[skinster]

There has been an almost total population replacement in North America, and the few surviving communities of the original inhabitants are now confined to a few scattered reservations. So yeah, something closely resembling what we now call 'genocide' seems to have occurred in North America.

[Potemkin]

Cheerfully conceded, skinsterooneykins.

[Hindsite]

There has been an almost total population replacement in North America, and the few surviving communities of the original inhabitants are now confined to a few scattered reservations. So yeah, something closely resembling what we now call 'genocide' seems to have occurred in North America.

It was not a genocide. Admin Edit: Rule 3 Violation

[annatar1914]

It was not a genocide. It is called getting rid of the savages that scalped white skin people to make them redskins.

And here speaks the historically illiterate, evil racist, and irrational heretic, ''exhibit A''.

Whatever their condition on the cultural and technological scale of life, true Christians have always understood that aboriginal natives have basic elementary claim to the lands they inhabit, with rights consistent with being human beings made in the Image and Likeness of Almighty God. They are your brothers and your sisters, and as St. John said; ''He who hates his brother is a murderer''.

Were there barbarous attacks on settlers in over 400 + years of Colonization? You bet. Was that savagery more than equaled by the greed for wealth and eagerness for plunder and rapine on the side of some Colonists? Absolutely.

The evil and ''Savagery'' was on both sides, because man is evil and savage.

Amerindians didn't scalp until Colonists showed them how and paid them to scalp each other.

[Hindsite]

And here speaks the historically illiterate, evil racist, and irrational heretic, ''exhibit A''.

Whatever their condition on the cultural and technological scale of life, true Christians have always understood that aboriginal natives have basic elementary claim to the lands they inhabit, with rights consistent with being human beings made in the Image and Likeness of Almighty God. They are your brothers and your sisters, and as St. John said; ''He who hates his brother is a murderer''.

Were there barbarous attacks on settlers in over 400 + years of Colonization? You bet. Was that savagery more than equaled by the greed for wealth and eagerness for plunder and rapine on the side of some Colonists? Absolutely.

The evil and ''Savagery'' was on both sides, because man is evil and savage.

Amerindians didn't scalp until Colonists showed them how and paid them to scalp each other.

You are apparently one of those that believe in liberal revisionist history. I am not buying into that nonsense.

[Red Rackham]

OK, I'm new to this place, but ffs is the poster known as 'Hindsite' also the village idiot?.. It would explain a lot.

[Drlee]

OK, I'm new to this place, but ffs is the poster known as 'Hindsite' also the village idiot?.. It would explain a lot.

Why you want to insult village idiots like that?

[annatar1914]

You are apparently one of those that believe in liberal revisionist history. I am not buying into that nonsense.

I'm beginning to think that ''Liberal'' to you means anything you reflexively disagree with. Well you may think you're entitled to your own opinion, but what you aren't entitled to are your own facts. In the real world where we have to usually prove what we say regardless of whether people believe it, a person defends what he says with facts, in this case historical facts. Do you have any?

I think not, even when I concede the mutual barbarous treatment and cruelty of both Indians and Colonists (while saying the Colonists in ways were far worse), you still stupidly manage to cling to genocide and racism.

[Hindsite]

I'm beginning to think that ''Liberal'' to you means anything you reflexively disagree with. Well you may think you're entitled to your own opinion, but what you aren't entitled to are your own facts. In the real world where we have to usually prove what we say regardless of whether people believe it, a person defends what he says with facts, in this case historical facts. Do you have any?

I think not, even when I concede the mutual barbarous treatment and cruelty of both Indians and Colonists (while saying the Colonists in ways were far worse), you still stupidly manage to cling to genocide and racism.

I was raised as a child on the facts.
Train up a child in the way he should go: and when he is old, he will not depart from it.
(Proverbs 22:6 KJV)

[Rich]

There has been an almost total population replacement in North America, and the few surviving communities of the original inhabitants are now confined to a few scattered reservations. So yeah, something closely resembling what we now call 'genocide' seems to have occurred in North America.

No because so many died by decease. Vast numbers of natives died before ever meeting a European, as decease was spread from one village to the next. Even where we have natives who had been in regular direct contact with Europeans for several generations, we shouldn't presume that their resistance to decease had reached European levels. People in the old world had been exposed to animal husbandry for thousands of years.

No this was very different to the allied fire bombing campaign against Germany which sought to exterminate the German urban lower classes and turn German into a powerless deindustrialised economy.

[Potemkin]

No because so many died by decease. Vast numbers of natives died before ever meeting a European, as decease was spread from one village to the next. Even where we have natives who had been in regular direct contact with Europeans for several generations, we shouldn't presume that their resistance to decease had reached European levels. People in the old world had been exposed to animal husbandry for thousands of years.

No this was very different to the allied fire bombing campaign against Germany which sought to exterminate the German urban lower classes and turn German into a powerless deindustrialised economy.

Smallpox was actually used as a weapon in a campaign of biological warfare against the indigenous Americans, most famously by Jeffery Amherst, among others. So yeah, genocide.

[Rich]

Smallpox was actually used as a weapon in a campaign of biological warfare against the indigenous Americans, most famously by Jeffery Amherst, among others. So yeah, genocide.

If you are claiming that many individuals in pre independence and post independence America had genocidal attitudes and even intentions towards the Native Americans, I totally accept the point. If you are suggesting that the American nationalist idea that America was founded on peaceful enterprise and non aggression is complete bullshit, then again I'm in complete agreement.

However the question arises why are there so few Natives left when there seems no shortage of non Europeans in for example Morocco, Congo, Angola, Kenya, Pakistan, India, Vietnam. Countries that were colonised by Europeans for varying degrees of time, over 400 years in the case of the Portuguese colonies. None of these show the slightest sign of being victims of non-White genocide. Do you think that the Colonists of Angola were free from murderous racist individuals, but that America was settled by a band of evil psychopaths?

You see Genocide is just not the norm in modern agrarian societies of people towards their socio-economic inferiors. Even Genghis Khan. Sure he was willing to slaughter people, when it was necessary to teach people a lesson, but he'd far rather keep the people for slaves, tribute and tax revenue. The European settlers of the Americas far from trying to cleanse the continent of non White-Europeans went to great trouble and expense to import vast numbers of non White-Europeans from Africa.

So no there just was no long term systematic policy of genocide. Romantasisation of Native Americans by White people started very early, we can already see it with Jefferson. Much of the pre twentieth century co existence was characterised by peace. In many wars Natives and Europeans fought together against other alliances of Natives and Europeans. In some case it was even the natives that dragged the Europeans into native conflicts. The supply of European weapons to Natives certainly hugely increased the death count from inter Indian wars, but it was the Natives who demanded these weapons in their trade deals. It wasn't colonial policy to arm the Natives with seventeenth and eighteenth century weapons of mass destruction.

It was wave after wave of epidemics, intra Indian and intra European war, combined with muskets and the unstoppable demographic tide of Europeans moving West that did for the Native Americans. Deliberate genocide by Europeans played only a very marginal role in their destruction.

[late]

You are apparently one of those that believe in liberal revisionist history. I am not buying into that nonsense.

We can add American history to the long list of things you haven't learned.

The Pilgrims at Plymouth settled on land that was empty because plague wiped them out. While Indians were slaughtered mercilessly, diseases from Europe killed even more.

"The Wampanoag leader Massasoit also gave food to the colonists during the first winter when supplies brought from England were insufficient."

Their generosity was paid in full, some 50 years later, war nearly finished the job the disease started. Some were captured and sold into slavery.

Actually, American history is full of quirky twists and turns. In the late 1800s, there were 'Wild West' shows that created much of our national mythology, esp. with respect to the itinerant farm workers called cowboys.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thanksgiv ... ted_States)

[Eternal Blazze]

Well heres vainly hoping the place doesnt turn into a bigger mess then it already is. Though what i find concering is the syrian civil war is great example of "one mans terrorist is another mans freedom fight". Though what i find rather frightning is the tribalistic/partizan support people have for various factions and their respective power patrons.

[skinster]

It was genocide in the America and it was/is the same in Palestine.

Well heres vainly hoping the place doesnt turn into a bigger mess then it already is. Though what i find concering is the syrian civil war is great example of "one mans terrorist is another mans freedom fight". Though what i find rather frightning is the tribalistic/partizan support people have for various factions and their respective power patrons.

It wasn't a civil war, it was an imperialist war by the West and ISIL/JSIL etc. and who have been stealing billions worth of oil in the country for the last few years.

[Hindsite]

We can add American history to the long list of things you haven't learned.

That is nonsense. I learned real American history before you were born and before the text books were rewritten by the lying liberals.
HalleluYah

[late]

That is nonsense. I learned real American history before you were born and before the text books were rewritten by the lying liberals.

I was taking college level history classes in the early 70s.

High school history texts, esp. the old ones, mingle myth with fact.

Starting roughly in the 80s, historians started using methods from other disciplines. A business major that switched to history discovered Alexander Hamilton kept 2 sets of books. He deliberately provoked the Whiskey Tax rebellion. Historians using archeology methods discovered that Spanish cannon at Trafalgar were just field artillery stuck on a ship. Which meant they had about half the firing rate of the British cannon. Which were designed to be used on ships. Here in Maine, an archeology style dig discovered gold and other expensive items in an abandoned fishing village. Which killed the idea that such communities were close to the subsistence level. They had a little coin for the nicer things.

History changes, and the process changes how we understand our history.

Not that you've ever seen the real thing.

[Hindsite]

I was taking college level history classes in the early 70s.

I was finishing my college courses in the early 60s.

High school history texts, esp. the old ones, mingle myth with fact.

Actually, the older ones were probably the more factual.

Starting roughly in the 80s, historians started using methods from other disciplines.

That is the problem.

A business major that switched to history discovered Alexander Hamilton...

Good for him.

History changes, and the process changes how we understand our history.

That is what I mean. It is not the real history as originally written. I don't trust the revised versions of history rewritten by the liberals.

Not that you've ever seen the real thing.

I have seen a lot of real history in my life. The liberals put their spin on that too.

[late]

1) I was finishing my college courses in the early 60s.


2) Actually, the older ones were probably the more factual.


3) That is the problem.


4) That is what I mean. It is not the real history as originally written. I don't trust the revised versions of history rewritten by the liberals.


5) I have seen a lot of real history in my life. The liberals put their spin on that too.

1) So you are older than me, that doesn't happen often these days.

2) History evolves as our knowledge about it grows.

3) Those tools have been enormously helpful, like turning forensic guys loose on Napoleon's remains.

4) I understand, facts don't play well with mythology.

5) Actually, as we come to understand an era better, we tend to revise our interpretation regardless of where it came from.

[Hindsite]

1) So you are older than me, that doesn't happen often these days.

2) History evolves as our knowledge about it grows.

3) Those tools have been enormously helpful, like turning forensic guys loose on Napoleon's remains.

4) I understand, facts don't play well with mythology.

5) Actually, as we come to understand an era better, we tend to revise our interpretation regardless of where it came from.

I understand. Archeology, if done correctly and interpreted correctly, can be helpful to better understand history. It has been helpful to prove Biblical events too, but it should not be used to rewrite the Holy Bible, like some liberals wish to do.
HalleluYah