Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

pnwmom

(110,261 posts)
47. Why is it minimizing it to compare it to the genocide that's gone down through the centuries?
Sat Jun 2, 2012, 12:22 AM
Jun 2012

I'm referring to the deaths that were deliberately caused. Many of the deaths among Native people in America were caused by the diseases that white people brought with them from Europe that, for the most part, weren't spread deliberately.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Native_American_disease_and_epidemics

Origins of Native American Disease



An ill Native American in the 1800's being cared for by a medicine man.
Native Americans have been affected by disease and health concerns throughout their history, but a major turning point in Native American disease presence was with the arrival of Europeans. This ushered in what is termed the Columbian Exchange. During this period European settlers brought many different technologies and lifestyles with them, but one of the most harmful effects of this exchange was the arrival and spread of disease. Native Americans, due to the lack of prior contact with Europeans, had not previously been exposed to the diseases that were prevalent on the distant continent. Therefore they had not built up internal immunities to the diseases or formed any medicines to combat them. Europeans came into the New World bearing various diseases. Those infected with diseases either possessed them in a dormant state or were not quarantined in such a way that distanced them enough from Native Americans to not spread the diseases, allowing diseases to spread into epidemics.[1]
The diseases brought by Europeans are not easily tracked, because there were numerous outbreaks and all were not equally recorded. The most notable disease brought by Europeans was the destructive smallpox disease. Smallpox was lethal to many Native Americans, bringing sweeping epidemics and affecting the same tribes repeatedly. Within 1837 to 1870, “at least four different epidemics struck the Plains tribes.” Numerous other diseases were brought to Native American tribes, including “measles, scarlet fever, typhoid, typhus, influenza, whooping cough, tuberculosis, cholera, diphtheria, chicken pox, and venereal diseases.”[2] Each of these diseases brought destruction through sweeping epidemics, involving illness and extensive death. Many Native American tribes experienced extensive depopulation, averaging 25–50 percent of tribal life lost due to disease. Additionally, singular tribes also neared extinction after facing severely destructive spread of disease.[2] The significant toll that this took on Native populations is expounded upon in the Population history of American indigenous peoples.
Certain cultural and biological traits made Native Americans more susceptible to these diseases. Emphasis placed on visiting the sick led to the spread of disease through consistent contact.[3] Smallpox specifically led indirectly to higher rates of suicide. Many Native American tribes prided themselves in their appearance, and the resulting skin disfigurement of smallpox deeply affected them psychologically. Unable to cope with this psychological development, tribe members were said to have committed suicide.[4]

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

Speaking of that..... AverageJoe90 Jun 2012 #1
I've often puzzled over my own heritage Scootaloo Jun 2012 #2
It wasn't always a source of pride for mixed-race folks in the past bigtree Jun 2012 #3
That's true. But my red-headed father-in-law often said that as a boy pnwmom Jun 2012 #4
ha! bigtree Jun 2012 #8
? "unable to document" HiPointDem Jun 2012 #5
I dunno, maybe bigtree Jun 2012 #14
Most people don't have it documented, but there was a lot of interracial coupling in the west pnwmom Jun 2012 #17
no, there wasn't, unless you're going back to the age of exploration. In 1800 only 3% of the HiPointDem Jun 2012 #24
The percent was higher in low population states like Nevada, North Dakota, etc. pnwmom Jun 2012 #27
I could care less about individual cases. I'm just saying that a lot of the people claiming NA HiPointDem Jun 2012 #31
In Tennessee where my mother's family lived, the family "matriarch" BlueToTheBone Jun 2012 #34
Why is this so important to you? Is it a bad thing that white people are no longer ashamed to think pnwmom Jun 2012 #35
anyone who had ancestors in the us before 1900 is more likely to have had ancestors that HiPointDem Jun 2012 #40
Where in then history of the world have there been cultures who didn't clash, kill, and intermarry? pnwmom Jun 2012 #43
beside the point, but you know that already. i repeat, white people's ancestors are more likely HiPointDem Jun 2012 #45
That is true -- but it doesn't change the fact that many white people pnwmom Jun 2012 #48
"many" = how many and how many generations back, and how many documented? because HiPointDem Jun 2012 #50
You have more confidence in the public records of the 1800's than I do. And in the willingness pnwmom Jun 2012 #51
You think murder was more popular than sex? bhikkhu Jun 2012 #52
The history of the US demonstrates that it was. For example, ~700-1000 were killed/sold to the HiPointDem Jun 2012 #56
Minimizing the genocide that happened on this continent is repugnant. EFerrari Jun 2012 #46
Why is it minimizing it to compare it to the genocide that's gone down through the centuries? pnwmom Jun 2012 #47
they could hfojvt Jun 2012 #53
And in each generation, NA are a decreasing fraction of the total population = decreasing HiPointDem Jun 2012 #55
It can be very hard to prove with documentation rox63 Jun 2012 #6
documented in censuses. HiPointDem Jun 2012 #7
Not necessarily rox63 Jun 2012 #10
canada also had censuses & other forms of documentation. i'm not saying it's always possible HiPointDem Jun 2012 #13
I went to a geneological society in NH that specializes in French-Canadian family history rox63 Jun 2012 #15
Menu of Wabanaki / Abenaki Genealogy HiPointDem Jun 2012 #18
A link from that page that documents some of the difficulties rox63 Jun 2012 #38
If you'd done much genealogy, you'd know this was much harder than you think pnwmom Jun 2012 #19
I've done a fair amount of genealogy, i'm aware of the difficulties. HiPointDem Jun 2012 #20
Then why did you say, "documented in censuses" as if that was something simple? pnwmom Jun 2012 #23
because there are indian censuses, regular censuses, appendixes to censuses that document HiPointDem Jun 2012 #25
Tracing family lineage is a lot trickier than you are making out, with many pnwmom Jun 2012 #26
the inconsistencies in the records don't explain why every second white person has an NA HiPointDem Jun 2012 #28
Where do you get your statistic that "every second white person has an NA ancestor" pnwmom Jun 2012 #30
My husband has the same problem RockaFowler Jun 2012 #11
not having proof TBMASE Jun 2012 #16
I think my husband checked off a box at least once, decades ago, pnwmom Jun 2012 #21
Many courthouses and government records were destroyed during the Civil War. Major Hogwash Jun 2012 #33
Another issue is that the initial Cherokee registry arbitrarily included some Cherokees pnwmom Jun 2012 #37
Is that because of the legal issues inherent when claiming to be a Cherokee. Major Hogwash Jun 2012 #42
That would be "Dawes Rolls". n/t cherokeeprogressive Jun 2012 #49
Exactly. Her family had always told her she had some Native American ancestry, and she felt proud. Mister Ed Jun 2012 #9
And I can't explain why I'm jealous. pnwmom Jun 2012 #22
I would be proud, too. Quantess Jun 2012 #12
not unless everyone were living a traditional life. but you could say the same thing about any HiPointDem Jun 2012 #29
You make a good point. Quantess Jun 2012 #32
It is hard to be from Oklahoma and *not* have Native American ancestry flyingfysh Jun 2012 #36
There were more black people in Oklahoma in 1907 than NA. Why does no one go searching HiPointDem Jun 2012 #41
Here's an article about Henry Louis Gates, Jr: BrendaBrick Jun 2012 #39
I say I'm 2 parts native American,even tho I have no proof. athenasatanjesus Jun 2012 #44
I wouldn't care if she did make it up. It's trivial. limpyhobbler Jun 2012 #54
Latest Discussions»General Discussion»I bet I know why Warren c...»Reply #47