An Ecology of MInd (11 page)

DR. PEARSON FINISHED CHATTING with Professor Wales and went back to the podium. He glanced around the room, and it appeared as if most people were in their
seats and just a few stragglers were getting seated.

"Well, what did you conclude? Is history primarily a result of the actions of great men and women or is it the result of political and cultural trends
within society? Let's have a show of hands. Put up your hand if you think it is mostly due to the actions of great men and women." About forty percent of
hands went up. "Alright, put up your hand if you think history is primarily a result of political and cultural trends within society." It looked as if
roughly the same number of hands when up.

"And what about the rest of you who didn't vote for either, what do you think? You sir," he pointed to a boy three rows back towards the left of the room.
"I notice you did not put up your hand for either, what do you think?"

"I think it's a trick question. I think both can operate and have dominance at different times and situations. I don't think it's strictly a matter of
being either, or."

"That's a reasonable answer. First, I think it's great that you don't let me force you into one choice or another, and you keep your mind open to both
choices as long as you are not using it as an excuse to avoid having an opinion. Second, I am deeply hurt and offended that you think I would try to trick
you into choosing one or the other and lead you into not considering the option that it may actually be both." He paused and smiled. "I'm actually much
trickier than that. I would say that the question in the way it is framed displays a glaring inherent bias which tends to limit your thinking to other
possibilities that may be at play."

"As an example, let's look at another question. We mentioned earlier that the Eastern Roman Empire did not fall until only thirty-nine years before
Christopher Columbus discovered America. Keep in mind the term discovered is being used in terms of a specific viewpoint. The Americas were known to their
millions of inhabitants. Because of our cultural bias, the fact that a navigational challenged and confused Christopher Columbus stumbled on it is a big
deal."

"For our purposes right now, let's limit our focus to North America. How did Europeans manage to take over and supplant the indigenous native populations?
Anyone?"

A few hands went up. "Yes, over here." Dr. Pearson pointed to a girl at the back of the room.

"Europeans had guns, better technology and a less primitive culture."

"Yes! That's the commonly held belief of the explanation of how Europeans took over North America. It is an answer that is nice, simple, and easy to
understand. I guess there is no need for further questions." He paused. "Oh, oh, commonly held belief, if we go by what we looked at earlier does not
necessarily mean accurate. Let's take a closer look at this belief."

"So how did this happen then, did the Europeans come over and just start shooting natives until most of them are dead and build houses? That's a lot of
natives. Estimates vary but there were at least several million. Somehow I have a hard time visualizing the Mayflower docking, offloading a team of crack
Pilgrim troops who start blasting away the natives. Sort of ruins those lovely scenes and stories about the first Thanksgiving where the friendly natives
taught and helped the colonists to settle in and survive in their new homes. Although when you stop to think about it, that scenario sounds kind of odd
too. Come on in everyone, build houses, settle, stay, we don't mind. We are happy childlike people who only want to help you take over our land in any way
we can. It all sort of sounds unlikely when you look at it that way."

"And if the settlers are so technologically advanced and superior, why did they need help on just being able to survive?"

"Let's leave the pilgrims for a bit and come back to them a little later. The first permanent European settlement in Virginia was at Jamestown. Our highly
intelligent and advanced settlers built the town in a swamp. Many died of disease and starvation while several others resorted to cannibalism to survive.
That doesn't really sound like a heavily armed, technologically advanced super race taking over either. You'd think they'd know better than to build a town
in a swamp if you have all kinds of other great lands around. And what's this about starving, early reports of America abound with accounts of the
incredibly plentiful game. “Flocks of birds that covered the sky for two days as they passed by," type of thing."

"If we keep asking questions about this commonly held belief that guns, and a technologically superior race naturally supplanted the more primitive one; we
can expand the parameters and ask, what about Africa? The same situation applied there. We also had primitive natives and gun toting, technologically
superior Europeans but the only part of Africa that Europeans actually settled in and took over in large numbers was around South Africa. Even there they
are outnumbered by Blacks by about four to one while in North America, the Caucasians and Blacks greatly outnumber the "conquered" race."

"The guns available to early settlers in North America were not AK 47s either. They were muzzle loading, single shot muskets. Very primitive by today's
standards and if your powder was dry, and if there was no misfire on a musket you could get one shot off. They took a significant time to reload. Pitting a
group of settlers with muzzle loading muskets against a much larger group of native warriors with bows and arrows, my money would be on the locals turning
the settlers into human pin cushions. As an alternative, they could overwhelm them while they try to reload and kill them up close and personal."

"I am willing to concede that six shot pistols and repeating rifles like were used in the American West two hundred years later would be a much bigger
advantage. The advantage though, with a muzzle loaded; single shot musket would not be great enough. And what's up with those nasty Indians in the Western
United States we see in movies? What happened to the friendly Indians from Thanksgiving that helped the Pilgrims?"

"Also, looking at the two societies before they met, or even if you saw the members at an initial meeting, North American natives were in much better
health. Their nutrition and quality of life were in many ways superior to most Europeans. European settlers of that period were normally a small,
malnourished and vitamin deficient lot. Early accounts by explorers of meetings with the natives describe tall healthy people. In fact, it was something
that was described in account after account. The health and robustness of the natives were noted so often, because this level of health and robustness was
not at all common in European society. It was also where the concept or term "Noble Savage" came from."

"When we stop and look at some of the information available, there seem to be a lot of discrepancies in the idea that the Europeans took over because they
had guns and a more technologically advanced civilization. As I suggested earlier, if you have a mental construct that seems to have some inconsistencies,
it suggests the construct does not reflect reality accurately, and you need to look closer."

"When early European explorers and settlers came, North America was already populated. The reason Jamestown in Virginia was situated in a swamp was because
that was the only vacant land available. The local natives were already living on all the decent land and had no intentions of moving off it for some
strange people. They tolerated and allowed them to settle in poor quality unused land because it gave them access to certain trade goods the Europeans
had."

"It was bacteria and viruses that changed things. Native Americans had no previous contact with Europeans and therefore, had no immunity to their diseases.
It is estimated that European diseases killed over ninety percent of the native populations. This total devastation of the local populations is what
allowed settlers to expand and take over in the Americas. It did not happen all at once but over time the results were catastrophic for the native
populations. Since disease traveled much faster than colonization, many settlers and explorers were not fully aware of what had happened. Try to imagine
the effects on our current civilization if in a few years ninety to ninety-five percent were killed by disease. Much of our culture would be lost. Any form
of government or military would be virtually non-functional. Any group immune to the disease would be able to move in and take over almost at will. This is
what happened with the natives and European settlers."

"Let's go back to our Pilgrims who landed nearby at Plymouth Rock. Before the Pilgrims, accounts from crews on fishing boats that had been here earlier
described numerous villages all along the shore. It was not a vast empty wilderness but rather a populated area. Accounts from fishing boats two or three
years later describe a coastline of empty abandoned villages and no sign of inhabitants. They had been killed by disease."

"When the Pilgrims arrived at Plymouth Rock, the population of what had been a vital small nation located along the shore was already virtually wiped out
due to disease. Another local empire located slightly more inland had been reduced by disease to about twenty-five percent of their pre-contact numbers.
This group had enemies that lived to their west. At that time, the diseases that ravaged the native populations had yet to spread far enough inland to
affect them. Constant raiding and minor warfare between these local political groupings had been a way of life, long before the Europeans came."

"Worried about their military weakness due to the effects of disease if their enemies should attack, the leader of this middle native empire was desperate
to find a way to strengthen their position. To do this, he decided to try to ally themselves with these newcomers. This political desperation was the
reason for the happy co-operation that gave rise to the story of the first Thanksgiving. They did not want any European settlers here but had to do
something, or they would fall to their more inland neighboring enemies."

"The Pilgrims were happy for the help because they were starving and dying."

"The natives had their own reasons for their actions and were not just passive observers. Their behavior of trying to get along well with the Pilgrims was
not due to some sort of naive trust by simple people. It was them trying to deal with the political and military realities of their situation, most of
which the Europeans were oblivious to, because they had their own worries and concerns."

"The natives did not fully understand what was happening with the diseases that were suddenly plaguing them. Disease was seen as something inflicted by
gods and spirits. There was no understanding of viruses or bacteria. They did not make the full connection to the settlers and explorers as being the
source of the disease. Furthermore, since the disease often spread ahead of the Europeans, whole populations were dying that had never met or had contact
with a European. In fact, observing these diseases did not afflict the Europeans as much was seen as an indication that their God was superior and led to
many religious conversions, which may not have otherwise occurred."

"If we look at our Africa example, we see that there had been contact between Africa, Europe and Asia from a disease standpoint, on a continuous basis.
There were land connections and trade between them. For this reason, the African natives were not devastated the same by foreign diseases. Africa was not
left as a relatively empty continent for Europeans to move into."

"Also, remember I mentioned that early accounts spoke of the incredible amounts of game and wildlife present in North America when the settlers moved in?
What happens to the populations of prey species if the number of predators is greatly reduced? Humans in North America were the top predator. Remove over
ninety percent of them and you get an explosion in the populations of the prey species. Later, the vast herds of buffalo covering the plains were another
example of this. The sizes of the animal populations noticed by the settlers were a result of the massive decrease in the numbers of the native populations
that hunted them."

"The effects of disease were not totally in favor of the Europeans. Let's take a look at a map of Africa. He advanced the presentation to a map of Africa.
"Superimposed on this map of Africa is an area which shows the range of the type of mosquito, which carries the virus that causes malaria. If you look at
the range of this particular mosquito, where does it not extend to? South Africa. Remember, South Africa is the only area where there is a significant
number of people of European descent in Africa. Last year there were 220 million cases of malaria and 700,000 deaths from it in the world. Ninety percent
of these deaths were in Africa and the majority of them were in children under the age of five."

"European settlement fizzled out in Africa where malaria was common. Even with guns and a superior technology, Europeans did not settle and expand in
Africa like they did in North America. With no European diseases killing over ninety percent of the local population and with a disease, they were
susceptible to prevalent in the area, guns and technology, were not enough to allow them to replace the native populations."

"If we go back to North America, the mosquito that carries malaria was also present in the South, and huge numbers of settlers died from it and other
tropical diseases. They did not however, die in the numbers that the natives did to European diseases. The rate of death of settlers from local diseases
was enough to slow them down in some areas, but that was all."

"I want to show you another map that I think is interesting." Dr. Pearson clicked to a map of the eastern United States. On the next click of his remote a
line appeared across part of the map. "This is the Mason - Dixon line which is commonly referred to as the line separating the Northern states from the
Southern states and the line between the Free states and those with slavery before the American civil war. Slavery in the United States was a divisive
issue to say the least. It was predominantly in the South. It did exist in the north earlier on, but laws were passed to outlaw it in the Northern states."