hi. i’m john green, this is crash courseworld history and today's video is kind of a response to one of the most riveting historybooks you'll ever read, the columbian exchange by david crosby. he had a good year in 1969--published the columbian exchange, played woodstock, he was still on his first liver. what? itwas albert crosby? gash! history, never being as interesting as i want it to be.
crash diet 600 calories, right, so it was alfred crosby jr., and inthat book he wrote, "the big questions are really the only ones worth considering, andcolossal nerve has always been a prerequisite for such consideration." i love it! before 1492, we couldn't really talk abouta world history at all, we could only talk
about the different histories of separateregions, but columbus changed all of that, and everything else. the columbian exchangeirrevocably homogenized the world's biological landscape. since columbus, the number of plantand animal species has continually diminished, and the variation in species from place toplace has diminished dramatically. i mean, the first european visitors to the americashad never seen a tomato or a catfish; native americans had never seen a horse, and by makingour planet biologically singular, the columbian exchange completely remade the populationsof animals, particularly humans. and vitally, this cross-pollination also made possiblesuch wonders as contemporary pizza. [theme music]
so we're going to break the columbian exchangedown into four categories: diseases, boy, you're looking good smallpox, i'm glad you'vebeen eliminated; animals, plants, and people. mr. green, mr. green! people are animals. yeah, that's true, me from the past, but justfor the sake of simplicity we're-- also, when you think about it, microbes arekinda animals and plants are, too, i mean-- oh my god, shut up before i kill you and createa time travel paradox. microbes, like those hairy blokes back there,were a definite negative in terms of the columbian exchange. terminology is hard here, but themajority of caribbean islanders or native americans or amerindians had exactly one responseto the arrival of europeans: death.
we can't be sure of how many natives diedas a result of european arrival but it was definitely more than 50% and some estimatesplace it as high as 90%. historians used to blame european brutality, which was definitelya factor, but the main culprit was disease. smallpox is usually seen as the villain ofthe story but it is more likely that a series of diseases in combination did the damage.along with smallpox, americans were killed by measles and mumps, typhus, chicken pox,none of which they had been previously exposed to. this astonishing decrease of populationwas definitely the worst effect of these diseases, both psychologically and demographically. but the secondary effects were almost as bad.for one thing the deaths of aztec and incan
rulers touched off wars which made it easierto spread disease, because you know, the number one way to catch smallpox is via hand-to-handcombat. plus leaders kept dying. huayna capac, the leader of the incan empire, succumbedto smallpox before pizarro even arrived. his death led to a violent succession strugglebetween his sons which was won by atahualpa, who in turn was captured and killed by pizarro.and without that war, the inca would have had a much better chance against the spaniards,whose numbers were comparatively tiny. a similar thing happened to the aztecs. the moctezumawho eventually lost to cortã©s was the nephew of a much more powerful king who died of smallpox.and the death of that great king encouraged some of the smaller states in the aztec empire to rebel,and some of them even fought for the spaniards.
and another effect of disease was starvation,because there simply weren't enough people left to grow crops to feed the living. andthe malnutrition made survivors that much more susceptible to disease. in short, itsucked. the transmission of disease largely went oneway, from the old world to the new, but the americans did have one gift for europe: venerealsyphilis. it showed up in europe around 1493, and even though europeans are very fond ofascribing syphilis to each other: italians called it the french disease; the french calledit the disease of naples; poles called it the german disease; russians called it thepolish disease. the truth is, venereal syphilis was spread by sailors who'd returned fromthe americas.
in fact, in his book, the columbian exchange,crosby tells it like this: "sailors, by the nature of their profession, are men withoutwomen and therefore men of many women. we can imagine no group more perfectly suitedfor guaranteeing that venereal syphilis would have worldwide distribution." who says historybooks are boring? syphilis would go on to infect a veritable who's who of europe: frombaudelaire to gauguin to nietzsche, not to mention numerous family members of the famouslyinfertile tudor and valois families, meaning that syphilis may be responsible for manyof those miserably boring dynastic power struggles of post-columbus europe. anyway, nothing againstsyphilis, but it pales in comparison to the devastation wrought by old world diseasesarriving in the new world.
but the new world did have one gift for theold world that was pretty destructive: tobacco. oh, it's time for the open letter and there'sbeen a costume change? that doesn't bode well. an open letter to tobacco. but first let's see what's in the secret compartmentdon't be cinnamon don't be cinnamon don't be -- dang it! i guess that i'm going to do the cinnamonchallenge. oh, i am not happy about this stan, for the record -- alright, i'm going to dothe cinnamon challenge: one tablespoon of cinnamon in my mouth, no water. huh, boy, that -- that sucked. i, i uh regretr-regret doing that to be honest with you.
dear tobacco,i just did something really stupid but at least it was cheap. i'm gonna tell you twostories about smoking, the first come from my high school history teacher raoul meyerwho also writes crash course. when i was a senior in high school he walked up to me andhe said, "i want you to keep smoking. i want you to smoke until the day after your 65thbirthday, and then i want you to die so that i collect all of your social security." that inspired me,mr. meyer, to quit smoking just eight short years later. here is an amazing statistic: cigarettes werehanded out to american servicemen during world war ii and more soldiers who started smoking duringthe war died from smoking than died from the war. so if the new world was looking to extractsome measure of revenge for smallpox, and
measles, and chicken pox: mission accomplished. best wishes,john green now onto animals. american animals, like llamasand guinea pigs, never really caught on in eurasia. but imports to the americas, likepigs, cows and horses were revolutionary. let's go to the thought bubble: first of all, these animals, especially pigs,completely remade the food supply. pigs breed really quickly, they eat anything and theyturn into bacon, which made them heroes to the new world just as today they are heroesto the internet. here's how quickly pigs breed: when hernando de soto arrived in florida in1539, he brought 13 pigs. by the time of his
death, there were 700 - that was 3 years later.the abundance of meat and plentiful land for agriculture and grazing meant that europeansin the americas very rarely experienced famine, and despite what you may have learned aboutreligious and political freedom, the main reason europeans came to america was to eat. large european animals also changed the natureof work in the americas. before europeans, the largest beast of burden was the llama,and at best it could carry like, 100 lbs. this meant that for the long distance travelthat the inca engaged in, the primary transportation animal was incas. oxen, when combined withtheir plows, made it possible to bring more land under cultivation and also made transportationeasier and more efficient, and plus european
animals remade culture. the grossly stereotypical american indian,like from the movies, riding the great plains with an eagle feather headdress and war paint,well he didn't exist before the columbian exchange because there were no horses forhim to ride. and the introduction of horses allowed many native americans to abandon agriculturein favor of a nomadic lifestyle because riding around hunting buffalo made them far richerthan farming ever had. thanks thought bubble. while animals and diseases completely reshapedthe new world, it was new world plants that had the biggest effect on eurasia. sure, europeans brought over some crops thatwe now grow here in the americas like wheat
and grapes, both of which are necessary forcatholic mass, but new world plants radically changed the lives of millions, maybe hundredsof millions of africans, asians and europeans, specifically by making pizza possible. [heavenly singing, "it was the greatest giftof all."] i mean until 500 years ago italians livedwithout tomatoes, without modern pizza or marinara sauce or pizza or ketchup or pizzaor even pizza. indians lived without curry, which contains chilies, a new world food.persians lived without corn, which is a new world food, as are beans and potatoes andavocados and peanuts and blueberries - the list goes on and on.
and these new world crops led to probablythe greatest population increase in history. to quote crosby, "it is crudely true thatif man's caloric intake is sufficient, he will somehow stagger to maturity, and he willreproduce." and new world food was far more caloric thanold world food, which is the central reason that the world population doubled between1650 and 1850. plants like corn and potatoes could grow in soils that were useless forold world crops. potatoes were actually introduced to europe as an aphrodisiac, but it turnsout that you have to distill those potatoes into vodka before they have the desired effect.anyway, if potatoes are an aphrodisiac, the irish quickly became the hottest people onearth.
an acre and a half of potato cultivation couldfeed an irish family for a year, and the average irish worker often ate 10 lbs. of potatoesevery day. surviving primarily on potatoes, the irish more than doubled their populationbetween 1754 and 1845, when the potato famine showed up and ruined everything. and it wasn't just europe. manioc, or cassavais a new world plant with roots that provide more calories than any other plant on earth,provided they are properly processed (otherwise they're poisonous). manioc is so prevalentin africa that many africans swear that the plant is native to the continent, but it isn't. nor are sweet potatoes, and while new worldgrains never replaced rice in southeast, or
east asia, the sweet potato was so commonthat it is known as the "poor person’s staple" in china. even in japan, the tomb of the farmerwho is reputed to have first brought them to the islands is known as the temple of thesweet potato. and it's also worth noting that corn, while it may not feature prominentlyin european diets, has been the central source of food for animals in europe for centuries. and in fact, that's still the case. in 2005,58% of the corn grown in america went to animal feed (is the kind of thing you learn whenyou live in indiana). alright, so last but not least, the columbianexchange involved the transfer of lots of people. again, in the early stages this movementwas mostly one way, with europeans and africans
- the africans usually against their will- making their way to the americas. so the columbian exchange led to the re-populationof the new world following the disease devastation of the initial encounter. and better nutritionallowed the population of the old world to grow which in turn placed population pressureon eurasia which led to more people coming to the americas. in the process, the world'shuman inhabitants became more genetically and ethnically interconnected. but it alsoled to the horrors of atlantic slavery, which we'll be discussing next week. what are we to make of the columbian exchange?it devastated the population of the americas, it led to the widespread slavery of africans,but it also allowed for a worldwide population
increase and the lives of some natives includingplains tribes like the lakota became better and more secure, at least for a while. fewer people have starved since the columbianexchange began, but the diversity of life on earth has diminished dramatically and planting cropswhere they don't belong has hurt the environment. so on the whole, should we be grateful forthe columbian exchange? and should we work to continue and deepen its legacy of globalismand monoculture? crosby didn't think we were better off. "thecolumbian exchange has included man, and he has changed the old and new worlds sometimesinadvertently, sometimes intentionally, often brutally. it is possible that he and the plantsand animals he brings with him have caused
the extinction of more species of life formsin the last four hundred years than the usual processes of evolution might kill off in amillion... the columbian exchange has left us with not a richer but a more impoverishedgenetic pool. we, all of the life on the planet, are the less for columbus, and the impoverishmentwill increase." but let's give you the last word today: doyou agree with crosby? are longer, healthier lives for more humans worth the sacrificeof an impoverished biosphere? and most importantly, how will your conclusions about those questionsshape the way that you live your life? thanks for watching. i'll see you next week. crash course is produced and directed by stanmuller. our script supervisor is danica johnson.
the show is written by my high school historyteacher, raoul meyer, and myself, and our graphics team is thought bubble. last week’s phrase of the week was "marioand luigi,†thanks for that suggestion. if you want to suggest future phrases of theweek you can do so in comments or you can also guess at this week’s phrase of theweek, and ask questions about today's video that will be answered by our team of historians.thanks for watching crash course, and as we say in my hometown, don't forget to be awesome.
ConversionConversion EmoticonEmoticon