image of the
smallpox virus, a historically common agent of virgin-soil epidemics|upright=.85Research over the last few decades has questioned some aspects of the notion of virgin-soil epidemics. David S. Jones has argued that the term "virgin soil" is often used to describe a genetic predisposition to disease infection and that it obscures the more complex social, environmental, and biological factors that can enhance or reduce a population's susceptibility. Paul Kelton has argued that the slave trade in indigenous people by Europeans exacerbated the spread and virulence of smallpox and that a virgin-soil model alone cannot account for the widespread disaster of the epidemic. The debate, as regards smallpox (Variola major or Variola minor), is sometimes complicated by problems in distinguishing its effects from those of other diseases that could prove fatal to virgin-soil populations, most notably
chickenpox. Thus, the famous virologist
Frank Fenner, who played a major role in the worldwide elimination of smallpox, remarked in 1985, "Retrospective diagnosis of cases or outbreaks of disease in the distant past is always difficult and to some extent speculative." Cristobal Silva has re-examined accounts by colonists of 17th-century New England epidemics and has interpreted and argued that they were products of particular historical circumstances, rather than universal or genetically inevitable processes. Historian Gregory T. Cushman claims that virgin-soil epidemics were not the major cause of deaths due to disease among
Pacific Island populations. Rather, diseases like
tuberculosis and
dysentery were able to take hold in Pacific Island populations that had weakened immune systems because of overworking and exploitation by European colonizers. Historian
Christopher R. Browning writes that "Disease, colonization, and irreversible demographic decline were intertwined and mutually reinforcing" in reference to virgin-soil epidemics during the European colonization of the Americas. He contrasts the rebound of the European population following the
Black Death with the lack of such a rebound across most Native American populations, attributing this differing demographic trend to the fact that Europeans were not exploited, enslaved, and massacred in the aftermath of the Black Death like the Indigenous inhabitants of the New World were. "Disease as the chief killing agent," he writes, "does not remove
settler colonialism from the rubric of
genocide". Following this work, historian Jeffrey Ostler has argued that, in relation to European colonization of the Americas, "virgin soil epidemics did not occur everywhere and ... Native populations did not inevitably crash as a result of contact. Most Indigenous communities were eventually afflicted by a variety of diseases, but in many cases this happened long after Europeans first arrived. When severe epidemics did hit, it was often less because Native bodies lacked immunity than because European colonialism disrupted Native communities and damaged their resources, making them more vulnerable to pathogens." ==See also==