And due to the innovation of city life, Western immunity was much stronger than native immunity.
-
-
Replying to @moritheil @ReactionaryTree
they had cities in the Americas too, but they didn't have European livestock or the diseases that come with it
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @380kmh @ReactionaryTree
Outside of a few ceremonial cities in SA (Aztecs, Incas) I don't believe they really did. NA had nomadic tribes.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @moritheil @ReactionaryTree
Earliest explorers record dense settlement on NA coasts, evidence of trade in interior--they had cities
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
they just got completely BTFOd by smallpox and reverted to nomadism in the aftermath
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
population estimates say up to 90% of all human life in North America died after first smallpox encounter
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
when Europeans finally got to the interior of NA they only got to see the aftermath
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @380kmh @ReactionaryTree
Interesting. I think the only disease that spread in reverse was Syphilis, though.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
-
Replying to @380kmh @ReactionaryTree
My concept of colonizing the Americas was that it turned into a contest of immunities instead of military might.
2 replies 0 retweets 1 like
military might was certainly involved but didn't play half the role that disease and immunities did
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.