The first permanent English American settlement, Jamestown, was only a success if we compare it to Roanoke, which as we recall disappeared. The popular theory is that maybe the colonials at Jamestown were completely unprepared and thus the colony failed. The attached links in google classroom offer an alternative theory.
After viewing only the 1st 14 minutes of the video (0:00 to 14:00) and reading the two links, respond as a comment to this prompt:
Does the evidence about the colony being sabotaged through poisoning appear convincing?
Share why or why not?
Reply to two others as is our practice with a quick question that the commenter can consider but will not answer. (ex. Do you think?... Have you considered?...)
I think that the evidence of the colony being sabotaged via poisoning is not the most convincing. Although many of the sick showed similar, strange symptoms, this doesn't necessarily mean they were sabotaged. In the article, it states that there were many environmental threats. The colonists could have very well been exposed to the plague, or been poisoned by brackish water. Scurvy was also a threat. There is just not enough evidence to say that the colony of Jamestown was sabotaged by poisoning, especially since the colonists's #1 human threat was the native Americans (who attacked via guerrilla warfare).
ReplyDeleteDo you think that the Native Americans accounted for a majority of the deaths or just a little?
DeleteYes, there are a lot more ways of dying and I doubt they died from poison.
DeleteWould you think that there might be a disease from the natives, and not from Europe possibly?
DeleteI agree yes the colony died of something similar to poisoning but I don't believe it would be because of sabotage but for another reason.
DeleteMaybe scientists should investigate Native American burial grounds from around that time to see if they find any symptoms. It would be strange if the English brought a plague over that was not super deadly to the Natives.
DeleteYeah, there is likely other ways that the Jamestown was wiped and poison is not likely it.
DeleteI don't believe their is enough evidence for arsenic poisoning. They did experience a wide variety of symptoms but I don't think that means they had been poisoned. If there was maybe evidence of a Spanish operative then maybe I would think that it could be poison. Also there were many different ways people died so that could explain for how many people died.
ReplyDeleteI agree. There were so many more convincing possibilities.
DeleteIt's very interesting to think it might have been a Spanish operative, but could it have also been, if evidence for intentional poisoning was found, an inside job by a rival merchant?
DeleteI have to disagree with you on that. I believe that there is physical proof that there was a outbreak or mass poisoning happening in Jamestown. I don't believe it was intentional however.
DeleteTo be honest, the idea of poisoning is not the most compelling to me. Maybe if there was someone that tried to sabotage and there was evidence, I would be more prompted to believe that but just because you experience the symptoms doesn't necessarily mean you have been poisoned.
ReplyDeleteI agree. I think evidence would be the only thing to convince me that the colony was poisoned.
DeleteI agree, but would you think it was starvation or the natives that claimed more lives?
DeleteWhat other diseases do you think could be causing these arsenic-like symptoms?
DeleteI agree, the lack of physical evidence of the poison itself makes the argument not so appealing.
DeleteI agree, there was not enough evidence for me to formulate an idea that the deaths were caused by poison rather than something else.
DeleteI agree. The records of symptoms just similar to the effects of arsenic poisoning is not convincing enough, especially the fact that they can't run any forensic tests to further prove the theory.
DeleteThe evidence in favor of the colony being sabotaged by poisoning is not convincing enough. Although the colony was plagued with strange symptoms similar to arsenic poisoning the colony was met with so many other natural factors arsenic poisoning seems too far fetched. The Jamestown colony faced the worst drought in 800 years, the could have been exposed to the plague, brackish water and even possible scurvy. Unless scientist found clear physical evidence that the colony was poisoned the theory is not convincing enough.
ReplyDeleteIn the text it says they can't find physical evidence so how else should they prove it?
DeleteI agree that there are many causes for death in Jamestown, but I have to agree with Kabir, because we will never have physical evidence. The way the bodies were buried is solid evidence of some sort of a plague however.
DeleteI agree that the evidence isn't enough to support poisoning, but do you think that there will ever be enough evidence to support it, or is it near impossible considering what Kabir brought up?
DeleteI don't think that there is substantial evidence to conclude that there was widespread poisoning. And while most of the other routes seem improbable, for example we know the Native Americans were a threat, but it isn't believed they'd have taken out that many people, poisoning is just as unlikely as the other routes.
ReplyDeleteAgreed. I don't think the Natives would try to poison them.
DeleteAgreed. Much of the evidence presented is purely circumstantial, whereas more is needed to prove this theory.
DeleteI don't find the idea of being poisoned convincing because the colonists could have just been exposed to diseases. In the video, they said that in their journals, colonists would describe this deadly cause of death which appears to be a plaque. I do not think that they were sabotaged and poisoned.
ReplyDeleteI agree the evidence doesn't really seem to support the idea of sabotage.
DeleteI agree. Disease is more likely than poison.
DeleteI agree, the deaths being caused by poison seems much more unlikely than the deaths being caused by something such as a disease.
DeleteI agree, there is not enough evidence for me to be convinced, especially given the environmental issues, the diseases, etc.
DeleteI am not convinced about arsenic poisoning to have killed the colonists, and there are quite a lot of reasons to back this up. However, I think that one good reason of this is because even though the Spanish were in the Americas, we can't tell if they truly were ever near Jamestown or not, we know they were in Mexico and Florida. We also don't have evidence of any Spanish ships or anything like that to have been following the ships that were on their way to the New World. I would be more convinced if we find something like logs from the settlers who reported Spanish people near Jamestown, or another ship that was tagging along with them that seemed suspicious, but there hasn't been anything of that ort yet it seems like.
ReplyDeleteI agree, blaming the Spanish without evidence that they were anywhere near there is not very convincing at all.
DeleteDo you think the Spanish could have used Native American aid to impact Jamestown despite not being located that far north?
DeleteI agree. There's no proof that they were near.
DeleteResponding to Noah, I think that the Spanish did not have a close enough relationship to the natives to ask them for a dangerous favor like that.
DeleteThe evidence available is enough to convince me that the settlers died from arsenic poisoning. There does not seem to be any evidence suggesting the presses of the Spanish in that area, and the amount of other possible inflictions that could have killed the settlers are many and more probable. Evidence of rats, dirty water, records of symptoms, as well as evidence of drought all suggest various things like the plague, salt poisoning, starvation, and we know that the first nations people killed settlers. There is evidence suggesting and proving the possibility, and probability, of all these things, but there is no sound evidence supporting poison as a sure possibility.
ReplyDeleteJust an FYI, you said it was convincing. if you meant not convincing, I agree. perhaps they were poisoned by the natives who found the arsenic?
DeleteI would have to disagree, there's likely other ways they might have died, but who knows, I would rather believe that the Natives did it, but even then its still a small chance.
DeleteThe evidence does not convince me that the settlers died from poisoning or sabotage because although they had symptoms they could have gotten diseases from the Natives because just like the settlers brought disease the Native could've had their own diseases as well. The evidence doesn't seem to look like they were sabotaged but rather died from another reason.
ReplyDeleteDo you think it's possible that some settlers were in fact poisoned, but the majority died some other way?
DeleteI believed the colonists at Jamestown were primarily exposed to the plague, rather than poisoning. Following the initial outbreak of the Black Death, more pandemics appeared throughout Europe many centuries later. Jamestown was founded in 1607, and (after a bit of research) England suffered a plague outbreak starting in 1603. It is entirely possible that some infected rats came across the Atlantic with the settlers and infected people. Many symptoms people faced can be explained by the plague, and others are in line with salt poisoning and starvation. Attacks from the Natives seem plausible as well, as before some semblance of peace was reached, Native Americans were much more powerful and didn't exactly approve of a foreign body settling on their land. The point in the article about bodies being buried hurriedly to avoid contact seems to line up the most with the plague, as well as the sheer number of people that were wiped out.
ReplyDeleteI agree that a plague might've been the cause, especially with the example on how bodies were buried in a hurry. A plague wouldn't have to be digested to work, but a poison has to.
DeleteI am not convinced that poisoning killed the colonists. If there was more evidence other than symptoms of poison. In the article, it says that they were attacked and had to experience the spread of disease.
ReplyDeleteThat's true other events could have caused this rather than poisoning.
DeleteI agree, there was a history of colonists experiencing disease, but not poisoning.
DeleteI do not believe that the argument for saying the colonists were poisoned is substantiated enough, however I wouldn't rule it out as a possibility. While the colonists did experience similar symptoms as being poisoned, there was never any physical evidence of the actual poison. Food poisoning or another disaster could have caused this event, as an alternative to intentional poisoning.
ReplyDeleteI liked how you made it clear that their could have been other factors rather than just poisoning.
DeleteI agree. All theories are all completely possible. Each of them are not more likely than the other, especially the arsenic poisoning.
DeleteI agree with your answer, but if evidence was found of possible plans to sabotage the Jamestown colony would you reconsider your point of view?
DeleteThe evidence that the colony was poisoned is not substantial enough to be convincing. While poison is certainly a possibility, it is nowhere near certain. There is a long list of things that could have killed the settlers, and arsenic is just one of many. Numerous diseases, Drought, Famine, and Poison are all possible causes, but we may never know for sure.
ReplyDeleteI agree with your statement but have you considered the possibility of the testing of the rat remains could hold the answer?
DeleteI don't believe the evidence provided was sufficient enough to prove that the colony failed due to poisoning. This could have certainly been a possibility. It is true that the people faced harsh symptoms that justifies such however, those symptoms could have been from other diseases. I don't think poising was the only cause if it was one in the first place.
ReplyDeleteThe theory of the colony being sabotaged through arsenic poisoning is not convincing because of the lack of evidence it holds and the numerous other possibilities. There was the possibility of salt poisoning from ingesting brackish waters, drought, famine, and a plague from black rats. The arsenic theory could not be proved because of the inability of forensic testing on decomposed bones left behind from hundreds of years back. Although there is some possible evidence from historical accounts of symptoms, it is not convincing enough.
ReplyDeleteThe claim that the colony was poisoned is not convincing enough to me. It certainly is something that could have happened, but it is too unlikely as a lot of other things could have been the cause for the deaths. One possibility that is relatively convincing is a plague or widespread disease. We have seen before that with colonization, diseases spread very rapidly and are extremely dangerous. Therefore, a deadly virus could have been spread to the colony. Another possibility is something such as a drought or food-related issue that could have caused the deaths.
ReplyDeleteI agree that it could've been a plague, to me it makes the most sense, it can wipe out a colony pretty fast.
DeleteI agree, the notion seems highly improbable, a plague or starvation seems more likely.
DeleteWhile this theory about arsenic poison is incredibly intriguing and should definitely not yet be abandoned, I am not convinced. Much of the evidence is circumstantial. Making a claim as strong as accusing a Spanish operative, for example, needs more evidence than what is offered here. Especially given that there were environmental issues with the colony, I am not convinced by this theory. That said, I would not abandon it yet because it I don't think it's impossible, or even unlikely. I am just not quite convinced given the evidence already found and presented.
ReplyDeleteI agree, as it is a theory that has circumstantial evidence, and the fact that there are so many more theories that can be testable.
DeleteThe evidence of the colony being sabotaged through poisoning is not the most convincing and it is at most circumstantial, as there is no way to effectively prove this theory. As the text states, “The heavy metal can be detected in urine (if ingested recently), hair, or fingernail samples. But it does not get deposited in bone — and bone is all that remains of the fallen at Jamestown.” Although many symptoms written by the people of Jamestown are consistent with the symptoms of arsenic poisoning, there are other environmental factors that could have caused those as well, and ones we know of such as plague brought by rats from europe. As well as their behavior gives us clues, as the text states, “ Kelso’s team has so far unearthed more than 70 skeletons from the early 1600s. Many appear to have been buried in a hurry, by people anxious to avoid contact with the bodies — which suggests the presence of some contagious agent.
ReplyDeleteI don't believe there is enough evidence that the colony was poisoned. Not only is there no way to test the remains for poison, it's more likely there was a plague. "Kelso’s team has so far unearthed more than 70 skeletons from the early 1600s. Many appear to have been buried in a hurry, by people anxious to avoid contact with the bodies." This here is one of the main reasons I believe it was a plague and not poison. The poison needed to be digested, not by contact. A plague can also be as deadly as a poison, and spread much faster and quicker.
ReplyDeleteSimilar to my peers, I do not see sufficient proof to support the idea of lethal sabotage. Previous to the reading and viewing of the video, I wanted to come in with a fresh, interesting opinion suggesting a poison or sabotage to further the conversation and speculate further. This, however, became an impossible feat as information was put forth. The video stated that there was far more proof for disease and lack of food, as well as firsthand accounts explaining the struggle to obtain food. They had to eat rats, a complete last resort. In all, there was not enough proof for me.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThe theory of the colony being sabotaged through poisoning is anywhere but convincing. Sure, it may seem like a reasonable explanation as to why the colony failed, but there are many more theories to inspect that may also be just as reasonable. The article explains that there may be other factors that contributed to the deaths, including a plague caused by rats, brackish water, famine, etc. The symptoms that were pointed out to have matched the symptoms of arsenic poisoning may prove that it was the cause, but those symptoms may be symptoms of other factors as well. Moreover, it states, "The heavy metal can be detected in urine (if ingested recently), hair, or fingernail samples. But it does not get deposited in bone — and bone is all that remains of the fallen at Jamestown.” If the theory of arsenic poisoning cannot be put to the test, it does not provide enough evidence to prove this point, making it even less convincing.
ReplyDeleteI agree with your answer, but if there was a way to detect arsenic in bones,would you reconsider your answer?
DeleteI don't find the theory of poison sabotage to be very convincing. It could explain why the colony failed, but it feels like there were many better and just as good explanations. It feels like there isn't any good solid evidence, like how the symptoms of arsenic could be symptoms of other factors. There is nothing dependable that points toward this theory being true.
ReplyDelete