It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Americans committed the worst genocide in world history

page: 36
67
<< 33  34  35    37 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 27 2013 @ 11:10 AM
link   

Originally posted by RedCairo
For a people that "didn't exist" those nonexistent generally-white-people sure bred and multiplied.

I don't know that the smallpox blanket story et al. is myth. I think there's a lot of revisionist history that tries to make things a lot prettier than they really were.

I was not so much complaining however, see my initial post in this thread -- everybody's killed nearly everybody at some point. Not much to do at this point but just move on and be better people.



I think it is the title that bothers me...

When the Spaniards came they brought diseases that the new world had never been exposed to. This was not an "act" for they didn't really even understand what a disease was. Might as well say that someone committed genocide during the black plague in Europe.

The title should read...Europe spread diseases to the Americas and wiped out 80% of the indigenous population


Not as catchy though and most likely would not have created so many posts other than a "No #" post..


edit on 27-8-2013 by Xtrozero because: (no reason given)




posted on Aug, 28 2013 @ 07:45 AM
link   
reply to post by Xtrozero
 




The title should read...Europe unintentionally spread diseases to the Americas and wiped out 80% of the indigenous population


Perhaps my edited version of your suggested thread title would be more accurate and appropriate - other than that I'd tend to agree.



posted on Aug, 28 2013 @ 08:24 AM
link   

Originally posted by Xtrozero
There is zero proof for intentional use of smallpox or measles. The pox blankets are a myth...
I have to support this, as I have encountered and submitted that same info in a paper I did. Can I find it, or the citation? Nope. I add this so as not to leave Xtrozero dangling in the wind on this one. Simple exposure to European diseases with no immunal protection was quite sufficient. (in terms of creating epidemics)
edit on 28-8-2013 by JohnnyCanuck because: it needed clarity, eh?



posted on Aug, 28 2013 @ 09:14 AM
link   

Originally posted by LOSTinAMERICA

Originally posted by wrabbit2000

Originally posted by LOSTinAMERICA

You watch too many westerns. You think they bow and arrowed 47 million whites?


Well, instead of one liner attacks? Perhaps you can share sources to show a different result for why you believe what I've presented is wrong? Heck, if it's better than my sourcing? I may come away having learned something new myself. It wouldn't be the first time. It won't much happen that way tho.


How many white people died in the same time as the Native Americans did? See the ratio? I'll be liberal on my numbers. Was it 40 million? There are sources that say it's higher.

I have more respect for them than I do the rest of the races because they don't cry about it. Don't kid yourself. There is no way they even came close to the numbers they lost. It was a one sided genocide.


In other words, you don't have sources to cite in supporting your assertion that others are wrong or just I'll informed. You could have just said that rather than adding another completely unsupported number (40 million) to the mix
There are a few users I'll take unsourced info from. Phage, Slayer and maybe a dozen others.

Outside of that? Sources or it's 100% PURE personal opinion when it's used to correct everyone else. IMHO, of course.

edit on 28-8-2013 by Wrabbit2000 because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 28 2013 @ 10:26 AM
link   

Originally posted by hp1229
reply to post by Asktheanimals
 
How do we justify/classify some disease born overseas and transmitted via trade/travel/air/sea/animals and the resulting sickness/death these days then? Should resulting casualties be considered a genocide of indirect form? Surely we have a great advancement in medical technologies which wasn't that advanced back then.
edit on 2-8-2013 by hp1229 because: (no reason given)


This is probably a good case in point. Yes, medical researchers have made great strides in devising methods of transmitting diseases through advanced scientific technology. And we're just so proud of them. Monsanto stands out as the primo progenitor of the coming genocide. Killing us softly. Now its not blankets, that was so low tech. Today its done with mandatory vaccinations and food borne illnesses, conditions they tell us can't be diagnosed or treated so they can never be held accountable for "genocide" when tens of millions of people die from them. Plausible deniability. These mad scientists even claim to have made stunning advancements in targeting specific genotypes. And nobody bats an eye.

The reason no one bats an eye is that they have laced the water with fluoride, which is mandated by government edict. The OP is dead on about zombies. Parents stand still like zombie buffalo as their newborn children are shot up with deadly chemicals.

But in the end its no different today for normal people than it was during the founding of America, most people are still enslaved or indentured for the benefit of a few wealthy nabobs at the top, just like our ancestors. We, the working class, still have no voice in who is killed to expand their power over all and armies still follow orders to do the killing.



posted on Aug, 28 2013 @ 11:19 AM
link   
reply to post by Xtrozero
 



The title should read...Europe spread diseases to the Americas and wiped out 80% of the indigenous population


I sure wish somebody would tell us how they know what the pre-contact population number was. Who counted them? Who counted the number that died from European diseases to arrive at this conclusion?

80% isn't even an educated guess, its just a meaningless number. Don't you wonder who first came up with that particular number and not, say 83% or 91%?

I'm really more interested in hearing why people today feel its necessary to quote made up numbers like this and why they're so adamant that they're correct numbers. Remember, you weren't there and even if you had been you wouldn't have known the number of indigenous people on the continent. NO one did. Its pure SWAG.

We don't even know how many people we killed in Hiroshima and Nagasaki or the percentages and that's only 70 years ago and was only two separate attacks. All they can give is an "estimate". Now consider the 300 plus years involved in killing off Indians and tell me you've got any "factual numbers".



posted on Aug, 28 2013 @ 03:37 PM
link   
British empire wasn't a saint either.

They were possibly the first to use concentration camps (on the Boers).



posted on Aug, 28 2013 @ 04:32 PM
link   
reply to post by ForbiddenDesire
 




British empire wasn't a saint either.


Neither was the Spanish, French, German, Belgian Empires.
Neither were the Roman, Hittite, Assyria, Inca, Maya, Aztec, Mongol, Chinese etc Empires.
Empires are gained by oppressing people - it's been that way throughout human history - a human trait.



They were possibly the first to use concentration camps (on the Boers).


A popular misconception.
Yes, the British did use concentration camps in The Second Boer War but they weren't the first.
An interesting read; en.wikipedia.org...

None of it portrays mankind in general in a kind light, it seems most society's and cultures are capable of inflicting atrocities against other cultures etc - a sobering thought.



posted on Aug, 28 2013 @ 05:37 PM
link   
reply to post by frazzle
 


Educated guess'es essentially...

You know the level of technology. You know the lifestyles of the people. You can, generally, know the lifespan of the people. You know how much farmland one farmer can work without the wheel...you know how much land is needed for hunters/gatherers to feed a number of people, or how many said land can feed.

Then you add in subtraction by deaths of whatever causes...

The guess's are probably fairly close.



posted on Aug, 28 2013 @ 09:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by frazzle
We don't even know how many people we killed in Hiroshima and Nagasaki or the percentages and that's only 70 years ago and was only two separate attacks. All they can give is an "estimate". Now consider the 300 plus years involved in killing off Indians and tell me you've got any "factual numbers".


Ya it is all a SWAG. Most likely 10s of millions died, but who knows. The takeaway from this is the Americas would have been much different today if the Indians were not greatly reduced by diseases. When we finally started coming here it was mostly a vast empty place, and if there was 50 million people still living here at that point things would have been different than the outcome we see today.



posted on Aug, 28 2013 @ 09:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by Freeborn

None of it portrays mankind in general in a kind light, it seems most society's and cultures are capable of inflicting atrocities against other cultures etc - a sobering thought.



You don't reach the top of the food chain by being a nice leaf eater, sorry to say. We are the most vicious animal on the planet and only our intelligence holds it in check, but our intelligence is a double edge sword.



posted on Aug, 29 2013 @ 10:58 AM
link   

Originally posted by Xtrozero

Originally posted by frazzle
We don't even know how many people we killed in Hiroshima and Nagasaki or the percentages and that's only 70 years ago and was only two separate attacks. All they can give is an "estimate". Now consider the 300 plus years involved in killing off Indians and tell me you've got any "factual numbers".


Ya it is all a SWAG. Most likely 10s of millions died, but who knows. The takeaway from this is the Americas would have been much different today if the Indians were not greatly reduced by diseases. When we finally started coming here it was mostly a vast empty place, and if there was 50 million people still living here at that point things would have been different than the outcome we see today.


If it was such a vast empty place how come


In 1829, prospectors discovered gold in north Georgia on land that the Cherokee had long controlled. This new-found wealth was a major reason that whites demanded the eviction of the Cherokee. By 1830, the Georgia gold strike was producing over 300 ounces of gold a day. That same year, the Congress of the United States passed the Indian Removal Act. The Cherokees fought the removal laws in the Supreme Court and established an independent Cherokee Nation. In 1832, the Court ruled in favor of the Cherokee with Chief Justice John Marshall declaring that the Cherokee Nation was sovereign and the removal laws invalid. President Andrew Jackson defied the decision of the court and ordered the removal.

In 1838, General Winfield Scott and U.S. Army troops began removing the remaining Cherokee in the South to present-day Oklahoma.
amhistory.si.edu...

Why was it necessary for the European immigrants to "evict" people if they had already died from disease? Why couldn't the gold hungry immigrants just waltz into to Georgia unimpeded to get the gold? After all, there were only a couple of Indian survivors left from the completely unintended and accidental epidemics.


after the War of 1812 broke out with Great Britain and the massacre at Fort Mimms, the United States became fully embroiled, sending three armies comprised of federal soldiers and state volunteers to invade Creek country. General Andrew Jackson commanded one of the armies that ruthlessly extinguished the Redstick uprising in a total war campaign that culminated in the Battle of Horseshoe Bend. By the end of the conflict, at least 48 villages and towns in Upper Creek country were completely destroyed, and at least 15 percent of the total prewar population of Creeks had died. amhistory.si.edu...


Imagine it 48 villages in the upper Creek country alone. Maybe they were ghosts of the diseased dead. So let's see, 80% + 15% leaves only 5% of just that small part of the indigenous population that had to be killed off or sent packing down the trail of tears. However ...


Many survivors of the Creek War sought refuge in northern Florida with their Muscogee brethren, the Seminoles, and carried on the fight with the First Seminole War in 1817
www.ncas.rutgers.edu...



The First Seminole War erupted over forays staged by U.S. authorities to recapture runaway black slaves living among Seminole bands, who stiffly resisted. In 1818, Major General Andrew Jackson was dispatched with an army of more than 3,000 soldiers to Florida to punish the Seminole. After liquidating several native settlements, then executing two British traders (Arbuthnot and Ambrister) held for reportedly encouraging Seminole resolve, General Jackson captured the Spanish fort of Pensacola in May 1818 and deposed the government. However, he failed to snuff out Seminole opposition. Two more wars ensued (1835-1842), (1855-1858), which ultimately resulted in confiscation of the Seminoles' land for white settlement and exploitation.www.u-s-history.com...


It goes without saying that the federal government, which was so focused on killing the indigenous peoples and taking the land occupied by them, would do everything possible to scrub the truth and neaten up the ugliness of how "the west was won" for future generations. What isn't so understandable is that so many people today, who KNOW the government's record of lying, willfully swallow the lies of the past and sing praises to the old dead liars.


“Andrew Jackson was a wealthy slave owner and infamous Indian killer, gaining the nickname ‘Sharp Knife’ from the Cherokee, and he was also the founder of the Democratic Party, demonstrating that genocide against indigenous people is a nonpartisan issue. indiancountrytodaymedianetwork.com...



posted on Aug, 29 2013 @ 11:14 AM
link   

Originally posted by Xtrozero

Originally posted by Freeborn

None of it portrays mankind in general in a kind light, it seems most society's and cultures are capable of inflicting atrocities against other cultures etc - a sobering thought.



You don't reach the top of the food chain by being a nice leaf eater, sorry to say. We are the most vicious animal on the planet and only our intelligence holds it in check, but our intelligence is a double edge sword.


Leaf eaters? If that had been the case the federal government would have ordered the forests burned down instead of killing off the buffalo. The Indians were warriors, so before trying to paint them as weak kneed granola grannies, just try taking on a full grown bull buffalo with a bow and arrow from the back of an Indian pony.

Their major error was believing the promises made by the great white father. Matter of fact, that has always been OUR error, as well, and we will probably end up in similar circumstances.



posted on Aug, 29 2013 @ 10:03 PM
link   
reply to post by frazzle
 


Ya who knows, all that I know is there would behe a lot more people here if diseases didn't wipe them out. I'm not sure your point in your post other than to say the US was able to manipulate a shell of what as once the population here.


Bottom line is this is no different than any place else in history...just sucks to be on the losing end.



posted on Aug, 29 2013 @ 11:12 PM
link   
How many Native Americans died? Was it 80% or 90%? The rest is bull#.



posted on Aug, 30 2013 @ 10:53 AM
link   

Originally posted by Xtrozero
reply to post by frazzle
 


Ya who knows, all that I know is there would behe a lot more people here if diseases didn't wipe them out. I'm not sure your point in your post other than to say the US was able to manipulate a shell of what as once the population here.


Bottom line is this is no different than any place else in history...just sucks to be on the losing end.


No, there wouldn't be a lot more native people here, they'd have been killed in the more overt ongoing genocide, and inadvertent disease would still have been overwritten on the pages of history as the cause because the "winners" need to feel innocent and upstanding.

Fact is, we don't know how many native people died of disease and how many died in battles/massacres. I'm still waiting for someone to quote the original claim of 80 to 90 percent dead of disease before the Europeans even moved in, where did that meme originate?

Its very much like we're still waiting for the truth on who used chemical weapons in Syria. Almost everybody outside the US says the Syrian gas attacks were done by US sponsored terrorists but there are still a lot of people in the US who prefer to believe the memes put out by proven lying warmongers in the US rather than accept the conclusions of the rest of the world. We're all just innocent and upstanding citizens of the greatest democracy in the world defending "truth, justice and the American way".

Why is that? Well, its because true blue americans are more comfortable with that version of the story. They can still profess injured innocence, like some of our RE-elected congresscritters who NOW say they voted for the Iraq war based on "faulty" intelligence. No one was held to account for another cocked up war because we've been so inundated with the "Muslims are terrorists" meme since time immemorial that its believed by many that they're all evil and need to be wiped off the face of the planet.

Just as many colonists were convinced Indians were savages that needed to be wiped off the face of the continent for "national security". And when they fought back to defend their homes and families from the invaders they became "insurgents" and "unlawful combatants" who deserved to die. Of disease, of course.

So you're right in the fact that its no different now than at any other time in history when one group of people covets what others have. And then history is rewritten to justify the taking and the brutal killing of the previous owners ~ like insisting that the Syrian government killed its OWN people because WE would never do such a thing, or hire it done. More injured innocence.

That's why we don't learn from history. That's why we keep doing such things. There has barely been one decade in the history of the US since its founding that it hasn't been at war with Someone. And it was all everyone else's fault.

At some point in time this continuous behavior and the justification of it has to be acknowledged as less injured innocence and more a mindset of flat out stupidity and cruelty.

So yeah, it sucks to be the losers but I know alley cats with more moral turpitude than can be claimed by the winners.



posted on Aug, 30 2013 @ 11:06 AM
link   
reply to post by frazzle
 



1520 Captain Panfilo de Narvaez lands in Mexico near Veracruz. Smallpox escapes from an African slave who is a member of his party and begins to spread through Mexico, central America, and south America, ultimately killing roughly half the native American population of those areas
www.randomhouse.com...

and that was just one boat, one crew, one old world disease, and one incident.


if you think that history can just be rewritten at whim then fine. That's on you.

Because a starving and isolated group of European low lifes in 3 ships from spain can conquer a freaking empire.......right. They must have had a Keanu Reeves to matrix away one of the worlds largest populated empires of the day......


edit on 30-8-2013 by tadaman because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 30 2013 @ 11:15 AM
link   

Originally posted by frazzle
Fact is, we don't know how many native people died of disease and how many died in battles/massacres. I'm still waiting for someone to quote the original claim of 80 to 90 percent dead of disease before the Europeans even moved in, where did that meme originate?

Its very much like we're still waiting for the truth on who used chemical weapons in Syria. Almost everybody outside the US says the Syrian gas attacks were done by US sponsored terrorists but there are still a lot of people in the US who prefer to believe the memes put out by proven lying warmongers in the US rather than accept the conclusions of the rest of the world. We're all just innocent and upstanding citizens of the greatest democracy in the world defending "truth, justice and the American way".


Your blatantly obvious agenda does not validate your version of events. Members have been repetitively providing you with sources and links.

Now, Simply because you continue to choose to ignore them and said provided information does not lend anymore credit to your argument. Its plain to see you'll continue to portray falsehoods as if that's a valid argument and supposed linkage between several hundred years ago with what may or may not be happening presently.

You single out the US, Fine do so but its blatantly obvious what your motives are. Good thing this is a conspiracy site otherwise you'd be laughed at from the very start in any other medium.



posted on Aug, 30 2013 @ 11:29 AM
link   

Originally posted by tadaman
reply to post by frazzle
 



1520 Captain Panfilo de Narvaez lands in Mexico near Veracruz. Smallpox escapes from an African slave who is a member of his party and begins to spread through Mexico, central America, and south America, ultimately killing roughly half the native American population of those areas
www.randomhouse.com...

and that was just one boat, one crew, one old world disease, and one incident.

if you think that history can just be rewritten at whim then fine. That's on you.

Because a starving and isolated group of European low lifes in 3 ships from spain can conquer a freaking empire.......right. They must have had a Keanu Reeves to matrix away one of the worlds largest populated empires of the day......


edit on 30-8-2013 by tadaman because: (no reason given)


"Roughly". Well we got from 80 - 90% down to 50%, so I guess that's progress of sorts.



... in 1862 there was awareness in Victoria and along the Pacific Coast of two measures that could be taken to prevent or minimize the spread of the disease. One was to quarantine those with smallpox and anyone who came into contact with infected people. The other was to vaccinate anyone who might become exposed. Neither of these was done for the northern tribes camped near Victoria.

.... The newspaper account did not mention any discussion about what to do to prevent smallpox from infecting the Indians (The Daily British Colonist, March 28, 1862, April 1, 1862).

This inaction of the Assembly and other government officials sealed the fate of nearly every group of Northwest Coast Indians from Sitka to northern Vancouver Island and south into the Puget Sound area. Robert Boyd estimates that from April 1862 to about the end of year, more than 14,000 Indians died of smallpox and untold hundreds of survivors were disfigured for life. Boyd states unequivocally: "This [Indian] epidemic might have been avoided, and the Whites knew it” (Boyd p 172).
www.historylink.org...

Did you read anything about this deliberate inaction on the part of government officials in your American history courses? Probably not, so rather than calling it REwritten, it simply went UNwritten. Same outcome.



posted on Aug, 30 2013 @ 12:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by SLAYER69

Your blatantly obvious agenda does not validate your version of events. Members have been repetitively providing you with sources and links.

Now, Simply because you continue to choose to ignore them and said provided information does not lend anymore credit to your argument. Its plain to see you'll continue to portray falsehoods as if that's a valid argument and supposed linkage between several hundred years ago with what may or may not be happening presently.

You single out the US, Fine do so but its blatantly obvious what your motives are. Good thing this is a conspiracy site otherwise you'd be laughed at from the very start in any other medium.



new topics

top topics



 
67
<< 33  34  35    37 >>

log in

join