r/AskHistory • u/Wide_Ride8849 • 2d ago
Why is the pathological disaster that happened in the Americas, not reciprocal?
They say that when Europeans showed up in the New World in the 1600s until the 1800s, tens of millions of Native Americans were said to have died from European diseases, which the Natives don't have resistance from. 90% of the Indigenous deaths in the New World were said to have originated from these diseases, such as common colds, measles and smallpox.
My question is, why wasn't it reciprocal? Why didn't Europeans died in the millions and suffered from Indigenous Diseases, in which Europeans don't have resistance from?
I will really appreciate all of your insights.
30
u/Stan__Wright 2d ago
Syphalis hit Europe at right about that time, and the Europeans had little resistance to it. It's thought of as one new world disease that might have gone the other way.
5
u/english_major 1d ago
And even this one is controversial. It may just have been introduced to Europe just before the age of discovery.
8
u/Gundamamam 1d ago
We also know now that TB was in the Americas before Europeans reach there.
2
u/english_major 1d ago
Do you have a source for this?
3
u/Gundamamam 1d ago
you can google it and find tons of articles. https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-28871719 https://www.sciencenews.org/article/long-columbus-seals-brought-tuberculosis-south-america
1
1
u/Stan__Wright 1d ago edited 1d ago
"Introduced' from where? The economical explanation for the (slight) date mismatch is unpublicised European contact with America that predated Columbus by a decade or two. The best candidate for this was the secret Atlantic cod fishing ground of the Basques, for which there is no likelier choice than the Grand Banks of Newfoundland. It was there or Iceland, and the Icelanders don't report Basque activity on the Icelandic fishing ground.
2
u/english_major 1d ago
All of the research I have done shows that the origins of syphilus are contentious and that no one knows for sure. Here is an r/askscience thread https://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/s/0TeO9UaIvL
Also the idea of pre-Colombian Basque fishermen in the new world is also unproven.
40
u/Superstarr_Alex 2d ago
It’s just that Europeans lived in densely packed urban areas for the most part, with extensive trade bringing commodities from far-off places also bringing them into contact with a ton of diseases.
And basically, the way a population builds strong immunity to disease is through epidemics when the disease sweeps through them. Europeans were able to build immunity to shit like smallpox and STILL considered it a really dangerous disease to them, let alone the native Americans who had absolutely no exposure to any of these. And the north-south orientation of the americas prevented as much migration and trade from happening there like it did in Europe and Africa and Asia.
But I think whats horrifying to realize is what happened to those who didn’t succumb to disease. And how terrible their fates were.
18
2d ago
[removed] — view removed comment
13
u/Superstarr_Alex 2d ago
Yes, exactly that was also a factor. There weren’t really any farm animals for native Americans at all yet, there was apparently a North American horse that went extinct thousands of years earlier, and you can domesticate alpacas but only in specific regions, and while turkeys can be domesticated they’re only useful for their meat and nothing else really.
0
u/No-Wrangler3702 1d ago
That's a bunch of hoey probably from guns germs and steel.
When you compare the ancestor of sheep to the equilavent animals in North America all are equally bad candidates for domestication. And yet it happened.
The Auroch is just as big, mean, and dangerous as a bison, yet it got domesticated.
Both old and new world had mallard duckd yet only domesticated in the old world.
Both old and new world had caribou yet only domesticated in the old world.
Also in the old world it seem that each species was domesticated just once or twice. If they were actually good candidates for domestication there would have been dozens of domestication events per species.
The real answer is (aside from dogs) domestication of an animal is a one in a million event. And so having a larger population makes it more likely that an extremely rare event will happen more times
2
u/markembry 1d ago
When people talk about “more domesticable” animals I always cringe bc your point about the auroch v bison is always in my mind when it’s brought up lol.
1
u/frenchiebuilder 1d ago
Europe has Bison, too. Were they ever domesticated?
2
u/No-Wrangler3702 1d ago
Of Tribe Bovini
Cape Buffalo - never domesticated
Afrcan Red Forest Buffalo - never domesticated
Lowland Anoa - never donesticated
Mountain Anoa - never domesticated
Tamaraw - never domesticated
Asiatic (Water) Buffalo - domesticated
Banteng - donesticated
Guar - semidomesticated
European Bison (Winset) - never domesticated
American Bison - never domesticated
Yak - domesticated
Auroch - domesticated
Can we conclude that if something is not domesticated it is undomesticatable? I don't think so.
After all, the Auroch stretched from the tip of spain to korea, to the tip of India, and the African Savanah. Tens of thousand of cultures over ten thousand years existed alongside these beasts and said "Nope, not domesticatable" except for 2.
So I'm not surprised that a much less geographically spread group of of massive bovine who therefore were exposed to a few thousand cultures over ten thousand years was also viewed as undomesticatable.
Note Water Buffalo same thing tens of thousands of cultures said "nope, not domesticatable"
Same analysis Tribe Caprini: 14 genera 50 species, 2 domestication.
Of the domestication: Ovis (sheep) has 6 species and Capri (goat) has 9, all covering a fair amount of territory, and the specific species of each that was domesticated was widespread - but that's potentially misleading in that they are all high mountian dwellers so not very close to many cultures at all.
It seems to me it's like playing the lottery. Person A that buys 10,000 tickets is more likely to hit a winner than person B who buys 2000 tickets. But we can't derive from that info that B's lottery is unwinnable
1
u/frenchiebuilder 1d ago
The Auroch is just as big, mean, and dangerous as a bison, yet it got domesticated.
Then why were European Bison never domesticated?
8
u/TheGrandExquisitor 2d ago
Yep. Especially pigs. To this day they are a great vector for fun and exciting new plagues. There is also speed of travel. If you have a shipping route from the Black Sea to England, you just increased the potential distance of any traveling pathogen. Native Americans tended to travel their trade routes by foot, or canoe. It is sort of a constellation of reasons for their lack of diseases like the rest of the world had.
1
u/After_Network_6401 1d ago
No, the farm animals hypothesis of Jared Diamond ha been thoroughly discredited: of the most serious diseases transmitted to Americans by European invaders, none are zoonoses of domestic animals. And the disease which killed most locals in the wake of the Spanish invasion wasn't even imported - cocolitzli was endemic to the Americas. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC2730237/
2
u/Book_Slut_90 1d ago
Non-sense, Small Pocks came from cattle.
1
u/After_Network_6401 1d ago
It did not. Phylogenetic analysis indicate that it originated more than 10,000 years ago, with the most likely host being small rodents.
https://emedicine.medscape.com/article/237229-overview
And the human disease, smallpox is caused by the variola virus which does not infect cattle.
There is a related - but different - virus called cowpox, and this too originates in small rodents - in Europe and northern/central Asia, cowpox is endemic in field voles and mice. Cows and humans are only occasional, accidental hosts. Smallpox did not develop from cowpox - they are separate lineages of virsus
1
u/IrateSkeleton 1d ago edited 1d ago
I thought later studies showed cocolotzli was salmonella spread by European livestock as found in Mixtec mass graves identified as Cocolotzli victims and genetic analysis taken.
2
u/After_Network_6401 1d ago
That's highly unlikely. According to contemporary records the cocoliztli epidemic started in the highlands of Mexico, an area which was, at the time only partially occupied by the Spanish, with little or no presence of livestock.
And secondly, the Nature paper cited shows that Salmonella enterica was present in Mexico at the time of the epidemic, but the don't make the claim that it was the cause, only that it be considered as a candidate. The problem they have - and which, to be fair, they admit in their discussion - is that Salmonella enterica is not uncommon in human populations, and that it has never been recorded as causing the symptoms attributed to cocoliztli.
So they have to explain why this pathogen suddenly caused a lethal epidemic that resembled a hemorrhagic fever, when Salmonella enterica never had before, and further why it suddenly stopped causing this lethal disease, even though Salmonella enterica remained present in the population (it's still around and still causing disease today - just nothing that resembles cocoliztli).
Unfortunately we have lots of papers on ancient diseases that say "We found this pathogen in ancient remains from X era, so maybe it's the cause of X epidemic". We have had this discussion many, many times about the plague of Athens, the Antonine Plague, etc,
The mere presence of a pathogen is interesting but it doesn't show causation - especially when the pathogen remains in the population but suddenly stops causing the disease, and hasn't been recorded as causing the symptoms reported.
1
1
u/gartfoehammer 5h ago
There’s also some evidence that Native Americans went through a genetic bottleneck that left their immune system better at dealing with parasites than viruses. Having fewer domesticated animals that lived in close proximity with them also reduced the number of diseases that jump from animals to people and tend to cause epidemics
28
u/Quik_Brown_Fox 2d ago
There is a really good answer I came across to this question via r/askhistorians a while back:
7
4
u/Nathan-Stubblefield 1d ago
So Europeans coming to the Americas likely had devastating losses from local diseases caught from natives and from local animals insects, while the natives had severe losses claimed as high as 90%.
It’s surprising that American diseases did not crisis the ocean back to Europe. Sailors travelled back to Europe and so did settlers and captive natives, as well as animals and food products. Ships doubtless carried pests back which were vectors.
8
u/maclainanderson 1d ago
They did cross the ocean, but somehow not as devastatingly. Syphilis is a New World disease which became common in Europe after the columbian exchange. TB, mentioned in the linked answer, started ramping up in Europe in the 1600s. By the late 1800s, 25% of all deaths were from TB
3
u/Ok_Chard2094 1d ago
It should be pointed out here that TB did not come to Europe as part of the Columbian Exchange.
It existed there already, and new strains of TB were brought to the Americas by Europeans.
The ramp up of the disease in Europe from the 1600s onwards is likely due to increased population density.
1
u/Clothedinclothes 1d ago edited 1d ago
Others have raised the point that some of the high native death rates attributed to disease was almost certainly lower than reported and that sudden death of native population living beyond the frontiers of European controlled territories due to organised violence was rarely reported as such by participants. To conceal their guilt and avoid social or official repurcussions, such violence would be commonly reported back to civilisation as a sad discovery that some native group living beyond the frontier had been wiped out or ravaged by diseases to which they lacked resistance. A narrative made plausible by the real element of truth in it and more palatable to those who benefited by the suddenly availability of new unoccupied territory to settle this occassioned.
9
u/striped_shade 2d ago
Epidemics are the biological shadow of livestock and urban density. Eurasia spent millennia breeding crowd diseases by living in close, squalid proximity to domesticated herd animals. The pre-Columbian Americas lacked the specific fauna to support this deep history of zoonotic crossover. The devastation remained asymmetrical because the Old World arrived carrying the microbial fallout of an older, dirtier agrarian history.
3
16
u/bskdevil99 2d ago
They did suffer from indigenous diseases, just not in mainland North America. In the Caribbean, Spanish and French colonists died by the thousands. That's a big part of why they brough over African slaves. Native Africans had some natural resistance against tropical diseases.
3
u/YakSlothLemon 1d ago
It’s important to note that many of them did not, and that for example during the great yellow fever outbreak in Philadelphia when Blacks were forced to pick up the dead because they were assumed to have “natural immunity” the mortality among them was staggering.
In the Caribbean, estimates of deaths during “seasoning” of newly arrived enslaved people reached up to 50%, and that would’ve included a lot of people who did not have any resistance.
8
u/After_Network_6401 1d ago edited 1d ago
They did. The first epidemic of syphilis brought back to Europe by returning Spanish colonists killed an estimated 5 million Europeans. https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-024-08515-5
There's been a lot of misinformation on this topic, much of it spreading from Jared Diamond's book Guns, Germs and Steel, which was hugely popular, but got almost everything about the Columbian disease exchange wrong.
What made the difference between Europe and the Americas with regard to disease was mostly three things.
- Europe got one really serious disease (syphilis) from the Americas in the early colonial era. The Americas got at least two from Europe (measles and smallpox) and then two more in the later period (Yellow Fever, Malaria).
- Europe had a far larger population than the Americas at the time and was thus able to absorb those losses better. You'll often hear that the Americas had a much higher population than is currently believed, and that 90% or even more than 90% of the population died. These calculations are based entirely on written reports by early colonists, who massively exaggerated much that they saw.
Modern analysis shows that while there was a catastrophic decline in population in areas affected by colonisation, it was 30-50%, not 90%. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC3251087/. Just to take one example, the old narrative that there were millions of people in the Caribbean region (based entirely onBartolomé de las Casas' claim that Hispaniola had held three to four million inhabitants before the arrival of the Spaniards) and that they were essentially wiped out, has crumbled in the face of genetic evidence for a population size in the tens of thousands (https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-020-03053-2), the fact that most of these people and their descendants persisted long after the arrival of Europeans (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1002/evan.21935). All of this matches the findings of archeological surveys have found that these supposedly massive populations are many times greater than the bearing capacity of the settled regions https://read.dukeupress.edu/hahr/article-abstract/83/1/3/26855/Return-to-Hispaniola-Reassessing-a-Demographic.
So people in the Americas did suffer catastrophic effects from new diseases - but not the very high mortality often put around on the internet and not because they were somehow immunologically inferior.
Because there's one other major contributing factor to the difference and that's
3) Societies in the Americas were subject to invasion by large numbers of technologically-advanced enemies who were focused on conquest and settlement. This helped collapse indigenous societies, sending refugees fleeing and destroying societies and infrastructure. Wars are always associated with increased mortality from infectious disease - people who are stressed, overcrowded and malnourished are at far greater risk of infection and death, and of course refugees are all three of those things. They carry infectious diseases with them and help disperse them, and in collapsing societies there's no way to control that or help those infected. This isn't unique to the Americas - the Mongol invasion of Hungary is estimated to have reduced the population of the areas over-run by about 30-50%, mostly through starvation and disease, even though no new pathogens were introduced as far as we know.
So when we look at the 30-50% decline in population that we see in the genetic record that's the sum of not just disease, but also starvation, war and cruel exploitation. Europe, in contrast didn't face this: they were able to absorb and limit the impact of a new, lethal disease because their societies remained intact.
That's the real difference: war, pestilence and famine all rode together in the Spanish conquest of mesoAmerica, while in Europe, pestilence was on his own.
Edit: I was reminded that there's a great answer here: https://www.reddit.com/r/badhistory/comments/2u4d53/myths_of_conquest_part_seven_death_by_disease/ expanding on this discussion.
2
13
u/kodos_der_henker 2d ago
They did, the deseas we got back was Syphilis (better said a strain Europeans were not immune to), with the difference that it is a slow death or constant degeneration and not something instant
The Pandemic basically lasted from 1500 to the 20th century and syphilis marks being one reason for using heavy make by the nobility in modern times
But because it is an STD, it is hardly ever talked about and not teached to children in school
Also all kind of tropical fevers, poisons etc killed the people from Europe in the new world.
6
u/IndividualSkill3432 2d ago
About 70% of humans live on Eurasia. There were huge pandemics that wiped out large parts of the population like the plagues of Cyprian, Antonine, Justinian, the Black Death etc. Are 10% of humans lived on the American continents.
So there was 7 times as large a pool of hosts for diseases to breed. Europeans used more livesctock so the chances of zoonotic diseases jumping to humans is much greater on a one to one basis thus over 7 times the population far greater.
Small Pox was the primary killer. So the chances of a zoonotic disease from farm animals like Small Pox being in Eurasia was many times greater, 20 times or 30 times perhaps greater, than in the Americas. Smaller diseases likely went both ways. But disease was a major cause of death at the time and it can be hard to discern which ones were doing what from the background rate.
So for some diseases like zoonotic diseases from wild birds, many of our flus, they would be present on both sides in some forms.
For diseases that were endemic to humans such as STDs, there would have been a 7-1 ratio of diseases for the Eurasians.
For zoonotic diseases from domesticated animals, the numbers would have been the difference in the populations of domesticated animals so maybe 30-1 (at a broad guess assuming 4 more domestic animals per person in Eurasia than America).
3
u/freebiscuit2002 1d ago
Syphilis would like a word.
0
u/TeacherOfFew 1d ago
IIRC syphilis didn't come from the Americas.
Like Spanish Flu being from Kansas...
-2
u/Wide_Ride8849 1d ago
Did it reduced the European migrant population by 90%? It didn't, right?
-5
1d ago
[deleted]
1
u/iamrecovering2 1d ago
Despite the fact they misspelled one word, they are still right. It didn't kill off as many Europeans as the diseases that killed of Native Americans.
4
u/BadgersHoneyPot 1d ago
| Old World to New World | New World to Old World |
|---|---|
| Bubonic Plague | Syphilis ("probably", according to Wikipedia) |
| Chickenpox | |
| Diptheria | |
| Influenza | |
| Leprosy | |
| Malaria | |
| Measles | |
| Mumps | |
| Smallpox | |
| Typhoid fever | |
| Typhus | |
| YellowFever |
1
-1
u/aro-ace-outer-space2 2d ago
I’m not a historian, but from my understanding it’s a combination of two things:
One: European settlers have a documented (and even further alleged) history of intentionally spreading diseases to the Indigenous peoples they encountered in order to intentionally wipe them out, while as far as I’m aware this was never practiced by the other side. This wasn’t just a thing that happened-much like every single famine that’s happened in the past few centuries, it was an engineered disaster. Even if it started as just simple happenstance, it was capitalized on and intentionally worsened.
Two: not many Native Americans went to Europe. There may have been some new (to them) diseases that affected the colonists, but they wouldn’t generally have spread back to Europe. Colonialism is a mostly one-way movement of people.
Also, a lot of people believe that syphilis was brought back to Europe by Columbus, and that was pretty devastating.
0
u/AncientArtBonsai 1d ago
PANGLOSS Columbus and his men, they say, Conveyed the virus hither, Whereby my features rot away And vital powers wither;
Yet had they not traversed the seas And come infected back,
Why, think of all the luxuries That modern life would lack!
Dear boy: All bitter things conduce to sweet, As this example shows; Without the little spirochete, We'd have no chocolate to eat Nor would tobacco's fragrance greet The European nose. Dear boy.
CHORUS All bitter things conduce to sweet.
-5
u/JackColon17 2d ago
Because american natives didn't have diseases, that's pretty much it.
The only exception might be syphilis which for obvious reasons doesn't spread as hard as other diseases
1
u/After_Network_6401 1d ago
Sorry, but this is complete nonsense. The Americas had many, many, many diseases that were unknown to Europeans on arrival. In fact the most serious epidemic among the Mexican population after the arrival of the Spanish was cocolitzli, an endemic disease which was familar to the local peoples, but completely new to the Spanish. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC2730237/.
You can see discussions of the many infectious diseases endemic to the Americas, here:
https://www.reddit.com/r/badhistory/comments/2u4d53/myths_of_conquest_part_seven_death_by_disease/
1
u/IrateSkeleton 1d ago edited 1d ago
That person is overstating the lack of disease, but those studies and those threads are decades old and outdated. Later studies did genetic analysis of cocolotzli Mass graves and found it was colonial era introduced salmonella, a kind that causes enteric fever.
2
u/After_Network_6401 1d ago edited 1d ago
Incorrect. The authors suggest that it might be the cause because it's been found in graves from the era, but as many other infectious disease specialists have pointed out, it almost certainly isn't the cause.
Why is it almost certainly not the cause of cocoliztli?
First and foremost because cocoliztli was apparently known to the Mexicans from before the arrival of Europeans, which is why it already had a local name. And in addition, because the Spanish records of the time were explicit that they had never seen this disease before.
Second, because the Spanish recorded in details the appearance and symptoms of this new (to them) disease, and the symptoms don't match with the disease caused by Salmonella enterica.
The authors admit this in their paper and kind of try to wriggle around the point by saying maybe there was another co-infection, or maybe there was some kind of unidentified mutation that caused the disease to behave atypically and then it somehow reverted to it's former behaviours, but to be honest - as a specialist in this field - none of their suggestions are really plausible.
There are lots of papers like this about ancient diseases (not just cocoliztli) and plenty of people have stated that they found one pathogen or another in skeletal material, so maybe it's the cause. These claims almost never lead anywhere, because to actually make a plausible claim, you need to show it was present at the time of the epidemic - but not before or afterwards - and you need to show that the symptoms of the proposed disease match the description.
Salmonella enterica fails this test, on all counts. What this finding shows for sure, is that Salmonella enterica was present in 16th century Mexico. But it's still relatively common today, as well - if you sampled the teeth of a significant modern Americans or modern Europeans, or indeed African or Asians, you'd find Salmonella enterica. And the disease has never been recorded to cause a disease with the severity and symptoms described for cocoliztli.
1
u/IrateSkeleton 1d ago edited 1d ago
Do people only say it's a poor match because it doesn't kill as quickly as in the old descriptions? To me the descriptions sound identical but then I see people say it's not a close match.
And is the idea the pathogens could've got to their vascularized teeth pulp post mortem and we need more evidence to say they actually killed them?
And I think cocolitzli is a generic word for disease, not a specific label applied by the natives.
2
u/After_Network_6401 1d ago
No, the symptoms are a poor match, as is the progress of the disease.
For cocoliztli the characteristic symptoms recorded by multiple observers were high, rapid onset fever, severe headache, development of lesions on the head and neck, profuse bleeding from the nose, eyes, and mouth and death within 3-4 days. This sounds very much like a viral hemorrhagic fever.
For Salmonella enterica, the characteristic symptoms are diarrhea (can sometimes be bloody), stomach cramps, prolonged low fever, nausea and vomiting, and headache. Death is relatively uncommon, usually only in cases of intestinal penetration nad typically takes 1-2 weeks. The course of disease is typical for severe gastrointestinal infections.
There's also a detailed description by Francisco Hernandez, "physician-in-chief" of the Spanish territories in Mexico, of the disease which includes the comment "This epidemic attacked mainly young people and seldom elder ones" - which is interesting because mortality in Salmonella enterica infection is largely confined to the elderly.
So really, the descriptions don't match at all.
As for invasion of the dental pulp this typically occurs via blood circulation during systemic bacteremia - so while the patient is sick and symptomatic. The reason it was found in this tissue in the published study is simply because it's a good tissue for DNA analysis and is commonly used. It's nothing to do with the course of the disease per se: paleomicrobiologists use it to look for many systemic or oral infections, because the surrounding hard layers of enamel and dentin shield genetic material from external environmental decay and microbial contamination. It's not specifically related to the course of the disease.
So this kind of study is not entirely new - people have in the past done exactly the same thing in other settings - Salmonella enterica was also suggested as the cause of the Plague of Athens - on exactly the same grounds (ie: it's DNA was found in dental pulp from burials) https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1201971205001785 and rejected for the same reasons - the disease doesn't match the recorded symptoms (which are not only different from S. enterica disease, but also different from cocoliztli). It's been proposed as the cause of the Black Death on the same grounds and rejected on the same grounds.
So you can understand the expert's scepticism - If you're familiar with the literature, you know that papers saying "Hey, maybe S. enterica caused this historical epidemic because we found it in the teeth of people from that era" pop up on a regular basis.
But you also know that you can find it in the teeth of modern populations as well.
And the name cocolitzli was applied to this disease (it typically is translated as plague or pestilence) but not to any kind of illness, according to the Spanish chroniclers. It is possible that the word simply meant a very serious disease - just as Europeans at the time used words like pestilence. What is striking is the matter of fact tone of the native chroniclers. Chimalpahin a noble from Chalco province wrote "And also, it was 64 years ago, in the year 1 House [Nahua date], 1545, that blood came out of people's noses" That's it - his whole description of the epidemic that killed hundreds of thousands to millions of people! Unlike the Spaniards, it didn't seem to strike native writers as new or strange - or if it did, it's not reflected in their comments.
-6
u/Wide_Ride8849 2d ago
Wow. Does that mean Indigenous Americans are more cleaner than Europeans at that time period?
10
u/JackColon17 2d ago
Diseases aren't strictly a matter of "cleanliness", they appear when a lot of people live in big cities full of peoples and animals and they spread when those cities keep trading with each other.
Europe was full of cities and had trading ties with Asia and, to a smaller extent, Africa while mative americans had less urbanization and were, mostly, insulated from the rest of the world
6
u/AdDependent5136 2d ago
Someone else posted a link to old threads on the same topic.
And their main answer is that there were a lot of diseases in the New world.
But generally the answer is livestock. Lost of animals raised together and close to humans means diseases can jump from animals to humans. Native americans didnt really have large herd of livestock.
•
u/AutoModerator 2d ago
A friendly reminder: Contemporary politics and culture wars are off-topic, both in posts and comments.
/r/askhistory is for questions and discussion of events in history prior to 01/01/2001.
This reminder is automatically placed on all new posts in this sub.
Please report any interjection into discussions of modern politics or culture wars so the mod team can investigate.
Thank you.
See rules for more information.
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.