Debunking Native American Fairy Tales

[Creaky]

Well, they were natives, not humans!

Otherwise it would have been a lie declaring it "Terra Nullius"...

And?
250 years ago the Irish weren’t human either, 100 years ago and the Jews weren’t human, Japanese thought they were more evolved than anyone else, now the Palestinians are sub human.
Happens when evolution is the trend
 
250 years ago Australia was terra nullis, Britain ruled the world, kinda like the US today. It was great for Britain but not everyone else

[Karl12]

Faerie tales from every global tribe back then sound extremely similar to shit going on these days lol


https://denyignorance.com/Thread-Faerie-UFO-Connection


Some truly remarkable pattern recognition correlations.

[Solvedit]

Actually, we DO know when smallpox first appeared in the US.  1600's, in Jamestown, etc, brought by sailors and spread in the colonies... and outward from there.  

It was able to spread because the disease survived longer in the northern climates (northern route).  Again, well documented.  In the 1500's, it ravaged the Caribbean, but did not reach the mainland.

I believe you are confusing the first smallpox outbreak with the first well documented smallpox outbreak in mainland North America. 

The first known smallpox epidemic in mainland North America was caused by Hernan Cortez's men in the early 1500s.  

There could have been others before then.

How is it that smallpox transmission across oceans was impossible in the early 1500s but became possible in the early 1600s?

The danger of turning the Americas into a pirate kingdom served as a motive to not document or discuss the vulnerability of the natives to epidemics until it became well-known among many ordinary people among the Jamestown settlers and other early English settlers and it became impossible to hide. 

You may be rare for being immune to smallpox today, but far more people were involved in the raising of cattle in the 1500s and 1600s, and they were far less capable of keeping their stock and themselves free of cowpox in those days.  

Besides, epidemics are not necessary for a non-state presence in mainland North America.  It is possible that Ottoman-aligned Barbary pirates had started distributing captured goods or human traffic and made friends among the natives, as has been already covered.  

Who left the hundreds of pounds of hammer scale on the island south of Roanoke?  The Roanoke colonists probably barely had hundreds of pounds of iron goods, so what did they make hundreds of pounds of sparks from?  Someone must already have been producing iron locally, unless they repaired tens of thousands of pounds of old-world-made iron goods to generate hundreds of pounds of sparks.  It is not necessary to completely reshape a broken item in order to repair it, so each repaired piece would only have lost a little weight to sparks flying off.  Who had tens of thousands of pounds of old-world-made iron on the island south of Roanoke in the early 1600s?

[Byrd]

I believe you are confusing the first smallpox outbreak with the first well documented smallpox outbreak in mainland North America. 

The first known smallpox epidemic in mainland North America was caused by Hernan Cortez's men in the early 1500s.  

There could have been others before then.

You're not falling back on data, you're falling back on "could."  You have to show proof.

I mean, there COULD have been rainbow-spitting unicorns bouncing around in the Rockies before the Europeans got here, y'know.  There COULD have been two-headed aliens visiting the Aztecs and teaching them dirty song lyrics in Aldeberanian.  There COULD have been Patagonians who had a regular trade route smuggling Elvis records to Africa in the 1300's... 

"Could" is a tool of imagination.  Without any linking proof, it's just "Pagagonians smuggling Elvis records in 1490 AD."

 

How is it that smallpox transmission across oceans was impossible in the early 1500s but became possible in the early 1600s?
 

It wasn't impossible, but it was difficult because of the gestation period of the disease.  It progresses more slowly in colder climates... and the route Columbus took was close to the Equator.

 

The danger of turning the Americas into a pirate kingdom served as a motive to not document or discuss the vulnerability of the natives to epidemics until it became well-known among many ordinary people among the Jamestown settlers and other early English settlers and it became impossible to hide. 

The US was never in danger of becoming a "pirate kingdom."  The number of actual pirates was quite small, and their resources were quite limited.  Guns run out of ammunition.  Pirates have to sleep.  Pirates aren't dressed for the different climates.   Tribes don't take strangers who don't speak the language as leaders (or as gods, either.)

Pirates have a culture of murder and thievery.  When things got bad or there are disagreements, they will turn on each other (convenient targets) and kill and steal.  If there's a bunch of people living nearby, the first thing they will do when they encounter a pack of thieves and murderers is to get rid of that bunch.
 

Besides, epidemics are not necessary for a non-state presence in mainland North America.  It is possible that Ottoman-aligned Barbary pirates had started distributing captured goods or human traffic and made friends among the natives, as has been already covered.  

You have not pointed to any proof of European goods or diseases entering into the US before the time of Columbus.  

The economics of sailing from the Strait of Gibraltar to the Bahamas or anywhere in the Americas is pretty poor.  Any live human cargo would be packed in so tight (and oh, the diseases!) that less than 2/3 of the original cargo survives.  Native Americans had little use for European things until they started adopting European ways.  European clothing wasn't as good as native clothing (and clothes were a hot market item in Europe.)  Add to this a 4-6 month voyage (to the Americas and back) when you wouldn't know the status of your ships or your investment -- and compare reselling there in Europe (where 90% of the slaves would make it to market and where there's a hot trade in clothing and other European goods AND where you could get your investment back in a matter of months.)

Sending stuff to America was low on the list until tobacco was introduced into Europe.   And sugar.

[Solvedit]

You're not falling back on data, you're falling back on "could."  You have to show proof.

I mean, there COULD have been rainbow-spitting unicorns bouncing around in the Rockies before the Europeans got here, y'know.  There COULD have been two-headed aliens visiting the Aztecs and teaching them dirty song lyrics in Aldeberanian.  There COULD have been Patagonians who had a regular trade route smuggling Elvis records to Africa in the 1300's... 

"Could" is a tool of imagination.  Without any linking proof, it's just "Pagagonians smuggling Elvis records in 1490 AD."

It wasn't impossible, but it was difficult because of the gestation period of the disease.  It progresses more slowly in colder climates... and the route Columbus took was close to the Equator.

And yet it happened:  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of..._in_Mexico  

The US was never in danger of becoming a "pirate kingdom."  The number of actual pirates was quite small, and their resources were quite limited.  Guns run out of ammunition.  Pirates have to sleep.  Pirates aren't dressed for the different climates.   Tribes don't take strangers who don't speak the language as leaders (or as gods, either.)

Pirates have a culture of murder and thievery.  When things got bad or there are disagreements, they will turn on each other (convenient targets) and kill and steal.  If there's a bunch of people living nearby, the first thing they will do when they encounter a pack of thieves and murderers is to get rid of that bunch.

And yet they founded several cities. From a Bing Copilot search, descriptions removed to save space:

Cities and Towns Built or Shaped by Pirates
While pirates themselves did not “build” most cities in the traditional sense, many fortified port towns and pirate havens were either created by or heavily influenced by pirates, privateers, and buccaneers. These settlements often grew around pirate strongholds, serving as bases for raids, repair, and trade.

1. Port Royal, Jamaica
2. Tortuga, Caribbean
3. Cartagena, Colombia
4. Barataria Bay, Louisiana (USA)
5. Madagascar (Indian Ocean)
6. Sulu Archipelago, Philippines
7. Île Sainte-Marie (Île de Ré), France
8. Other Notable Havens
Other pirate havens included Tortuga (Caribbean), Barataria Bay (Gulf of Mexico), Madagascar, and Sulu Archipelago, all of which became centers of pirate activity and influenced local settlement patterns
In short, while pirates didn’t typically “build” entire cities, they often established or shaped pirate havens—fortified ports, islands, or coves—that became centers of piracy, trade, and sometimes permanent settlements. These places left a lasting mark on maritime history and local cultures.

While smallpox raged among the natives, it is possible some of the deck hands were tired of the lash and of the constant danger of pirate life. It is not impossible that they could have stolen or purchased wives and set out for the unclaimed land.  Then a few would have become many.
I disagree that the natives would not have wanted them especially after losing so many of their own. Especially since the newcomers would have known how to make and use more advanced weaponry.

You have not pointed to any proof of European goods or diseases entering into the US before the time of Columbus.  

You talk like this is a thesis defense rather than an intriguing possibility. There is evidence of human trafficking and a place name or two which sound like native corruptions of Arabic, as often cited before and in other threads.

The economics of sailing from the Strait of Gibraltar to the Bahamas or anywhere in the Americas is pretty poor.  Any live human cargo would be packed in so tight (and oh, the diseases!)

Wait, I thought disease was impossible except in colder climates.

that less than 2/3 of the original cargo survives.  Native Americans had little use for European things until they started adopting European ways.  European clothing wasn't as good as native clothing (and clothes were a hot market item in Europe.)  Add to this a 4-6 month voyage (to the Americas and back) when you wouldn't know the status of your ships or your investment -- and compare reselling there in Europe (where 90% of the slaves would make it to market and where there's a hot trade in clothing and other European goods AND where you could get your investment back in a matter of months.)

Sending stuff to America was low on the list until tobacco was introduced into Europe.   And sugar.

Of course they wouldn't have sent everyday goods. They would have had to charge too high a price for them to make a net profit. In the 1400s or 1500s, there could have been a trade in high value slaves or goods like opium in exchange for gold. Perhaps it partially funded the Ottoman invasion of Europe? Perhaps only a few higher ups knew about it? As stated many times, some sources suggest Columbus' African pilot seemed to have some idea of where he was going.
Of course they wouldn't have sent agricultural labor. The OP points out there is evidence the natives might have been terrible to each other and probably didn't mind enslaving one another, so there was no need. However, suppose the Ottoman Empire took an interest in the new world before Columbus and tried to get the natives hooked on slaves who were skilled in administration?
There is a chance goods like opium or a few educated slaves could have been profitable before the natives had lost all their gold and before they knew what it could buy elsewhere, because the goods would have taken up little space and could have gotten a high price.

[chr0naut]

And?
250 years ago the Irish weren’t human either, 100 years ago and the Jews weren’t human, Japanese thought they were more evolved than anyone else, now the Palestinians are sub human.
Happens when evolution is the trend
 
250 years ago Australia was terra nullis, Britain ruled the world, kinda like the US today. It was great for Britain but not everyone else

Britain never ruled the world.

Ditto the USA.

[Solvedit]

You seem to have gotten a rather romantic view of pirates, jumping back and forth from pirates to privateers to buccaneers to Barbary Coast corsairs.  Everything is "could have" or "might have" and you change and ignore timelines.  Sometimes it's the 1500's, sometimes much later.

There was a centuries-long window of opportunity for various types of unauthorized visitors, not changed or ignored timelines.

Are you really suggesting that there was no danger anyone would have come to the Americas without authorization?  Possibly to turn the place into an ungovernable, untaxable menace to shipping?

[Solvedit]

 There COULD have been Patagonians who had a regular trade route smuggling Elvis records to Africa in the 1300's... 

"Could" is a tool of imagination.  Without any linking proof, it's just "Pagagonians smuggling Elvis records in 1490 AD."

They Tested GREAT MIGRATION DNA — One Haplogroup Rewrote 400 Years of Black American History

Here is a sign ambiguously pointing to a possible African presence in the southeast before Columbus.
 

You're not falling back on data, you're falling back on "could."  You have to show proof.

No, I am suggesting an unproven possibility.

I mean, there COULD have been rainbow-spitting unicorns bouncing around in the Rockies before the Europeans got here, y'know.  There COULD have been two-headed aliens visiting the Aztecs and teaching them dirty song lyrics in Aldeberanian.  There COULD have been Patagonians who had a regular trade route smuggling Elvis records to Africa in the 1300's... 

"Could" is a tool of imagination.  Without any linking proof, it's just "Pagagonians smuggling Elvis records in 1490 AD."

OK so there weren't any people who would have liked some free land anywhere in the old world from before the official discovery of the new world until it was settled and controlled by England, France, and Spain?  Even after the natives had lost 90% of their number? 

Is the likelihood about equal to Elvis records in Patagonia in the 1300s?

The US was never in danger of becoming a "pirate kingdom."  The number of actual pirates was quite small, and their resources were quite limited. 

If they stole or purchased some wives, few could become many, especially after a big epidemic among the natives. Pirates had crews, it wasn't just the big name captains who were successful for a time. The Queen Anne's Revenge had 300 crew. 

Guns run out of ammunition. 

They could have stolen or purchased more in the Caribbean, or made their own.

Pirates have to sleep.  Pirates aren't dressed for the different climates. 

Is it so inhospitable in the South that you can't get by with ordinary clothing?  Pirates don't know how to keep watch?  The natives managed somehow.

 Tribes don't take strangers who don't speak the language as leaders (or as gods, either.)

How do you know? Just after an epidemic, a given tribe could have been down in manpower.

You have not pointed to any proof of European goods or diseases entering into the US before the time of Columbus.  

Have they been looking for pre-Columbian signs of disease archeologically?  Can you disprove earlier epidemics?

I suggested there may have been a few people fleeing poverty in Europe or the pirate life, not the widespread importation of ordinary trade goods before the 1600s. There have been occasional out-of-place artifacts.

Sending stuff to America was low on the list until tobacco was introduced into Europe.   And sugar.

 If there was gold in the new world, there is a chance someone would have figured out how to exploit it even before money could be made sending ordinary trade goods.  Perhaps they sent opium or high value slaves.

[Solvedit]

While the smallpox blankets (which weren't very successful, by the way) did cause some outbreaks, they were obtained from people in the colonies and not from people newly entering the country.

Not necessarily unsuccessful.  Perhaps the natives in the Indian Reserve were severely cut back and settlers moved in and adopted native ways in order to get around the king's orders that the lands west of the Proclamation Line be left to the natives. Perhaps they readopted European ways when it suited them. You yourself stated:

Native Americans had little use for European things until they started adopting European ways.  European clothing wasn't as good as native clothing (and clothes were a hot market item in Europe.)  

I.e. expensive and not as good as the native way.

Could it have been the king's plan to first ban the colonists from expanding into the Indian Reserve, then place people in the Colonies who would take it anyway, after the smallpox-tainted blankets spread disease throughout the natives? Can it be the King's officers were mostly insistent that the Enlightenment-minded, freedom-minded colonists stay out of the Indian Reserve, but left other colonists alone because the king felt they were more likely to support him than fight for a republic? 

Can it be that when the new colonists were in "their" land they decided they'd rather not hold the place for the king until he decided to demote them back to cattle farming and fill the place up with loyal English lords and townsfolk, since the king seemed to have drastically overestimated how much support they'd give in a revolution?  Or perhaps the Eastern colonists struck before the 1770s newcomers could get established and into fighting trim? 

It seems many newcomers may have been sent shortly after an English physician figured out cowpox immunizes against smallpox: (from the Wikipedia page on Smallpox Vaccine)

During the earlier days of empirical experimentation in 1758, American Calvinist Jonathan Edwards died from a smallpox inoculation. Some of the earliest statistical and epidemiological studies were performed by James Jurin in 1727 and Daniel Bernoulli in 1766. In 1768, Dr John Fewster reported that variolation induced no reaction in persons who had had cowpox.

[Byrd]

And yet it happened:  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of..._in_Mexico  
And yet they founded several cities. From a Bing Copilot search, descriptions removed to save space:
While smallpox raged among the natives, it is possible some of the deck hands were tired of the lash and of the constant danger of pirate life. It is not impossible that they could have stolen or purchased wives and set out for the unclaimed land.  Then a few would have become many.

What happened in Mexico didn't happen in Pennsylvania, however.   And your AI says "possible" but never comes up with any sources to suggest this does happen.  This, again, is the whole issue with your ideas.

"Possible" covers a lot of things such as "it's possible they trained parrots to fly into upper windows and steal jewelry." 

 

I disagree that the natives would not have wanted them especially after losing so many of their own. Especially since the newcomers would have known how to make and use more advanced weaponry.

If you read up on pirates, you will note that they didn't have smiths on board ships.  Master cannoneers did repair weapons, but they didn't craft them.  Making a gun is actually very difficult because you need a good forge and some specialized tools.   Pirates didn't lug around forges and hammers and so forth.  You'd get weaponsmiths in towns and cities where they could build a forge building and actively trade for the materials they needed and where they could easily buy a lot of charcoal.

Interactions with natives depended on the area.  If the natives had been decimated by disease, the LAST thing they want is strangers who don't speak the language or know the culture. 

Don't believe it?  Swap around the situation and think how YOU would react -- if your town/city gets depopulated by a mysterious disease.  Then a bunch of green skinned people show up who all look identical and speak a language that you don't understand.  They also wear weird clothes and practice a very peculiar religion and insist that you convert to this religion.  The way they behave toward men and women is NOT the way your parents raised you. 

Are you going to become the wife of one of those green skins?  Do you let your daughter or sister marry one of these guys and move away?    
 

In the 1400s or 1500s, there could have been a trade in high value slaves or goods like opium in exchange for gold.

In Europe, yes.  To Europeans, yes. 

To Native Americans, no.  They had no use for what you're calling a "high value slave."  And that assumes that both the opium and slaves managed to survive the voyage.

It would be a poor economic decision for the Ottomans... sending a ship out for half a year to maybe make an exchange in the Americas versus sending that same ship out for a month or less in European waters to unload "high value" slaves and opium to an already eager market for these goods.   Even if both sides paid the same for the goods, you get six trips in the Mediterranean versus one across the Atlantic.  That means that a ship in the European waters can make six trades versus one single trade.

And piracy in the Americas wasn't that profitable for them, either.  The Mediterranean is small and full of ships.  Easy prey.  The Atlantic is huge and it's not that easy to find another ship.


Again, the "might have/could have/possibly" argument doesn't stand without some kind of supporting evidence.   And you're scrambling up timelines again.