• 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?

M

Motti

Member
Joined
Mar 11, 2017
Messages
69
Reaction score
23
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Slightly Conservative
From Russia with no love? A double-broadside attack against James Clapper's genetic explanation behind Russia's alleged motives to interfere in US elections.

James Clapper, former director of US National Intelligence, recently claimed that Russians were “genetically driven” to manipulate and interfere in the affairs of other nations, echoing the Weltanschauung of a bygone dictator who harboured similar views on those “inferior Asiatic” genes.

One would be forgiven for momentarily assuming that Clapper was referring to his own nation. The United States has been warring for 93% of its miserable existence, entailing 222 out of 239 years of bloodshed between its founding in 1776 and 2015. No US president has ever led a continuous peacetime administration.
Click to expand...

I see that temperatures are rising in Washington, Moscow, and all over EU capitals. Interesting times ahead.

The rest of the article can be read here:

https://sputniknews.com/analysis/201705311054162561-memo-to-james-clapper/

:peace
 
With rising polemics on both sides, I do not see any US-Russia detente on the horizon. But I do not see a military confrontation either. It's likely back to the Cold War days.
 
They starting to follow the MONEY :mrgreen:
 
They starting to follow the MONEY
Click to expand...

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?
 
Motti said:
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?
Click to expand...

We're still having trouble matching Stalin and Lenin.
 
We're still having trouble matching Stalin and Lenin.
Click to expand...

They were indeed the immortals, yes. lol.
 
Motti said:
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?
Click to expand...

It's an estimate. Probably not too far off, one way or the other. Polio basically wiped out their entire civilization, and then the trail of tears forced march took care of the Cherokee stronghold.
 
Motti said:
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?
Click to expand...

In 1860, when the US Census began to include Native Americans, the population of the United States was @ 32,000,000, including the estimated Indian Populations.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographic_history_of_the_United_States

The population of the US did not cross the 100 million mark until sometime in 1910's.

So the question is was the 100 million true?

Like pretty much everything else in the article, no.
 
Motti said:
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?
Click to expand...

If the USA didn't march westward and create a country on the entire continent, the USA would not exist. We would be a group of counties speaking different languages like in Europe and be a continent shared with Russia, Spain, France, and England.

The Indians were collateral damage. If we would have become a "continent of nations", every last Indian would be dead. (except those in India) ;)
 
ocean515 said:
In 1860, when the US Census began to include Native Americans, the population of the United States was @ 32,000,000, including the estimated Indian Populations.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographic_history_of_the_United_States

The population of the US did not cross the 100 million mark until sometime in 1910's.

So the question is was the 100 million true?

Like pretty much everything else in the article, no.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Motti said:
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.
Click to expand...

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
 
Motti said:
From Russia with no love? A double-broadside attack against James Clapper's genetic explanation behind Russia's alleged motives to interfere in US elections. I see that temperatures are rising in Washington, Moscow, and all over EU capitals. Interesting times ahead.
Click to expand...

Perhaps your English no so better Komrade-

he said interfere not inferior. Godwinning this doesn't help. Russia does seem to have a pattern of feeling slighted by the more modern West- from Peter the Great on for sure. Since the 'Great Game' with England it does seem like Russia and intrigue are siblings.

But not to worry, we don't see Russia as living space... not even close... :peace
 
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.
 
ocean515 said:
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
Click to expand...

No, it's not a lie and, yes, that's the very definition of genocide. Now, has that how it's been since the dawn of time? Yes, but it doesn't change what it is.
 
Motti said:
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. 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.
Click to expand...

First godwinning and now claiming the USofA is not as safe a Haiti???? :confused:

Komrade, i'll wager a shiny ruble you'd much rather visit the US than Haiti. I have seen the California cities, have you?

But the Roosian inferiority complex is showing. Bit sensitive now ain't ya. But I do note you make no claims about Russia and it's worker's paradise... :peace
 
Fishking said:
No, it's not a lie and, yes, that's the very definition of genocide. Now, has that how it's been since the dawn of time? Yes, but it doesn't change what it is.
Click to expand...

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.....
 
ocean515 said:
The 100 million number is a lie. Period.
Click to expand...

A few million vs 100 million isn't really a hill worth dying on for the overall point.

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.....
Click to expand...

We definitely were intent on getting rid of the Native Americans. We weren't intent on getting rid of Germans, just to subdue their military. Big difference.
 
Fishking said:
A few million vs 100 million isn't really a hill worth dying on for the overall point.



We definitely were intent on getting rid of the Native Americans. We weren't intent on getting rid of Germans, just to subdue their military. Big difference.
Click to expand...


To the bolded above, it's a massive difference, and proof of fraudulent message and accusation.

Further, there is no evidence millions of "Native" Americans were deliberately killed in an attempt to eradicate them from North America.

For example, the following is presented in wiki, which you can either take or leave.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Indian_Wars

As the direct result of infectious diseases, conflict with Europeans, wars between tribes, assimilation, migration to Canada and Mexico, declining birth rates, the numbers of Native Americans dropped to below half a million in the 19th century. Scholars believe that the overwhelming main causes were new infectious diseases carried by European explorers and traders. Native Americans had no acquired immunity to such diseases, which had been chronic in Eurasian populations for over five centuries.[5] For instance, some estimates indicate case fatality rates of 80–98% in Native American populations during smallpox epidemics.[6]

The United States Census Bureau (1894) provided their estimate of deaths due specifically to war during the 102 years between 1789 and 1891, including 8,500 natives and 5,000 whites killed in "individual affairs":

The Indian wars under the government of the United States have been more than 40 in number. They have cost the lives of about 19,000 white men, women and children, including those killed in individual combats, and the lives of about 30,000 Indians. The actual number of killed and wounded Indians must be very much higher than the number given... Fifty percent additional would be a safe estimate...[7]​

It would appear, according to the record, that far more Indians died as a result of exposure to infectious disease than in a concerted effort to eliminate them. That does not indicate purpose, but simply result.

If you have evidence millions of Indians were killed in a genocidal effort to eradicate them from North America, please post it.
 
ocean515 said:
In 1860, when the US Census began to include Native Americans, the population of the United States was @ 32,000,000, including the estimated Indian Populations.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographic_history_of_the_United_States

The population of the US did not cross the 100 million mark until sometime in 1910's.

So the question is was the 100 million true?

Like pretty much everything else in the article, no.
Click to expand...

Motti said:
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?
Click to expand...

By the time 1860 rolled around, Native Americans had already suffered a massive genocide. It's thought up to 90 percent of the native population was wiped out by the 1830s. Which I do not know if you know this, 1830 was before 1860. The numbers will never be exactly known but some put the death toll in the Northern Hemisphere around 75 million.

Genocide and American Indian History - Oxford Research Encyclopedia of American History

The controversy, isn't that most of the Native population was wiped out by disease (only the most hackish white washers of history claim that), it's was it done intentionally. A case can be made for no, but if you read literature from the time periods in question, letters from soldiers, and the actions overtly taken like battles and dispossession. The case for yes is very strong, in my opinion.
 
ThoughtEx. said:
By the time 1860 rolled around, Native Americans had already suffered a massive genocide. It's thought up to 90 percent of the native population was wiped out by the 1830s. Which I do not know if you know this, 1830 was before 1860. The numbers will never be exactly known but some put the death toll in the Northern Hemisphere around 75 million.

Genocide and American Indian History - Oxford Research Encyclopedia of American History

The controversy, isn't that most of the Native population was wiped out by disease (only the most hackish white washers of history claim that), it's was it done intentionally. A case can be made for no, but if you read literature from the time periods in question, letters from soldiers, and the actions overtly taken like battles and dispossession. The case for yes is very strong, in my opinion.
Click to expand...

Since people are just pulling numbers out of the sky, why not put the Indian population in North America at 1 billion?

What absurd assumptions and claims.

According to historical records, the population of major European Countries in 1830 was @ 159 million.

Population of the Major European Countries in millions

So the claim is, the number of Indians in North America in 1830 was roughly half the population of Europe.

How much peyote does it take to believe that number?
 
ocean515 said:
Since people are just pulling numbers out of the sky, why not put the Indian population in North America at 1 billion?

What absurd assumptions and claims.

According to historical records, the population of major European Countries in 1830 was @ 159 million.

Population of the Major European Countries in millions

So the claim is, the number of Indians in North America in 1830 was roughly half the population of Europe.

How much peyote does it take to believe that number?
Click to expand...

You do realize that these figures start at 1810 right? Columbus set sail in 1492. Before Europeans arrived the natives spread throughout two entire continents much larger than Europe over thousand and thousands of years, and they didn't have plagues. So if the estimated population of the natives was less than Europe's by 1860, it's probably because 90 percent of the population was wiped out. And even after the spread of disease, Europeans still had trouble fighting the natives. It's why they did **** like distribute blankets infected with small pox weeks before they attacked...

You want to white wash history like every other hack, go ahead, but at least do it well. The link I provided made a counter claim better than yours.
 
You do realize that these figures start at 1810 right? Columbus set sail in 1492. Before Europeans arrived the natives spread throughout two entire continents much larger than Europe over thousand and thousands of years, and they didn't have plagues. So if the estimated population of the natives was less than Europe's by 1860, it's probably because 90 percent of the population was wiped out. And even after the spread of disease, Europeans still had trouble fighting the natives. It's why they did **** like distribute blankets infected with small pox weeks before they attacked...

You want to white wash history like every other hack, go ahead, but at least do it well. The link I provided made a counter claim better than yours.
Click to expand...

That's a thought-provoking line of enquiry. Thanks.
 
ThoughtEx. said:
You do realize that these figures start at 1810 right? Columbus set sail in 1492. Before Europeans arrived the natives spread throughout two entire continents much larger than Europe over thousand and thousands of years, and they didn't have plagues. So if the estimated population of the natives was less than Europe's by 1860, it's probably because 90 percent of the population was wiped out. And even after the spread of disease, Europeans still had trouble fighting the natives. It's why they did **** like distribute blankets infected with small pox weeks before they attacked...

You want to white wash history like every other hack, go ahead, but at least do it well. The link I provided made a counter claim better than yours.
Click to expand...

I don't want to white wash history, I want history to speak for itself in truth and accurately. I have no patience for hacks who invent fantasy in and effort to push a BS narrative.

You provided nothing. There is no historical record that would support a population in North America that could lose 75 million "natives" over the course of 250 years. None
 
ocean515 said:
I don't want to white wash history, I want history to speak for itself in truth and accurately. I have no patience for hacks who invent fantasy in and effort to push a BS narrative.

You provided nothing. There is no historical record that would support a population in North America that could lose 75 million "natives" over the course of 250 years. None
Click to expand...

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.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom