Did Europeans Deliberately Destroy Native Cultures in Their Colonies?

[DogOnPorch]

Except in the case of the siege of Fort Pitt in which the Native Americans in question were a few yards away and there were active cases of smallpox within the fort.

You're free to believe the Moon is made of green cheese.

[eyeball]

These type of arguments are living proof of why lawyers make such poor engineers or techs.

Compared to the endless stream of long-winded arguments and questions that duck, weave and bob around the simple question at the top of the thread?

BTW I opened up the machine and found intent to commit murder but it's you who doesn't seem to have a clue as what to do with it other than throw it away.

You remind me of those car mechanics who ignore malfunctioning pollution control devices while telling the customer they're just a trivial part they need not concern themselves with. Usually with a lot of rolling of eyes and disparaging comments about environmentalists and bleeding hearts etc etc.

Edited July 11, 2011 by eyeball

[DogOnPorch]

Well...flog yourself with a whip if you're having guilty feelings about history.

[eyeball]

Well...flog yourself with a whip if you're having guilty feelings about history.

It's not guilt I'm feeling as much as embarrassment at being lumped together with the same culture you are.

[Shwa]

You're free to believe the Moon is made of green cheese.

But of course I am, in the same way you are free to clumsily avoid facts. But whether I believe the Moon is made of green cheese or billions of years old rock has nothing to do with the part when I pointed out that the alleged smallpox blankets had to travel only a few meteres (in a few minutes) according to historical documentation whereas you allege that the blankets would have to "...go overland for many miles/days..."

I fully agree with you that if the blankets had to travel "overland for many/miles days" that the effectiveness of using smallpox infected blankets would be drastically reduced, but the incident in question - the siege at Fort Pitt where this tactic was discussed - had the Native Americans surrounding the fort and were within minutes of receiving an infected blanket, wet scabs and all, directly from a victim's sickbed inside the sieged fort.

[DogOnPorch]

But of course I am, in the same way you are free to clumsily avoid facts. But whether I believe the Moon is made of green cheese or billions of years old rock has nothing to do with the part when I pointed out that the alleged smallpox blankets had to travel only a few meteres (in a few minutes) according to historical documentation whereas you allege that the blankets would have to "...go overland for many miles/days..."

I fully agree with you that if the blankets had to travel "overland for many/miles days" that the effectiveness of using smallpox infected blankets would be drastically reduced, but the incident in question - the siege at Fort Pitt where this tactic was discussed - had the Native Americans surrounding the fort and were within minutes of receiving an infected blanket, wet scabs and all, directly from a victim's sickbed inside the sieged fort.

You're free to believe that not only is the Moon made of green cheese but that variola in the Americas was a deliberate act of the evil Europeans. Suits you.

[Bob]

From what I remember in "Guns, Germs, and Steel", Jared Diamond states that disease killed off about 95% of the in a relatively short period of time (less than two centuries, I believe). Eventually some of the Europeans learned of the devastating effects of disease and used it as perhaps the earliest form of a biological weapon to decimate certain Native communities, but these examples account for a tiny portion of the Native deaths from smallpox.

The stories about the infected blankets, while true, are a very small part of the broader story of the decimation of the Natives via disease after the arrival of the Europeans.

Edited July 11, 2011 by Bob

[DogOnPorch]

Then there's syphilis...but we'll give a pass on that one. Wrong folks giving out the viruses...

[Guest American Woman]

Except in the case of the siege of Fort Pitt in which the Native Americans in question were a few yards away and there were active cases of smallpox within the fort.

So let's say that the soldiers at Fort Pitt deliberately gave Native Americans infected blankets with the idea of purposely giving them smallpox (in spite of there being no proof) - you think that is responsible for the epidemic in the Americas that resulted in wiping out a large population of Native Americans?

------------------------------------

I find it interesting that so many people are willing (wanting?) to believe the worst about "the Brits" based on the exchange of a couple of letters between a couple of people - with no proof at all that the idea was ever carried out. Reverse the situation and I've no doubt the same people would be crying out that there is no proof, the likelihood was non-existent, that it wasn't the whole group - only correspondence between a couple of people, which had nothing to do with the whole.

Of course there were some Europeans who wanted to do harm to the Native Americans - some real nasty people - just as there were Native Americans who wanted to do harm to other groups/tribes of Native Americans - they were rather nasty too. This type of behavior wasn't unique to Europeans. The history of the world consists of people killing, attacking, enslaving, dominating, ruling, and stealing land from others.

Edited July 11, 2011 by American Woman

[Wild Bill]

You remind me of those car mechanics who ignore malfunctioning pollution control devices while telling the customer they're just a trivial part they need not concern themselves with. Usually with a lot of rolling of eyes and disparaging comments about environmentalists and bleeding hearts etc etc.

Those mechanics are actually quite right! It's obvious that YOU do not know how such devices work! So you have formed an opinion on faith alone.

Most of those devices were installed for political reasons, not technical ones. They give the APPEARANCE of doing something, earning brownie points from ordinary but ignorant citizens. As long as they THINK something is being done then they're happy!

A techician, mechanic or engineer thinks quite differently. He understands that the NEED for something to be done and the METHODS to get them done are often at odds with each other.

Those new CFL bulbs are a prime example. People were urged to buy them to achieve cost savings, among other reasons. In actual fact, any technician who understands the Laws of Electricity knows that the cost savings to the customer are in the range of "mice nuts". Lighting is the trivial part of anyone's electricity bill unless you're running a theatre or something. One clothes dryer uses about 1200 times the electricity consumed by one hundred watt old fashioned light bulb, in a typical month. It's motors like in refrigerators and washing machines, or electric stoves or dryers, that consume most of your bill.

They didn't lie, however. It's the electricity company that gets the savings! On a province wide basis they add up to enough that the company doesn't have to build a few new generators.

Meanwhile, they are trusting the PEOPLE to recycle those CFLs to keep mercury out of our environment. The old bulbs had virtually no pollution problems at all in comparison.

Likely half of the anti-pollution devices in your car hurt the gas mileage. So you emit less pollutants per litre of gas but you burn more for driving the same distance! AS long as that is never mentioned the average driver will never know and it won't bother him.

If you're so worried about pollution from your car go buy an electric or a european diesel. THAT's effective in the real world!

[Shwa]

You're free to believe that not only is the Moon made of green cheese but that variola in the Americas was a deliberate act of the evil Europeans. Suits you.

You're free to dodge the issue and pussy out. Suits you. Especially the pussy part.

[Shwa]

Your sense of moral indignation is noted.

So let's say that the soldiers at Fort Pitt deliberately gave Native Americans infected blankets with the idea of purposely giving them smallpox (in spite of there being no proof) - you think that is responsible for the epidemic in the Americas that resulted in wiping out a large population of Native Americans?

I don't consider you dense, so I will be as succinct and plain enough for you to understand.

Look above, at the top of this thread, and take note of the title, especially the word "deliberately." Then consider the historical documentation which you, yourself, imply is accurate. Now put two and two together to see that there was intent - at the very least - to deliberately "destroy native cultures in their colonies."

Where you get the idea that I "think" that the intent - the deliberation - whether the acts were carried out or not - was "responsible for the epidemic in the Americans that resulted in wiping out a large population of Native Americans" is really beyond reason since I do not make this claim, imply this claim or support this sort of claim whatsoever.

Thus, any 'thought' like that rests only in your own mind, somewhat active and imaginary perhaps?

------------------------------------

I find it interesting that so many people are willing (wanting?) to believe the worst about "the Brits" based on the exchange of a couple of letters between a couple of people - with no proof at all that the idea was ever carried out.

This is an example of the minimizing tactic and simply won't do. What "many people" are "willing (wanting)to believe" is that official correspondence between the high ranking cadre on the American frontier in the 18th century shows there was deliberation about destroying native cultures in their colonies. The issue of the smallpox blankets more or less proves the attitudes - and knowledge of the devastating effects of smallpox on the Native American population - was established at a high level of the command of the day. Do you follow so far? Whether the blankets were actually distributed - in a manner that would have been effective by your own references - is immaterial. The intent and deliberation is the point.

Reverse the situation and I've no doubt the same people would be crying out that there is no proof, the likelihood was non-existent, that it wasn't the whole group - only correspondence between a couple of people, which had nothing to do with the whole.

A simple red herring based on an active imagination. Seriously AW, you are better than this.

Of course there were some Europeans who wanted to do harm to the Native Americans - some real nasty people - just as there were Native Americans who wanted to do harm to other groups/tribes of Native Americans - they were rather nasty too. This type of behavior wasn't unique to Europeans. The history of the world consists of people killing, attacking, enslaving, dominating, ruling, and stealing land from others.

Pointless moralizing. If you want to start a thread about your Hobbsian view of the world, please feel free. But your indignant moralizing does not minimize - in any way - the evidence that there were deliberate attempts to destroy Native American cultures by high ranking and very influential members of the colonial heirarchy.

You know like, there were some 20th century Europeans who wanted to harm the Jews, but this type of behavior wasn't unique to the Europeans because the history of the world consists of people killing, attacking, enslaving, dominating, ruling and stealing land from others.

But it is only the fault of the "nasty people."

[charter.rights]

It is interesting that we get bogged down on smallpox infected blankets when genocide was going on less that on century ago (and still is to some degree)

Hidden From History'

In his report, Dr Bryce claimed that Indian children were being systematically and deliberately killed in the residential schools. He cited an average mortality rate of between 35% and 60%, and alleged that staff and church officials were regularly withholding or falsifying records and other evidence of children's deaths.

Further, Dr Bryce claimed that a primary means of killing native children was to deliberately expose them to communicable diseases such as tuberculosis and then deny them any medical care or treatment - a practice actually referred to by top Anglican Church leaders in the Globe and Mail on May 29, 1953.

So according to relatively recent history the Colonials were still trying to wipe out the Indians. So I guess that demonstrates not only intent but the execution of their intention.....

Edited July 12, 2011 by charter.rights

[DogOnPorch]

You're free to dodge the issue and pussy out. Suits you. Especially the pussy part.

What a loser.

[Shwa]

What a loser.

And yet I bested you with an easy slam dunk. What does that say about you?

[DogOnPorch]

And yet I bested you with an easy slam dunk. What does that say about you?

Say's the fellow that doesn't understand the transmission of variola. Your 'I hate European culture' (that includes Bach, I assume...tsk, tsk.) agenda is well known to me. Next you'll be telling me that Europeans baked poor Native American children into pies. 4 and 20 at a time.

[Shwa]

Say's the fellow that doesn't understand the transmission of variola. Your 'I hate European culture' (that includes Bach, I assume...tsk, tsk.) agenda is well known to me. Next you'll be telling me that Europeans baked poor Native American children into pies. 4 and 20 at a time.

Nothing in your post contains a shred of truth, you have made it all up including what I "understand", what I "hate" and what I will be "telling" you.

In other words, you've soiled yourself because you are not capable of engaging in a discussion past your own nose. Now you simply wallow in it.

[Guest American Woman]

Your sense of moral indignation is noted.

"Imagined" would be more like it.

I don't consider you dense, so I will be as succinct and plain enough for you to understand.

Look above, at the top of this thread, and take note of the title, especially the word "deliberately." Then consider the historical documentation which you, yourself, imply is accurate. Now put two and two together to see that there was intent - at the very least - to deliberately "destroy native cultures in their colonies."

There was "intent" on the part of the two people writing the letters. The top of the thread says "Europeans." I don't think two British soldiers are synonymous with "Europeans." We have found plenty of "intent" on the part of Muslims to destroy our culture, yet if we were to say "Muslims are deliberately destroying our culture - that is Muslims' intent," I'm guessing you wouldn't be too dense to see the inaccuracy of that statement.

So again. Yes, it was the "intent" of the Brit who wrote the letter. That doesn't make the answer to the title of this thread "yes." It does make the answer 'some,' just as the answer to the question "Are Muslims deliberately destroying western culture - is that their intent?" would be 'some.' Yet you defend Muslims.

Where you get the idea that I "think" that the intent - the deliberation - whether the acts were carried out or not - was "responsible for the epidemic in the Americans that resulted in wiping out a large population of Native Americans" is really beyond reason since I do not make this claim, imply this claim or support this sort of claim whatsoever.

Where you get the idea that "I think" that you believe the intent was responsible for the epidemic is beyond reason since I asked you if you thought so. I asked because you hadn't said, because I didn't know.

Thus, any 'thought' like that rests only in your own mind, somewhat active and imaginary perhaps?

Do you know what a question is? And if so, do you know why people ask them? Good Lord. That "thought" doesn't "rest in my mind." A simple answer, such as 'no I don't believe that,' would have sufficed.

This is an example of the minimizing tactic and simply won't do.

So it "won't do" to "minimize" what "Europeans" did, but to apply the same logic and not "minimize" what "Muslims" have done is wrong, wrong, wrong. Is that it? Or do you agree that the same judgement that we see here regarding the blankets can be applied to "Muslims?" And if anyone tries to "minimize" what they have done/are doing - "their" intent - you will tell them that it "simply won't do?"

What "many people" are "willing (wanting)to believe" is that official correspondence between the high ranking cadre on the American frontier in the 18th century shows there was deliberation about destroying native cultures in their colonies. The issue of the smallpox blankets more or less proves the attitudes - and knowledge of the devastating effects of smallpox on the Native American population - was established at a high level of the command of the day. Do you follow so far?

Golly gee, I think I do. Since I said as much myself.

Whether the blankets were actually distributed - in a manner that would have been effective by your own references - is immaterial. The intent and deliberation is the point.

Whether the blankets were actually distributed - in a manner that would have been effective by my own references - is not immaterial. If the blankets were not distributed, then the "Europeans" didn't "intend" to deliberately destroy Native cultures in this way - we are left with just a couple of Brits who spoke of their intent in a couple of letters.

I hope I'm saying this succinctly and plainly enough for you to understand.

A simple red herring based on an active imagination. Seriously AW, you are better than this.

Ummmm. The problem doesn't lie with me.

Pointless moralizing. If you want to start a thread about your Hobbsian view of the world, please feel free. But your indignant moralizing does not minimize - in any way - the evidence that there were deliberate attempts to destroy Native American cultures by high ranking and very influential members of the colonial heirarchy.

Why thank you for your permission, but I think I'll pass. I'll just continue to say whatever I like in this thread, okay? And by the same token, feel free to ignore it. I realize it doesn't jibe well with the 'bad Europeans' mindset, but I'll continue to portray things as they were.

You know like, there were some 20th century Europeans who wanted to harm the Jews, but this type of behavior wasn't unique to the Europeans because the history of the world consists of people killing, attacking, enslaving, dominating, ruling and stealing land from others.

But it is only the fault of the "nasty people."

So you do recognize that it was "some Europeans" who wanted to harm the Jews, not "Europeans." Good for you. So can I presume that you recognize that "some Europeans" wanted to wipe out Native American culture just as "some Native Americans" wanted to wipe out other Native American cultures and "some Native Americans" wanted to wipe out the colonists? That this mindset wasn't unique to "some Europeans?"

Edited July 12, 2011 by American Woman

[Shwa]

"Imagined" would be more like it.

Now you see fair play. Good.

There was "intent" on the part of the two people writing the letters. The top of the thread says "Europeans." I don't think two British soldiers are synonymous with "Europeans."

You are minimizing again. These weren't "two British soldiers" and you know it. They were cadre for the British command in the colonies at the time and, in a larger sense, representative of the views of everyone under their command. The smallpox blanket issue is a small indicator, but an indicator nonetheless, about those Europeans.

We have found plenty of "intent" on the part of Muslims to destroy our culture, yet if we were to say "Muslims are deliberately destroying our culture - that is Muslims' intent," I'm guessing you wouldn't be too dense to see the inaccuracy of that statement.

Red herring and an avoidance of the actual subject. The thread says "Europeans" not "Catholics."

So again. Yes, it was the "intent" of the Brit who wrote the letter. That doesn't make the answer to the title of this thread "yes." It does make the answer 'some,'

See? You are not dense. I just knew it.

just as the answer to the question "Are Muslims deliberately destroying western culture - is that their intent?" would be 'some.' Yet you defend Muslims.

Red herring and a pitiful appeal to popularity. Come on AW, you can do better than that.

Where you get the idea that "I think" that you believe the intent was responsible for the epidemic is beyond reason since I asked you if you thought so. I asked because you hadn't said, because I didn't know.

Do you know what a question is? And if so, do you know why people ask them? Good Lord. That "thought" doesn't "rest in my mind." A simple answer, such as 'no I don't believe that,' would have sufficed.

My mistake and I apologize. I saw it as a dumb question and not just a simple one.

So it "won't do" to "minimize" what "Europeans" did, but to apply the same logic and not "minimize" what "Muslims" have done is wrong, wrong, wrong. Is that it? Or do you agree that the same judgement that we see here regarding the blankets can be applied to "Muslims?" And if anyone tries to "minimize" what they have done/are doing - "their" intent - you will tell them that it "simply won't do?"

Red herring. Find something worth comparing rather than apples and oranges.

Golly gee, I think I do. Since I said as much myself.

Whether the blankets were actually distributed - in a manner that would have been effective by my own references - is not immaterial. If the blankets were not distributed, then the "Europeans" didn't "intend" to deliberately destroy Native cultures in this way - we are left with just a couple of Brits who spoke of their intent in a couple of letters.

You are minimizing again with "a couple of Brits." After all, the Sullivan Campaign was only devised by "a couple of" Yankees.

But of course, discussing the use of disease as a weapon means nothing more than casual conversation over tea. Innocent "couple of Brits" they were. Right?

I hope I'm saying this succinctly and plainly enough for you to understand.

Nope. You are still minimizing and throwing out red herrings. Speak specifically of the acts and how they inform us about that time.

Ummmm. The problem doesn't lie with me.

It certainly does when you bring "the Muslims" into as some sort of reference point.

Why thank you for your permission, but I think I'll pass. I'll just continue to say whatever I like in this thread, okay? And by the same token, feel free to ignore it. I realize it doesn't jibe well with the 'bad Europeans' mindset, but I'll continue to portray things as they were.

As I said, through Hobbsian coloured glasses. Which would explain the defensiveness and references to "the Muslims."

So you do recognize that it was "some Europeans" who wanted to harm the Jews, not "Europeans." Good for you. So can I presume that you recognize that "some Europeans" wanted to wipe out Native American culture just as "some Native Americans" wanted to wipe out other Native American cultures and "some Native Americans" wanted to wipe out the colonists? That this mindset wasn't unique to "some Europeans?"

So you do recognize context. Good for you.

[jacee]

. . .

"some Europeans" wanted to wipe out Native American culture. . .

Specifically the monarchs, merchants, militia and missionaries who had the (profit) motive, (papal) mandate, means and opportunity to do so during the conquest of the Americas in the 1500's before, and in preparation for colonization.

[DogOnPorch]

Specifically the monarchs, merchants, militia and missionaries who had the (profit) motive, (papal) mandate, means and opportunity to do so during the conquest of the Americas in the 1500's before, and in preparation for colonization.

Meh...there's more to this story. Isn't there always? Pontiac & crew had their ways which involved violence, treachery and wholesale slaughter of the British colonists. Not the Dale Carnegie approach, for sure. But this was a war...not a picnic.

[jacee]

Meh...there's more to this story. Isn't there always? Pontiac & crew had their ways which involved violence, treachery and wholesale slaughter of the British colonists. Not the Dale Carnegie approach, for sure. But this was a war...not a picnic.

War . . . for profit. And all's fair in . . . war.

[Guest American Woman]

Specifically the monarchs, merchants, militia and missionaries who had the (profit) motive, (papal) mandate, means and opportunity to do so during the conquest of the Americas in the 1500's before, and in preparation for colonization.

Do you have proof that all the monarchs, merchants, and militia wanted to destroy Native cultures in the colonies? Because I've read accounts that would indicate otherwise - instances where there was a desire to get along and learn from each other. The militia wasn't there just to attack and conquer, but for defense. To generalize this way, regarding one side only, is not an accurate account of history.

[DogOnPorch]

Do you have proof that all the monarchs, merchants, and militia wanted to destroy Native cultures in the colonies? Because I've read accounts that would indicate otherwise - instances where there was a desire to get along and learn from each other. The militia wasn't there just to attack and conquer, but for defense. To generalize this way, regarding one side only, is not an accurate account of history.

Pax Britanica...no matter what the likes of these fellows claim...was a rather benevolent empire. There wasn't any major 'Indian Wars' in Canada, for example. Canada was even a haven for tribes escaping the post Civil War campaigns in the West. Heck...it was high taxes, not shooting civilians in the streets, that drove the 13 colonies to independence from the crown. Many former colonial holding turned nation are doing much poorer without the British than with.

[jacee]

Do you have proof that all the monarchs, merchants, and militia wanted to destroy Native cultures in the colonies?

Do you have proof they didn't?

There are two theories. Are they equally plausible? That's ultimately a personal opinion.