How were the american indians subjugated?

[Kuciwalker]

But they don't, so it isn't.

[Sava]

Originally posted by Kucinich
But they don't, so it isn't.

well... other countries and peoples do see things that way... it's important for you to understand that.

[LiberalAtheist]

I don't know why anyone would even try to defend the genocide of Native Americans at US hands. That is one of the few acts in history I see as one of our nation's greatest and almost unforgivable crimes. The only reason I can see for this is some sort of cryptoracism, though I considered nationalism (which easily translates into the same thing) but I wonder, if these weren't Native Americans and the US instead decimated some Native Viking civilizations, would this thread have ever been raised?

Now I know many were killed by diseases, and many did attack settlers (though they were often times provoked by settlers first...more likely the majority of times). I'm also aware that much of the slaughter was not government sanctioned but spontanious action taken by colonists themselves (that the government would of course side with.)

But the fact of the matter is for the most part, the US didn't even try to intregrate the natives (some attempts were made but they weren't really serious), instead the US slaughtered them out of pure prejudice. And yes I have read Guns, Germs and Steel and another fact is while Diamond does aknowledge diseases as the main culprit, he points out that ethnic cleansing played a major role as well (though Diamond has been criticized for high counting on this matter).


Now I'm not adhering to Noble Savage myths. I know the Native Americans were not eco-friendly (there are almost a dozen cases of ecocide involving native americans, as well as evidence that they wiped out 80% of north american megafauna) nor were they utopian, (with a death by warfare rate almost 30 times higher then our own).


But genocide isn't ok just because one person's society isn't as developed as another's.

And I have no doubt that they sometimes used brutal tactics, but they had little choice as US residence were slaughtering them with tactics more brutal still, more frquently and more efficiently.


The US of course is not all among the major western, or any powers for that matter in it's decimination of indiginous peoples, and the matter happened a long time ago under a very different establishment then the one we have today. Hence trying to hold the US accountable now for actions committed by ancestors over 100 years ago is a bit extreme.

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Sava
well... other countries and peoples do see things that way... it's important for you to understand that.

How many civilians you kill doesn't matter... the whole point is intent.

Moreover, judging present-day America by offenses committed over a century ago makes about as much sense as judging present-day Russia for the Soviets.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by DataAeolus
Indians had their own share of disease spreading - syphills. Doesn't exactly cancel out the horde of diseases Europeans brought with them, although.

Not necessarily. There is evidence of syphallis existing in the old world before 1492. It just wasn't as virulent.

[Kuciwalker]

Well, that doesn't change the fact that the syphilis brought back from the Americas actually was pretty harmful.

[Sava]

Originally posted by Kucinich
How many civilians you kill doesn't matter... the whole point is intent.

only in your mind...

Moreover, judging present-day America by offenses committed over a century ago makes about as much sense as judging present-day Russia for the Soviets.

while America may be ignorant and short-sighted when it comes to history... other peoples aren't. To the Islamic world, for instance, the Crusades weren't "ancient".

you have a lot to learn

[chequita guevara]

The "evidence" for syph being a new wolrd disease is circumstantial, based on the fact that it didn't appear until 1495. Where it first appeared, however, is curious, if it was brought back from the New World . . . the French army beseiging Naples. That's an odd place for a disease brought back by Spanish sailors to appear.

Diseases do mutate, and that's what appears to have happened here. Usually they become less dangerous overtime, like leprosy, but not always. Even Syph changed from being a rapidly wasting disease to something you could live with for years and then decades.

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Sava
only in your mind...

Uh, no. Terrorism, by definition, depends on the intent, not the result.

while America may be ignorant and short-sighted when it comes to history... other peoples aren't. To the Islamic world, for instance, the Crusades weren't "ancient".

Which proves that they really need to get a grip.

you have a lot to learn

I guess I need to learn to think critically, too.

[Sava]

I guess I need to learn to think critically, too.

among other things

[Dis]

close this thread please

I apologize if it is deemed offensive. But I have native american blood in me. And I didn't feel offended

Okay maybe the indians weren't terrorists. but I do know they attacked settlers in my area. American settlers. The americans did not steal the land directly from the Indians. The Spanish did. And we took the land from Spain.

If the Indians needed that land, they should have defended it.

It's was tough world. If you are unwilling or unable to defend your land. Tough luck. Things are not like that now days.

But I find far too many of Apolytoners use modern day morals to talk about actions in the past. The fact is, the world was more brutal in the past.

I'm so tired of this forum. Yes I do advocate killing every single terrorist. **** their families. If they have something to say about it, they better become terrorists themselves. You people don't understand they want every single american and jew dead.

[molly bloom]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
The "evidence" for syph being a new wolrd disease is circumstantial, based on the fact that it didn't appear until 1495. Where it first appeared, however, is curious, if it was brought back from the New World . . . the French army beseiging Naples. That's an odd place for a disease brought back by Spanish sailors to appear.

Diseases do mutate, and that's what appears to have happened here. Usually they become less dangerous overtime, like leprosy, but not always. Even Syph changed from being a rapidly wasting disease to something you could live with for years and then decades.

'What is perhaps even more interesting is that there are at least four skeletons with clear evidence of syphilis. The stratification of some of these clearly shows they were buried in about 1450 - 75. The disease, which takes some 20 years before it begins to leave its mark on bone, was quite advanced at the time of death. These victims had contracted syphilis long before the return of Columbus and his ships from the New World - traditionally regarded as the time when `The Great Pox' was introduced into Europe. '

http://www.britarch.ac.uk/ba/ba53/ba53feat.html

[Dis]

I was wrong I admit it.

Obviously it was wrong to purposely infect the Indians. But wouldn't they have eventually been introduced to smallpox anyways? Don't forget- americans and europeans weren't immune to this. They were dying as well. It's just that their populations have been exposed to it for a while, many of the really weak have long been dead. Although I'd imagine many still died from it.

Indians dying from diseas was inevitable. That is what happens when you introduce a new species to an environment. It was only sped up by purpsely spreading the disease.

[Guardian]

Originally posted by Kucinich

How many civilians you kill doesn't matter... the whole point is intent.

First, I do not agree with you on the matter of civilian casualties - they do matter!
Second, America needs to realize that - in more than a few cases - other people do not know your intent.

At the risk of going off topic here, I'm going to elaborate a little:

Even your closest allies - even many of your own people - question your motives from time to time. And with relatively good reason much of the time.

For instance, during the first Gulf War, Bush senior stood up in front of the whole world and said that the whole purpose of this war was to restore freedom and democracy to the people of Kuwait. Kuwait being a nation where democracy had never existed in the first place, I don't find it so strange if a few people thought they smelled a rat...

This is just one example of US foreign policy appearing incoherent and inconsistent with your stated goals and principles, and your enemies use this against you for all it's worth.

For instance, the whole world sees that Israel gets to use UN resolutions as toilet paper, and US officials won't even speak against it. But when Iraq fails to comply with a UN resolution - they get bombed.

So, obviously, the US is commited to the principles of the UN - but only when it suits your purposes. Once again, the impression the people of the world get is that your so-called principles are a mere front and that your true motives are likely to be found elsewhere.

The war on terrorism is nothing new. For the past 3 decades at least - American politicians have been preaching against the evils of terrorism. But all this time, it seemed people could only ever be terrorists if they were also somehow against you or perceived to be threatening your interests.

You keep holding up these bright and shiny ideals and principles, but they seem to be extremely selectively enforced, and this makes a lot of people wonder if you're really who you say you are.

Hence, when you go trolling about dropping bombs here, there and everywhere, you are easily misinterpreted as being just plain evil.

In Vietnam, all the overwhelming military power achieved was to make more enemies. And more and more and more. Faster than even the US military could kill them off. The generals and the leaders thought they could just keep on bombing until the other side collapsed and gave up. It never worked. The other side never did give up. Instead, more and more people turned to communism, believing it to be the only hope for the future of their country. As the carnage reached mind-numbing proportions, it seemed clear to them that the US and their southern puppets were destroying the country, not saving it.

Some times, when reality seems too far from what American leaders say they're doing, it seems almost as if Americans are living in some kind of fantasy world, while the rest of us have to live with the reality of the wreckage you are creating.

And that is dangerous - no matter what your intentions are.

[NeOmega]

During Pontiac's siege of Fort Detroit in 1763, he was clearly gaining momentum vs. the English. That is when General Ambrose wrote in his journal that he instructed his soldiers to throw blankets infected with smallpox into the camps of the "Council of the three tribes", Ottowa, Chippewa, and Pottawatomi.

I saw it on the History Channel.

The first documented case of bio-warfare.