digits on our hands and toes is actually a recessive trait and the dominant is having 6). But anyways my point is that I can understand why Crosby would be under the mistaken impression that all Native Americans are the same. I do not agree with him, but looking at it scientifically, if Native Americans only reproduce within their own populations, their collective gene pool is much less diverse than say, today's society in America.
In terms of identifying the diseases of New World colonization, you bring up an excellent point. For many historians, medical anthropologists, and forensic epidemiologists, trying to determine which Old World diseases decimated which New World populations amounts, at times, to educated guesses, putting a puzzle together, and relying on records that can be totally unreliable.
I agree that we shouldn't be too harsh on Crosby for trying to make some genetic sense out of while Amerindian populations' immune systems were so ill-prepared to deal with the new diseases. We know in general, as you say, that in isolated populations in environments that are confining or provide fewer choices for reproduction, it can lead to a range of predisposed genetic diseases, cancers, and so forth. For instance, recent studies have tried to unravel why Ashkenazi Jews from Eastern Europe, especially isolated populations from the Pale region in Poland, are more prone to Tay-Sachs Disease and breast cancer. Theories abound about the close-knit nature of these communities and the intermarriage within them as one of the potential causes.
On the note of unreliable medical records, can we even trust the Blood Type maps that Crosby includes in the book? I'm pretty sure blood typing didn't exist back then, so I'm wondering where these statistics came from. And why they don't include a map for the AB blood type, unless that's included in the separate A & B maps as crossover?
Apparently, bloodtyping was being developed prior to Crosby's work. I found a useful site maintained by a biology professor at Palomar College that might be helpful.
When you compare his maps to Crosby's, they seem relatively close.
Oh, I should have specified that I meant blood typing wasn't around in the Columbian era. Although, to be perfectly honest, I can't really tell if Crosby is talking about Indians of the Columbian world or those contemporary with when he was writing the book when he's discussing their homogeneity. It almost seems like both, but I really can't tell. If it is both, I don't know if the modern maps would be an accurate measure/argument for the fact that Indians during Columbian times had those same percentages. Or I could be totally off; it happens. I'm glad Crosby's maps seem to be accurate, though. Thanks for the link!
All good points. I think we can assume that Crosby is using modern (at least for his era) blood type mapping and applying it to what we think was the distribution of Amerindian populations in North America. Of course, as you suggest, it might not be completely accurate.
After reading over both Leah and the Professors comments I was most interested in the bloodtype section of Crosby's book. If you look really carefully at all three blood type maps you can see how they crossover. Also Leah makes a good point about the society being in isolation, the factor of reccessive and dominant genes, and individuals dying that may have the A or B blood type that were not able to pass it on as it was the reccessive gene.
I know i'm a little late to comment but something just came to light. In regards to Crosbys stance on biological superiority of the the old world inhabitant I believe I see where he is coming from. One must understand that the spread of disease in the old world was due to large-scale domestication of livestock. People shared the same general environment with their beasts(i.e. same living space, water, air, and probably at some points food). This led to the exchange of diseases for which the old world grew a high tolerance and was propogated by their extensive trade routes. In the new world domestication of animals was minimal at best, not to mention sanitation within native cities was much better, sometimes even emaculate. Therefore they could not have developed the same biological defences and without the extensive trade routes for which the old world contained they did not have the means to transfer pathogens as rapidly, thus rendering them biologically inferior. Just a thought, let me know where im wrong. (seriously, I enjoy criticism)
When we were talking about the Old World diseases being introduced into the New World, we briefly discussed why smallpox was more prominent than yellow fever or bubonic plague. On page 49 in The Columbian Exchange, Crosby mentions an epidemic in Guatemala with "fearsome nosebleeds" as its most prominent symptom, but Crosby doesn't say that it is smallpox. I think there is a slight possibility that this disease may have been the bubonic plague. In the introduction of The Decamaron, Boccaccio talks about the plague and says "It did not assume the form it had in the East, where bleeding from the nose was a manifest sign of inevitable death..." I know Boccaccio is not a scientist by any stretch of the imagination, but I thought it was an interesting connection nonetheless.
ReplyDeleteAlso, in regards to the Native American blood types (even though we only touched briefly on that), it makes sense that a large portion of the population was type O, just because it's recessive and the modes of inheritance and all that fun biology/genetic stuff that I won't really delve into. But it is possible for a recessive genetic trait to become the so-called "dominant" trait, if through many generations the offspring only receive the recessive alleles and/or individuals with the dominant alleles die before they can pass them on to offspring (for example, having 5 digits on our hands and toes is actually a recessive trait and the dominant is having 6). But anyways my point is that I can understand why Crosby would be under the mistaken impression that all Native Americans are the same. I do not agree with him, but looking at it scientifically, if Native Americans only reproduce within their own populations, their collective gene pool is much less diverse than say, today's society in America.
In terms of identifying the diseases of New World colonization, you bring up an excellent point. For many historians, medical anthropologists, and forensic epidemiologists, trying to determine which Old World diseases decimated which New World populations amounts, at times, to educated guesses, putting a puzzle together, and relying on records that can be totally unreliable.
ReplyDeleteI agree that we shouldn't be too harsh on Crosby for trying to make some genetic sense out of while Amerindian populations' immune systems were so ill-prepared to deal with the new diseases. We know in general, as you say, that in isolated populations in environments that are confining or provide fewer choices for reproduction, it can lead to a range of predisposed genetic diseases, cancers, and so forth. For instance, recent studies have tried to unravel why Ashkenazi Jews from Eastern Europe, especially isolated populations from the Pale region in Poland, are more prone to Tay-Sachs Disease and breast cancer. Theories abound about the close-knit nature of these communities and the intermarriage within them as one of the potential causes.
On the note of unreliable medical records, can we even trust the Blood Type maps that Crosby includes in the book? I'm pretty sure blood typing didn't exist back then, so I'm wondering where these statistics came from. And why they don't include a map for the AB blood type, unless that's included in the separate A & B maps as crossover?
ReplyDeleteApparently, bloodtyping was being developed prior to Crosby's work. I found a useful site maintained by a biology professor at Palomar College that might be helpful.
ReplyDeleteWhen you compare his maps to Crosby's, they seem relatively close.
http://anthro.palomar.edu/vary/vary_3.htm
Oh, I should have specified that I meant blood typing wasn't around in the Columbian era. Although, to be perfectly honest, I can't really tell if Crosby is talking about Indians of the Columbian world or those contemporary with when he was writing the book when he's discussing their homogeneity. It almost seems like both, but I really can't tell. If it is both, I don't know if the modern maps would be an accurate measure/argument for the fact that Indians during Columbian times had those same percentages. Or I could be totally off; it happens. I'm glad Crosby's maps seem to be accurate, though. Thanks for the link!
ReplyDeleteAll good points. I think we can assume that Crosby is using modern (at least for his era) blood type mapping and applying it to what we think was the distribution of Amerindian populations in North America. Of course, as you suggest, it might not be completely accurate.
ReplyDeleteAfter reading over both Leah and the Professors comments I was most interested in the bloodtype section of Crosby's book. If you look really carefully at all three blood type maps you can see how they crossover. Also Leah makes a good point about the society being in isolation, the factor of reccessive and dominant genes, and individuals dying that may have the A or B blood type that were not able to pass it on as it was the reccessive gene.
ReplyDeleteI know i'm a little late to comment but something just came to light. In regards to Crosbys stance on biological superiority of the the old world inhabitant I believe I see where he is coming from. One must understand that the spread of disease in the old world was due to large-scale domestication of livestock. People shared the same general environment with their beasts(i.e. same living space, water, air, and probably at some points food). This led to the exchange of diseases for which the old world grew a high tolerance and was propogated by their extensive trade routes. In the new world domestication of animals was minimal at best,
ReplyDeletenot to mention sanitation within native cities was much better, sometimes even emaculate.
Therefore they could not have developed the same biological defences and without the extensive trade routes for which the old world contained they did not have the means to transfer pathogens as rapidly, thus rendering them biologically inferior. Just a thought, let me know where im wrong. (seriously, I enjoy criticism)