Guest TrueMetis Posted August 18, 2009 Report Share Posted August 18, 2009 What duty? Nobody in my family ever did anything to any aboriginals. The only people who have a duty is the Governments duty to deal with land claims and the treaties. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DogOnPorch Posted August 18, 2009 Report Share Posted August 18, 2009 The only people who have a duty is the Governments duty to deal with land claims and the treaties. *Flush*: Solution #1. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
benny Posted August 18, 2009 Report Share Posted August 18, 2009 What duty? Nobody in my family ever did anything to any aboriginals. Our duty as Canadians of course. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bryan Posted August 18, 2009 Report Share Posted August 18, 2009 The only people who have a duty is the Governments duty to deal with land claims and the treaties. Where do you think governments get the money for this supposed "duty"? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tango Posted August 18, 2009 Author Report Share Posted August 18, 2009 What duty? Nobody in my family ever did anything to any aboriginals. We have legal responsibility to fulfill the treaties. Also, every Canadian continues to benefit from illegal actions by our governments because the economy of Canada is entirely dependent on resources from Aboriginal lands, and they have not consented nor been compensated. These are violations of treaties. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
benny Posted August 18, 2009 Report Share Posted August 18, 2009 Where do you think governments get the money for this supposed "duty"? Where do you think the money you have comes from? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DogOnPorch Posted August 18, 2009 Report Share Posted August 18, 2009 We have legal responsibility to fulfill the treaties.Also, every Canadian continues to benefit from illegal actions by our governments because the economy of Canada is entirely dependent on resources from Aboriginal lands, and they have not consented nor been compensated. These are violations of treaties. Future office gnome @ yea olde Ministry of Aboriginal Affairs. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
benny Posted August 18, 2009 Report Share Posted August 18, 2009 Future office gnome @ yea olde Ministry of Aboriginal Affairs. Answer seriously! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DogOnPorch Posted August 18, 2009 Report Share Posted August 18, 2009 Answer seriously! I did. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
benny Posted August 18, 2009 Report Share Posted August 18, 2009 I did. no Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DogOnPorch Posted August 18, 2009 Report Share Posted August 18, 2009 no Well then perhaps YOU can explain to me how pigs transmit smallpox, oh great one. Until then, this thread is merely part of Grimm's Fairy Tales. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
benny Posted August 18, 2009 Report Share Posted August 18, 2009 Well then perhaps YOU can explain to me how pigs transmit smallpox, oh great one. Until then, this thread is merely part of Grimm's Fairy Tales. Pigs have to be handled much like blankets. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DogOnPorch Posted August 18, 2009 Report Share Posted August 18, 2009 (edited) Pigs have to be handled much like blankets. Doesn't change the fact that variola (which is smallpox, tango) isn't spread via pigs nor by just coughing on a pile of blankets then taking them out into the bush for the free give-away. Edited August 18, 2009 by DogOnPorch Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest TrueMetis Posted August 18, 2009 Report Share Posted August 18, 2009 (edited) Doesn't change the fact that variola (which is smallpox, tango) isn't spread via pigs nor by just coughing on a pile of blankets then taking them out into the bush for the free give-away. Wrong Smallpox is a highly contagious and infectious disease and it spreads very easily from one person to other. It mainly spreads through the infected droplets coming from infected person's saliva when the person coughs, or sneezes. It can even spread when the person talks. Smallpox can also be spread from the fluid in the blisters of an infected person's skin or from blankets, towels, or clothes that have touched the infected person, but this is less common. Source Edited August 18, 2009 by TrueMetis Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jbg Posted August 18, 2009 Report Share Posted August 18, 2009 Well then perhaps YOU can explain to me how pigs transmit smallpox, oh great one. That was my post and I'm pretty sure they do.Don't give Benny the credit or blame on that one. I do add that I hold Benny in very high regard. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
benny Posted August 18, 2009 Report Share Posted August 18, 2009 Doesn't change the fact that variola (which is smallpox, tango) isn't spread via pigs nor by just by coughing on a pile of blankets then taking them out into the bush for the free give-away. But these facts don't settle the question about our duty towards aboriginal peoples. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DogOnPorch Posted August 18, 2009 Report Share Posted August 18, 2009 WrongSource What you fail to mention and Wikipedia delves into little is variola's viability outside the host/vector...which is near zero. So while the bedding you just died from smallpox in might have the virus from pus, it will die @ room temperature within 24 hours unless immediately frozen to below zero...but not too cold. Plus...it can't dry-out. So unless you're going to willingingly wrap a wet, pus filled blanket around you...I doubt smallpox was EVER transmited via this method. A far more effective method of transmiting variola is via face-to-face contact and is certainly was the main (99.999%) way it was spread in North and South America. What the whole blanket/smallpox deal comes from is, as American Woman mentioned, Lord Amherst who mused at its possible use but there is no record that it was carried-out or could have even been carried-out knowing what we know now about variola. The Russians still have some 5000 tons of weaponized variola India-1967 which is really nasty stuff (like ebola) which I supposed could be attached to a pig and lobbed over the city wall...lol. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DogOnPorch Posted August 18, 2009 Report Share Posted August 18, 2009 That was my post and I'm pretty sure they do.Don't give Benny the credit or blame on that one. I do add that I hold Benny in very high regard. Smallpox only has one host. Perhaps you're thinking of cowpox? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
benny Posted August 18, 2009 Report Share Posted August 18, 2009 What you fail to mention and Wikipedia delves into little is variola's viability outside the host/vector...which is near zero. So while the bedding you just died from smallpox in might have the virus from pus, it will die @ room temperature within 24 hours unless immediately frozen to below zero...but not too cold. Plus...it can't dry-out. So unless you're going to willingingly wrap a wet, pus filled blanket around you...I doubt smallpox was EVER transmited via this method.A far more effective method of transmiting variola is via face-to-face contact and is certainly was the main (99.999%) way it was spread in North and South America. What the whole blanket/smallpox deal comes from is, as American Woman mentioned, Lord Amherst who mused at its possible use but there is no record that it was carried-out or could have even been carried-out knowing what we know now about variola. The Russians still have some 5000 tons of weaponized variola India-1967 which is really nasty stuff (like ebola) which I supposed could be attached to a pig and lobbed over the city wall...lol. Having the intention of implementing a biological attack is almost as reprehensible as launching it. Concerning the face-to-face transmission, it is not the Natives who insisted on meeting the whites. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest TrueMetis Posted August 18, 2009 Report Share Posted August 18, 2009 All that means is that it's more likely that giving the Natives smallpox was intentional. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jbg Posted August 18, 2009 Report Share Posted August 18, 2009 Smallpox only has one host. Perhaps you're thinking of cowpox? Maybe some of the other diseases like ditheria, typhoid, cholera. Or maybe variola did gain a foothold among Florida natives and then raced uimpeded accross the continent. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
benny Posted August 18, 2009 Report Share Posted August 18, 2009 Maybe some of the other diseases like ditheria, typhoid, cholera. Or maybe variola did gain a foothold among Florida natives and then raced uimpeded accross the continent. Try again! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DogOnPorch Posted August 18, 2009 Report Share Posted August 18, 2009 (edited) Having the intention of implementing a biological attack is almost as reprehensible as launching it. Concerning the face-to-face transmission, it is not the Natives who insisted on meeting the whites. Whites and blacks and natives and asians and everyone else on Sesame Street was/were affected by the ravages of variola. It's quaint but untrue to think its a virus that only attacks natives. You are also no authority as to what individuals, either European or Native Indian, were doing 500 years ago that might or might-not have transmited variola. What we do know is that it occurs from face-to-face contact. Re: Lord Ahmherst: I suppose...but there was a war between the French and the English and certain tribes had joined the French while others had joind the British. Seems everyone knew the stakes @ hand. Edited August 18, 2009 by DogOnPorch Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
benny Posted August 18, 2009 Report Share Posted August 18, 2009 Seems everyone knew the stakes @ hand. Obviously no one was able to know perfectly the stakes at hands and morality comes from imposing risks upon others. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DogOnPorch Posted August 18, 2009 Report Share Posted August 18, 2009 All that means is that it's more likely that giving the Natives smallpox was intentional. Trouble with your little theory is that the fort Ahmherst wanted to attack was something like 200 miles away. The smallpox infested blankets would have long stopped being a viable vector by the time they made the trip to the region. Not to mention they knew nothing of viability at the time, anyways. My theory...a 'white guy' and an 'indian' meet in the bush..."achoo"...'white guy' sneezes...'indian' breathes in virus...goes back to his villiage...sneezes...repeat...etc. 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.