• This talk page was refactored on 26 March 2005, to make the page more useful for editors working on the article. The previous version of the talk page is available above at "history".

The great title search

This article has had numerous titles and proposed titles, including:

• American Holocaust
• Mortality rates arising out of the European colonization of the Americas
• Post-colonization Native American depopulation
• Depopulation of Indigenous peoples in the Americas
• Depopulation of Indigenous Americans
• Indigenous depopulation in the Americas
• Destruction of American indigenous peoples

A number of alternate titles were proposed here:[1], including:

• Decimation of Pre-Columbian populations
• Devastation of Native American populations
• Destruction of the American Indian
• Demographic disaster
• Impact of the European conquest of the Americas
• Destruction of the native peoples of the Americas
• Impact of the European conquest of the Americas
• Post-Columbian Depopulation
• Genocide in the Americas

and then there's the current title:

• Population history of American indigenous peoples

I proposed the current title, arguing that the previous title ("Destruction...") was POV, implicitly endorsing the provocative, minority assertion that the massive depopulation of the indigenous American people was deliberate. SimonP disagreed with this title, saying "it does not describe the content of the article." The article was rejected for Collaboration of the week, in part because the titles suggested were POV, as well as someone objecting to one or more of the long names.

I think part of the reason the article was renamed so often is that people (including me) moved it without first trying to find some sort of consensus. So I suggest we do this now. I agree with the criticism that the current title is too long and doesn't quite speak to the point.

Probably my vote would be Native American depopulation . Some would argue that "depopulation" is a euphemism for genocide, but I think that term covers both the disease portion of the debate as well as the genocide arguments. Also, the intro of the article should also make clear that the term "Native American" applies in this case to all indigenous peoples of the Americas who aren't always included in that term -- variations like "American indigenous peoples" are too awkward for a title.

Another potential is Native American genocide . Although that is clearly a POV title, at least the article now (and should continue) to explore whether or not the term genocide actually applies. Plus, the title is short and clear.

What do you think? --Kevin Myers 13:11, Mar 26, 2005 (UTC)

I think depopulation is about as NPOV a term as is possible. I do think some indication of the time frame is useful, however, so I would suggest something along the lines of "Post-Columbian Native American depopulation" or "Post-colonial Native American depopulation". Also many thanks for your recent edits, they have much improved this page. - SimonP 14:20, Mar 26, 2005 (UTC)

Depopulation is a neutral word and should do the job -- but not too descriptive. Something like "Native American Population Crash" might be more accurate. I'm not married to this one however. WBardwin 23:20, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I will admit that the current title makes me expect a graph with numbers rising and falling over prehistoric and historic time periods. And "depopulation" is overall better. But, on further thought (see above) -- the topic of the article can be clearly divided into two segments.

1) Disease related population crash -- the result of the biological separation of the two hemispheres and the sudden biological collision. Despite the arguments over isolated incidents of bio-warfare, the population effect was a passive one, one without intent on either side.

2) Population effects due to colonialism -- here we deal with an active intent, sometimes genocidal. Issues such as fuedalism, religious oppression, slavery, differences in subsistance activities, warfare over territory, attempted bio-warfare, manipulation of native peoples, cultural misunderstandings, etc. heavily impacted the populations' health, vitality and numbers. Disease was a factor here too, as Europeans changed native lifestyles, but they were more likely to be endemic and chronic diseases rather than infectious epidemics.

Despite my fear of sounding like an division junkie, would two cross referenced articles cover the overall issue in a better way? Kevin's fine work has certainly given us plenty to work with, and his sections fall cleanly on these lines. But -- then we would have to search for two titles! WBardwin 08:29, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Quote with leads to sources

Here's a quote from a 1995 journal article by William Denevan, giving some of the background of the controversy. I can't put it in the article, because it's copyright, but I'm pasting it here as a guide to research on the EARLY history of the problem.

BACKGROUND

In 1560 the Spanish priest Bartolome de las Casas estimated that 40 million Indians had died in Latin America between 1492 and 1560, a figure long considered a gross exaggeration (Denevan 1976b, 35-36). However, in the 1920s three scholars with deep experience in the field, literature, and archaeology of Native Americans argued, largely intuitively, for New World populations at the time of Columbus of between 37 and 50 million. These were the geographer Karl Sapper (1924) and the anthropologists Paul Rivet (and others 1924) and Herbert Spinden (1928). The ensuing controversy stimulated region-by-region or culture-by-culture examinations of available evidence, initially by the ethnologist James Mooney (1928) and by the philologist Angel Rosenblat (1935). These led to similar conservative hemispheric estimates that remained the dominant view for the next three decades: 8.4 million by the Berkeley anthropologist Alfred Kroeber (1934, 1939); 13.4 million by Rosenblat (1935); and 15.6 million by the anthropologist Julian Steward (1949). All three relied on the earliest actual counts available, assumed no significant prior decline from introduced disease, and considered estimates by initial observers unreliable.

At the same time (1927-1935), however, Carl Sauer and his students Donald Brand, Fred Kniffen, and, particularly, Peveril Meigs were publishing field and archive studies on mission and Indian pueblo populations in Northwest Mexico that were to cast great doubts on the Mooney-Kroeber-Rosenblat figures, methods, and assumptions.

Also at Berkeley during the early 1930s were Steward, who later presented his case for low numbers of Indians in the Handbook of South American Indians (1949), and Sherburne Cook, who in 1937 published the first systematic study of Indian population decline due to European epidemic diseases. All of these faculty members and graduate students interacted, but out of that time and place developed two fully opposed interpretations of Indian numbers at contact in the New World: the conservative estimates of Kroeber and Steward; and the liberal estimates of Sauer, Meigs, Cook, and later Lesley Simpson, Woodrow Borah, Homer Aschmann, and others. The assumptions of the two groups were different and irreconcilable regarding early declines and eyewitness reliability. The early story can only be hinted at here by means of the published record and from correspondence with the few surviving participants.

From Zora's Questia account. Zora 13:05, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)

New Amsterdam demographics

The patrooship system was largely a failure and was abandoned early on in favour of concentrating on the fur trade. The population only rose due to the influx of English agriculturists late in its history that brought its population up, a factor that also contributed to its annexation. Before then the colony had, like New France, consisted of a handful of densely populated settlements with an all but empty interior. - SimonP 03:18, Dec 12, 2004 (UTC)

The population of New Netherlands when conquered was 10,000 spread over a smaller area than the 15,000 of contemporary Virginia giving them virtually identical population densities, not the settlement pattern of New France. Rmhermen 19:56, Dec 17, 2004 (UTC)

The large population was only a very late development and was caused by the influx of British (and other foreign) settlers that led to the eventual British annexation of the colony. At the time of the conquest only a minority of the population of the colony was Dutch. The pattern of Dutch settlement, small, largely urban, and focused on commerce rather than farming, was very similar to that of the French. - SimonP 21:17, Dec 17, 2004 (UTC)

Discussion of the Stannard book

Stannard is not the only authority on the subject. Moreover, he represents one particular, militant, Native Hawaiian viewpoint.

The fact is that populations in the Americas and the Pacific islands had never been exposed to the common diseases of the Eurasian-African landmass. They had NO inborn immunity to what were childhood diseases for others. Measles, for example, killed a huge percentage of the Native Hawaiian population.

European incursions in areas like China, the Phillipines, Africa, etc. did NOT result in mass die-offs, simply because the inhabitants were immune to European diseases. Zora 08:42, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)

So this is an article about one particular theory of history? A theory advocated by a professor or two? If so, then this article is entirely the wrong approach, IMO. It should read more like a book report/review, evaluating the book, the author, and the field. This feels more like a Cliff Notes version of the book, conveying an uncritical digest of the material. I haven't read the book, but that is how the article seems. -Willmcw 11:07, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)

PS or maybe a clearer explanation in the first sentence or two that this is a description of a particular theory. --Willmcw 11:13, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)

The article started with Stannard, but is & should move away from him if he is some way to the extreme end of the bell curve. --Tagishsimon (talk)

Aargh. I don't have the references to hand, but dammit, this is the considered opinion of historians and anthropologists. In general. Not just one book. I did my dissertation research in Tonga, one of the island groups affected by the depopulation. One reference there is Norma McArthur, Island Populations of the Pacific. As the American continents, I researched this for a Usenet argument a few years back, and then dropped the subject. But as an anthropologist with two degrees, and a resident of Hawai'i where Stannard lives, I tell you he's waaaay out there. He's married to Haunani Kay Trask, who is well-known as a Native Hawaiian militant.

I know it's POV at the moment, but repeating Stannard as if he were the standard reference in the field is even more POV, and pernicious to boot. Zora 12:37, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)

After I'd written the previous, I realized that the whole subject was probably new to you, and that you didn't realize that it had been thoroughly debated, by numerous people, over the course of many years. You seemed to be saying that if Stannard was the only person in the field, I should write a book report on him. No, no, I was trying to give the consensus theory and point out that Stannard was an outlier.

I'm aware that it's still POV, but I haven't had TIME to grub up references. Zora 12:42, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I think I was the one who wrote the misleading section re Stannard thinking that Europeans were at fault for the disease deaths. I haven't read the book in question; I have read his earlier book on the Hawaiian population crash. That was a number of years ago, but in the Hawaiian book he did seem to be arguing that everything was the Westerners' fault, and that they could have prevented the die-off if they'd been sufficiently concerned. (Case in point being the vilification of Captain Cook for not having better control over his poxy sailors.) The use of the term genoicide in the later book seemed to me to be a continuation of the earlier argument, that it was manslaughter if not premeditated murder. If Stannard isn't arguing that it was conscious malevolence or neglicence, then the use of the term genoicide is pure demagoguery.

It looks like it's time for a library trawl again. Sigh. Zora 06:58, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)

If you drew an inaccurate inference from Stannard's writings, it was probably his fault and not yours. From what I've read, he relies (in my amateur opinion) on distortions and half-truths to goad his readers into moral outrage. To wit: In calling a section of American Holocaust "Pestilence and genocide", he seems to be intentionally blurring the disease and genocide issue.

His work is offensive and bigoted, in my opinion. To illustrate, if someone wrote a book describing in gruesome detail every murder of a white person by a black person in American history, we'd rightfully deride it as race baiting crap. Stannard has written that kind of book. Wikipedians should resist writing articles using his approach.

Of course, there were certainly acts of mass murder and genocide committed by whites against Native Americas (on a local or tribal, rather than continental, scale); these have been written about by responsible historians, and make appropriate topics for Wikipedia. --Kevin Myers 09:08, Dec 20, 2004 (UTC)

Major revision

I thought that the start of the article was shaping up rather nicely, but it was lumpy at the end. Extremely unbalanced. I wielded a large scythe and reorganized the body of the article, in the process deleting some of my precious prose and alas, some of everyone else's. The material on North America was important and useful, but perhaps too detailed for what is supposed to be an overview article. Therefore I set up a framework of stubs into which some of the detailed material can be inserted. Perhaps I should have done this myself, but I've been working on this for several hours and I'm a bit tired. The material can be recovered from the history of this article. I hope I haven't upset anyone. Zora 08:17, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I like it! Still a lot of work to do, but it's getting there. I didn't like having a special section for North America in the article either -- it seemed more defensive than informative. I think regional differences can be discussed within the various sections -- how many died in wars in North America as compared to South America, for example. --Kevin Myers 09:15, Dec 21, 2004 (UTC)

Blankets and smallpox

I understand there is a general scholarly consensus that the US Army in the nineteenth century did NOT deliberately distribute smallpox-infected blankets to Native American populations in a strategy of contamination. (Although there is evidence that BRITISH forces indeed employed such a tactic at least once during the French and Indian War.) Can anyone then verify the accuracy or falsehood of the following source often cited to justify the argument that the US did indeed deliberately spread the disease?

Ann F. Ramenofsky. Vectors of Death: The Archaeology of European Contact (Albuquerque, NM: University of New Mexico Press, 1987):

"Among Class I agents, Variola major holds a unique position. Although the virus is most frequently transmitted through droplet infection, it can survive for a number of years outside human hosts in a dried state (Downie 1967; Upham 1986). As a consequence, Variola major can be transmitted through contaminated articles such as clothing or blankets (Dixon 1962). In the nineteenth century, the U.S. Army sent contaminated blankets to Native Americans, especially Plains groups, to control the Indian problem (Stearn and Stearn 1945)." [p. 148, emphasis added]

I´m also wondering if anyone who has read the study Ramenofsky cites by Stearn and Stearn can verify that it indeed argues for a deliberate policy of contamination:

E. Wagner Stearn & Allen E. Stearn. The Effect of Smallpox on the Destiny of the Amerindian (Boston: B. Humphries, 1945).

Here's a recent essay that mentions the Stearn & Stearn study, which states that S&S do not contend that there was deliberate infection. This link addresses claims made by Ward Churchill, and argues that Churchill has basically fabricated evidence in order to make his claims of deliberate smallpox infection. [2] The paper does not mention Ramenofsky, so one wonders why she apparently cites Stearn & Stearn to make the same claim as Churchill. Hmmm. --Kevin Myers 01:21, Feb 14, 2005 (UTC)

Regarding Churchill´s and Ramenofsky's use of Stearn and Stearn's The Effect of Smallpox on the Destiny of the Amerindian (1945):

I'm frustrated not to have access to the Stearn and Stearn source here in Spain, so I wonder if anyone who can look it up can attest to whether or not Ramenofsky's appeal to it for the "deliberate contamination" argument has any merit. Thomas Brown's essay referenced above states that Churchill misrepresented passages in Stearn and Stearn on pp. 83 and 87-8 of their study on smallpox, but I wonder if there are other passages in that study which could support Ramenofsky's claims--or did she too misrepresent Stearn and Stearn?

Unfortunately, Ramenofsky does not give any page numbers for her reference to Stearn and Stearn. This question is of particular interest to me, as Ramenofsky's claim of deliberate contamination in Vectors of Death pre-dates Churchill's own by some years.

Also--if Stearn and Stearn NEVER made the argument of deliberate contamination, are there sources earlier than Ramenofsky who make the same accusation against the US Army? I´m just trying to locate the first published accusation of this kind.

The accusations of deliberate spreading of disease are starting to sound a bit "urban-legendish". People copying and pasting citations without actually reading them, relying on what "everyone knows" to be true. Zora 00:04, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)

To the Spanish Wikipedian: I've requested Stearn and Stearn's The Effect of Smallpox on the Destiny of the Amerindian from my local library, if they can find it. I'll relay all relevant details if & when the book arrives. --Kevin Myers 04:06, Feb 17, 2005 (UTC)

Kevin -- you might want to look at the Plague and Peoples reference I just added to the list. WBardwin 12:18, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)

This same issue is under discussion in the Smallpox article, with no resolution.

Amherst infamously considered spreading smallpox to the surrounding forces. In a series of letters to his subordinate Henry Bouquet during the summer of 1764, Amherst discussed the idea of spreading smallpox to attacking forces via gifts of blankets that had been exposed to smallpox. This idea had already been tried a year previous: on 24 June 1763, infected blankets were given to the Delawares by the commander of Fort Pitt, perhaps on his own initiative. --from the Amherst article.

What if we do an article focused on the question/incident and place links in Biological Warfare, Smallpox, Amherst, this site and anything else that comes to mind. If Kevin finds the Stearn and Stearn that would be a good start. WBardwin 22:32, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I've thought about such an article before; I think it's a good idea. In addition to the Amherst incident, the article should address the alleged Mandan incident as well.

I now have the Stearn & Stearn book at hand. The short version is that I seen no mention of deliberate infection by the US Army in the book. In my judgment Thomas Brown's essay accurately represents the evidence in Stearn & Stearn. I've typed some relevant excerpts here: Talk:Population history of American indigenous peoples/Source. (Pages 87-8 forthcoming).

Does anyone actually have the Ramenofsky book (Vectors of Death: The Archaeology of European Contact) at hand? Does it really say "In the nineteenth century, the U.S. Army sent contaminated blankets to Native Americans, especially Plains groups, to control the Indian problem (Stearn and Stearn 1945)" on page 148, as claimed in several places on the Internet? --Kevin Myers 05:28, Mar 4, 2005 (UTC)

(From Spain): Thanks so much for investigating Stearn & Stearn. I don't have a copy of Ramenofsky's book either, and relied on the same Internet citations. If she's willing to answer e-mails on the topic, I'll try to contact her via the University of New Mexico, where she teaches. If Stearn and Stearn was not the source for such a claim, I wonder where she did get it from.

I now have the Ramenofsky book, and she does indeed write: "In the nineteenth century, the U.S. Army sent contaminated blankets to Native Americans, especially Plains groups, to control the Indian problem (Stearn and Stearn 1945)." Hmmm. --Kevin Myers 01:45, Mar 8, 2005 (UTC)

Kevin -- "all the facts!" WOW. Good work on the sites involved. I have managed to come up with some quotes from the correspondence involved if you think they would be relevant on this page. I think they would be overkill on the smallpox article. WBardwin 04:15, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Yeah, I'd say go ahead and add the quotes. If they make the section too long, we'll create that article about blankets and smallpox. Soon I'll add the stuff about the Churchill allegations, etc. --Kevin Myers 14:20, Mar 24, 2005 (UTC)

Amazon Basin Population

Some recent works have discussed a drastic reduction in NA population in the Amazon due to disease brought simply by the early European exploration trips on the river. Some of their population estimates are amazing too! I'll try to track them down for inclusion. WBardwin 12:18, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Note also the kefluffle in the anthropological community, re accusations that Napoleon Chagnon spread measles among the Yamamomo, in Amazon. He was trying to do good, by vaccinating, and some say that it backfired. I think that's it. Also, accusations that he fanned the flames of warfare (which he was studying) by giving machetes and guns to his subjects. I may be wrong on the details. It was a huge fuss at the time, several years back. Zora 05:36, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Kevin's recent edits

Great work! Adding topical material will be helpful for readers looking for background info on Churchill controversy. Thank you so much. Zora 19:51, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)