McNeill was studying the Spanish occupation of Mexico in the 16th century and was amazed at the ability of Hernán Cortéz, who with less than 600 men, managed to conquer the Aztec empire with millions of inhabitants.
Does that make you wonder how the Aztec religions disappeared so quickly, and how did Christianity triumph? As he struggled with this question, he discovered this fact: the night the Aztecs drove Cortéz out of Mexico City, a chicken pox epidemic broke out there.
This fact helped McNeill answer two key questions. Why didn't the Aztecs pursue the Spaniards after expelling them from the city, why didn't they reorganize to renew their attack in greater numbers? And where did many Aztecs end up that the invaders made Christianity their superior? In fact, the implications were much greater and prompted McNeill to certainly write the best analysis of how a disease changes history.
As he writes, human beings created superiority by defeating and controlling the animals we see. But organisms we can't see - viruses, bacteria, parasites - have proven to be just as dangerous enemies. Because these organisms have not been known for a very long time, most of our historians did not include them, and all that was written was fighting between human beings, and visible animals that are still a danger to all of us.
This ignores the great role that diseases have played in the formation of civilization. As people already move into the new territory, they still encounter microparasites against whom they still cannot make full resistance. They can kill thousands of people, even populations, as long as the disease spreads.
McNeill traced how civilizations become "pools" of various diseases, and how peoples have developed a degree of immunity to local diseases. But when these 'pools' are interconnected, as happened along trade routes connecting Asia and the West in the 14th century, the consequences can be dire. It is possible that the Black Plague killed more than half of Europe's population.
From these observations two things apply to us today. The first is that we have the right to see our resistance to Covid-19 as a form of warfare. There has been much opposition to this, with some seeing the use of combat measures as meaningless.
McNeill’s story suggests that macroparasites (human invaders) and microparasites (diseases) often interact, they are simply visible and invisible forms of attack that often end in the same way, achieving a kind of accommodation with the host population.
The second thing is that the impact of the disease has been devastating for most of the civilizations that have suffered it. From the fall of the Greek and Roman empires, to the strengthening of autocracies and pharaohs and the spread of gossip and superstition, the history of disease is profound and strange. Of course we now have weapons with which we can fight invisible soldiers.
We can prevent the great loss of lives, unlike our ancestors. Our scientific resistance campaign is extraordinary. I am not an alarmist and I try not to be pessimistic. However, the story does not make me more optimistic.
There is a view that this could be a moment of discovery and unification. Together we have been given an overview of many things that are wrong with our world and a renewed sense of unity, trust and determination that will allow us to treat this disease. When this is over, we will create a better world, and we can even become better people.
I hope that happens. I am always in favor of opening my eyes to be compassionate towards each other. But this is more hope than expectation. As with all misfortunes, this one will leave civilization, which after the attack will be weaker and poorer. The need for justice may arise, but the means to achieve it will be diminished.
As with all similar obstacles, economic and social, there will be a political battle over resources that bring deep antagonisms and less credibility. The moment there will be political pressure to spend money to secure from future pandemics, there will be far less money to do so. So I'm worried about the world we're going to live in.
If we expect financial troubles to be as deep as those of the 1930s, then is it reasonable to think about what happened politically in the 1930s? The rise of dictatorships that sought to compensate for local economic losses by invading neighbors.
As states fight coronavirus, governments have taken unprecedented power. And they have done so with the support of people who want protection. But once the danger is over, how easy will it be to force them to give up these powers? Especially when they can talk about the risks of other infections. And the spirit of solidarity can easily fall, at a time when we will spy on our neighbors and see others as vectors of disease.
An optimistic view is that the end of this pandemic will be hailed as the triumph of scientists and as the ultimate proof of the victory of experts. But there will be plenty of those who will say that experts and scientists were wrong, fueling a new wave of populism and fear of foreigners. This is not advice for despair. Freedom and democracy by law, scientific knowledge and expertise, cordiality and social justice can win the battle. But history has shown that this can only be achieved through war. / The Times
0 Comments