Smallpox in Native Americans

[Obi2Kenobi]

http://www.h-net.msu.edu/~west/threads/d...llpox.html

I found that quite interesting, but I would like to know more about both previous incidents of biological warfare and any post-1995 developments in knowledge about Smallpox. The earliest event I can recall would be the Mongol (?) Hordes throwing plague infested corpses into a city (Kaffa), possibly initiating the Black Plague.

That being said, hi everyone!

[Occhidiangela]

http://www.h-net.msu.edu/~west/threads/d...llpox.html

I found that quite interesting, but I would like to know more about both previous incidents of biological warfare and any post-1995 developments in knowledge about Smallpox. The earliest event I can recall would be the Mongol (?) Hordes throwing plague infested corpses into a city (Kaffa), possibly initiating the Black Plague.

That being said, hi everyone!
[right][snapback]93553[/snapback][/right]

J'accuse. So, from that discussion, the so called proof of biological warfare is that the French accused the Brits of passing the small pox to Indians via blankets in the 1700's, with no pathology to verify that (other than the demonstrated spread of the disease via some vector, human or otherwise) and the record shows an effort to innoculate some tribes in the 19th century.

This gets turned into, in many discussions, the "fact" that Americans on their way West deliberately infected Indians with small pox.

Funny, now spin works. Of course, I don't expect that the entirety of research on that topic is embodied in that thread.

I was under the impression, perhaps incorrectly, that the Indians of South America suffered devastating population depletion due to diseases, both animal and human born, during the first generation of Spanish and Portuguese conquest, diseases which were passed along by oblivious conquistadors.

Is that also a myth?

Occhi

[Obi2Kenobi]

No. They did, in fact, contract the diseases; from my understanding of that discussion, they are merely uncertain as to whether the English/Spanish attempts at spreading a contagion were successful, or whether the native populations would have contracted the diseases, regardless of the possible efforts of the Europeans. What is certain is that at least some high ranking officials (Amherst and his subordinates are those with the most evidence of doing so) did try whatever they could in using biological agents to eradicate the native populations.

Although that does bring up an interesting question. If one attempts to infect a person or people using ineffectual means, is that still considered biological warfare?


/edit: Replaced inoculation with spreading a contagion to avoid confusion.

[Occhidiangela]

No. They did, in fact, contract the diseases; from my understanding of that discussion, they are merely uncertain as to whether the English/Spanish attempts at spreading a contagion were successful, or whether the native populations would have contracted the diseases, regardless of the possible efforts of the Europeans. What is certain is that at least some high ranking officials (Amherst and his subordinates are those with the most evidence of doing so) did try whatever they could in using biological agents to eradicate the native populations.

Although that does bring up an interesting question. If one attempts to infect a person or people using ineffectual means, is that still considered biological warfare?
/edit: Replaced inoculation with spreading a contagion to avoid confusion.
[right][snapback]93577[/snapback][/right]

Put in a nearly modern context: If in 2002 Saddam Hussein ordered a slime bomb (Anthrax loaded Scud Missile) shot at Kuwait, and it missed, hitting instead the middle of the Persian Gulf beyond Kuwaiti airspace and territorial seas, did he commit an attack of NBC weapon on Kuwait? His story of a test launch as fig leaf of course complicates the answer . . .

I'll go for Helen Keller not making a sound if she falls in a forest with no one around to hear her fall. It's an easier question to answer.

Occhi

[Jester]

"I was under the impression, perhaps incorrectly, that the Indians of South America suffered devastating population depletion due to diseases, both animal and human born, during the first generation of Spanish and Portuguese conquest, diseases which were passed along by oblivious conquistadors."

Aside from the fact that the population decline continued unabated until at least 1600, much more than the "first generation," you are correct.

Estimates for the population at the time of conquest vary considerably, but there is no question that various diseases (smallpox factors heavily, and famously in the fall of Tenochtitlan) shredded the population to a tiny fraction (Optimistically, 10%, or possibly as far as less than 1% of preconquest population) by 1600.

Obi: There is no seriously considered attempt by the Spanish in the new world to spread disease. Anyone even vaguely familiar with how the Spanish made their money in America would conclude that spreading disease is contrary to how the Spanish perceived their own interests. Indians were wealth, and disease killed indians.

The only possible instance where it might have been beneficial to introduce such diseases would be at the beginning of conquest. The two problems with that are a) the state of medical biology in the early 16th century was pathetic, and b ) accounts of the conquest express either surprise or contempt at the impact of the diseases.

The status of the non-Mesoamerican North American natives I'm not sure of. Maybe that's a myth, maybe not. Certainly, since there was no enslavement or labour draft of natives, there is much less disincentive to do so. But that doesn't mean it happened.

Jester

[eppie]

The spreading of diseases previously not existent in the americas was a natural thing of course. The same is if I have a cold and I infect my neighbour with it.....that is no biological warfare....if you however do it on purpose (blankets or corpses) that is indeed biological warfare. In the same way you can call "using poison arrows" chemical warfare.

I can recommend a very interesting book I'm reading at the moment, it is a novel and fiction, but written as if it was describing real historical facts (maybe it is, but I'm just not aware of those facts). Anyway without giving too much away it is also about the plagues spreading in certain parts of europe in the 1600. I don't have the ISBN number with me now, but it is called "imprimatur" and it is written by the duo Monaldi en Sorti. (Italians but there should be a englisch translation).