The problematic relationship
between History and Diseases.
By Shushrut Devadiga
Spanish flu at a hospital ward at Camp
Funston.
Diseases rarely feature in historical narratives. This is a
surprising exclusion when you consider the death and suffering caused by epidemics throughout history, a very palpable event. Although many have recorded such plagues and the consequent agony, it has hardly ever been considered as an important feature in the study of
history. This is because of our tendency to focus more on the human narrative. However, as brought into the light by the recent COVID-19 pandemic, there is an urgent need to include diseases in modern historiography.
One of the main reasons why historical narratives don’t feature disease is due to the lack of knowledge most of our ancient sources had regarding pathogens. Diseases were, and sometimes still remain mysterious. Due to our scientific advancements made over the past century, we are able to study the causes and curb the effects of diseases. Yet, we are not completely immunised from them.
Our more nuanced understanding developed through scientific discoveries, which were not shared by our ancient sources. Because of this, they didn’t fully comprehend what was actually happening. We only developed the technology that aided in understanding the cause of pathogenic outbreaks in
1673, with Antonie Van Leeuwenhoek’s invention of the microscope that could observe microorganisms. Pathogens were not considered the main cause of diseases until the 19th century when Louis Pasteur’s discoveries confirmed the Germ Theory of Diseases.
Before the Germ theory, the obsolete theory of “Miasma” (the ancient Greek word for pollution) or bad air was the accepted cause of diseases. This false attribution led to meagre and misleading information being recorded for historians to analyse. A more peculiar effect of this theory could be seen in the 17th century when plague doctors wore elaborate costumes such as masks resembling birds, that contained aromatics believed to inhibit Miasma. Europeans during the black death, and many people during other outbreaks in history, viewed diseases as acts of divine wrath. This belief, however false, is held by many even today. The Chinese were of the belief that natural disasters like epidemics were proof of the end of the Divine Mandate of their Emperor’s Dynasty. However this assertion led to sources recording little information regarding infestations and subsequently left very little for historians to analyse.
Another reason why diseases are not discussed in history is because of the view that events in our saga were caused by our own actions. Diseases can’t be characterised well in the more narrative approach that many of our ancient sources, history textbooks and historians take. A common way through which we look at history is through the idea of Great Men, whose unique individual characteristics changed the course of humanity. This is evident by the monarch focused history taught in schools today. Today many argue over the death of Alexander the Great, who had conquered most of the known world. Alcohol poisoning and strychnine are often speculated to be the cause of his demise, even-though available evidence point to malaria or typhoid fever. This is because many refuse to believe that such a great man died of a small organism invisible to the naked eye and think it more likely due to some
human agency.
victims of smallpox.
Diseases have changed the course of human history. Diseases contributed to the European Domination of the Americas. History textbooks around the world often talk about how Columbus “discovered” the continent filled with native peoples who were here before him and how the Conquistadors like Hernán Cortés conquered empires like the Aztecs and looted riches beyond a European’s wildest dreams throughout the continent. But they never mention the main factor that contributed to their success. The main reason why the outnumbered Conquistadors were successful is because of the diseases they brought along.
Natives never had the immunity to these diseases because they had never been exposed to such pathogens as they were isolated from the “Old World” for thousands of years. The estimated Native American population before contact with the Europeans was 60.5 million after the Europeans arrived, it had fallen to just around 6 million people. This “Great Dying killed a staggering estimate of 54.5 million natives, around 90% of their population. Unfortunately, this side of history is rarely mentioned.
Most history books talk in great depth about the First World War but only make a few glancing references to the Spanish Flu that accompanied it even though it killed more than twice as many people as the war. The Spanish Flu has some similarities with today’s COVID 19 pandemic. Both are respiratory illnesses with common symptoms like fever and running nose. The spread of both diseases was accelerated by the ignorance of social distancing advisories. This was evident in Pittsburgh during the Spanish flu, where the number of cases spiked, following a parade that drew a crowd of 200,000 people, right after which, beds in all of the city’s hospitals were filled within 72 hours. It is alarming to see that most narratives ignore such important events.
We must remember that the main reason why we study history is to prevent ourselves from making the same mistakes as our ancestors. The education boards and modern historians should not ignore such an important and dangerous component of our history because those who are not taught
this part of history are doomed to repeat it.
