Please enable JavaScript.

Coggle requires JavaScript to display documents.

Heavy Shadows and Black Night (George Lovell) (Scattering until they…

- - - - Until recently, the disease factor could not be invoked with confidence because most scholars believed that the first major outbreak of Old World sickness was smallpox, which did not appear in Hispaniola until December 1518 (N. D. Cook and Lovell 1992, 221)
      - Sauer (1966, 204) called that outbreak "the first epidemic of record."
      - Henige
        
        Henige (1986, 19) declares that his perusal of sources revealed "no serious or epidemic incidence of infec- tious disease in Hispaniola before late 1518."
      - there were diseases before
        
        Cook and Borah (1971
        
        there were sick people on the very first voyage and and it is unlikely that the sick would have stayed isolated so that the natives would not have picked up any diseases. They received support from Guerra (1985)
        
        Guerra (1985)
        
        suggests that there was an outbreak of Influenza on Hispañola
        
        unanimity is striking
        
        while the natives suffered infinitely, the invaders were also affected.Of the 1500 men who sailed from Ca'diz on September 25, 1493, scarcely 200 were alive a decade later. Columbus actually himself became ill bur recovered.
        
        influenza transmitted by pigs -> 8 sows had been taken on board -> source of 10 million deaths in 1518 -> then would spread to the continent.
        
        Philippines as a comparison
        
        main difference: native peoples in the Philippines lived alongside domesticated animals, whereas those in the West Indies did not. This meant that humans in the former archipelago had ad- justed biologically to the presence among them of diseases originating in animals, including swine fever.
        
        contact with China from early on also ensured to the old world disease pool
        
        seems like afterwards the Spaniards id not want nothing to do with that area and knew that the riches would be found on the mainland.
- - - - While the Spaniards were in Tlaxcala, a great plague broke out here in Tenochtitldn. It began to spread during the thirteenth month [September 30-October 19, 1520] and lasted for seventy days, striking everywhere in the city and killing a vast number of our people. Sores erupted on our faces, our breasts, our bellies; we were covered with agonizing sores from head to foot. The illness was so dreadful that no one could walk or move. The sick were so utterly helpless that they could only lie on their beds like corpses, unable to move their limbs or even their heads. They could not lie face down or roll from one side to the other. If they did move their bodies, they screamed with pain. A great many died from this plague, and many others died of hunger. They could not get up to search for food, and everyone else was too sick to care for them, so they starved to death in their beds.6. Look up footnote 6 here and chip it into the essay
      - scholars agree that the disease described there was smallpox. Disagreement exists over how many perished. (p.430)
  - - - Zambardino concerns himself more with meth- odological procedure than source interpreta- tion, offering a contact figure of 5-10 million for central Mexico, which for him "matches the evidence gathered and presented by Borah and Cook far more accurately than their esti- mate of 25 million
      - states that all of these numbers contain high margins of error and is in this statement talking about the calculations for the population of Cook and Borah 1971)
    - - The Indian population fell by 1620-1625 to a low of approxi- mately 3% of its size at the time the Europeans first landed on the shores of Veracruz. Even if these figures are not true they caused a lot of debate.This school is also called the Berkeley schoo (p.430)
    - - first disease is smallpox, we even know the name of the black slave. so there is convergence about the first wave from 1520 onwards, that is not the case for the second wave
- - - - Solano's statistics are more difficult to recon- cile. Even his low contact estimate, when viewed in relation to figures put forward for 1550 and 1575, indicates a 'massive collapse" (1974, 61). For the last quarter of the sixteenth century, however, Solano champions a popula- tion increase that conflicts with abundant con- temporary testimony (Lovell 1992a
      - Solano (1974, 61) claims that the "Berke- ley School" is driven by "a secret passion," the goal of which is "to blame Spanish actions as the direct cause" of drastic native depopula- tion.
- - - - Census projection models, described as "one of the most promising avenues of ap- proach," deliver a minimum population of 3.9 million and a maximum population of 14.2 mil- lion. Cook's enthusiasm for this procedure, however, does not extend to its manipulation by Shea (1976), whose estimate of 2-2.9 million for the central Andes is dismissed on the grounds of insufficient data and the erroneous supposition "that the rate of decline prior to 1581 paralleled the rate following that date" (N. D. Cook 1981, 95, 108-10).
    - - Methodologically, perhaps the most novel of Cook's six different strategies is his deploy- ment of disease mortality models, whereby death rates known to have occurred during certain epidemics are applied, with appropriate modification, outbreak by outbreak to the Per- uvian disease chronology. Working from a "cal- culated base" of 671,505 in 1620, the "maximal population" in 1520 is estimated at 8,090,421 and the "minimal population" at 3,243,985. Cook's reasoning is episode-specific: 30-50 percent mortality during the first outbreak of smallpox; 25-30 percent mortality during the first outbreak of measles; and 30-60 percent mortality when smallpox and measles appear together, as they did in the murderous epi- demic of 1585-91, along with mumps, influ- enza, and typhus. The model overlooks many key variables-differential immunity, age- specific mortality, physiological adaptation- but it does offer a reasonable basis for calcula- tion, provided, of course, that disease identification has been established with some degree of confidence (N. D. Cook 1981, 59-74).
    - - After dealing, point by point, with the strengths and weaknesses of all six procedures, Cook then steps back from the preponderance of numbers to suggest a specific range (4-15 million) and a specific estimate (9 million) for the population of Peru on the eve of Spanish conquest. These figures are advocated "after careful weighing of the evidence, rather than being purely an act of faith" (1981, 114). The estimate of 9 million people alive in 1520 con- trasts sharply with the estimate of 600,000 alive about a century later. An overall decline of 93 percent "almost completely wiped out" Indi- ans living along the coast. Those who contin- ued to live in the mountains, despite "disease and outright exploitation," in subsequent cen- turies recovered demographically to give the Andes of Peru its unmistakable, enduring na- tive complexion.
      - general estimation for the population for he Inca empire
        
        Besides his pioneering work at the national level of analysis, which inspired Alchon (1991) toward similar goals in Ecuador, N. D. Cook (1982) has published a population history of the Colca valley that serves as a concrete example of the kind of regional investigation urgently needed throughout the Andes. In the opposite direction, Cook is reported as favoring a con- tact estimate for the entire Inca empire of four- teen million, which means he reckons that some five million people lived under Inca rule in Colombia, Ecuador, Bolivia, Argentina, and Chile (Roberts 1989).
      - Woman Puma
        
        Woman Puma letter to the king 1200 page -> the Spaniards destroy everything.
- - - - Sempat As- sadourian (1985) is of a similar disposition. The mindset is perhaps best exemplified by the Per- uvian writer Mario Vargas Llosa (1990), who manages to address "questions of conquest" in an extended essay in Harper's without once demonstrating awareness that the transfer of disease had a marked influence on how events unfolded.
    - - At the same time as some intellectuals con- veniently ignore or marginalize the disease question, others embrace it far too wholeheart- edly. The trait is particularly evident among some Spanish scholars, whose near-exclusive focus on epidemiology and biological inequal- ity serves to deny that which cannot be denied: barbarous heavy-handedness on the part of the conqueror, from which Indians suffered dread- fully and against which individuals like Las Casas fought and lobbied nobly. Thus we may concur with Zamora (1985, 131) that disease must be considered "the fundamental cause" but express reservation at its being designated the "almost single" cause of native disappear- ance. Similar proclivity to oversimplify the mat- ter may also be found in Guerra (1986, 58), who states with more than a shrug of resignation that "the American Indian was victimized by sickness, not by Spaniards." Historical autopsy should not be performed that surgically, least of all on the countless many who died a con- quered death after October 12, 1492.