Tell me more ×
History Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for historians and history buffs. It's 100% free, no registration required.
up vote 3 down vote favorite

Thinking about the problems which the natives of the Americas suffered when they met the Europeans, I wondered how a man of the past could survive in the modern age. Problems could be caused by pollution, different viruses/bacteria, different food (I wouldn't consider social/mental problems, only physical ones).

Of course we can't know it for sure, due to obvious lack of specimens, what I'm asking if there has been any well-thought theory about that, educated guesses, anything based of facts we know and what we can safely assume.

The "past" is left vague on purpose: as long as it's at least 100-200 years old it would be fine — though I can safely guess people from before the Industrial age would suffer much more than those who came after.

share|improve this question
Note that native Americans died of those diseases because they had been cut off from the rest of the world and had had no contact to the germ. Europe, Asia, and Africa were always quick to share their diseases. (I think the plague is supposed to have jumped from rats to humans somewhere in Asia, and then went to kill half of Europe. When the measles hit Faeroe island after 65 years in 1846, 99.5% of those younger than 65 became infected. Measles also killed more than a 4th of the Hawaiian population in 1848 and a 4th of the inhabitants of the Fiji islands in 1874.) – sbi Apr 8 '12 at 19:28

1 Answer

up vote 3 down vote

Evolutionarily we haven't changed much for the last 50,000 years. The only 'modern' changes have come about as the result of farming. We adapted to drink milk as adults, digest wheat and grain and if you grew up in the west - metabolise alcohol!

Somebody from 2000 years ago in the same sort of environment wouldn't see too much difference foodwise. They wouldn't have immunity to new-world diseases from other continents but we mostly treat/vaccinate against these so an ancient Roman visiting Rome today is unlikely to meet any cholera or syphilis.

Even the environment has improved, you might think LA is polluted - but compared to a medieval wood fueled hall it's a breath of fresh air.

They might think their sense of smell had failed in our antisceptic world

share|improve this answer
I agree with most of this answer, with the possible exception of he environment improving. I would agree though that living conditions (particularly in cities) have improved, but the general environment certainly hasn't. The main point though, is that the reason the natives of America were so devastated by disease was that they were dealing with the survivors of incredibly filthy and disease ridden cities which had bred new diseases, inoculated the invaders, and carried it over on their ships. The development of germ theory and vaccines has made such concerns mostly irrelevant. – BrotherJack Apr 3 '12 at 5:48
I'm unsure about the alcohol point as well, Europeans were drinking it (in smaller amounts) on a consistent basis for hundreds of years. Wives in many European countries would brew beer for home use, and even the Egyptians knew to brew beer. Of course other cultures had fermented options as well. – MichaelF Apr 3 '12 at 11:11
1  
@BrotherJack - CO2 and background radiation are higher. But the air and water are cleaner in most of europe, at least where people live. The native americans were susceptible to epidemics because they hadn't spent the last 10,000 years living closely with other people and animals - but today vaccination means the incidence of those disease is so low (in western countries) that a visitor would never encounter them. – mgb Apr 3 '12 at 12:56
@Michealf - that was assuming a visitor from before agriculture, along with the lactose and wheat tolerance. Going the other way a modern person wouldn't be able to handle the amount of beer a medieaval person drank – mgb Apr 3 '12 at 12:57
@mgb They may have consumed more but it wasn't in the levels of binge drinking, it was more a constant amount that tended to be watered down. So yeah we probably could drink similar amounts, the levels of drunkeness may differ though. But you hit all the right points here, +1 – MichaelF Apr 3 '12 at 13:07
show 2 more comments

Your Answer

 
discard

By posting your answer, you agree to the privacy policy and terms of service.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.