Something will never broadcasted in the west

[Arrian]

The heavy lifting for the genocide was done by germs. Mostly germs that were not deliberately introduced (like the smallpox blankets thing). The transmission of diseases against which the N.A.'s had little or no defense was inevitable - even if the Europeans had been friendly hippy pacifists. Millions upon millions would have died anyway.

Who do we get to blame the black death on, btw?

None of this excuses the actions of the conquistadors, settlers, etc.

-Arrian

[Kidlicious]

I'm not participating in this thread any longer. It's bad news for me.

[Patroklos]

I'm not participating in this thread any longer. It's bad news for me.

You keep saying that, but yet here you are.

In any case, it would be bad news if you tried to explain how handing out small pox blackets is genocide.

[Arrian]

It's biological warfare, at the very least. Depending on just how effective said bio warfare was, it could be genocide.

But that's a pretty silly semantical argument.

-Arrian

[Lorizael]

What European colonists and later Americans did to the Native Americans was clearly not good, but I don't see any use in classifying it further.

[Cort Haus]

Originally posted by Ming
Be civil or find somewhere else to post.

[Wycoff]

Originally posted by Kidicious

I missed my Nazi indoctronation history course. Or maybe I'm from a blue state.

So you didn't have a world history course? I sure did, and I grew up in a blue state (Maryland).

You can go ahead and pretend that England was always English, that Anatolia was always Turkish, that Mesopotamia was always Arabic, and so on. You'll be wrong, of course, but you might feel better.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Genocide doesn't necessarily mean you killed 'em all off, but also applies to the attempt to kill an entire race off. While germs did do most of the "heavy lifting", one cannot deny that there were concerted efforts to slaughter native tribes or move them to reservations.

I'd argue that it isn't wrong to call what happened to the natives as genocide.

[Dinner]

Originally posted by Lorizael


While the smallpox blankets were a pretty cruel tactic, by the time that was being done most of the Native American population had already been wiped out by disease long before.

QFT. By 1700 some 90% of the native American population was dead from disease without ever even seeing a white man nor without either side even having a clear understanding of what caused disease or how it spread.

Hardly the stuff of an organized genocide.

[Arrian]

Imran: Agreed, it was genocide. The NA's were deliberately conquered/enslaved/killed/herded onto reservations so that others could take their land, resources, and what have you. I was merely agreeing that the Europeans got big assist from a factor largely outside of their control. Without that assist, they'd have had to try a whole lot harder - and I wonder if they'd have been as successful, even with the guns & steel? That doesn't change their intent, tactics, etc. No excuses. Just questions.

I wonder what would have happened if there was no attempt at settlement or conquest. The Euros show up to trade/explore. The diseases spread. 90+% of the population dies. What then?

-Arrian

[Dinner]

Oh, and I love how the links don't mention that the reason so many civilian areas ended up bombed was because, as usual, the Arab terrorists deliberately stationed their military weapons inside civilian areas. Yet no mention of this clear violation of the Geneva Convention?

[Spec]

Aren't you supposed to be gone forever?


Spec.

[DinoDoc]

He promised that he'd be gone til at least New Year's, Spec.

[Riesstiu IV]

I don't understand why there is so much focus on Israel and the perceived mistreatment of the Palestinians. There is so much other **** going on in the world but this small region of the world just dominates the news. It's stupid and people will not shut up about it.

What about Turkey and their treatment of Kurds? Or the Turkish government not recognizing the Armenian and Pontic Greek genocide? I don't see much concerning Rwanda or Aceh separatists in Indonesia. Even the latest genocide in Sudan gets less news coverage than Israel and Palestine.

My question is why do people care so much? Of all the places in the world, why such strong opinions for Israel and Palestine?

[Arrian]

There are lots of reasons. None of them have anything to do with how good/bad various groups of people or actions are.

It's more about who is involved, what resources the region has, and who (aside from the Israelis and Palestinians) has a stake in the outcome. Oh, and its propoganda value for other purposes...

-Arrian