benny Posted August 17, 2009 Report Share Posted August 17, 2009 It's irky to hear some guy who inherits 20 million bucks and takes over the running of an empire - call someone lazy. Look at our over debated Lord B - He attempted to exprobriate in an incrimmental fashion - the property of others - except they were not quite poor and weak enough, they had lawyers. The Natives will have to learn that lawyers are more limited in what they can achieve than revolutionaries. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tango Posted August 17, 2009 Author Report Share Posted August 17, 2009 There is waaay too much crap in this thread to wade through looking for pertinent discussion, so if this has already been posted, I apologize. But regarding the smallpox/infected blankets we hear about:I'm pretty sure it's been proven that the Indians did get small pox face-to-face as from what I recall, infected blankets wouldn't spread the disease the way it's been claimed. However, that doesn't mean the idea wasn't at the very least discussed, which is likely why these 'stories' have started. This is a very good link to documented information on the topic. Fact is, on at least one occasion a high-ranking European considered infecting the Indians with smallpox as a tactic of war. I'm talking about Lord Jeffrey Amherst, commander of British forces in North America during the French and Indian War (1756-'63). According to historian Francis Parkman, Amherst first raised the possibility of giving the Indians infected blankets in a letter to Colonel Henry Bouquet, who would lead reinforcements to Fort Pitt. No copy of this letter has come to light, but we do know that Bouquet discussed the matter in a postscript to a letter to Amherst on July 13, 1763: P.S. I will try to inocculate the Indians by means of Blankets that may fall in their hands, taking care however not to get the disease myself. As it is pity to oppose good men against them, I wish we could make use of the Spaniard's Method, and hunt them with English Dogs. Supported by Rangers, and some Light Horse, who would I think effectively extirpate or remove that Vermine. On July 16 Amherst replied, also in a postscript: P.S. You will Do well to try to Innoculate the Indians by means of Blanketts, as well as to try Every other method that can serve to Extirpate this Execrable Race. I should be very glad your Scheme for Hunting them Down by Dogs could take Effect, but England is at too great a Distance to think of that at present. On July 26 Bouquet wrote back: I received yesterday your Excellency's letters of 16th with their Inclosures. The signal for Indian Messengers, and all your directions will be observed. According to this site, We don't know if Bouquet actually put the plan into effect, or if so with what result, so it's not a site sensationalizing anything, but they do use actual sources, which makes their information credible. First of all, you are referring to the 1700's, the settlement of America. I'm referring to two hundred years earlier, the 1500's, the conquest of America. Secondly, you are relying on European history records. Do you really expect to find the truth of the genocide there? I think Indigenous oral traditions deserve as much attention. There is no doubt in my mind that diseases were spread by whatever means possible, as widely as possible, pigs and blankets being two reports that occur repeatedly. Point being ... the Indigenous Peoples of North America were not amenable to enslavement, and thus suitable only for extinction. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bush_cheney2004 Posted August 17, 2009 Report Share Posted August 17, 2009 (edited) Point being ... the Indigenous Peoples of North America were not amenable to enslavement, and thus suitable only for extinction. Not true.....enslavement was a common practice in the Americas long before 1500. As for extinction.....the Maya and Aztec sure tried! Edited August 17, 2009 by bush_cheney2004 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Oleg Bach Posted August 17, 2009 Report Share Posted August 17, 2009 Not true.....enslavement was a common practice in the Americas long before 1500. As for extinction.....the Maya and Aztec sure tried! There decendants are still trying - welcome to Arizona and California - the Maya and what is left of the Aztecs still exist..and they have come for blood - white blood....mmmmm..wait till they re-establish themselves - YOUR children will be cleaning their toilets. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
benny Posted August 17, 2009 Report Share Posted August 17, 2009 (edited) Not true.....enslavement was a common practice in the Americas long before 1500. As for extinction.....the Maya and Aztec sure tried! It was truly a white prejudice of the time though. Edited August 17, 2009 by benny Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bush_cheney2004 Posted August 17, 2009 Report Share Posted August 17, 2009 It was truly a white prejudice of the time though. Maya and Aztec were not "white". Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest TrueMetis Posted August 17, 2009 Report Share Posted August 17, 2009 It was truly a white prejudice of the time though. What are you talking about? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Oleg Bach Posted August 17, 2009 Report Share Posted August 17, 2009 Maya and Aztec were not "white". No they are not..my boy dated a girl form Nicaragua..she constantly attempted to get her hair straightened because she was ashamed of her beautiful ring lets - she acted like a black girl who wanted to be white--because foolishly she believed that whites are superiour - she is gorgeous..to bad she is programmed that she is less.. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
benny Posted August 17, 2009 Report Share Posted August 17, 2009 Maya and Aztec were not "white". Your post mentioned Maya and Aztec in regard of extinction, not of enslavement. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Oleg Bach Posted August 17, 2009 Report Share Posted August 17, 2009 Your post mentioned Maya and Aztec in regard of extinction, not of enslavement. Enslavement is extinction. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
benny Posted August 17, 2009 Report Share Posted August 17, 2009 Enslavement is extinction. Enslavement is rather the precondition to become master: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Master-slave_dialectic Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Oleg Bach Posted August 17, 2009 Report Share Posted August 17, 2009 Enslavement is rather the precondition to become master:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Master-slave_dialectic Once a culture is enslaved the culture is crushed...get a real dictionary - not one that panders to your lowest possible base needs. Enslavement sucks - being a slave or being a master - I just want to be free. Let the masters master their own lusts for power...and curb them. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
benny Posted August 17, 2009 Report Share Posted August 17, 2009 Once a culture is enslaved the culture is crushed... A culture is a dialectics of freedom and enslavement. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Oleg Bach Posted August 17, 2009 Report Share Posted August 17, 2009 A culture is a dialectics of freedom and enslavement. If you think in old fashioned terms it might be. Terms like 'dialectics" is not familiar with me. Culture is family..and within a good family there are no masters nor are there slaves..unless you came form a family like mine that was less than primative to some degree- where children were loved - admired and looked upon as extra cheap labour..depends on what kind of world or family you want to have. It's all about what you want -not what you have been taught - and the word dialectic is a taught word not a wanted one. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
benny Posted August 17, 2009 Report Share Posted August 17, 2009 If you think in old fashioned terms it might be. Terms like 'dialectics" is not familiar with me. Culture is family..and within a good family there are no masters nor are there slaves..unless you came form a family like mine that was less than primative to some degree- where children were loved - admired and looked upon as extra cheap labour..depends on what kind of world or family you want to have. It's all about what you want -not what you have been taught - and the word dialectic is a taught word not a wanted one. Culture is like a second nature: it produces illusions like love and free will. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Oleg Bach Posted August 17, 2009 Report Share Posted August 17, 2009 Culture is like a second nature: it produces illusions like love and free will. The moment a child is born it has empathy and reacts to love and grants love. It has nothing to do with culture. It has to do with being a remarkable thing called human! I don't want to play if you are going to be rough...thanks for the interaction benny - a pleasure and a privledge. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
benny Posted August 17, 2009 Report Share Posted August 17, 2009 (edited) The moment a child is born it has empathy and reacts to love and grants love. It has nothing to do with culture. It has to do with being a remarkable thing called human! No one can know what a newborn has at his/her disposable. The birth of a human is the real unknowable Big Bang. Edited August 17, 2009 by benny Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DogOnPorch Posted August 18, 2009 Report Share Posted August 18, 2009 (edited) First of all, you are referring to the 1700's, the settlement of America. I'm referring to two hundred years earlier, the 1500's, the conquest of America. Like your understanding of the Middle-East situation, you also seem to be void on the history of North America. So...during this 'conquest' of North America, when was Oregon 'conquered'. Secondly, you are relying on European history records. Do you really expect to find the truth of the genocide there? I think Indigenous oral traditions deserve as much attention. Written history as opposed to oral history? Give me a break. There is no doubt in my mind that diseases were spread by whatever means possible, as widely as possible, pigs and blankets being two reports that occur repeatedly. Shows your lack of understanding of variola/smallpox. Point being ... the Indigenous Peoples of North America were not amenable to enslavement, and thus suitable only for extinction. The Indian Wars generally happened after the US Civil War (where what was done away with?? extra points) Edited August 18, 2009 by DogOnPorch Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tango Posted August 18, 2009 Author Report Share Posted August 18, 2009 (edited) Like your understanding of the Middle-East situation, you also seem to be void on the history of North America. So...during this 'conquest' of North America, when was Oregon 'conquered'.Written history as opposed to oral history? Give me a break. Shows your lack of understanding of variola/smallpox. The Indian Wars generally happened after the US Civil War (where what was done away with?? extra points) If you are responding to my post, only comments re the 1500's are valid - ie the century of the conquest of America, prior to settlement. Edited August 18, 2009 by tango Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DogOnPorch Posted August 18, 2009 Report Share Posted August 18, 2009 If you are responding to my post, only comments re the 1500's are valid. Are they now? OK...so what year during the 1500s was Oregon conquered? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jbg Posted August 18, 2009 Report Share Posted August 18, 2009 What does Canada's aboriginals have to do with them? The obnoxious post I was responding to didn't reference only CDN natives. For that matter the Tlingit, Haida and Kwakiutl built some beautiful totem poles. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
benny Posted August 18, 2009 Report Share Posted August 18, 2009 The obnoxious post I was responding to didn't reference only CDN natives. For that matter the Tlingit, Haida and Kwakiutl built some beautiful totem poles. And what about our duty towards the aboriginal people? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jbg Posted August 18, 2009 Report Share Posted August 18, 2009 Are they now? OK...so what year during the 1500s was Oregon conquered? The "conquerors" were the pigs that spread from De Soto's landing in Florida during the 1500's. The diseases they spread helped clear the Aztec Empire for the Spanish onslaught. There is no reason to believe that pig-born diseases didn't go to Oregon. In fact, Massachusetts' native population was way down before the Pilgrims' arrival. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DogOnPorch Posted August 18, 2009 Report Share Posted August 18, 2009 The "conquerors" were the pigs that spread from De Soto's landing in Florida during the 1500's. The diseases they spread helped clear the Aztec Empire for the Spanish onslaught. There is no reason to believe that pig-born diseases didn't go to Oregon. In fact, Massachusetts' native population was way down before the Pilgrims' arrival. Except variola doesn't use pigs or any animal other than homo sapien as a host/vector. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bryan Posted August 18, 2009 Report Share Posted August 18, 2009 And what about our duty towards the aboriginal people? What duty? Nobody in my family ever did anything to any aboriginals. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.