Karagianis, Ani S.

English

Lake Forest College Publications

Inter-Text: An Undergraduate Journal for Social Sciences and
Humanities
Volume 1 Article 9
2018
Dying to Meet You: The Spread of Disease in
Conquest
Ani S. Karagianis
Lake Forest College, karagianisas@lakeforest.edu
Follow this and additional works at: https://publications.lakeforest.edu/inter-text
This Student Essay is brought to you for free and open access by the Student Publications at Lake Forest College Publications. It has been accepted for
inclusion in Inter-Text: An Undergraduate Journal for Social Sciences and Humanities by an authorized editor of Lake Forest College Publications. For
more information, please contact levinson@lakeforest.edu.
Recommended Citation
Karagianis, Ani S. (2018) "Dying to Meet You: The Spread of Disease in Conquest," Inter-Text: An Undergraduate Journal for Social
Sciences and Humanities: Vol. 1 , Article 9.
Available at: https://publications.lakeforest.edu/inter-text/vol1/iss1/9
Karagianis   73
M any historians have noted the question of why the native peoples of the Caribbean and Americas were decimated by the Spaniards 
and other colonizing peoples. The question has usually been answered 
by the concept of “Virgin Soils,” as noted by Alfred Crosby and expanded 
upon by Noble David Cook. Virgin soils are lands in which people have 
had no previous contact with the disease in question, in this case, 
smallpox. Cook argues in Born to Die that disease played an essential 
role in the ritual subjugation of native peoples. Disease added to the 
exploitation and famine that had already hit the native peoples. David S. 
Jones, on the other hand, argues that disease, while important, should 
not receive the utmost focus. To him, it is important to note that social 
and environmental factors worked in tandem with the colonizing powers’ 
agendas to take out the native peoples. I agree with Jones’ argument, 
as it calls to mind various factors that do not take the colonizers oﬀ  the 
hook, as their human behavior is at the forefront of Jones’ argument. 
In this paper, I will outline Noble David Cook’s arguments about the 
subjugation of native peoples concerning disease and the concept of 
the “Black Legend.” I will then outline David S. Jones’ argument about 
diﬀ erent factors culminating in the subjugation of natives. I will then 
conclude with my own opinion about which argument is more appealing 
both ethically and methodologically. 
Noble David Cook traces how the “Black Legend” narrative of 
European colonization of the Americas gained prominence, pointing to 
religious and political causes. In his introduction, Cook uses imagery 
that draws upon the various sources for the native colonization. The 
Dying to Meet You:
The Spread of Disease in Conquest
[ Aඖඑ Kඉකඉඏඑඉඖඑඛ ]
1
Karagianis: Dying to Meet You: The Spread of Disease in Conquest
Published by Lake Forest College Publications, 2018
74   inter-text
imagery is vivid and emotional, showing the seedy (and ever-present) 
angle of colonization. It is in this early chapter that we see the introduction 
of the “Black Legend,” the idea of the Spaniards being especially 
atrocious to the natives. These ideas were rooted in religious doctrine, 
as “their frequent and willing use of the instruments of the Inquisition 
to search out heterodox beliefs, reinforced in the minds of many the 
idea that they were ruthless and bigoted.”1 Religious motives were 
especially important, as later expeditions to the New World consisted 
of missionaries. Of course, the religious motives rely on underlying 
racist notions, as the mere concept of conversion relies upon the 
natives being “unbelievers.” In this case, this oﬀ ers a pre-Kipling “White 
Man’s Burden” with regards to these native peoples. It also within this 
introduction that we meet Bartolome de Las Casas, who would become 
one of the preeminent chroniclers of this time, writing from the clerical 
point-of-view. Las Casas’ book “became the cornerstone of the Black 
Legend” and thus was widely read.2 The Black Legend created virtual 
“monsters” of the Spanish, thus portraying all the other Old World 
expeditioners as positive, spreading the will of God. The Black Legend 
was exploited by the enemies of Spain due to de Las Casas’ work, as 
the enemies of Spain capitalized on the “evil” view of them that the 
Black Legend showed. However, it should be noted that the Spaniards 
were not the only “evil” ones, as the concept of subjugating other, 
“inferior” people could be viewed as morally questionable when viewed 
in a modern lens. 
In his ﬁ rst chapter, Cook details how European settlers brought 
to the New World a variety of devastating diseases over the course 
of four expeditions (1492-1518). It is within this chapter that we see 
the various sources that Cook uses to make his point. Cook makes 
rather excellent use of primary sources, considering the fact that he 
does not have very many sources to work with.  The primary sources 
that Cook works with largely consists of invader-written sources, which 
creates problems for ascertaining what happened to the natives. 
Through his use of those sources, we have learned that the natives 
    1    Noble David Cook. Born to Die: Disease and New World Conquest, 1492-1650 
(New York, New York: Cambridge University Press, 1998), 8. 
    2    Ibid, 7.
2
Inter-Text: An Undergraduate Journal for Social Sciences and Humanities, Vol. 1 [2018], Art. 9
https://publications.lakeforest.edu/inter-text/vol1/iss1/9
Karagianis   75
received smallpox, measles, the plague, typhus, and cholera.3 The 
wide variety of diseases would cause problems later, as it was hard 
to determine what diseases contributed to the massive decline of the 
native population (if they contributed solely to the decline). Often in the 
invader sources, the deaths of the natives would be pushed aside in 
lieu of focusing on the Europeans. The sources also made it diﬃ  cult to 
determine the population, as Cook also comments on that. It is within 
this context that we see problems with ascertaining what contributed to 
the decline of the natives: statistics. 
It is diﬃ  cult to determine what killed natives if we cannot determine 
how many natives there were to begin with. The range of population 
spans between 60,000 and 7,975,000 people.4 Cook himself lies right 
in the middle, at around 500,000 for the population of Hispaniola. 
Regardless of how many people there were, those people present were 
decimated in the four exchanges. The ﬁ rst exchange noted was about 
how the Spaniards were aﬀ ected by what they believed was syphilis.5 
However, that is derived from a Spanish source, so there may have 
been some bias towards the natives. Despite the source, this is an 
interesting way to begin, as it creates a two-sided narrative of the gift of 
disease. However, this disease was not nearly as debilitating as others 
would be on the native populations. The second exchange, taking place 
in 1493, created a context as to what caused the spread of disease: the 
spread of animals. Close contact with animals fostered the spread of 
bacteria, and, thus, disease.  Within these expeditions, it is unclear 
what was spread to the natives, and, while the diseases were deadly, 
they had not reached the level of the epidemic of 1518.
Alonso de Santo Domingo and Luis de Figueroa, friars in 
contact with Spain, described the 1518 Hispaniola epidemic as one 
of the deadliest in history, though Cook deemphasizes this epidemic’s 
impact.6 This epidemic was the ﬁ rst of many cataclysmic ones within 
the sixteenth century, starting in 1518, with the last large one in 1591. It 
is believed that smallpox was spread to Cuba during the expedition of 
Hernan Cortes and destroyed what was believed to be ninety percent 
    3    Cook, 18.
    4    Ibid, 23.
    5    Ibid, 26.
    6    Ibid, 60.
3
Karagianis: Dying to Meet You: The Spread of Disease in Conquest
Published by Lake Forest College Publications, 2018
76   inter-text
of the population. While this set of epidemics has been pinpointed by 
many historians as the beginning of the decimation, Cook believes that 
the death began in the ﬁ rst expedition of 1492-1493. He diﬀ ers from 
the other historians because he attributes the decline of the native 
population to an earlier epidemic date. He was one of the ﬁ rst historians 
to do so, thus instigating a diﬀ erent version of the disease theory. 
While Cook discusses the role of famine, starvation, and 
exploitation in the natives’ demise, these factors overlap with the 
epidemics and suggest colonization to be morally ambiguous. The 
combination of those created the disaster rather than just “normal” 
factors, such as social and environmental diﬀ erences. A consistent 
theme in Cook’s work is the idea of disease as “neutral.” In this case, 
neutrality takes the blame oﬀ  the Spaniards, as they were unaware of 
what they were bringing. This we cannot be sure of, as we know that 
during the plague, cities such as Venice were aware of contagion via 
trading ships. It could be surmised that the expeditioners noticed that 
they were ill and could have taken precautions to prevent the spread. 
Whether they were aware or not, Cook places an emphasis on disease 
being at the forefront for the decimation of the native peoples, while 
also mentioning the “Black Legend,” albeit downplaying it to focus on 
disease. 
Jones, on the other hand, emphasizes how social and 
environmental factors inﬂ uenced the epidemics’ magnitude and 
severity. Before he goes into detail about this, he outlines four 
narratives that historians have wedged themselves into when it comes 
to discussing this problem. The ﬁ rst theory lies within the concept of 
the native populations being full of “purity inﬁ ltrated and destroyed by 
corruption.”7 While this can be viewed as a positive sentiment, it holds 
a condescending view towards native peoples, a view reﬂ ected within 
the concept of colonization. The next narrative holds a similar type of 
condescension, as it shows the vulnerability of the natives as the result 
of migrating from Asia to America.8 Through their extensive travels to 
get where they are, they weakened themselves. The third narrative 
    7    David S. Jones, “Virgin Soils Revisited,” The William and Mary Quarterly 60, 
no. 4. (2003), 713.
    8    Ibid, 714.
4
Inter-Text: An Undergraduate Journal for Social Sciences and Humanities, Vol. 1 [2018], Art. 9
https://publications.lakeforest.edu/inter-text/vol1/iss1/9
Karagianis   77
encapsulates the former two, as it plays on themes of virginity (hence the 
concept of “Virgin Soils”). This concept had religious undertones relying 
on chastity and the corruption associated with losing said chastity. 
Finally, the narrative that binds historians is what Jones calls “Puritan 
theories of Providence,” which is the theory of God making natives ill to 
leave the country open to the Puritans.9 These narratives play on the 
paternalism that is associated with colonialism (even if this paternalism 
is dealt with a harsh hand). In the case of all these narratives, they 
downplay the actions of the colonizers, as they only acknowledge the 
weakness and “inferiority” of the natives, or the will of God, rather than 
emphasizing the inherent advantages that the colonizers had, as well 
as their use of cruelty to create even more advantages. 
Instead of placing the blame on the weak immunity of the natives, 
like others had, Jones acknowledges how a variety of things worked 
together, allowing disease to run rampant. He does note that “American 
Indians, who lived without epidemics, would have lacked these 
protections” that the Europeans had acquired through their ritualistic 
exposure to illness.10 However, that is not the whole story, mostly due to 
the environmental factors and the mere idea of the Europeans not quite 
having an innate immunity to smallpox, as it would take some time to 
acquire it.  Through exploitation, the environment and social structure 
of the natives were severely weakened, thus opening them up to be hit 
by disease. The hardest hit diseases came as a result of the “chaos of 
colonization”, which included killing natives through “war, starvation, 
neglect, and even hunting.”11 The native peoples would have been 
weakened by the abuse, thus not being able to tend to those hit with 
disease (even the healthy would most likely not have been able to provide 
care).12 Their lack of experience with European diseases would only have 
been augmented when subjected to other stresses being forced upon 
them. This theory takes away the neutrality of disease as an explanation 
for the depopulation of the Americas. When it is paired with systematic 
abuse and exploitation by the colonizers, it looks less unintentional 
    9    Jones, 714-15. 
    10   Ibid, 718. 
    11   Ibid, 722.
    12   Ibid, 732. 
5
Karagianis: Dying to Meet You: The Spread of Disease in Conquest
Published by Lake Forest College Publications, 2018
78   inter-text
or inevitable.  He also questions the idea of disease “virginity,” as he 
tries to determine cause and eﬀ ect when it comes to the decimation of 
natives. The question that Jones struggles with is: does the “virginity” of 
the natives cause the destruction, or does a mixture of factors? Jones, 
in contrast to others on this opinion, leans more towards the latter 
theory. However, it is diﬃ  cult to ascertain, as there was a degree of 
“virginity” within the native peoples. Jones’s criticism notes the implicit 
racism that lies within the four narratives. That racism is the idea of 
the natives needing the Spaniards to take care of them, due to the 
natives being less developed in the eyes of the Old World.  Despite 
the desire to appear to be separated from racist ideas, the narratives 
presented contain those paternalistic racist ideas (the concept of the 
native virginity lies in the idea that there were no natives present, which 
was disproven).  
I have found Jones’ argument to be more justiﬁ able both 
methodologically and ethically. Methodologically speaking, Jones 
is dealing with more apt sources when it comes to disease. It is his 
use of primarily and secondary sources that gives his argument more 
weight, as he is more critical of primary sources (due to the inherent 
bias within them, either written by invaders or after the fact) and the 
medical evidence, which he does not believe to be sound. Cook runs 
into problems with primary sources, as he only has a select few to work 
with. Cook’s sources are largely written by the invaders themselves and 
rarely mention the speciﬁ cs of the diseases that took out the natives. 
Jones, in only really using secondary sources (except for Bartoleme 
de Las Casas’ Devastation of the Indies: A Brief Account), avoids the 
problem of primary sources. Of course, there is a positive aspect of 
using primary sources, as they provide a timely context of the disease 
itself. However, Jones ﬁ nds fault with how the primary sources are 
used, as it is diﬃ  cult to reconcile out of context primary sources with 
what happened during colonization. Cook’s argument is strengthened 
by his use of primary sources, but he recognizes how the sources are 
problematic. In contrast, Jones can avoid the pitfalls of the primary 
sources through his use of secondary sources.
6
Inter-Text: An Undergraduate Journal for Social Sciences and Humanities, Vol. 1 [2018], Art. 9
https://publications.lakeforest.edu/inter-text/vol1/iss1/9
Karagianis   79
 Jones’ argument places the blame on the invaders by 
acknowledging their part in the decimation. They were willing vectors 
of disease and decimation. Cook’s neutralization of disease takes 
away some of the blame that the invaders ought to have. The invaders 
acted in a way that moderns (as well as their contemporaries, as seen 
through de las Casas) would ﬁ nd abhorrent. Ritualistic subjugation 
occurred due to the weakening of natives via the colonization eﬀ orts, 
and not through the natives simply having weaker immune systems. 
The natives were at a disadvantage in a microbial manner but were 
at a signiﬁ cantly higher disadvantage when it came to the steel of the 
expeditioners. Were it not for the native populations being weakened 
through warfare, overwork, and other types of abuse, the diseases 
would not have been as catastrophic. Part of Jones’ argument is that 
the weakened population did not have enough people to tend to the ﬁ eld 
(for food) or tend to each other, thus weakening the social and political 
structure of the native peoples.  Jones explicitly states that “virgin soil 
epidemics may have arisen from nothing more unique than the familiar 
forces of poverty, malnutrition, environmental stress, dislocation, and 
social disparity,” factors that aﬀ ected not only the natives but also the 
Europeans when smallpox came through.13 Based on this argument, to 
say that the natives being inherently weaker due to their susceptibility 
to disease would also throw the Europeans under the bus, as they were 
hit by disease due to the factors listed above. It is the combination 
of colonization, microbial disadvantage, and implicit racist ideas that 
push the concept of “Virgin Soils” being the main explanation for the 
destruction of natives. 
The problem that historians have with this question is that we 
lack the primary knowledge of the situation at hand. While historians 
can surmise how and why things happened due to sources we have, 
it is highly improbable that it is possible to pin down what caused the 
great decimation of the native peoples. Due to this conundrum, various 
theories have emerged. Noble David Cook’s theory about disease 
being the main factor in the decimation is well thought out and sound 
but lacks the considerations of other factors at hand. He emphasizes 
    13   Jones, 742. 
7
Karagianis: Dying to Meet You: The Spread of Disease in Conquest
Published by Lake Forest College Publications, 2018
80   inter-text
the immunological disadvantage bestowed on the natives, thus giving 
weight to the disease being the main destroyer of civilizations. David 
S. Jones, on the other hand, recognizes both the disadvantage of the 
natives, but is not willing to simply jump on that theory. Instead, he 
ﬁ nds fault with the neutralization of disease as a causal factor and 
instead focuses on how disease capitalized on a population weakened 
by colonialism. Jones, in commenting on Cook’s view of disease as a 
causal agent, says that Cook’s claims “do not match the contingency 
of the archaeological and historical records. These, instead, tell a story 
of a population made vulnerable.”14 In creating a vulnerable population, 
it creates a blameless invader, which does negate historical records. 
Both historians and their contemporaries have worked to ﬁ nd a reason 
why the natives were decimated by the vastly outnumbered Spaniards 
(as well as other expeditioners), despite a variety of theories. 
    14   Jones, 741.
8
Inter-Text: An Undergraduate Journal for Social Sciences and Humanities, Vol. 1 [2018], Art. 9
https://publications.lakeforest.edu/inter-text/vol1/iss1/9


Dying to Meet You: The Spread of Disease in Conquest

https://publications.lakeforest.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1008&amp;context=inter-text

Dying to Meet You: The Spread of Disease in Conquest

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

Lake Forest College Publications