Topics Topics Edit Profile Profile Help/Instructions Help Member List Member List Edit Profile Register  
Search Last 1|3|7 Days Search Search Tree View Tree View  

Solution to the Middle East Problem

Sepulchritude Forum » The Absinthe Forum Archive thru June 2002 » Archive Thru April 2002 » Solution to the Middle East Problem « Previous Next »

  Thread Last Poster Posts Pages Last Post
Archive through April 06, 2002_Blackjack59 4-6-02  5:40 am
Archive through April 08, 2002Lordhobgoblin25 4-8-02  1:27 am
Archive through April 10, 2002Lordhobgoblin25 4-10-02  12:56 pm
  ClosedClosed: New threads not accepted on this page        

Author Message
Dr_Ordinaire
Posted on Thursday, April 11, 2002 - 2:03 am:   Edit PostPrint Post

This is a true story, it happened during the World Police Championship.

The main test was to go into the woods and catch a rabbit. The world record was 22hs 15min.

First the FBI goes in and after 23hs they come out with a rabbit.

Then the Surete, Scotland Yard, etc, all with times around 23 hours.

Finally the Mossad goes in.

After just TWENTY MINUTES they come out. In front of them, cowering and covering his head with his legs, was a fox, begging: "Pplease sstop... I'm a rabbit! I'm a rabbit!"
Mr_Rabid
Posted on Wednesday, April 10, 2002 - 1:41 pm:   Edit PostPrint Post

Yeah, it was the city disease concentration factor I think.

New world cities had the same trouble- at least based on their bones they did. The folks who gathered there had higher rates of all sorts of diseases and they died about 10-15 years younger than the hunter-gatherer people.

Europe was simply more citified than most of the new world, for a lot longer. The middle east, for instance- Ur, Jericho, places like that. 6 thousand years they had to wallow in their own germs.
_Blackjack
Posted on Wednesday, April 10, 2002 - 1:38 pm:   Edit PostPrint Post


Quote:

Has there ever been any case of white Europeans failing to take over a far away land because of they had no resistance to the diseases of the indigenous people?



Europeans certainly had a fair shake of trouble with various tropical diseases. Think of all the gin and tonics(and absinthe) it took to keep them in Africa and India...
Lordhobgoblin
Posted on Wednesday, April 10, 2002 - 1:35 pm:   Edit PostPrint Post

Diseases aren't going to stay in cities, they can spread over great distances extremely quickly. Perhaps with Africans, the very close proximity of Europe to Africa (you could cross over to Africa in a canoe from Southern Spain) meant that there had been a lot of coming and going for a great many millenia and hence both peoples developed broadly similar diseases and resistances.

Hobgoblin
_Blackjack
Posted on Wednesday, April 10, 2002 - 1:34 pm:   Edit PostPrint Post

I think (and I'll defer to my copy of Guns Germs and Steel when I get home), Africans and Europeans had enough contact with one-another, direct or indirect, that they had been exposed to pretty much the same diseases, except for those which were climate-specific, like malaria, to which many Africans were more resistant than Europeans. Keep in mind that Africa was never all that isolated, particularly from the near-east.

Now, I would not be at all surprised if the Malagasy or the Australian Aborigines caught all sorts of crap from us, snce they were more isolated. I'll check my sources...
Lordhobgoblin
Posted on Wednesday, April 10, 2002 - 1:29 pm:   Edit PostPrint Post

If that's the case it spread pretty damn quickly among European populations. Those explorers who came back from the New World must have all, practically without exception, have come back with a good dose of syphillis and then started spreading it profusely (which is possible as European whores did a roaring trade back then).

Hobgoblin
Dr_Ordinaire
Posted on Wednesday, April 10, 2002 - 1:25 pm:   Edit PostPrint Post

Kallisti, if the die off was to bad, nobody woulds have brought new slaves...
Admin
Posted on Wednesday, April 10, 2002 - 1:23 pm:   Edit PostPrint Post

can't answer that offhand - but my guess is that there was tremendous die-off of the introduced african populations
Dr_Ordinaire
Posted on Wednesday, April 10, 2002 - 1:22 pm:   Edit PostPrint Post

Kallisti, so how come African slaves were brought in to London and no epidemies ensued...?
Admin
Posted on Wednesday, April 10, 2002 - 1:20 pm:   Edit PostPrint Post

and yeah, the syphilis thing has been disproved
Admin
Posted on Wednesday, April 10, 2002 - 1:15 pm:   Edit PostPrint Post

it has to do with the western prediliction for large cities, which were cesspits for disease. but they also built up toleration in the indigenous population. but when that population would migrate (or when small numbers of peoples were absorbed into the cities like peasants seeking their fortune) the diseases were brought to virgin populations where they ran rampant unchecked. the cities still had higher than average die off rates, which is why a constant influx of new blood was needed into the cities.

a wonderful book that examines the major changes in history thru the eyes of disease (including the smallpox/american native infection) please see:

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0385121229/sepulchritude
Chevalier
Posted on Wednesday, April 10, 2002 - 1:15 pm:   Edit PostPrint Post

It's said -- perhaps mistakenly -- that the New World gave syphilis to the Old.
Dr_Ordinaire
Posted on Wednesday, April 10, 2002 - 1:05 pm:   Edit PostPrint Post

Hob, this is the first truly original thought in the Forum for some time.

How come we White Europeans (I capitalize ALL races) received Black Africans without any problem, yet Native Americans died like flies from European illnesses?

I'm shure I can trust the Forumites to talk about an AIDS payback...

Administration Administration Log Out Log Out   Previous Page Previous Page Next Page Next Page