How did remote places in Asia and Africa not succumb to the same wave of disease and death that the Native Americans did?

855 views

I’m not saying they weren’t affected at all, but something like 90% of Native Americans were wiped out while places like Japan and deep parts of the African interior didn’t suffer nearly as hard, even though they previously had basically no contact with Europe.

In: 1583

26 Answers

Anonymous 0 Comments

Besides what has already been said, the America’s lacked access to large domestic mammals besides llamas pretty much, so no cows, pigs, sheep, goats, horses. This is grossly simplified but being around these animals spreads diseases to humans, but over hundreds of years the people become more tolerant of the germs and more immune to the diseases from the animals. Because the Native Americans did not have this same centuries long immunity, they got decimated from the diseases and germs the Europeans carried and were mostly immune to. Asia and Africa were pretty connected through trade and had some of these animals so they also became mostly immune, but it is probable that remote populations that hadn’t been exposed could have been taken out too. That was my basic explanation but you’ll find a better one on r/askhistorians

You are viewing 1 out of 26 answers, click here to view all answers.