Comments by "Neolithic Transit Revolution" (@neolithictransitrevolution427) on "Whatifalthist"
channel.
-
416
-
297
-
In terms of Europeans creating a society in the south, a few important points.
1. Most of the deadly disease was brought by Europeans, originally from Asia and Africa. Malaria being a key example.
2. For exactly the above reason, the civilization in the south was entirely dependent on African slaves. This wasn't just the white peasantry refusing to be a lower class, they simply died of diseases African slaves were immune to. Without this labour force the european society couldn't survive labouring outdoors, and as such wouldn't have existed.
3. To talk about the south without talking about hook worm is a huge missing segment. A large part of the reason southerns are seen as lazy etc is that they were chronically ill with parasites until the 1950s.
Edit: To avoid being misleading, I should clarify that Malaria wasn't prominent enough to be a death sentence for Europeans in the south as it was in Africa. While white settlers could survive (with high mortality rates), the plantation economy, which was a dominant aspect of Southern Culture even for those not working on a plantation, could not. The labour requirements and particular risk for new European immigrants made it unprofitable to use labour from more established sources, such as indentured irish workers or slaves from the Barbary trade. This lead to the preference for African Slaves, setting the stage for the development of the Chattel slavery racial caste system which would later become an entrenched aspect of the society.
293
-
282
-
143
-
121
-
115
-
@iactas7892 While my comment is applicable to South America, I was actually refering the the lower South of the US.
Also Haiti is poor (French), Jamaica, Belize, and Trinidad and Tobago aren't wealthy (English), and Uruguay is certainly quite well off (Spanish). I do agree with your premises, but the type of colonization (Settler, conqueror/extractor, and slave plantation) certainly impacts this as much as the colonizing nation.
Likewise, since colonialism has wound down, the willingness of western countries to deal with former colonies in terms of trade or investment is as relevant as the colonization itself. Argentina for example was highly successful until British investment dropped off in WW1, while much of Haitian poverty is due to Western countries treating it as a pariah state since independence.
25
-
24
-
20
-
20
-
17
-
13
-
12
-
10
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
8
-
7
-
7
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
4
-
4
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
@drstevej2527 In case there is some confusion, I will clarify that I'm not claiming the Southern Climate was harder on Europeans and easier on Africans. The peer reviewed claim I am repeating is that the Southern Climate was better for Mosquitoes that carry malaria. And that due to the introduction of Malaria into the area, Malaria immune populations were needed for effective labour, which concluded in demand for certain African populations as forced labour. I suppose there may be diseases, like the flu, which propegate better in cold environments. I have never seen research emphasizing this, but I won't exclude the possibility. By and large however, due to existing genetic immunities, I don't believe there was a particular selection bias (not withstanding vitamin D deficiencies).
The Cotton producing states are certainly a driving force for slavery. In terms if creating a market, this is arguably more true in Brazil and the Amazon, where malaria introduction (along side other introduced tropical disease) destroyed nearly the entire native population, and which accounted for the majority of the slave trade. And it is this strong early pressure to form a market on African labour which then led to such strong racial caste structures that perpetuated Black slavery.
I'm not going to keep arguing though. I certainly don't mean to ignore cultural factors like Protestant work ethic, I simply think you shouldn't exclude the relevent environmental factors. If you don't find the research convincing, that's fine. Provide any counter evidence you'd like. This is a youtube comment section, not a journal, so I'll let people who read do thier own research and make an opinion.
3
-
3
-
3
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@samuelmorales2344 I am repeating 3 district claims.
1. Malaria was introduced to North America by Early explores. This does not appear to be in dispute.
2. Hook worm made people in general in the south "lazy". Or rather, chronically ill and exhausted. This is well attested to in literature and was well understood in the 1930s when elimination efforts were undertaken (by the government and Rockefeller foundation) to increase productivity in the south.
3. That Malaria disproportionately effected non sub Saharan populations with high mortality rates. This is the point that appears to be under- what is to me a suprising amount of- contention. I have pointed to peer reviewed papers. Malaria being a deadly illness in the South is well attested and led to national erratiction efforts.
I'm certainly not saying other disease don't matter, only that Malaria matters heavily, to the point the African interior was a near death sentence for Europeans until a cure was invented. I even refered to another disease, hook worm, in the top comment. Other disease obviously matter, all those you've listed help to explain why Native American slavery was not nearly as predominant as African.
In regards to Nigeria, you are nearly arguing my point for me, as it is both in a Malaria zone and the people have a natural immunity. And in regards to natural disaster setting people back...they do? Just because something can be overcome doesn't mean it doesn't have an affect. Idk how, for example, someone could suggest Puerto Rico isn't negatively affected by hurricanes.
2
-
2
-
I think there is a reasonable chance to seeing an East and West Russia form along the Urals. East Russia as a Chinese puppet state/nuclear enabled paria state similar to North Korea, and West Russia as the majority of the population in a democratic form supported by uprising, Ukrainian/NATO support, and EU patronage.
If you start seeing unrest in the West, it isn't a hard sell to imagine Russian leaders fleeing east (they're already in the Urals) and the Chinese stepping in in the east to protect economic assets (oil and gas wells), prevent unrest on the boarder, and of course avoid a western aligned country to thier North.
You might also see a few fallout states, Tartarstan, Chechnya, Dagestan form, and Kazakhstan may change its boarders a little bit by short term stabilization operations on its boarder and support to cities like Orenburg, which lead to long term gains to keep a balance between the two Russias.
2
-
2