• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Memo to James Clapper: Are Americans Genetically Prone to Regression?

Ya, I guess European colonists didn't stop to count all the natives they were murdering and displacing, how rude of them. I mean, when committing genocide it's imperative to keep and accurate record for the history books...

Ever stop to think there's no record because white washers like you wanted to hide our shameful shameful past? I mean what's more likely, two continents left alone for thousands of years was sparsely populated to the point it had a fraction of the population of a continent that just went through a plague, yet somehow perfect for human habitation. Or we didn't want to teach our kids that our ancestors were responsible for a wiping out millions of people because we liked their land. Would really put a damper on Thanksgiving, don't ya think.

But hey, you keep thinking that the men who invented the African slave trade because they felt the natives made terrible slave just got lucky and found a bunch of empty land.

You don't need to clutch at straws and Gatling gun memes while your story goes down in flames. Probably best to just walk away from it.

There is no question the treatment of Indians during the westward expansion of the United States was brutal and from a modern perspective is regretful. However, when in the history of mankind has such expansion ever been fair and peaceful?

Mankind did not advance and spread throughout the globe by shaking hands and sitting down to enjoy a bowl of local bud. It spread by force and mayhem. The strong prevail, and the weak die, or adopt.

I didn't set the rules, Mother Nature did, so go bitch at her.
 
Exactly. But its red herrings and bogeymen for the unwashed masses. BTW, the thread-starter article's reference to 100 million native American deaths? Is that true?

That seems like it might be a high number.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Population_history_of_indigenous_peoples_of_the_Americas
<snip>
While it is difficult to determine exactly how many Natives lived in North America before Columbus,[6] estimates range from a low of 2.1 million[7] to 7 million[8] people to a high of 18 million[9]
<snip>
 
I think that figure comes from US historians. I have seen Native American professors quoting that figure before, and I believe DE Stannard was quoted in that article as well. It could be a gross exaggeration by Stannard but Howard Zinn, if I remember correctly, repeatedly referred to the genocide of Native Americans.

I don't think a rational person could argue that the genocide did not occur.

It's just hard to do the math to arrive at the 100 million mark.
 
It is the history of the human species that the strong expand and conquer. Does history label these events genocides of the conquered?

The creation and growth of the United States included conquering the people who already occupied the land. Labeling that genocide is ridiculous.

Claiming 100 million were killed is nothing but a lie.



Such

The expansion into the Indian Territories included a number of treaties and Treaty violations.

Simply invading and conquering is one thing. Violent, brutal and merciless in most cases, but honest on its face.

The way the US invaded the Indian Territories was deceitful and seemingly calculated.

To the Native Indians, it was "Peace in Our Day". To the encroaching Whites, it was Manifest Destiny. The Whites seemed to encourage the Indians to accept the "Peace in Our Day" narrative.
 
notquiteright

I believe the living space (lebensraum?) is getting better elsewhere. Have you seen Californian cities and towns these days?

U.S. TAKES DRAMATIC HIT IN GLOBAL PEACE RANKINGS AS RACISM, CRIME AND INCOME INEQUALITY SOAR

U.S. Takes Dramatic Hit in Global Peace Rankings as Racism, Crime and Income Inequality Soar

The United States has plummeted on a global ranking of countries based on levels of corruption, violent crime, racism and respect for human rights.

The Global Peace Index 2017, issued annually by the Institute of Economics and Peace(IEP), shows the U.S declining 11 places in the global rankings to 114th out of 163 surveyed nations. America is safer than war zones such as Syria —which came in last place—Iraq, Afghanistan and Somalia, which are classified ‘very low’. But the U.S. is only ranked ‘medium’ and appears below Haiti, which has struggled with poverty and violent crime since Hurricane Matthew in 2010, and Liberia, which is dealing with the legacy of its brutal civil war.

Another ridiculous international survey.
 
The 100 million number is a lie. Period.

As to genocide, I looked up the definition of the word. Interesting enough, the modern definition would fit with your claim, depending on where you look.

Dictionary.com has this: noun - the deliberate and systematic extermination of a national, racial, political, or cultural group.​

This is more in keeping with my understanding of the word. Emphasis on "extermination".

Google pops up the following: the deliberate killing of a large group of people, especially those of a particular ethnic group or nation.​

So ISIL is committing acts of genocide on a regular and ongoing basis. As is MS-13, gangs in general, etc..

I have never equated mass murder with genocide, but it seems there are modern definitions that seek to do that.

So in World War II, the objective of the Allied Forces was to commit genocide on Germany. I don't think that fits.....

I don't think that is a good fit. Germany is a geographic, not a people.

However, genocide of the German people seems pretty accurate. Those 1000 plane raids were not dropping leaflets.
 
I don't think that is a good fit. Germany is a geographic, not a people.

However, genocide of the German people seems pretty accurate. Those 1000 plane raids were not dropping leaflets.

Obviously when I wrote "Germany" I meant in terms of the people who were seeking to take over the world. It might do well to remember the United States went into WWII kicking and dragging it's feet.

Bombing raids were meant to end the war, not erase Germans from the face of the planet.
 
Obviously when I wrote "Germany" I meant in terms of the people who were seeking to take over the world. It might do well to remember the United States went into WWII kicking and dragging it's feet.

Bombing raids were meant to end the war, not erase Germans from the face of the planet.

I think that is true of the stated intent, but the actual outcomes of bombing civilians on both sides in that war seems to have reinforced the belief that the enemy was just hate filled mob of murderers.

Both the British and the Germans became more resolute under the weight of the bombing raids against them.

This effect was understood by the Allies in terms of the effect of bombings on the British civilians and SHOULD have been applied to the effect bombing would have had on the Germans as well.

Breaking the will of the enemy, then, could not have been the goal of the bombing raids. The ability to "drop a bomb into a pickle barrel" using the Norton Bomb Sight was obviously a lie. If the accuracy is THAT precise, one plane ought to do it.

The only alternative goal, given the practice of conducting 1000 plane raids, is genocide of the German people.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bombing_of_Dresden
<snip>

Part of Strategic bombing during World War II

Dresden after the bombing raid

<snip>
 
I think that is true of the stated intent, but the actual outcomes of bombing civilians on both sides in that war seems to have reinforced the belief that the enemy was just hate filled mob of murderers.

Both the British and the Germans became more resolute under the weight of the bombing raids against them.

This effect was understood by the Allies in terms of the effect of bombings on the British civilians and SHOULD have been applied to the effect bombing would have had on the Germans as well.

Breaking the will of the enemy, then, could not have been the goal of the bombing raids. The ability to "drop a bomb into a pickle barrel" using the Norton Bomb Sight was obviously a lie. If the accuracy is THAT precise, one plane ought to do it.

The only alternative goal, given the practice of conducting 1000 plane raids, is genocide of the German people.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bombing_of_Dresden
<snip>

Part of Strategic bombing during World War II

Dresden after the bombing raid

<snip>

First, I'm don't accept the modern definition of genocide. I'm not moved by ideological manipulations of words. Genocide is what the Nazi's attempted to do with the Jews, radical Islam is attempting to do to Christians.

Second, the U.S. and it's allies sought to end the War. Period. Breaking the will of the people is one way in which wars are won. The US was not attempting to commit genocide on the Germans, nor were they attempting to do the same against the Japanese.

For example, Hiroshima and Nagasaki were bombed to demonstrate the futility of further conflict, and to avoid millions of deaths via an invasion of Japan proper.
 
You don't need to clutch at straws and Gatling gun memes while your story goes down in flames. Probably best to just walk away from it.

There is no question the treatment of Indians during the westward expansion of the United States was brutal and from a modern perspective is regretful. However, when in the history of mankind has such expansion ever been fair and peaceful?

Mankind did not advance and spread throughout the globe by shaking hands and sitting down to enjoy a bowl of local bud. It spread by force and mayhem. The strong prevail, and the weak die, or adopt.

I didn't set the rules, Mother Nature did, so go bitch at her.

You see, the problem here, is I provided that information. Which you have yet to rebuff with nothing more than "Nuh uh" and stats that begin a couple hundred years after the damage was done. Why should I give you more sources? When you haven't successfully countered the one I already gave...

I tell you what, here's a source.

https://books.google.ca/books?hl=en...age&q=native american population 1492&f=false

Now this happens to be an entire book, that gives varied opinions on the population of Hispaniola. But, I would think the most credible would be the observations of Nikolaus Ferdermann, a resident of Santo Domingo from 1529-1532. His observation places the population of a single island in 1492 to be around 500,000. And forty years later fewer than 20,000. That's 12 percent of the original population.

Now, I'm not sure how familiar you are with population sampling. But that's when you take a smaller number of the whole and determine the effect of something that affects everyone. So if 1 island had an 88% population decrease in 40 years, what do you think the population decrease of two continents was over 300 years.

Now, lets think about that 1 island. We were taught in school that the total Native population in 1492 is conservatively thought to be between 6-8 million people. That means that 1 island represented 12 percent of the population. 12% of our current population not counting Canada or Mexico, that we've built in only a few hundred years, is 36 million people. Doesn't seem likely the number we were taught in school is remotely accurate. Seeing as how that 1 island represented a fraction of the land area that the great nations of the mainland occupied. And a single Nation, like the Cherokee nation, consisted of hundreds of interconnected tribes with extensive trade networks occupying the same area for thousands of years. Factor in the natives capacity for food cultivation, which was superior to Europe's at the time (think of corn and potatoes), and how food production limits population growth. As well as the fact that Natives didn't have to contend with disease like Europeans who had just underwent a plague. I would think 100 million to be a lowball number.

Saying we wiped out 90% of 6 million people sounds alot better than wiping out 90% of 100 million people. So guess which number gets put into our history books. But hey, what do I know I've only studied this subject extensively over the course of my adult life. Not like I can compete with the likes of a census you found on wikipedia that only accounts for native populations after 1860...

By the way, the link I provided first really does give a better counter argument than anything you've thrown so far. And also Indians are from India.

The truth is, I never considered you worth my time debating this, but you had to put in that bit about how the world works. My maternal grandfather was Native, thanks for telling me the horrible treatment of my ancestors was just business as usual. Especially since it wasn't business as usual, but rather the first time biological warfare was used on a large scale. You should walk away. You have embarrassed yourself.

And what the hell does memes have to do with anything?
 
Last edited:
You see, the problem here, is I provided that information. Which you have yet to rebuff with nothing more than "Nuh uh" and stats that begin a couple hundred years after the damage was done. Why should I give you more sources? When you haven't successfully countered the one I already gave...

I tell you what, here's a source.

https://books.google.ca/books?hl=en...age&q=native american population 1492&f=false

Now this happens to be an entire book, that gives varied opinions on the population of Hispaniola. But, I would think the most credible would be the observations of Nikolaus Ferdermann, a resident of Santo Domingo from 1529-1532. His observation places the population of a single island in 1492 to be around 500,000. And forty years later fewer than 20,000. That's 12 percent of the original population.

Now, I'm not sure how familiar you are with population sampling. But that's when you take a smaller number of the whole and determine the effect of something that affects everyone. So if 1 island had an 88% population decrease in 40 years, what do you think the population decrease of two continents was over 300 years.

Now, lets think about that 1 island. We were taught in school that the total Native population in 1492 is conservatively thought to be between 6-8 million people. That means that 1 island represented 12 percent of the population. 12% of our current population not counting Canada or Mexico, that we've built in only a few hundred years, is 36 million people. Doesn't seem likely the number we were taught in school is remotely accurate. Seeing as how that 1 island represented a fraction of the land area that the great nations of the mainland occupied. And a single Nation, like the Cherokee nation, consisted of hundreds of interconnected tribes with extensive trade networks occupying the same area for thousands of years. Factor in the natives capacity for food cultivation, which was superior to Europe's at the time (think of corn and potatoes), and how food production limits population growth. As well as the fact that Natives didn't have to contend with disease like Europeans who had just underwent a plague. I would think 100 million to be a lowball number.

Saying we wiped out 90% of 6 million people sounds alot better than wiping out 90% of 100 million people. So guess which number gets put into our history books. But hey, what do I know I've only studied this subject extensively over the course of my adult life. Not like I can compete with the likes of a census you found on wikipedia that only accounts for native populations after 1860...

By the way, the link I provided first really does give a better counter argument than anything you've thrown so far. And also Indians are from India.

The truth is, I never considered you worth my time debating this, but you had to put in that bit about how the world works. My maternal grandfather was Native, thanks for telling me the horrible treatment of my ancestors was just business as usual. Especially since it wasn't business as usual, but rather the first time biological warfare was used on a large scale. You should walk away. You have embarrassed yourself.

And what the hell does memes have to do with anything?

What a pathetic screed of meaningless BS.

Blah, blah, blah.

Run along and learn some facts about North America.

Your memes have no foundation here.
 
First, I'm don't accept the modern definition of genocide. I'm not moved by ideological manipulations of words. Genocide is what the Nazi's attempted to do with the Jews, radical Islam is attempting to do to Christians.

Second, the U.S. and it's allies sought to end the War. Period. Breaking the will of the people is one way in which wars are won. The US was not attempting to commit genocide on the Germans, nor were they attempting to do the same against the Japanese.

For example, Hiroshima and Nagasaki were bombed to demonstrate the futility of further conflict, and to avoid millions of deaths via an invasion of Japan proper.

Still, destroying the means to wage war and fire bombing a city and killing 100,000 civilians don't seem to go hand in hand.

The center of Dresden shown in the photo doesn't appear to be a V-2 factory.

Hiroshima was intentionally left unbombed prior to the A-Bomb in order to accurately gauge the destructive impact of the A-Bomb.

I agree that in that case, the use of the A-bombs shortened the war and saved millions. That does not reduce the civilian dead associated with the bombs that were dropped.

What if the Emperor had not chosen to surrender?
 
Last edited:
Still, destroying the means to wage war and fire bombing a city and killing 100,000 civilians don't seem to go hand in hand.

The center of Dresden shown in the photo doesn't appear to be a V-2 factory.

War is hell. Still doesn't equate to a desire to eliminate Germans from the face of the earth.
 
Ya, I guess European colonists didn't stop to count all the natives they were murdering and displacing, how rude of them. I mean, when committing genocide it's imperative to keep an accurate record for the history books...

Ever stop to think there's no record because white washers like you wanted to hide our shameful shameful past? I mean what's more likely, two continents left alone for thousands of years was sparsely populated to the point it had a fraction of the population of a single tiny continent that just went through a plague, yet was somehow perfect for human habitation like someone had cultivated it for thousands of years. Or we didn't want to teach our kids that our ancestors were responsible for a wiping out millions of people because we liked their land. Would really put a damper on Thanksgiving, don't ya think.

But hey, you keep thinking that the men who invented the African slave trade because they felt the natives made terrible slave just got lucky and found a bunch of empty land.
I agree withh Ocean, the modern definition might be in order, but when we think of the modern the old also creeps in and makes things sound worse than they actually were. IOW, there was no systematic or even ad hoc attempt to completely exterminate the Indigenous populations... who, it should be added, warred among themselves, with us against other Indians... many tribes were based on a warrior culture incorporated into their rites of passage... tehy were often far from the concept of the "noble savage" as well.

I hardly think the land mass would have accodated mainly hunter gatherers in the numbers you seem attracted nor does the archeological remnants, from my readings back when I had an interest in the topic, seem to support such large figures. As stated previously, most of the work was done inadvertantly before the great hordes of Europeans came on scene. Its rather amusing that one rarely comes across a reference to the Chinese genocide of Europe for Asia's role in the Black Plagues, eh?

Please be more specific about your claims that the land was "perfect for cultivation". You seem to have a blame the white guy thing going there... is there a reason? We know that slavery only became passe with the advent of the Western Civilization maturing on the point. African slavery was not invented by White Europeans, btw, the Arabs and Muslims were notoriously non discriminating in who they enslaved, these N Africans not shying away from their southern neighbors in the least. Nor their Northern, Eastern nor Western neighbors.
 
I agree withh Ocean, the modern definition might be in order, but when we think of the modern the old also creeps in and makes things sound worse than they actually were. IOW, there was no systematic or even ad hoc attempt to completely exterminate the Indigenous populations... who, it should be added, warred among themselves, with us against other Indians... many tribes were based on a warrior culture incorporated into their rites of passage... tehy were often far from the concept of the "noble savage" as well.

What a surprise, listen, I don't care who you agree with. Especially, since you haven't provided any reference material. But let me address your points anyway.

No conspiracy to spread disease to weaken the natives....
"Historian Francis Parkman, in his book The Conspiracy of Pontiac and the Indian War after the Conquest of Canada [Boston: Little, Brown, 1886] refers to a postscript in an earlier letter from Amherst to Bouquet wondering whether smallpox could not be spread among the Indians:

Could it not be contrived to send the Small Pox among those disaffected tribes of Indians? We must on this occasion use every stratagem in our power to reduce them. [Vol. II, p. 39 (6th edition)]
I have not found this letter, but there is a letter from Bouquet to Amherst, dated 23 June 1763, [189k] three weeks before the discussion of blankets to the Indians, stating that Captain Ecuyer at Fort Pitt (to which Bouquet would be heading with reinforcements) has reported smallpox in the Fort. This indicates at least that the writers knew the plan could be carried out."

and whether they intended genocide.
"Several other letters from the summer of 1763 show the smallpox idea was not an anomaly. The letters are filled with comments that indicate a genocidal intent, with phrases such as:
"...that Vermine ... have forfeited all claim to the rights of humanity" (Bouquet to Amherst, 25 June) [149k]
"I would rather chuse the liberty to kill any Savage...." (Bouquet to Amherst, 25 June) [121k]
"...Measures to be taken as would Bring about the Total Extirpation of those Indian Nations" (Amherst to Sir William Johnson, Superintendent of the Northern Indian Department, 9 July) [229k]
"...their Total Extirpation is scarce sufficient Attonement...." (Amherst to George Croghan, Deputy Agent for Indian Affairs, 7 August) [145k]
"...put a most Effectual Stop to their very Being" (Amherst to Johnson, 27 August [292k]; emphasis in original)."
Amherst and Smallpox

Warred among themselves, isn't the same thing as tried to exterminate and conquer each other. They didn't do it on a large scale, and implying that their raiding each other is the same thing as what the settlers did is just another white wash tactic.
Native American Warfare in the West: Conflict Among the Southwestern Indians - Dictionary definition of Native American Warfare in the West: Conflict Among the Southwestern Indians | Encyclopedia.com: FREE online dictionary

Oh and yeah they were just hunter gathering savages, sure... That's why we keep finding these big ass cities they leave behind.

"In its heyday, Cahokia covered about 6 square miles (16 km2) and included about 120 human-made earthen mounds in a wide range of sizes, shapes, and functions.[4"

"Historian Daniel Richter notes that the apex of the city occurred during the Medieval Warming Period. This period appears to have fostered an agricultural revolution in upper North America, as the three-fold crops of maize, beans (legumes) and gourds (squash) were developed and adapted or bred to the temperate climates of the north from their origins in Meso-America. Richter also notes that Cahokia's advanced development coincided with the development to the west of the Chaco Canyon society, which also produced large-scale works in an apparent socially stratified society. The decline of the city coincides with the little ice age, although by then the three-fold agriculture remained well-established throughout temperate North America.[12]"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cahokia
 
Cont. from post 40
Yep, nothing to see there just hunter gatherers, they didn't breed corn and other types of food that feeds most of the world today. Unless you think the potato and corn originated in Europe...

"But a growing number of anthropologists and archaeologists now believe that this picture is almost completely false. According to this school of thought, the Western Hemisphere before Columbus's arrival was well-populated and dotted with impressive cities and towns—one scholar estimated that it held ninety to 112 million people, more than lived in Europe at the time—and Indians had transformed vast swaths of landscape to meet their agricultural needs. They used fire to create the Midwestern prairie, perfect for herds of buffalo. They also cultivated at least part of the rain forest, living on crops of fruits and nuts."

"When John Smith visited Massachusetts in 1614, he wrote that the land was "so planted with Gardens and Corne fields, and so well inhabited with a goodly, strong and well proportioned people ... [that] I would rather live here than any where." But by the time the colonists reached Plymouth in the Mayflower six years later, they found one deserted village after another—the Indians had been felled by European diseases to which they had little resistance."
https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2002/03/the-pristine-myth/303062/

"Recent archaeological studies, especially in the last two decades show that indigenous populations in the past were more numerous, more complex and had a greater impact on the largest and most biodiverse tropical forest in the world [than previously thought],"
The Supposedly Pristine, Untouched Amazon Rainforest Was Actually Shaped By Humans | Science | Smithsonian

And then the part about slavery. I didn't say they invented slavery, I said they invented the African Slave trade. You know the part where they corralled African people or bought prisoners of war, then shipped them to the markets in the New World. And it was Christopher Columbus' son Diego who came up with the idea.

"1509: Columbus's son, Diego Cólon, becomes governor of the new Spanish empire in the Carribean. He soon complains that Native American slaves do not work hard enough.
1510
22 January 1510: the start of the systematic transportation of African slaves to the New World: King Ferdinand of Spain authorises a shipment of 50 African slaves to be sent to Santo Domingo"
Slavery Timeline 1501-1600 - a Chronology of Slavery, Abolition, and Emancipation

What you see as blame the white guy, is merely, not listening to the white guys version of events regarding their own crimes. You seem to have a defend the white guy thing, any reason why?

I respect and love history, and I won't have it white washed because those who don't remember the past are doomed to repeat it. And I don't care about white guilt, or how this information makes white people feel. As a white person myself, it makes me feel sad. But there's nothing I can do about it. Doesn't mean I should just sweep it under the rug because it's convenient to forget that my ancestors committed atrocities on par with the holocaust against my other ancestors.
 
Last edited:
War is hell. Still doesn't equate to a desire to eliminate Germans from the face of the earth.

Eliminating the race was not the stated end.

However, in "Total War", if genocide was the likely outcome, it would not have been an acceptable reason to stop the bombing.
 
What a surprise, listen, I don't care who you agree with. Especially, since you haven't provided any reference material. But let me address your points anyway.

No conspiracy to spread disease to weaken the natives....
"Historian Francis Parkman, in his book The Conspiracy of Pontiac and the Indian War after the Conquest of Canada [Boston: Little, Brown, 1886] refers to a postscript in an earlier letter from Amherst to Bouquet wondering whether smallpox could not be spread among the Indians:


and whether they intended genocide.
"Several other letters from the summer of 1763 show the smallpox idea was not an anomaly. The letters are filled with comments that indicate a genocidal intent, with phrases such as:
"...that Vermine ... have forfeited all claim to the rights of humanity" (Bouquet to Amherst, 25 June) [149k]
"I would rather chuse the liberty to kill any Savage...." (Bouquet to Amherst, 25 June) [121k]
irs, 7 August) [145k]
...
Amherst and Smallpox

Warred among themselves, isn't the same thing as tried to exterminate and conquer each other. They didn't do it on a large scale, and implying that their raiding each other is the same thing as what the settlers did is just another white wash tactic.
Native American Warfare in the West: Conflict Among the Southwestern Indians - Dictionary definition of Native American Warfare in the West: Conflict Among the Southwestern Indians | Encyclopedia.com: FREE online dictionary

Oh and yeah they were just hunter gathering savages, sure... That's why we keep finding these big ass cities they leave behind.

"In its heyday, Cahokia covered about 6 square miles (16 km2) and included about 120 human-made earthen mounds in a wide range of sizes, shapes, and functions.[4"

"Historian Daniel Richter notes that the apex of the city occurred during the Medieval Warming Period. This period appears to have fostered an agricultural revolution in upper North America, as the three-fold crops of maize, beans (legumes) and gourds (squash) were developed and adapted or bred to the temperate climates of the north from their origins in Meso-America. Richter also notes that Cahokia's advanced development coincided with the development to the west of the Chaco Canyon society, which also produced large-scale works in an apparent socially stratified society. The decline of the city coincides with the little ice age, although by then the three-fold agriculture remained well-established throughout temperate North America.[12]"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cahokia
Listen, you have sputtered along long enough.

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&sou...ggxMAI&usg=AFQjCNGTU5UZ5JQkQHyhVuGlofBP7-wGQw

No historians, without an agenda, have placed indigenous populations in North America anywhere near where you keep trying to raise them.

Additionally, while you keep trying to imply a mass genocide [ you may be looking for the word decimation?], the consciously aimed at eradication/extinction, of all indigenous peoples coordinated by evil white people is simply nowhere to be found. Most north American Indian populations had already been nearly wiped out by disease before our country was founded much less we had decided on Manifest Destiny. Isolated incidents with truly bad outcomes can be identified, but despite your constant barrage, your gratuitous dumping on white folk is a bombardment consisting of almost totally blanks I am glad to report.

As to the Cahokia, as your presented evidence through the source wikipedia shows, they were the largest in N America and they abandoned this large city, at its maximum numbered at about 40k inhabitants, a century before Europeans made landfall...

So you are most certainly wrong about a hundred million, about coordinated genocide and you try to ignore the fact that 90% of indigenous popluations were wiped out through the spread of diseases taking no direction from white guys... but your own prejudices do protrude noticably.

As to the concept of warring between and trying to conquer one another amongst themselves, we definitely do observe tha phenomenon occurring in the highly organized societies of the Aztecs, Mayans and Incas. The Incas were in a war of expansion down in Chile when the conquistadors arrived on scene for example.

Anything else you want to be corrected on before I turn my attention elsewhere?
 
Listen, you have sputtered along long enough.



Anything else you want to be corrected on before I turn my attention elsewhere?

Ah, anyone that you don't agree with has an agenda, funny I don't see you proving said agenda with evidence...

And you act as if I didn't provide these estimates myself in my first link, as well as others all from various periods in time and commentary on why it's hard to pinpoint the pre-Colombus populations. But hey, you pick one set of numbers you like and put it forth as incontrovertible proof. That'll show me...

Decimation is reducing the population by 1/10, so no that is not the word I'm looking for. While the initial spread of disease was unintended, the results were noticed and capitalized on during colonists expansion westward. Which I've already provided evidence for, I would argue that noticing the natives susceptibility to European diseases and then intentionally spreading them adds to the argument of genocide. We are talking about a time period that crosses a couple hundred years. The colonists noticed what was effective and doubled down on it with the intention of wiping a whole people out. But don't take my word on it, take Lord Amherst's words on it. Which it is thought that by the time Europeans started to target the Natives with disease, only 50% of the population had died, and thanks to the natives extensive trade networks this happened before Europeans were aware of the size of the continent. Meaning that last 40% was done intentionally via war and targeted disease as we expanded. Numerous other diseases were brought to North America, including Bubonic plague, chickenpox, cholera, the common cold, diphtheria, influenza, malaria, measles, scarlet fever, sexually transmitted diseases, typhoid, typhus, tuberculosis, and pertussis (whooping cough). These spread unintentionally. Smallpox however came later after the native population began stabilizing. And yes, it was intentionally spread to the natives to weaken them before attacks. Which is biological warfare. And yes they did intend to wipe out the Native race. Forgive me for not setting up a specific timeline of events, and specifying that whether you take advantage of and add to what's happening to a people or plan it start to finish it's still genocide. I am arguing against several diversionary points at once, after all.

Whether they abandoned Cahokia or not, it's presence and the presence of other cities addresses your claims that the Natives were a society of hunter gatherers when they were not only agricultural but better at agriculture than Europeans. And while few permanent structures remain in N. America, they did build less permanent cities they would live in til they overtaxed the land and then moved to another area they had already cultivated and let rest. It's why they are considered semi-nomadic and not nomadic. But, I guess I can't blame you for not knowing that Wigwams, Wikiups, and Wetus don't leave an archaeological record like the mound cities. Or did you think all Natives lived in tipi's.

Not to mention the cities of South America that had populations of up to 200,000 people, complete with streets, canals, schools, jails, and temples. Some historians call Tenochtitlan the greatest planned city ever created. You even admit that they were highly organized.

I love how you justify the British, French, and Americans dispossessing the remaining N. American tribes by citing South American tribes capacity for warring with each other. That makes so much sense, not. Or are you mixing up your own points?

The only thing you have corrected is my opinion on your intentions in this conversation. Just another white washer making excuses because it's hard to deal with the fact their country was built on the same flavor of evil Nazi Germany was. Difference is, Nazis didn't get away with it.
 
...
...

"When John Smith visited Massachusetts in 1614, he wrote that the land was "so planted with Gardens and Corne fields, and so well inhabited with a goodly, strong and well proportioned people ... [that] I would rather live here than any where." But by the time the colonists reached Plymouth in the Mayflower six years later, they found one deserted village after another—the Indians had been felled by European diseases to which they had little resistance."
https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2002/03/the-pristine-myth/303062/



And then the part about slavery. I didn't say they invented slavery, I said they invented the African Slave trade. You know the part where they corralled African people or bought prisoners of war, then shipped them to the markets in the New World. And it was Christopher Columbus' son Diego who came up with the idea.

"1509: Columbus's son, Diego Cólon...


What you see as blame the white guy, is merely, not listening to the white guys version of events regarding their own crimes. You seem to have a defend the white guy thing, any reason why?

I respect and love history, and I won't have it white washed because those who don't remember the past are doomed to repeat it. And I don't care about white guilt, or how this information makes white people feel. As a white person myself, it makes me feel sad. But there's nothing I can do about it. Doesn't mean I should just sweep it under the rug because it's convenient to forget that my ancestors committed atrocities on par with the holocaust against my other ancestors.

First, please don't be expecting other debaters here to always know you have a "cont"...I would not have even seen it had I not been interested re: some of the regularly astute and savvy posters from my own side. To alert the poster you always need to use the reply with quote option, fyi.

Secondly, using John Smith? Seems to me he is one of those white guys whose white washing should be disregarded, no?

However, why would he lie about the land teeming with people and when he retuned only six years later, well...those damned white washing white people had no doubt dropped a couple of Sadam/al Assad style biological bombs all along the N American coast in a determined effort to rid themselves of those Verrmine, eh?

Your own source gives example to the non human and unfotunate/tragic turn those diseasse, OF THEIR OWN ACCORD, took. Very similar to the great extinguishing of life in Europe after the plagues birthed in far off Asia. Again, white people didnt go off half cocked gunning for those distant oriental societies...we understand disease before the modern era. Why can't you? Where does this going back and assessing blame on certain groups while others get a pass? Symbolic of the Paris accords where the most egregious offenders, China and India, get a pass for 13 years?

Yes, I am white and getting damned tired of being blamed for each and every bad thing that comes along...had enough of that lying crap.

Now skip to The African Slave Trade... do you remember when Colombus sailed the ocean blue by chance? Do you know when the Muslim Arabs began their, as mentioned in my last post, African slave trading? 650s AD or CE, whichever you prefer, check out:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arab_slave_trade

"The Arab trade of Zanj (Bantu) slaves in Southeast Africa is one of the oldest slave trades, predating the European transatlantic slave trade by 700 years."

or

10 Facts About The Arab Enslavement Of Black People Not Taught In Schools - Atlanta Black Star

This source presumably not written by white people for the Alanta Black Star, is a real eye opener starting with

"Some historians estimate that between A.D. 650 and 1900, 10 to 20 million people were enslaved by Arab slave traders. Others believe over 20 million enslaved Africans alone had been delivered through the trans-Sahara route alone to the Islamic world."

and what about this, talking cruelty

"The Arab slave trade typically dealt in the sale of castrated male slaves. Black boys between the age of 8 and 12 had their scrotums and penises completely amputated to prevent them from reproducing. About six of every 10 boys bled to death during the procedure, according to some sources, but the high price brought by eunuchs on the market made the practice profitable.

Some men were castrated to be eunuchs in domestic service and the practice of neutering male slaves was not limited to only Black males. “The calipha in Baghdad at the beginning of the 10th Century had 7,000 black eunuchs and 4,000 white eunuchs in his palace,” writes author Ronald Segal in his 2002 book, Islam’s Black Slaves: The Other Black Diaspora."

Man, those nice Muslims were so non discriminatory, black eunuch white eunuch, who cares really eh?
 
First, please don't be expecting other debaters here to always know you have a "cont"...I would not have even seen it had I not been interested re: some of the regularly astute and savvy posters from my own side. To alert the poster you always need to use the reply with quote option, fyi.

Secondly, using John Smith? Seems to me he is one of those white guys whose white washing should be disregarded, no?

However, why would he lie about the land teeming with people and when he retuned only six years later, well...those damned white washing white people had no doubt dropped a couple of Sadam/al Assad style biological bombs all along the N American coast in a determined effort to rid themselves of those Verrmine, eh?

Your own source gives example to the non human and unfotunate/tragic turn those diseasse, OF THEIR OWN ACCORD, took. Very similar to the great extinguishing of life in Europe after the plagues birthed in far off Asia. Again, white people didnt go off half cocked gunning for those distant oriental societies...we understand disease before the modern era. Why can't you? Where does this going back and assessing blame on certain groups while others get a pass? Symbolic of the Paris accords where the most egregious offenders, China and India, get a pass for 13 years?

Yes, I am white and getting damned tired of being blamed for each and every bad thing that comes along...had enough of that lying crap.

Now skip to The African Slave Trade... do you remember when Colombus sailed the ocean blue by chance? Do you know when the Muslim Arabs began their, as mentioned in my last post, African slave trading? 650s AD or CE, whichever you prefer, check out:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arab_slave_trade

"The Arab trade of Zanj (Bantu) slaves in Southeast Africa is one of the oldest slave trades, predating the European transatlantic slave trade by 700 years."

or

10 Facts About The Arab Enslavement Of Black People Not Taught In Schools - Atlanta Black Star

This source presumably not written by white people for the Alanta Black Star, is a real eye opener starting with

"Some historians estimate that between A.D. 650 and 1900, 10 to 20 million people were enslaved by Arab slave traders. Others believe over 20 million enslaved Africans alone had been delivered through the trans-Sahara route alone to the Islamic world."

and what about this, talking cruelty

"The Arab slave trade typically dealt in the sale of castrated male slaves. Black boys between the age of 8 and 12 had their scrotums and penises completely amputated to prevent them from reproducing. About six of every 10 boys bled to death during the procedure, according to some sources, but the high price brought by eunuchs on the market made the practice profitable.

Some men were castrated to be eunuchs in domestic service and the practice of neutering male slaves was not limited to only Black males. “The calipha in Baghdad at the beginning of the 10th Century had 7,000 black eunuchs and 4,000 white eunuchs in his palace,” writes author Ronald Segal in his 2002 book, Islam’s Black Slaves: The Other Black Diaspora."

Man, those nice Muslims were so non discriminatory, black eunuch white eunuch, who cares really eh?

China didn't invade Europe after the plague spread, and systematically relocate, destroy, and introduce more disease. That's the part that constitutes genocide. Pretty sure I made that clear in my last post.

I'm white to, big whoop. I don't cry every time someone says something bad about white people. Nor do I try to white wash the **** my ancestors did.

As far as the slave thing, all of that is a straw man. I didn't say Diego invented African slavery, I said he invented the African Slave Trade. Which speaks specifically to Europeans collecting slaves, many from the Arab slave traders you mention and bringing them to market in the new world. They also collected people from India and a few other places. But the practice of carting slaves over the Atlantic is the slave trade I'm referring to. Which I already clarified in a previous post. If you'd like I'll admit I should have used the words Atlantic-African slave trade. I'm not above using more precise language when it's called for.
 
China didn't invade Europe after the plague spread, and systematically relocate, destroy, and introduce more disease. That's the part that constitutes genocide. Pretty sure I made that clear in my last post.

I'm white to, big whoop. I don't cry every time someone says something bad about white people. Nor do I try to white wash the **** my ancestors did.

As far as the slave thing, all of that is a straw man. I didn't say Diego invented African slavery, I said he invented the African Slave Trade. Which speaks specifically to Europeans collecting slaves, many from the Arab slave traders you mention and bringing them to market in the new world. They also collected people from India and a few other places. But the practice of carting slaves over the Atlantic is the slave trade I'm referring to. Which I already clarified in a previous post. If you'd like I'll admit I should have used the words Atlantic-African slave trade. I'm not above using more precise language when it's called for.
You got, from the looks of it, a bad bad, perhaps terminal, case of unjustified white guilt pal.

Nobody is white washing much of anything. I taught American history, we discuss the faults nowadays more than touting our almost incredible virtues.

You are just trying to exacerbate the reality of all of mankind, and all history up until the point when Christian Europeans began to change the world's sensibilities, into almost some sort of mass criminality, seemingly mainly by white peoples ... some vast white right wing conspiracy cooked up in the late 1400s was it? A cabal of pasty old and even young white guys, the prototypes of the modern day neo Nazi white supremacists, a piddling small minority by the way. just without the shaved heads... but being many times sailors so may have had similar tattoos, eh?

You've got little actual evidence, much less proof, but some sort of self imposed chip on your shoulder for who knows what reason... but I will no longer accept, be meek turning the other cheek without correcting, the giant broadbrush smears like yours.

Sent from my SM-J700M using Tapatalk
 
Eliminating the race was not the stated end.

However, in "Total War", if genocide was the likely outcome, it would not have been an acceptable reason to stop the bombing.

Then just like the Indian Wars, genocide was not the policy objective. History can't be re-written to fit modern agendas. History is what it is.
 
Still, destroying the means to wage war and fire bombing a city and killing 100,000 civilians don't seem to go hand in hand.

The center of Dresden shown in the photo doesn't appear to be a V-2 factory.

Hiroshima was intentionally left unbombed prior to the A-Bomb in order to accurately gauge the destructive impact of the A-Bomb.

I agree that in that case, the use of the A-bombs shortened the war and saved millions. That does not reduce the civilian dead associated with the bombs that were dropped.

What if the Emperor had not chosen to surrender?

Then he would have been seen as consenting to sacrifice more of his empire during the delay.
 
Ah, anyone that you don't agree with has an agenda, funny I don't see you proving said agenda with evidence...

And you act as if I didn't provide these estimates myself in my first link, as well as others all from various periods in time and commentary on why it's hard to pinpoint the pre-Colombus populations. But hey, you pick one set of numbers you like and put it forth as incontrovertible proof. That'll show me...

Decimation is reducing the population by 1/10, so no that is not the word I'm looking for. While the initial spread of disease was unintended, the results were noticed and capitalized on during colonists expansion westward. Which I've already provided evidence for, I would argue that noticing the natives susceptibility to European diseases and then intentionally spreading them adds to the argument of genocide. We are talking about a time period that crosses a couple hundred years. The colonists noticed what was effective and doubled down on it with the intention of wiping a whole people out. But don't take my word on it, take Lord Amherst's words on it. Which it is thought that by the time Europeans started to target the Natives with disease, only 50% of the population had died, and thanks to the natives extensive trade networks this happened before Europeans were aware of the size of the continent. Meaning that last 40% was done intentionally via war and targeted disease as we expanded. Numerous other diseases were brought to North America, including Bubonic plague, chickenpox, cholera, the common cold, diphtheria, influenza, malaria, measles, scarlet fever, sexually transmitted diseases, typhoid, typhus, tuberculosis, and pertussis (whooping cough). These spread unintentionally. Smallpox however came later after the native population began stabilizing. And yes, it was intentionally spread to the natives to weaken them before attacks. Which is biological warfare. And yes they did intend to wipe out the Native race. Forgive me for not setting up a specific timeline of events, and specifying that whether you take advantage of and add to what's happening to a people or plan it start to finish it's still genocide. I am arguing against several diversionary points at once, after all.
...

I love how you justify the British, French, and Americans dispossessing the remaining N. American tribes by citing South American tribes capacity for warring with each other. That makes so much sense, not. Or are you mixing up your own points?

The only thing you have corrected is my opinion on your intentions in this conversation. Just another white washer making excuses because it's hard to deal with the fact their country was built on the same flavor of evil Nazi Germany was. Difference is, Nazis didn't get away with it.



Sent from my SM-J700M using Tapatalk
 
Back
Top Bottom