Pay up or leave

[tango]

All sources are biased. The difference is the written word only has the biases of the original other and has not been further modified by the biases of each person repeating the story.

Both are acceptable in law, for various purposes.

[Guest TrueMetis]

All sources are biased. The difference is the written word only has the biases of the original other and has not been further modified by the biases of each person repeating the story.

And back then it was the most biased people writing the accounts. People like missionarys who's view about the first nations is not one you should trust. And written acounts are often change when they are translated or re-written because the paper it was put on gets to old or even when it's re-written and the person can't tell what a word was so they just guess.

[g_bambino]

And back then it was the most biased people writing the accounts. People like missionarys who's view about the first nations is not one you should trust. And written acounts are often change when they are translated or re-written because the paper it was put on gets to old or even when it's re-written and the person can't tell what a word was so they just guess.

No more biased than those that originated the spoken stories. The difference is, ink on paper is far more concrete, can survive longer, and is, though not completely immune, far, far less likely to be altered over the course of time than some story told to someone else, and then someone else, and then... well, you get the point. An historian with any worth knows that even written sources come with a bias that should be considered; but, they'll certainly trust the written record more than some story a local heard from his friend about another friend's uncle's grandmother.

_[sp.]

Edited August 19, 2009 by g_bambino

[Wild Bill]

ONCE AGAIN ... I am referring to the 1500's, NOT the 1700's.

It was in the 1500's that the Indigenous population was decimated, before the settlers came, and in preparation for them.

I never suggested smallpox: I suggested whatever plagues were raging in Europe at that time, creating all those surplus (infected) blankets.

No doubt some diseases worked better than others by this method.

Tango, it has already been pointed out that you and others are claiming genocide by Europeans against aboriginals by using infected blankets.

This would have been LONG before anyone knew what germs were or that blankets even could be infected!

This is why some of us are distrustful of oral histories.

Considering that those Europeans were as ignorant as anyone else about germs and germ theory, it is far more likely that they simply made a gift of leftover blankets, not realizing the consequences.

After all, they no doubt used the same blankets themselves! They of course would have had the benefit of some immunity from growing up in an infected environment. The natives would have had no such antibodies in their blood and would have been far more vulnerable.

We should also keep in mind that it was those same Europeans that eventually DID discover the germ theory of disease and virtually all the cures discovered to date!

[DogOnPorch]

ONCE AGAIN ... I am referring to the 1500's, NOT the 1700's.

It was in the 1500's that the Indigenous population was decimated, before the settlers came, and in preparation for them.

I never suggested smallpox: I suggested whatever plagues were raging in Europe at that time, creating all those surplus (infected) blankets.

No doubt some diseases worked better than others by this method.

How many Israeli settlers are in Gaza these days? I value your words here about as much. That is, not at all. Basically, the way I see it, you haven't a clue, but darn-it, your a-gonna make that round peg fit in that square hole if you have to rewrite history back to 20,000 BC to do it.

Edited August 19, 2009 by DogOnPorch

[DogOnPorch]

Tango, it has already been pointed out that you and others are claiming genocide by Europeans against aboriginals by using infected blankets.

This would have been LONG before anyone knew what germs were or that blankets even could be infected!

This is why some of us are distrustful of oral histories.

Considering that those Europeans were as ignorant as anyone else about germs and germ theory, it is far more likely that they simply made a gift of leftover blankets, not realizing the consequences.

After all, they no doubt used the same blankets themselves! They of course would have had the benefit of some immunity from growing up in an infected environment. The natives would have had no such antibodies in their blood and would have been far more vulnerable.

We should also keep in mind that it was those same Europeans that eventually DID discover the germ theory of disease and virtually all the cures discovered to date!

Bravo...another sane person.

[Oleg Bach]

Natives are wards of the state - federal and provincal prisoners are wards of the state. A ward of the Queen - protected by the Queen - When I hear the average person comment that if a prisoner within an institution is harmed by other prisoners then that's justice---no--that was not the point of setting up a protective facility - it was to protect some from society and society from some. Natives are not to be abused - but they are - as we allow our prisoners to be abuse - we figure natives are within the same catagory ---and they don't count either . This is wrong. When the state takes charge of weaker members - they are to behave like parents - not like a vengeful mob of sadists - Hating the poor - or hating natives - or even those who have run afowl of the law - are to be protected whether some like that or not - it's the LAW.

[DogOnPorch]

Natives are wards of the state - federal and provincal prisoners are wards of the state. A ward of the Queen - protected by the Queen - When I hear the average person comment that if a prisoner within an institution is harmed by other prisoners then that's justice---no--that was not the point of setting up a protective facility - it was to protect some from society and society from some. Natives are not to be abused - but they are - as we allow our prisoners to be abuse - we figure natives are within the same catagory ---and they don't count either . This is wrong. When the state takes charge of weaker members - they are to behave like parents - not like a vengeful mob of sadists - Hating the poor - or hating natives - or even those who have run afowl of the law - are to be protected whether some like that or not - it's the LAW.

I said none of those things.

[tango]

Tango, it has already been pointed out that you and others are claiming genocide by Europeans against aboriginals by using infected blankets.

This would have been LONG before anyone knew what germs were or that blankets even could be infected!

Another 14th century Andalusian physician, Ibn al-Khatib, wrote a treatise called On the Plague, in which he stated:[3]

"The existence of contagion is established by experience, investigation, the evidence of the senses and trustworthy reports. These facts constitute a sound argument. The fact of infection becomes clear to the investigator who notices how he who establishes contact with the afflicted gets the disease, whereas he who is not in contact remains safe, and how transmission is affected through garments, vessels and earrings."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Germ_theory_of_disease

This is why some of us are distrustful of oral histories.

Considering that those Europeans were as ignorant as anyone else about germs and germ theory, it is far more likely that they simply made a gift of leftover blankets, not realizing the consequences.

After all, they no doubt used the same blankets themselves! They of course would have had the benefit of some immunity from growing up in an infected environment. The natives would have had no such antibodies in their blood and would have been far more vulnerable.

We should also keep in mind that it was those same Europeans that eventually DID discover the germ theory of disease and virtually all the cures discovered to date!

Frankly, I'm distrustful of anything you say, Bill. You don't even google or wiki for basic information first.

Of course that gives me the job of doing it for you to prove you wrong, but actually ... that's getting boring.

So ... DoP ... I don't question your sanity, but I do also question your knowledge along with Bill's. Lack of knowledge is no sin, but failing to remedy it before putting mouth in gear is a sin of arrogance and laziness, imo.

You don't think, perhaps, that after the first village died from the blankets, they might clue in? Afterall, they had 100 years clear of settlers and reporters to "vanquish" the natives, following the orders of the Pope.

Edited August 19, 2009 by tango

[DogOnPorch]

Another 14th century Andalusian physician, Ibn al-Khatib, wrote a treatise called On the Plague, in which he stated:[3]

"The existence of contagion is established by experience, investigation, the evidence of the senses and trustworthy reports. These facts constitute a sound argument. The fact of infection becomes clear to the investigator who notices how he who establishes contact with the afflicted gets the disease, whereas he who is not in contact remains safe, and how transmission is affected through garments, vessels and earrings."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Germ_theory_of_disease

Frankly, I'm distrustful of anything you say, Bill. You don't even google or wiki for basic information first.

Of course that gives me the job of doing it for you to prove you wrong, but actually ... that's getting boring.

So ... DoP ... I don't question your sanity, but I do also question your knowledge along with Bill's. Lack of knowledge is no sin, but failing to remedy it before putting mouth in gear is a sin of arrogance and laziness, imo.

You're the one claiming variola wasn't the #1 killer of Native American population. Plus you're the one also claiming it was consciously orchestrated by Europeans. Both which are right out in the looney zone.

How many settlers in Gaza again?

[tango]

You're the one claiming variola wasn't the #1 killer of Native American population.

No, I just said whatever diseases were available.

Plus you're the one also claiming it was consciously orchestrated by Europeans. Both which are right out in the looney zone.

And your evidence is ... ???

[DogOnPorch]

No, I just said whatever diseases were available.

Such as...????

And your evidence is ... ???

That would be TrueMetis, actually. My apologies. You wouldn't think something so daft...would you?? (cough cough gaza cough settlers burp)

[Wild Bill]

Another 14th century Andalusian physician, Ibn al-Khatib, wrote a treatise called On the Plague, in which he stated:[3]

"The existence of contagion is established by experience, investigation, the evidence of the senses and trustworthy reports. These facts constitute a sound argument. The fact of infection becomes clear to the investigator who notices how he who establishes contact with the afflicted gets the disease, whereas he who is not in contact remains safe, and how transmission is affected through garments, vessels and earrings."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Germ_theory_of_disease

Frankly, I'm distrustful of anything you say, Bill. You don't even google or wiki for basic information first.

Of course that gives me the job of doing it for you to prove you wrong, but actually ... that's getting boring.

So ... DoP ... I don't question your sanity, but I do also question your knowledge along with Bill's. Lack of knowledge is no sin, but failing to remedy it before putting mouth in gear is a sin of arrogance and laziness, imo.

You don't think, perhaps, that after the first village died from the blankets, they might clue in? Afterall, they had 100 years clear of settlers and reporters to "vanquish" the natives, following the orders of the Pope.

Wikipedia? Sorry, I consider that a biased, politically correct source. It is often written by amateurs, and edited by a few other amateurs who are very politically correct in their thinking.

Anyhow, if you want to equate some physician from the 14th century postulating a theory with common knowledge across Europe in the 1500's, then that's your privilege.

Myself, that just doesn't seem logical. I mean, wasn't the printing press invented in 1440? It took another 100 years before we saw millions of books in print. After the bible and some notable fiction, how many books do you think mentioned the musings of that physician of yours?

Pasteur is generally credited with being the first to postulate the modern theory of germs and disease. He was born in 1822. Even during the American Civil War doctors and surgeons made no attempt to use antiseptics. They prided themselves on never washing their operating clothing, proudly bearing the blood stains! I guess they were too ignorant, never having read Arabic.

We'll have to agree to disagree. I'm willing to change my mind, but not on such evidence or argument.

[tango]

That would be TrueMetis, actually. My apologies. You wouldn't think something so daft...would you??

Something like ...

Plus you're the one also claiming it was consciously orchestrated by Europeans.

Yes, I believe that because

1) The Pope ordered it.

2) There was no such thing as a war crime then, and

3) I understand the King of England got into the act too, claiming "divine right".

Go read the Doctrines of Discovery. The orders are there.

[tango]

Wikipedia? Sorry, I consider that a biased, politically correct source. It is often written by amateurs, and edited by a few other amateurs who are very politically correct in their thinking.

Anyhow, if you want to equate some physician from the 14th century postulating a theory with common knowledge across Europe in the 1500's, then that's your privilege.

Myself, that just doesn't seem logical. I mean, wasn't the printing press invented in 1440? It took another 100 years before we saw millions of books in print. After the bible and some notable fiction, how many books do you think mentioned the musings of that physician of yours?

Pasteur is generally credited with being the first to postulate the modern theory of germs and disease. He was born in 1822. Even during the American Civil War doctors and surgeons made no attempt to use antiseptics. They prided themselves on never washing their operating clothing, proudly bearing the blood stains! I guess they were too ignorant, never having read Arabic.

We'll have to agree to disagree. I'm willing to change my mind, but not on such evidence or argument.

Go research it yourself (for a change) and bring evidence. Your opinions aren't worth a plugged nickel to me!

Alternatively, just continue in your rose-coloured eurocentric illusions. Makes absolutely no difference to me.

Edited August 19, 2009 by tango

[DogOnPorch]

Something like ...

Yes, I believe that because

1) The Pope ordered it.

2) There was no such thing as a war crime then, and

3) I understand the King of England got into the act too, claiming "divine right".

Go read the Doctrines of Discovery. The orders are there.

Well I knew you were sorta running along those lines. Guess I wasn't that far off. So both you and TrueMetis think the evil white man had an evil plan and set out across the Atlantic with a mission of genocide. Interesting. Crazy...but, interesting.

BTW: what diseases were responsible for the 'decimation' of the Native North and South Americans if not the highly infectious and deadly variola?

[benny]

Well I knew you were sorta running along those lines. Guess I wasn't that far off. So both you and TrueMetis think the evil white man had an evil plan and set out across the Atlantic with a mission of genocide. Interesting. Crazy...but, interesting.

Planned or not, the race of colonial empires to position themselves in the New World had something evil to it.

[jbg]

Written words are often convenient fictions.

Imitating Benny?

[jbg]

Bravo...another sane person.

You don't like left-wingers like me?

[bush_cheney2004]

BTW: what diseases were responsible for the 'decimation' of the Native North and South Americans if not the highly infectious and deadly variola?

The clap....errr..I mean...syphilis? Oh wait, that's what the natives traded for variola.

[benny]

Imitating Benny?

"It Takes Two To Tango"

[DogOnPorch]

The clap....errr..I mean...syphilis? Oh wait, that's what the natives traded for variola.

Ironic, isn't it. We don't like to mention THAT genocide.

[DogOnPorch]

You don't like left-wingers like me?

Only if you like left-wingers like me.

[DogOnPorch]

Since the discovery of penicillin in 1928, the the number of deaths-per-year due to syphilis is around 150-200 thousand per year and climbing. That's about 15 million so far...not to mention if you do/did survive advanced syphilis, you're buggered-right-up physically.

Before penicillin, the deaths-per-year was in the multi-millions much like a lesser version of variola (1494-1927); but since one only gets syphilis from contact with a syphilis lesion, it didn't spread nearly as fast. Due to it's very long incubation period and lack of general symptoms, the victim often doesn't know he/she has got the disease in the first place and doesn't make the connection re: contact with the infectious party.

Tit for tat indeed.

Edited August 20, 2009 by DogOnPorch

[jbg]

Only if you like left-wingers like me.

You're not a member of the (U.S.) Democratic Party or the New Democratic Party of Canada. I am a member of one of those.