![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 |
Beans are listed as bring from the "new world" this is only partly true. Some varieties of beans were in the "old world" some have come from the "new world". ie. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soybean http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adzuki_bean You get the point. I don't have time to figure how to make that entry work anyone? -GreenFeather —Preceding unsigned comment added by GreenFeather ( talk • contribs) 02:46, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
I've been reading an archaeological summary that talks about the domestication of a species of red deer by peoples in southern Guatamala and Panama. It was a strong element of the cultural traditions of the people of this region at the time of European contact, but the practice was not current at that time. This oblique Wiki reference from a Spanish source: Pipil. Could anyone else find a confirming source before I add red deer to the list? WBardwin 01:36, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
I find very odd that rats and mice are included as domesticated animals in pre-Columbain times. Either they are both removed from the list, or the word "domesticated" is eliminated. 80.32.35.36
Yes, the disease in this context is controversial and the exact original location of these "bugs" is probably ultimately unprovable. But -- because of dated teaching in schools, statements by historical figures, some new material, and probably purient interest -- the topic resurfaces in this article and related ones as well. You might look over an older (archived?) discussion on the Syphilis discussion page. We could list it parenthetically as (controversial) or (under investigation). Best Wishes. WBardwin 23:58, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
k — Preceding unsigned comment added by 168.216.176.195 ( talk) 19:17, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
hjgyuvguyg —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.27.126.36 ( talk) 19:34, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
It's true that the Columbian Exchange had important ramifications on the ecology, agriculture, and culture of the world, but who benefited and who lost out? Europeans at the time undoubtedly benefited from improved diets associated with the introduction of the potato and maize. Also, their economies grew with the importation of colonial grown tobacco and sugar. The positive effects did not go both ways though, and the existing populations of the American Continents of the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries were devastated by the introduction of new diseases and the exploitation of the natve peoples by the European explorers and settlers.
The Europeans colonized areas of the Caribbean islands, South and Central America, and North America at the expense of the people that already ingabited these lands. One major example of the negative "gifts" to the New World is small pox, which had a destructive effect on Native Americans who had no built up immune defenses like the Europeans. Also, malaria, which had previously been unknown in the Americas, was devastating to both Native Americans and Europeans alike. This was a convenient justification for the importation of slaves from Africa to work the sugar plantations, as they had a natural immune defense against that disease. Wintermann 19:39, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
The following material by Softballangel566 was moved from the Introduction for discussion. Items of concern: POV? Source? Copyright? Wiki links. WBardwin 19:13, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
I don't think this desease should be listed as a desease which has been exchanged. This desease is too specific to "Southern American" continent. Anyway exchange can't be compared with the same scale with desease such as cholera. Pixeltoo 20:17, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
Which is the proper spelling: Columbian or Colombian? There are Wikipedia articles for both. I would think that Colombian would be the proper spelling, but the article at Columbian is better. I propose moving this article to Colombian exchange. — D. Wo. 19:43, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
I'm going to perhaps overstep the bounds of my expertise and say that raccoons have never been domesticated anywhere by anyone. And that coca needs to be on the list of plants domesticated in the Americas. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.20.24.121 ( talk) 00:27, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
I came across the following category: Crops originating from the Americas. It has no lead article, as of yet. Would this be appropriate for this article? GwenW ( talk) 05:11, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
nytimes.com, March 15, 1994, Tuberculosis Found to Be Old Disease In New World By JOHN NOBLE WILFORD
ONE THOUSAND years ago, a woman in southern Peru died at the age of 40 to 45 and was buried in a stone tomb in a river valley near what is now the coastal community of Ilo. As sometimes happened in the desiccated climate of the Atacama Desert, her body dried out and was spontaneously mummified. Now, modern scientists have come along and conducted a revealing post-mortem examination of the well-preserved body.
Their research offers new evidence that pre-Columbian Americans may already have been infected with some of the devastating diseases that were thought to have been brought to the New World by Columbus and other early explorers.
In the mummy's right lung and a lymph node, the scientists found scars of disease. These were small, calcified lesions typical of tuberculosis. Extracting fragments from the tissue, molecular biologists isolated genetic material betraying the presence of Mycobacterium tuberculosis. The woman probably died of something else, but she had harbored the infectious agents of the dreaded communicable disease.
"This provides the most specific evidence possible for the pre-Columbian presence of human tuberculosis in the New World," the scientists are reporting today in The Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. . . . -- Apl1 ( talk) 00:30, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
Dogs were on both sides of the animal swapping list. I deleted both, but I assume the idea was that different breeds were traded, and it would be good if someone could supply specific breeds. -- 68.227.223.133 ( talk) 00:07, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
A similar problem exists with cotton - several varieties domesticated in several places around the world. However, the new world variety provides the largest portion of modern cotton crops, and is grown around the world. WBardwin ( talk) 06:30, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
Encephalitis is a group of diseases and almost certainly not part of the Columbian exchange. I've removed it. Conjuringrock ( talk) 03:36, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
Hepatitis is a group of diseases and almost certainly not part of the Columbian exchange. I've removed it. Conjuringrock ( talk) 03:36, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
Polio first emerged as an epidemic disease in the late 19th century, too late to be a part of the Columbian exchange. There's a cite on the Poliomyelitis article that confirms this. I removed it. Conjuringrock ( talk) 03:36, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
Hi all, in the course of some work I've been doing on Shmoop, a new educational website, I've written a pretty extensive article on the Columbian Exchange. (I'm a PhD student in US history, and I've done a fair amount of work in environmental history.) In my own (no doubt biased) view, I think it would certainly add something of value to the External Links section here; the Crosby article on Encyclopedia of Earth is great but so short, and the other links here now treat only certain aspects of the Columbian Exchange. My Shmoop Columbian Exchange article covers a lot more territory and is, I think, the most in-depth examination of the subject currently on the web, with much content and original analysis unavailable elsewhere. (But as I said, I'm surely biased.) Therefore I'd propose that we add this to the External Links section:
That said, I'm a bit hesitant to even propose this because I don't want to run afoul of either the letter or spirit of Wiki's COI standards. Would another editor be willing to take a look at my link and, if he/she deems it worthy, add it to this page's External Links?
Many thanks, Nate Portlandnate ( talk) 23:03, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
My understanding of the term "Columbian Exchange" is that it is almost always used to refer exclusively to the cultural-ecological transformations in crops, livestock, and diseases. As such, I propose editing this article correspondingly. Thoughts? ClovisPt ( talk) 17:38, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
I've heard this referred to as the "Grand Exchange" by some, and some pages on Wikipedia even reference it as that, but it doesn't show up on a Google search. For the sake of convenience at the very least, I think the article should include the "Grand Exchange" name in some way. --the_hoodie 04:13, 14 February 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by The hoodie ( talk • contribs)
The list of examples included African items (malaria especially) as New World to Old World exchanges. This is incorrect - Africa is part of the Old World and there was established if sporadic trade from Africa to Asia and Europe - and the rest of the article reflects that. I fixed the ones I spotted but I may have missed some. Conjuringrock ( talk) 03:36, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
Maybe I'm reading this wrong but it seems to be "significant" that 1/3 of crop value within the US originated in the Americas. Since the US is actually IN the Americas isn't it MORE significant that fully 2/3 of the crop value DIDN'T originate in the Americas (at least in the context of this article)? I assume much of that 2/3 would be wheat. NevarMaor ( talk) 03:06, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
I have a question about "Hepatitis" listed as a disease transmitted from the New World to the Old World. I understand why "Syphilis" is listed here, but I searched all over the place for information on ANY of the many forms of hepatitis having originated in the New World and being carried back by explorers (or anybody) to the Old World and could NOT find ANYTHING at ALL on this topic. This includes on Wikipedia! Does anybody know WHY hepatitis is listed as a New World-to-Old World disease??? I will really appreciate any help anyone can give as this reference caused me problems! Thanks. - gailcats Gailcats ( talk) —Preceding undated comment added 05:25, 7 March 2010 (UTC).
I have come across this usage elsewhere, but can we eliminate it from this article? Apart from being misleading, it's also inaccurate, since the Old World is far larger than the New World.-- MacRusgail ( talk) 16:08, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
Just to explain my recent reverts, as there wasn't enough room in the edit summary: Coca came from west to east. Kush originated in Afghanistan and probably doesn't fit in here at all.
Yaws is listed as being exchanged both to and from the new world. This doesn't seem possible. Soraxtm ( talk) 13:23, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
I moved grapes from New World->Old World to Old World->New World. Removing it completely might be an option, as there were other species of grapes in the Americas prior to the European arrival. However the common grape is native to the middle east and the reference to using fox grapes as rootstock (which is not my addition) indicates that it was this species which was meant. -- Kaanatakan ( talk) 06:13, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
I believe the phrase originated with Crosby. (One of the links states this - http://www.shmoop.com/columbian-exchange/ , and the Wikipedia article on Crosby mentions this.) This seems important to mention. The article contains a couple of references to Crosby, but leaves out this important fact.
I'd put it in the introduction, something like The Columbian Exchange -- a term introduced by Alfred Crosby [hyperlink Alfred W. Crosby artlicle] -- also known as the Grand Exchange, was a dramatically widespread exchange.... This fact is important enough to be prominently mentioned, I think. I'd make the change if I was better with Wikipedia syntax. Omc ( talk) 22:34, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
The article on sweet potatoes says that they are native to the New World, which I'm fairly sure is common knowledge, so why does the article state the opposite? Mike Hayes ( talk) 07:54, 1 November 2014 (UTC)
The examples section is getting pretty ridiculous. I intend to trim it drastically. Ideally, items in the list should be cited to a source as having been part of the Columbian Exchange. The examples should not include every species that has ever been introduced from the Old World to the New or vice versa. Humans have moved tens of thousands of species around the globe over the last 500 years, but that's not all part of the Columbian Exchange. The lead currently defines the Columbian Exchange as occurring in the 15th and 16th centuries. That seems like a reasonable starting point for including examples; 20th century introductions aren't part of the exchange stemming from Columbus's voyages. Additionally, I think examples should generally be intentionally introduced and have a significant sociocultural/economic impact outside of the continents where they originated. Some diseases pass the bar on social impact, even though they weren't intentionally introduced. There can be some flexibility for inclusion. But here's a few currently listed examples that don't seem especially relevant to the Columbian Exchange.
Trade in these depends on a modern transportation network moving plant/animal products around the world from the places they are produced, not a rickety fleet of caravels establishing new centers of production on other continents. On the other hand, chile peppers have been grown around the Old World for centuries and are a staple ingredient in tons of cuisines. And horses were an indispensable transportation technology for a good four centuries after they were introduced to the New World. Horses and chiles are examples of the Columbian Exchanges. Alpacas and kola nuts are not. Plantdrew ( talk) 04:07, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
Aren't domestic Asian water buffalo from Asia? If you want to count Asian transfer then put in an Asian column. 17:19, 31 March 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.103.184.76 ( talk)
Before the Columbian Exchange, there were no oranges in Florida, no bananas in Ecuador, no paprika in Hungary, no potatoes in Ireland, no coffee in Colombia, no pineapples in Hawaii, no rubber trees in Africa, no chili peppers in Thailand, no tomatoes in Italy, and no chocolate in Switzerland. citation needed
This citation needed seems unnecessary. It seems self-evident just from reading the text.
104.32.108.132 ( talk) 18:21, 25 July 2017 (UTC)
This section starts with a ridiculously precise figure (9,374,975) for the number of slaves brought to the New World, which doesn't give me much confidence in the accuracy of the content. The subject matter is veering off-topic in any case. I propose to delete the whole section. Shayno ( talk) 14:14, 10 August 2017 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: Move. Cúchullain t/ c 18:34, 7 August 2018 (UTC)
Columbian Exchange →
Columbian exchange –
WP:NCCAPS,
MOS:CAPS (especially
MOS:DOCTCAPS). We do not capitalize hypotheses, theories, etc., nor events or time periods, unless reliable sources do so with near uniformity (see, e.g. many articles on wars and other conflicts,
Civil rights movement,
Victorian era, and hundreds of other examples). This phrase is very frequently encountered in RS as "the Columbian exchange" (and rarely as "the Columbian interchange"), while innumerable capitalized references are either found in titles and headings, or are references to the book
The Columbian Exchange. While the capitalized form seems to lead a bit in books, that is not our standard; WP does not apply a capital letter to anything unless current, independent, reliable sources overwhelmingly use that style for the case in question. This doesn't qualify. —
SMcCandlish
☏
¢ 😼
00:05, 31 July 2018 (UTC)