Avatar image for modernww2fare
Posted by modernww2fare (7018 posts) 1 year, 10 months ago

Poll: Who was worse - Hitler, Stalin or Mao? (171 votes)

Adolf Hitler 37%
Joseph Stalin 36%
Mao Zedong 27%
No Caption Provided

Avatar image for lunacyde
#101 Posted by Lunacyde (28112 posts) - - Show Bio

@ms-lola: I appreciate the compliment. It isn't all it's cracked up to be though :P

What a great place for a reunion. Such a cheery thread.

Moderator Online
Avatar image for deactivated-097092725
#102 Posted by deactivated-097092725 (10555 posts) - - Show Bio

@lunacyde: I believe you. And yeah, quite the chipper bunch to be found in here. If I could pass you a virtual beer, I would. All around, in fact (minus those I might offend in the offering).

Avatar image for anakon4
#103 Posted by anakon4 (438 posts) - - Show Bio

@ms-lola said:
@heroup2112 said:
@destinyman75 said:

@anakon4: I was going to say the American government dealing with native Americans worse by far. But out of these ID have to say stalin, based soley on the fact Hitler was terrified of him..

Once again I make no excuses for the crimes of my ancestors, however one fact keeps being overlooked by people when it comes to the genocide (and it is by far the worst in recorded history...believe me I've studied it). While the United States government was heavily invested in it at times it was not only not constrained to the United States, it was begun long before a United States existed, and extended both south and north of the US borders and was conducted by the French, Spanish, English, Portuguese, and Italian colonists for several centuries. Canada's less heard of but just as fervent atrocities against its own native peoples.

We in the United States were responsible for more than enough of the blood shed, but it's time to stop painting us as if we invented the situation or that it's a purely American thing. Thanks.

Absolutely. It's horrifying to me having to point it out to fellow Canadians who complain about the government's attempts (half assed ones) to compensate what we've done, as recently as in the last century and arguably up til now with our treatment of aboriginal communities. It's great finding someone on a comic site point it out, amongst the shared responsibility Europe should have in regards to the first American peoples (as in both North and South).

Just wanted to toss in my useless and defunct Canuck pennies into the conversation.

Well it is sort of American thing. Nobody else managed to kill around 100,000,000 people in one event. You exist somewhat around 250 years and took major part in like twenty wars of them.

Avatar image for deactivated-097092725
#104 Posted by deactivated-097092725 (10555 posts) - - Show Bio

@anakon4: I don't understand what you mean?

Avatar image for destinyman75
#105 Posted by destinyman75 (13999 posts) - - Show Bio

@ms-lola: Are your pennies not worth more then ours??

Avatar image for deactivated-097092725
#106 Posted by deactivated-097092725 (10555 posts) - - Show Bio

@destinyman75: We've thrown them away! We only nickel and dime each other now.

Avatar image for destinyman75
#107 Posted by destinyman75 (13999 posts) - - Show Bio

@ms-lola: lol they do that here too what ever happened to piggy banks..

Avatar image for lunacyde
#108 Edited by Lunacyde (28112 posts) - - Show Bio

@anakon4: I don't think you can call Over 500 years of interrelated efforts "one event".

I also think you are intentionally skewing the data. Some high end estimates reach and exceed 100 million, but there are other estimates that are far lower, with the majority hovering right around or just over 50 million, and some going as low as 10 million (which I consider ludicrous) There certainly is no established consensus that 100 million were killed.

Also, loathe as I am to say it you cannot act as if those killed by disease were directly killed by Europeans. There is no evidence to support that Europeans intentionally used germ warfare against the indigenous peoples during the first wave of disease that did a vast amount of the killing. By the time of the French-Indian war, which is the earliest evidence I have found to support the intentional spread of smallpox, the largest populations of indigenous peoples had already been ravaged. It was more of a convenient byproduct that the Europeans capitalized on after the fact.

Did we (European colonizers and settlers) carry out genocide against the indigenous populations of the Americas? Yes, undoubtedly. Did we actively kill 100 million people? No, we cannot factually say that. Would we have killed that many if disease had not wiped them out? It is difficult to say, but if Europeans were to be successful in colonizing and settling the Americas then yes, I believe that they would have killed vast swathes of whatever the indigenous populations were at the time. This would have certainly been counted in the tens of millions.

Moderator Online
Avatar image for noone1996
#109 Posted by Noone1996 (11516 posts) - - Show Bio

@lunacyde: Alright, so you have proven that some Americans wanted to wipe them out, but the REALITY is much different from what they wanted. 90% still died from diseases which was my main point all along. I know this fact bothers people, but it shouldn't be ignored or given excuses for it.

Avatar image for anakon4
#110 Edited by anakon4 (438 posts) - - Show Bio

@ms-lola said:

@anakon4: I don't understand what you mean?

You completely ignore the facts I've written. You can be sorry for whatever you want, but the fact, that you agreed with him (after he said its not american thing) I just had to respond. It was more on him than on you.

Avatar image for lunacyde
#111 Edited by Lunacyde (28112 posts) - - Show Bio

@noone1996:

You are mistaken, what bothers people is when European colonizers carried out genocidal plans against the indigenous peoples of the Americas and people simply shrug it off saying that most died from disease. That doesn't matter, the colonizers still intended to commit genocide. The fact that they had to commit less genocide because disease helped them out doesn't make them any less evil. The reality isn't different from what the Europeans wanted. The only difference was how they got there.

Also, historical evidence does suggest that smallpox was intentionally spread among American Indian populations during the colonial period and afterwards, so you lose that point as well.

Here you will find several letters clearly expressing the intent to wipe out American Indian populations by infecting them with smallpox.

Moderator Online
Avatar image for anakon4
#112 Posted by anakon4 (438 posts) - - Show Bio

@lunacyde said:

@anakon4: I don't think you can call Over 500 years of interrelated efforts "one event".

Not really, by the mid 18th century there was a very little number of indians. You wiped them out much faster.

I also think you are intentionally skewing the data. Some high end estimates reach and exceed 100 million, but there are other estimates that are far lower, with the majority hovering right around or just over 50 million, and some going as low as 10 million (which I consider ludicrous) There certainly is no established consensus that 100 million were killed.

But the fact that you have the highest estimate out of all genocides speaks for itself. American settlers didn't even bother to count the dead. And thats quite a stranger considering in which era this happened.

Also, loathe as I am to say it you cannot act as if those killed by disease were directly killed by Europeans. There is no evidence to support that Europeans intentionally used germ warfare against the indigenous peoples during the first wave of disease that did a vast amount of the killing. By the time of the French-Indian war, which is the earliest evidence I have found to support the intentional spread of smallpox, the largest populations of indigenous peoples had already been ravaged. It was more of a convenient byproduct that the Europeans capitalized on after the fact.

That doesnt matter. If diseases wouldn't kill them, then muskets would. If the settlers knew that they can destroy indians by the smallpox and such, they would do it on purpose.

Did we (European colonizers and settlers) carry out genocide against the indigenous populations of the Americas? Yes, undoubtedly. Did we actively kill 100 million people? No, we cannot factually say that. Would we have killed that many if disease had not wiped them out? It is difficult to say, but if Europeans were to be successful in colonizing and settling the Americas then yes, I believe that they would have killed vast swathes of whatever the indigenous populations were at the time. This would have certainly been counted in the tens of millions.

This is basically just proving what I am implying the whole time. You would kill them anyway.

Avatar image for jb681131
#113 Posted by jb681131 (3064 posts) - - Show Bio

@sophia89 said:

Mao killed more people, so him.

If we're going by evil acts, and not numbers, then Stalin.

70+ million death by Mao only for his purification crussade.

20+ million death and 28+ million in camps for Stalin.

25 million death in camps and a few more that survived by Hitler.

Avatar image for sophia89
#115 Edited by sophia89 (19802 posts) - - Show Bio

@lunacyde said:

@noone1996:

You are mistaken, what bothers people is when European colonizers carried out genocidal plans against the indigenous peoples of the Americas and people simply shrug it off saying that most died from disease. That doesn't matter, the colonizers still intended to commit genocide. The fact that they had to commit less genocide because disease helped them out doesn't make them any less evil. The reality isn't different from what the Europeans wanted. The only difference was how they got there.

Also, historical evidence does suggest that smallpox was intentionally spread among American Indian populations during the colonial period and afterwards, so you lose that point as well.

Here you will find several letters clearly expressing the intent to wipe out American Indian populations by infecting them with smallpox.

From what I read most of the horrendous acts happened in SA, under Christian missionaries. Can't remember the name, but a man that was with the company of Spanish Christian Bishops said that they gathered all their religious texts and burned it because they didn't want sacrilegious items corrupting the natives and preventing them from being saved by the true lord. He stated that watching the natives' reaction made him feel horrible.

Also, the source you used is not really trustworthy, anyone can make a site and say historical stuff in it. People didn't know what germs were until the late 1800s, let alone how to use biological warfare. I mean it is one thing to say they send sick people to them on purpose in hopes to get them sick, but them creating diseased blankets, safety handling it, and then using it seems like a tinfoil theory.

Avatar image for lunacyde
#116 Posted by Lunacyde (28112 posts) - - Show Bio

@anakon4: I wasn't saying your overall message was wrong, I just felt like your argument was a little overzealous.

Moderator Online
Avatar image for erik_soong
#117 Edited by Erik_Soong (1560 posts) - - Show Bio

@sophia89 said:

From what I read most of the horrendous acts happened in SA, under Christian missionaries. Can't remember the name, but a man that was with the company of Spanish Christian Bishops said that they gathered all their religious texts and burned it because they didn't want sacrilegious items corrupting the natives and preventing them from being saved by the true lord. He stated that watching the natives' reaction made him feel horrible.

Also, the source you used is not really trustworthy, anyone can make a site and say historical stuff in it. People didn't know what germs were until the late 1800s, let alone how to use biological warfare. I mean it is one thing to say they send sick people to them on purpose in hopes to get them sick, but them creating diseased blankets, safety handling it, and then using it seems like a tinfoil theory.

The author is Peter d'Errico, a Law Professor, attorney, and historian of Native American issues. This is not the same thing as some YouTuber with nipple holes cut into his shirt to get views. Besides, all his claims are linked to the source letters, which outright state the very things that the Law Professor said they say.

Also, Anton van Leeuwenhoek created the germ theory in 1658.

Avatar image for bluehope
#118 Posted by BlueHope (2681 posts) - - Show Bio

@anakon4 said:
@noone1996 said:

@anakon4: No they didn't. They had no idea what germs were or how they spread or anything like that. Why do you think so many people died in the Civil War? Over 400,000 died from disease and injury because they had no clue how to handle wounds. They'd amputate people and use the same saw without sterilizing it. People would step in excrement and then use their food cutting knife to trim their toe nails. They had no idea about the dangers of germs or anything like that and I dare you to prove otherwise. The idea that the Europeans used biological warfare for hundreds of years to systematically wipe out, yes NINETY PERCENT, of the Native Americans is just ludicrous. You are giving the crafty, sinister, and malevolent white man too much credit. Were many racist and hate the Native Americans? Of course, but did they commit mass genocide on a scale like Hitler, Mao, or Stalin? Absolutely not. It was from unintentional germs being spread. I was only laughing at the torture thing because you squeezed that in there with hunger and war as if torture was such a common and big killer of Native Americans lmao. I'm not laughing at the fact that it happened, but I doubt even 0.000001% of the Native American population was taken out by "torture" xD. Like the Americans had nothing better to do than just go into a village and tie Native Americans to a tree and just poke them with metal objects one by one all day long until they died. I'm not going to get into the unfairness, racism, and anecdotal instances. I'm just correcting and informing you that 90% died from disease only. Saying that Americans/colonists are on par with some of the worst dictators in the 20th century is a flat out lie.

I never said they knew how to treat it. I only said they know how it is created and how it spreads. I never said it was on intention, but if natives wouldn't die of diseases, they would be wiped by immigrants so... it doesn't really matter. Also, you really think its better to annihilate 50, 000, 000 because of stupidity than 6,000,000 because of their wealth to support rest of your people?

Like the Americans had nothing better to do than just go into a village and tie Native Americans to a tree and just poke them with metal objects one by one all day long until they died.

Yes it matters, by this "they would do it if they could" logic Hittler wanted to kill all jews, handicapped,homosexuals and other groups that the nazist considered too useless or dangerous of the "future of their race". It would be a colossal and never ending genocide.

You can't say that it was a "100.000.000 genocide" because it was an accident, we don't even know if Europe would try to kil so many people since it would take forever and take a lot of recources.

Avatar image for deactivated-097092725
#119 Edited by deactivated-097092725 (10555 posts) - - Show Bio

@anakon4 said:
@ms-lola said:

@anakon4: I don't understand what you mean?

You completely ignore the facts I've written. You can be sorry for whatever you want, but the fact, that you agreed with him (after he said its not american thing) I just had to respond. It was more on him than on you.

(shrug)

Still confused, but okay. No biggee.

Avatar image for sophia89
#120 Posted by sophia89 (19802 posts) - - Show Bio

@sophia89 said:

From what I read most of the horrendous acts happened in SA, under Christian missionaries. Can't remember the name, but a man that was with the company of Spanish Christian Bishops said that they gathered all their religious texts and burned it because they didn't want sacrilegious items corrupting the natives and preventing them from being saved by the true lord. He stated that watching the natives' reaction made him feel horrible.

Also, the source you used is not really trustworthy, anyone can make a site and say historical stuff in it. People didn't know what germs were until the late 1800s, let alone how to use biological warfare. I mean it is one thing to say they send sick people to them on purpose in hopes to get them sick, but them creating diseased blankets, safety handling it, and then using it seems like a tinfoil theory.

The author is Peter d'Errico, a Law Professor, attorney, and historian of Native American issues. This is not the same thing as some YouTuber with nipple holes cut into his shirt to get views. Besides, all his claims are linked to the source letters, which outright state the very things that the Law Professor said they say.

Also, Anton van Leeuwenhoek created the germ theory in 1658.

The reliable sources I checked say otherwise.

Germ theory, in medicine, the theory that certain diseases are caused by the invasion of the body by microorganisms, organisms too small to be seen except through a microscope. The French chemist and microbiologist Louis Pasteur, the English surgeon Joseph Lister, and the German physician Robert Koch are given much of the credit for development and acceptance of the theory. In the mid-19th century Pasteur showed that fermentation and putrefaction are caused by organisms in the air; in the 1860s Lister revolutionized surgical practice by utilizing carbolic acid (phenol) to exclude atmospheric germs and thus prevent putrefaction in compound fractures of ... (100 of 184 words)

https://www.britannica.com/topic/germ-theory

The Story Of... Smallpox – and other Deadly Eurasian Germs
Much of the credit for European military success in the New World can be handed to the superiority of their weapons, their literary heritage, even the fact they had unique load-bearing mammals, like horses. These factors combined, gave the conquistadors a massive advantage over the sophisticated civilisations of the Aztec and Inca empires.
But weapons alone can't account for the breathtaking speed with which the indigenous population of the New World were completely wiped out.
Within just a few generations, the continents of the Americas were virtually emptied of their native inhabitants – some academics estimate that approximately 20 million people may have died in the years following the European invasion – up to 95% of the population of the Americas.
No medieval force, no matter how bloodthirsty, could have achieved such enormous levels of genocide. Instead, Europeans were aided by a deadly secret weapon they weren't even aware they were carrying: Smallpox.

https://www.pbs.org/gunsgermssteel/variables/smallpox.html

I'm not calling you a liar, but I've seen incorrect historic before to trust such claims that easily. For example, multiple sources say Brazilian inventor Dumont flew the first airplane, when the Wright Brothers had beat him by 6 years. It's accepted by scholars worldwide that it was the Wright Brothers that flew the first aircraft. However, a lot of countries claim on of their own did so. The Dumont one is the most popular because Brazilians ran it as a legit thing during the Olympic games. There is also Germans that claim a German was the first, and French that claim a Frenchman was the first. There are lot of creditable sources that say so as well; however, the Wright Brothers are the only people with actual evidence of being first.

Using a biological weapon in the late 1600s-early 1700s is just really far fetched to me. Especially when during the 1800s people still didn't know why they were getting sick.

Avatar image for noone1996
#121 Posted by Noone1996 (11516 posts) - - Show Bio

@lunacyde: It's funny and ironic how the people that push this type of rhetoric hate generalizations and blanket statements, yet here you are describing it of ALL Europeans and Americans that came into contact with Native Americans. I don't care if you sent me billions of diaries from every American at the time which claimed they all planned to commit mass genocide of Indians. They didn't do it and the biggest killer was ultimately unintentional spreading of disease. Period. Why does that bother you so much?

As for your examples, smallpox can only survive 24 hours outside of the human body (assuming it isn't well lit). But I'm sure the colonists knew this and planned accordingly, right? Just like they knew enough to meticulously plan out biological warfare.

Avatar image for erik_soong
#122 Edited by Erik_Soong (1560 posts) - - Show Bio

@sophia89 said:
@erik_soong said:
@sophia89 said:

From what I read most of the horrendous acts happened in SA, under Christian missionaries. Can't remember the name, but a man that was with the company of Spanish Christian Bishops said that they gathered all their religious texts and burned it because they didn't want sacrilegious items corrupting the natives and preventing them from being saved by the true lord. He stated that watching the natives' reaction made him feel horrible.

Also, the source you used is not really trustworthy, anyone can make a site and say historical stuff in it. People didn't know what germs were until the late 1800s, let alone how to use biological warfare. I mean it is one thing to say they send sick people to them on purpose in hopes to get them sick, but them creating diseased blankets, safety handling it, and then using it seems like a tinfoil theory.

The author is Peter d'Errico, a Law Professor, attorney, and historian of Native American issues. This is not the same thing as some YouTuber with nipple holes cut into his shirt to get views. Besides, all his claims are linked to the source letters, which outright state the very things that the Law Professor said they say.

Also, Anton van Leeuwenhoek created the germ theory in 1658.

The reliable sources I checked say otherwise.

Germ theory, in medicine, the theory that certain diseases are caused by the invasion of the body by microorganisms, organisms too small to be seen except through a microscope. The French chemist and microbiologist Louis Pasteur, the English surgeon Joseph Lister, and the German physician Robert Koch are given much of the credit for development and acceptance of the theory. In the mid-19th century Pasteur showed that fermentation and putrefaction are caused by organisms in the air; in the 1860s Lister revolutionized surgical practice by utilizing carbolic acid (phenol) to exclude atmospheric germs and thus prevent putrefaction in compound fractures of ... (100 of 184 words)

https://www.britannica.com/topic/germ-theory

The Story Of... Smallpox – and other Deadly Eurasian Germs
Much of the credit for European military success in the New World can be handed to the superiority of their weapons, their literary heritage, even the fact they had unique load-bearing mammals, like horses. These factors combined, gave the conquistadors a massive advantage over the sophisticated civilisations of the Aztec and Inca empires.
But weapons alone can't account for the breathtaking speed with which the indigenous population of the New World were completely wiped out.
Within just a few generations, the continents of the Americas were virtually emptied of their native inhabitants – some academics estimate that approximately 20 million people may have died in the years following the European invasion – up to 95% of the population of the Americas.
No medieval force, no matter how bloodthirsty, could have achieved such enormous levels of genocide. Instead, Europeans were aided by a deadly secret weapon they weren't even aware they were carrying: Smallpox.

https://www.pbs.org/gunsgermssteel/variables/smallpox.html

I'm not calling you a liar, but I've seen incorrect historic before to trust such claims that easily. For example, multiple sources say Brazilian inventor Dumont flew the first airplane, when the Wright Brothers had beat him by 6 years. It's accepted by scholars worldwide that it was the Wright Brothers that flew the first aircraft. However, a lot of countries claim on of their own did so. The Dumont one is the most popular because Brazilians ran it as a legit thing during the Olympic games. There is also Germans that claim a German was the first, and French that claim a Frenchman was the first. There are lot of creditable sources that say so as well; however, the Wright Brothers are the only people with actual evidence of being first.

Using a biological weapon in the late 1600s-early 1700s is just really far fetched to me. Especially when during the 1800s people still didn't know why they were getting sick.

You are checking for the WRONG information. Theory is not the same thing as experiments that support theories. Your reference to Pasteur is the latter. Pasteur's experiment was done to show that milk, wine, and other food products did not spoil on their own but that microorganisms were responsible. You must understand that the theory already existed by this time in order to test its validity. Pasteur's experiment added support to it. Likewise, Koch started his work BECAUSE the theory was already in existence. Koch is responsible for linking SPECIFIC bacteria to SPECIFIC disease. Koch postulated four criteria that had to be met to draw this link:

  1. The microbe must already be present within individuals displaying symptoms and be absent from healthy individuals.
  2. The microorganism must be isolated and grown in a pure culture away from the host.
  3. Organisms grown from the culture then are injected into healthy animal. Symptoms then appear.
  4. Organism should be isolated from the diseased experimental animal, then compared to the first culture.

These are experimental parameters to TEST already existing theories and then refine them. His work became and the work of those you mentioned became the foundation of modern understanding of microorganisms. That does NOT mean that there were not imperfect theories before that were close to modern understanding, of which Leeuwenhoek's published work is.

Regardless, this doesn't even matter. You don't need to understand germ theory to understand how to use it to your advantage. I don't need to know how to design a gun to fire it. It was well known at the time that clothes and anything that a person infected with smallpox came into contact with needed to be burned. This was common knowledge. Do you really think that they need to know that a virus was the cause in order to know that smallpox blankets can transmit disease? Further, in my time looking this stuff up, I happened to stumble across the journal of William Trent, the merchant who gave the smallpox blankets to the Natives. In his journal, he specifically states that he was given two blankets and a handkerchief from the smallpox hospital specifically to give to the Natives in the guise of good intent. Read it yourself, if you wish. He is found later stating that every means necessary must be used to wipe the Indians out (paraphrased). If historical records from experts isn't enough, if quotes from those who performed the actions isn't enough, then sir, I honestly don't know what would satisfy your standards of evidence other than to invent time travel and then take you there to see for yourself.

Anton van Leeuwenhoek is regarded as the father of germ theory. His original publication, Scrutinium Physico–Medicum Contagiosae Luis (1658), can be read for free here. Harvard's Contagion, the Historical Views of Disease and Epidemics, also credits him as the father of germ theory, who predates the modern understanding of germs by 150 years. Here is an article, found at PubMed, which corroborates the same information.

Avatar image for noone1996
#123 Posted by Noone1996 (11516 posts) - - Show Bio

@erik_soong: I guess they knew that smallpox without a host dies within 24 hours too, huh?

Avatar image for erik_soong
#124 Posted by Erik_Soong (1560 posts) - - Show Bio

@erik_soong: I guess they knew that smallpox without a host dies within 24 hours too, huh?

I can't say for sure. They do know however, that it is a highly contagious disease with an absurdly high fatality rate. Smallpox doesn't kill you in 24 hours. It takes anywhere from 7 to 17 days for the symptoms to appear. So they could infect someone with blankets, and the infected Native American would be miles away before he started displaying symptoms. He would, for example, have returned to his home, with his tribe. There, his symptoms, which would be completely alien to everyone there, would spread like wildfire, much like it actually did. It wouldn't matter if the virus only lasted 24 hours if they infected the Native before he left their fort, which is what happened by Trent's own admission. It takes weeks for smallpox to kill someone and in that time, their lesions are constantly aerosolizing new smallpox viruses. Their coughs and sneezes are launching droplets of the virus everywhere in the vicinity. A sneeze can fill a room in seconds. I think you are focused too much on the lifespan of the virus outside of the body. This isn't even relevant considering the documented and admitted circumstances of those who infected the Native Americans. You said before that people shouldn't ignore facts just because the reality bothers them. Why are you exempt from this judgement?

Avatar image for noone1996
#125 Posted by Noone1996 (11516 posts) - - Show Bio

@erik_soong: You misinterpreted my comment. When smallpox is outside of a human host (on an inanimate object like a blanket) the virus can only survive for 24 hours (if sun light isn't exposed). I'm sure they knew this though, right? Planned accordingly?

Avatar image for erik_soong
#126 Posted by Erik_Soong (1560 posts) - - Show Bio

@erik_soong: You misinterpreted my comment. When smallpox is outside of a human host (on an inanimate object like a blanket) the virus can only survive for 24 hours (if sun light isn't exposed). I'm sure they knew this though, right? Planned accordingly?

The 24 hour lifespan is for aerosolized virus only. It is not the same as a blanket from a smallpox house, which would be coated in lesion pus and scab residue, which would dramatically extend the lifespan of the disease.

Avatar image for noone1996
#127 Posted by Noone1996 (11516 posts) - - Show Bio

@erik_soong: How would that extend the lifespan of the virus?

Avatar image for erik_soong
#128 Posted by Erik_Soong (1560 posts) - - Show Bio

@erik_soong: How would that extend the lifespan of the virus?

There is a barrier between the virus and the outside air. The hostile environment is kept at bay. The smallpox virus can last more than a year in debris from an infected person. That's why people burned clothing and bedsheets from those infected instead of just waiting around outside for a day.

Avatar image for lunacyde
#129 Posted by Lunacyde (28112 posts) - - Show Bio

@noone1996: We are talking about people in power. Presidents, governors, public officials. It isn't a blanket statement to say that the the government on both a state and national level, as well as numerous settlers pursued genocide against the indigenous people of the Americas. They did, and there is ample evidence of that fact.

Do you have an issue reading the evidence I am providing you? In 1851 and 1852 the government of California alone spent over a million dollars er year on exterminating American Indians in the state. There is not data extending back that far, but to give just a general idea of how inflation has affected that number, a million dollars in 1913 (the first year with data to show inflation) is the equivalent of $24,877,653.06 today. The state spent millions on wiping out Native Americans. They continued paying bounties for Indian scalps for decades after that.

I literally don't have time to take your hand and walk you through every genocidal act carried out against the American Indians. It is common knowledge. The Trail of Tears, The Long Walk, Bear Creek, Wounded Knee, Sand Creek, Camp Grant, Cypress Hills, Bridge Gulch, Three Knolls, Yontocket, Buffalo Gap, Sappa Creek, Big Hole, Skelton Cave, Clear Lake, Marias, Washita, Campo Seco. I can literally name off massacres all day. Committing massacres against American Indians was so ubiquitous many literally weren't even given names. It was government sponsored policy to wipe out American Indians. Their lands were stolen, the resources they depended on were systematically wiped out, and their culture destroyed.

The United States (and Canada) both committed genocide against the indigenous peoples. If there were more people to resist they too would have been murdered. I'm not sure what you are not understanding. The U.S. and Canada both carried out campaigns of extermination meant to extirpate the American Indian people, and again this is well-documented...from actual sponsored efforts to murder them, to forcing them onto reservations and putting them in Indian schools.

As for your examples, smallpox can only survive 24 hours outside of the human body (assuming it isn't well lit). But I'm sure the colonists knew this and planned accordingly, right? Just like they knew enough to meticulously plan out biological warfare.

Wrong. Smallpox can only survive 24 hours in aerosolized form. That is not the form it would be found in the real life context we are talking about here. We are talking about cotton blankets and handkerchiefs. Smallpox causes lesions and scabs and due to the unbearable itching patients scratch them, breaking off small pieces and particulate matter. Remnants of puss, flakes, scabs, and lesions folded up within the blankets can survive for weeks or even months according to research by the World Health Organization. This is the form of smallpox exposure the Indians would have had. The blankets would be littered with flakes and particulates from the sick person who had used it.

The idea of quarantine precedes germ theory by hundreds of years. People may not have known what germs were or how they worked in general, but they knew that coming in close contact with sick people made you more likely to become sick yourself. There is documented evidence of officials specifically giving blankets and stating that infecting the Indians is their intended effect, so I'm not sure what else it would require for you to be able to wrap your head around the truth.

Moderator Online
Avatar image for decaf_wizard
#130 Posted by decaf_wizard (16840 posts) - - Show Bio

@erik_soong: You misinterpreted my comment. When smallpox is outside of a human host (on an inanimate object like a blanket) the virus can only survive for 24 hours (if sun light isn't exposed). I'm sure they knew this though, right? Planned accordingly?

Yes, if the Virus is aerosolized which is the type typically used in modern biological weapons. Im not sure how long it can survive in bodily fluids but it is a few weeks if I can recall correctly

Avatar image for decaf_wizard
#131 Posted by decaf_wizard (16840 posts) - - Show Bio

The United States (and Canada) both committed genocide against the indigenous peoples. If there were more people to resist they too would have been murdered. I'm not sure what you are not understanding. The U.S. and Canada both carried out campaigns of extermination meant to extirpate the American Indian people, and again this is well-documented...from actual sponsored efforts to murder them, to forcing them onto reservations and putting them in Indian schools.

Canadian here. The Canadian Government (and before that, British Colonial Office) never tried to commit true Genocide. There are rumours it may have happened in Newfoundland to the Beothuk but it is a historically debating subject and I don't really want to touch on the subject for that reason. The residential schools, and to a lesser extent reservations were more of a cultural means of forced assimilation. Thats why it was deemed a cultural genocide instead of a genocide. They we're exploited to fight in wars but I doubt that can be considered a forced eradication either given the context of why they joined the wars to begin with

Avatar image for noone1996
#132 Posted by Noone1996 (11516 posts) - - Show Bio

@lunacyde: Nobody is claiming that genocide didn't happen. Saying that over 90% of the deaths that Native Americans suffered was due to genocide is a straight up myth. Again, why does that bother you?

Avatar image for _logos_
#133 Posted by _Logos_ (1907 posts) - - Show Bio

@bluehope said:

Hittler. Stalin and Mao killed more but hittler targeted innocent people from babies to elders just because they didn't fit his idea of "perfect human", if you were a non white or handicapped he would try to kill you no matter where, non germans would be second class citizens and all countries would be forced to bow down to his empire.

At least the Communists goals(or at least their promises being honest or not) were noble, hittler just said "screw you" to everybody but his group.

Stalin said screw you to everyone, he just wanted to manipulate the system with lies and force everyone to bend to his will. There isn't anything cruel Hitler has done that Stalin wouldn't consider, if he needed to target a specific group of people that this part of the continent already disliked, then he would do it.

Avatar image for erik_soong
#134 Posted by Erik_Soong (1560 posts) - - Show Bio

@lunacyde: Nobody is claiming that genocide didn't happen. Saying that over 90% of the deaths that Native Americans suffered was due to genocide is a straight up myth. Again, why does that bother you?

It wasn't a myth though. I just provided you with first hand evidence that it wasn't. Why does that bother you?

Avatar image for noone1996
#135 Edited by Noone1996 (11516 posts) - - Show Bio

@erik_soong: Even if I accept what you are both saying, that still doesn't prove that 90% didn't die from disease. Even if biological warfare was implemented like you say, it wasn't as prevalent as you claim. It was mostly an accident. But no, you're right. There are like two or three sources that say otherwise so we should assume that every outbreak and disease death was biological warfare. It bothers me because you are ignoring evidence and speculating to push an agenda.

Avatar image for erik_soong
#136 Edited by Erik_Soong (1560 posts) - - Show Bio

@noone1996 said:

@erik_soong: Even if I accept what you are both saying, that still doesn't prove that 90% didn't die from disease. Even if biological warfare was implemented like you say, it wasn't as prevalent as you claim. It was mostly an accident. But no, you're right. There are like two or three sources that say otherwise so we should assume that every outbreak and disease death was biological warfare. It bothers me because you are ignoring evidence and speculating to push an agenda.

When someone gives the Natives a diseased blanket with the expressed intention of exterminating the Natives, the fact that 90% of them died out due to the virus becomes a contributor to that genocide.

Also, you are confusing your own messages. You can't say that 90% of Natives died due to disease and then try to argue that it wasn't as prevalent as I claim. YOU claimed that they died due to disease, specifically smallpox. I am showing you evidence that whites deliberately infected Natives with smallpox.

You cannot prove that it was accidental at all. This is speculation presented as fact. I could just as easily speculate that once the success of the deliberate infection was noticed, other whites sought the very same measure. There are countless examples of first-hand evidence of whites specifically saying that they intended to wipe Natives clean from the planet.

I am not ignoring evidence, YOU are. It's white guilt to the highest degree and it's pathetic. Instead of just acknowledging historical fact and documented examples of smallpox being deliberately introduced into the population with the specific intention of genocide, you bury your head in the sand and hide behind some explanation that is no longer supported by evidence so you can protect long dead murderers.

It doesn't bother you because I am ignoring evidence. It bothers you because I provided evidence that makes you look like a genocide apologist.

Avatar image for deactivated-097092725
#137 Posted by deactivated-097092725 (10555 posts) - - Show Bio

The United States (and Canada) both committed genocide against the indigenous peoples. If there were more people to resist they too would have been murdered. I'm not sure what you are not understanding. The U.S. and Canada both carried out campaigns of extermination meant to extirpate the American Indian people, and again this is well-documented...from actual sponsored efforts to murder them, to forcing them onto reservations and putting them in Indian schools.

Canadian here. The Canadian Government (and before that, British Colonial Office) never tried to commit true Genocide. There are rumours it may have happened in Newfoundland to the Beothuk but it is a historically debating subject and I don't really want to touch on the subject for that reason. The residential schools, and to a lesser extent reservations were more of a cultural means of forced assimilation. Thats why it was deemed a cultural genocide instead of a genocide. They we're exploited to fight in wars but I doubt that can be considered a forced eradication either given the context of why they joined the wars to begin with

Really? I don't mean to come off as adversarial as I generally agree with your statements but to say Canada's history with our aboriginal people didn't have shades of forced eradication is a bit naiive. Also, keep in mind while United States and Canada have a border agreed amongst themselves, native peoples didn't recognise or adhere to them. What happened on either side of the border affected many tribes, just in relocation alone.

I appreciate what you're saying. If there needs to be a level system of genocidal effort between the United States and Canada, perhaps, arguably, we would fall on the lower end of it but in terms of destroying an entire culture, Canada tried damn hard at it.

Avatar image for noone1996
#138 Edited by Noone1996 (11516 posts) - - Show Bio
@erik_soong said:

When someone gives the Natives a diseased blanket with the expressed intention of exterminating the Natives, the fact that 90% of them died out due to the virus becomes a contributor to that genocide. YOU claimed that they died due to disease, specifically smallpox. I am showing you evidence that whites deliberately infected Natives with smallpox.

So I guess the number of 90% dying unintentionally from disease goes down to...? What? 80%? 60%? 20%?Why don't we speculate a figure based on like 3 pieces of recorded evidence of people JUST TALKING about it.

Also, you are confusing your own messages. You can't say that 90% of Natives died due to disease and then try to argue that it wasn't as prevalent as I claim.

Yes I can. I'm saying most of them died UNINTENTIONALLY due to the spread of disease. Is that or is that not true?

You cannot prove that it was accidental at all. This is speculation presented as fact.

Ironic. You post a couple instances of Europeans talking about intentionally giving infected blankets, so now we should assume that all, or even most of, the cases were intentional infections. I can not believe you are actually lecturing ME on speculation here.

I could just as easily speculate that once the success of the deliberate infection was noticed, other whites sought the very same measure. There are countless examples of first-hand evidence of whites specifically saying that they intended to wipe Natives clean from the planet.

So I guess the logical explanation is that most diseases were spread this way, huh? Totally not speculation at all.

I am not ignoring evidence, YOU are. It's white guilt to the highest degree and it's pathetic.

Awww the truth finally comes out. Tell me more about how you aren't pushing an agenda and how you're just looking at 'facts' from an unbiased viewpoint. Please tell me to check my privilege next.

Instead of just acknowledging historical fact and documented examples of smallpox being deliberately introduced into the population with the specific intention of genocide, you bury your head in the sand and hide behind some explanation that is no longer supported by evidence so you can protect long dead murderers.

We don't know if they actually did it, we don't know if it actually worked, and we DO know that it wasn't as common as you are desperately trying to push it to be.

It doesn't bother you because I am ignoring evidence. It bothers you because I provided evidence that makes you look like a genocide apologist.

No, you are twisting evidence to push your narrative. I'm not an apologist. I have already admitted that they committed unspeakable acts, but saying that intentional genocide being the biggest killer of Native Americans is hilariously false. We do know for a fact that 90% died from disease. Are you going to sit there and tell me that most of the time Native American villages were infected on purpose?

Avatar image for decaf_wizard
#139 Posted by decaf_wizard (16840 posts) - - Show Bio

@ms-lola said:
@decaf_wizard said:

The United States (and Canada) both committed genocide against the indigenous peoples. If there were more people to resist they too would have been murdered. I'm not sure what you are not understanding. The U.S. and Canada both carried out campaigns of extermination meant to extirpate the American Indian people, and again this is well-documented...from actual sponsored efforts to murder them, to forcing them onto reservations and putting them in Indian schools.

Canadian here. The Canadian Government (and before that, British Colonial Office) never tried to commit true Genocide. There are rumours it may have happened in Newfoundland to the Beothuk but it is a historically debating subject and I don't really want to touch on the subject for that reason. The residential schools, and to a lesser extent reservations were more of a cultural means of forced assimilation. Thats why it was deemed a cultural genocide instead of a genocide. They we're exploited to fight in wars but I doubt that can be considered a forced eradication either given the context of why they joined the wars to begin with

Really? I don't mean to come off as adversarial as I generally agree with your statements but to say Canada's history with our aboriginal people didn't have shades of forced eradication is a bit naiive. Also, keep in mind while United States and Canada have a border agreed amongst themselves, native peoples didn't recognise or adhere to them. What happened on either side of the border affected many tribes, just in relocation alone.

I appreciate what you're saying. If there needs to be a level system of genocidal effort between the United States and Canada, perhaps, arguably, we would fall on the lower end of it but in terms of destroying an entire culture, Canada tried damn hard at it.

Forced eradication is a bit of a harsh term. Although there certainly was violence in the west, it was never officially sanctioned or permitted by the government like in the United States nor to anywhere near the same scale. The only evidence of any flat out exterminations were in Newfoundland and Labrador and even then its highly debated on what specifically occurred. What the Canadians more or less did was befriend and subtly exploit and the natives whenever it suited them and treat them as third class citizens to be exploited in less subtle ways when it didn't suit them. They essentially got played by the Brits because they didn't know the game and were in a position of disadvantage

Canada tried to destroy the culture. Not the people. I find that is an important distinction.

Avatar image for deactivated-097092725
#140 Edited by deactivated-097092725 (10555 posts) - - Show Bio

@decaf_wizard: Fair enough. I think where you and I stand opposed is there being a distinction between a culture and a people in terms of destruction. One could say it's hyperbolic to hold up actual death of human beings to culture loss but anthropologically speaking, it's devastating. I don't make a distinction because of that.

Avatar image for erik_soong
#141 Posted by Erik_Soong (1560 posts) - - Show Bio

So I guess the number of 90% dying unintentionally from disease goes down to...? What? 80%? 60%? 20%?Why don't we speculate a figure based on like 3 pieces of recorded evidence of people JUST TALKING about it.

Do you have trouble with the concept of an epidemic? Smallpox is a highly contagious disease. These pieces of evidence that were provided show clear intent, proud admission of being the guilty party, and we have evidence showing that their deliberate actions have had significant impact.

Yes I can. I'm saying most of them died UNINTENTIONALLY due to the spread of disease. Is that or is that not true?

No, you are trying to absolve someone of guilt when they outright admit to what they did and the intentions behind those actions. Why would you try to argue that deliberate intent and actions of genocide are unintentional? Are you that desperate to "free the white man" of responsibility to these actions?

Ironic.

You clearly have no idea what this word means.

You post a couple instances of Europeans talking about intentionally giving infected blankets, so now we should assume that all, or even most of, the cases were intentional infections. I can not believe you are actually lecturing ME on speculation here.

Yeah because I understand how dangerous smallpox is and how quickly it can spread. This isn't rocket science but it clearly has soared right over your head. We have letters from the military and those associated with them, which includes merchants and government officials describing exactly their plans for genocide but you want us to believe that this was all an accident.

So I guess the logical explanation is that most diseases were spread this way, huh? Totally not speculation at all.

What are you talking about? Native Americans were not wiped out by most diseases. Their numbers were largely impacted by smallpox, by your own admission. Now that evidence was presented that the smallpox was deliberately introduced by whites, you desperately try to absolve them of any wrongdoing. It's goddamn insane. If a group of people introduced a lethal and highly contagious disease to a population with the expressed desire to murder them all, it would be decidedly illogical to refuse to acknowledge it. It is even more ridiculous to spew nonsense from a position of ignorance. How many times have I had to correct your nonsense on how diseases are spread already? You are ignorant to the subject but by damn, that isn't going to stop you from acting like you have any clue.

Awww the truth finally comes out. Tell me more about how you aren't pushing an agenda and how you're just looking at 'facts' from an unbiased viewpoint. Please tell me to check my privilege next.

Yes, calling you out for your horse shit is me pushing an agenda. No, you have shown an absolute refusal to accept documented evidence. You have shown to refuse information to protect your beliefs. You are the one who is so afraid to acknowledge the truth because it is white guilt. How is your viewpoint without bias? You refused direct evidence for several posts because it hurts your feel-goods. Maybe you should just get over yourself and accept that some people in history were monsters, even whites.

We don't know if they actually did it,

Except for the fact that they literally admit to doing it.

we don't know if it actually worked,

Anyone with even a basic understanding in microbiology would see how the likelihood of it working would be practically a guarantee. Why don't you even bother looking up these diseases instead of furnishing us with example after example of the Dunning-Kruger effect and cognitive dissonance?

and we DO know that it wasn't as common as you are desperately trying to push it to be.

What wasn't common? The deliberate infection of Natives? We don't know what at all. In order to know that, we would need evidence from several sources from the time period decrying these actions. Do you have anything like that?

No, you are twisting evidence to push your narrative.

How? How is providing an admission of murderous actions against an entire people "twisting" anything? Did you just see someone else use that word and without even understanding what it means, decided to give it a try?

I'm not an apologist.

You are and you are a dishonest one at that.

I have already admitted that they committed unspeakable acts,

Just ones that have a low volume body count because that makes you feel better.

but saying that intentional genocide being the biggest killer of Native Americans is hilariously false.

Hilariously false... How someone can say that after being given direct evidence to the contrary is exactly what I mean by cognitive dissonance. If you don't know what that means, Google is your friend. It would have been nice if you started with its use. Perhaps you wouldn't have stuck your foot in your mouth time after time if you had.

We do know for a fact that 90% died from disease.

We also know that the military on at least a few documented occasions deliberately infected them with smallpox. Why would they stop once they saw its effectiveness. Is it because they knew that one day, some 'noone' would have a hard time dealing with it, so they stopped for your sake?

Are you going to sit there and tell me that most of the time Native American villages were infected on purpose?

I am telling you that we have direct, irrefutable evidence of intent, action, and success. I am also telling you that the government had invested heavily in the extermination of Native Americans. You are trying to argue that even with this noted success, they wouldn't continue to do it... for some inexplicable reason. Are you sure that I am the illogical one here? Are you really sure? Because if you do, you really need to reevaluate your position. I know that is hard for you but it is expected when you are presented with new information that totally screws your argument.

Avatar image for heatblaze
#142 Edited by Heatblaze (10399 posts) - - Show Bio

Can we not rank them and just say that they're all equally terrible pieces of shits?

Avatar image for erik_soong
#143 Posted by Erik_Soong (1560 posts) - - Show Bio

Can we not rank them and just say that they're all equally terrible pieces of shis?

I could agree to that. I doubt one of these guys would look to the other and think, "Wow, he killed twice as much as me. I am disgusted."

Avatar image for giliad_
#144 Edited by GIliad_ (6638 posts) - - Show Bio

I don't think looking at a death toll cuts it here...

Avatar image for anakon4
#145 Posted by anakon4 (438 posts) - - Show Bio

@bluehope said:
@anakon4 said:
@noone1996 said:

@anakon4: No they didn't. They had no idea what germs were or how they spread or anything like that. Why do you think so many people died in the Civil War? Over 400,000 died from disease and injury because they had no clue how to handle wounds. They'd amputate people and use the same saw without sterilizing it. People would step in excrement and then use their food cutting knife to trim their toe nails. They had no idea about the dangers of germs or anything like that and I dare you to prove otherwise. The idea that the Europeans used biological warfare for hundreds of years to systematically wipe out, yes NINETY PERCENT, of the Native Americans is just ludicrous. You are giving the crafty, sinister, and malevolent white man too much credit. Were many racist and hate the Native Americans? Of course, but did they commit mass genocide on a scale like Hitler, Mao, or Stalin? Absolutely not. It was from unintentional germs being spread. I was only laughing at the torture thing because you squeezed that in there with hunger and war as if torture was such a common and big killer of Native Americans lmao. I'm not laughing at the fact that it happened, but I doubt even 0.000001% of the Native American population was taken out by "torture" xD. Like the Americans had nothing better to do than just go into a village and tie Native Americans to a tree and just poke them with metal objects one by one all day long until they died. I'm not going to get into the unfairness, racism, and anecdotal instances. I'm just correcting and informing you that 90% died from disease only. Saying that Americans/colonists are on par with some of the worst dictators in the 20th century is a flat out lie.

I never said they knew how to treat it. I only said they know how it is created and how it spreads. I never said it was on intention, but if natives wouldn't die of diseases, they would be wiped by immigrants so... it doesn't really matter. Also, you really think its better to annihilate 50, 000, 000 because of stupidity than 6,000,000 because of their wealth to support rest of your people?

Like the Americans had nothing better to do than just go into a village and tie Native Americans to a tree and just poke them with metal objects one by one all day long until they died.

Yes it matters, by this "they would do it if they could" logic Hittler wanted to kill all jews, handicapped,homosexuals and other groups that the nazist considered too useless or dangerous of the "future of their race". It would be a colossal and never ending genocide.

At least they killed people and had semi-logical motives. You just killed them, because they owned land you wanted.

You can't say that it was a "100.000.000 genocide" because it was an accident, we don't even know if Europe would try to kil so many people since it would take forever and take a lot of recources.

Europeans had no problem killing millions of muslims some 300 years before colonization happened. And even if it would take a lot of resources, it would be still economically beneficial, considering the America's wealth back then.

Avatar image for the_man_with_questions
#146 Posted by The_Man_With_Questions (2707 posts) - - Show Bio

All countries have skeletons in their closet. However, I thought this thread was more so about shitty people who lead their countries down bad paths. Like, really bad paths.

Avatar image for heroup2112
#148 Posted by HeroUp2112 (18177 posts) - - Show Bio

@anakon4 said:
@bluehope said:
@anakon4 said:
@noone1996 said:

@anakon4: No they didn't. They had no idea what germs were or how they spread or anything like that. Why do you think so many people died in the Civil War? Over 400,000 died from disease and injury because they had no clue how to handle wounds. They'd amputate people and use the same saw without sterilizing it. People would step in excrement and then use their food cutting knife to trim their toe nails. They had no idea about the dangers of germs or anything like that and I dare you to prove otherwise. The idea that the Europeans used biological warfare for hundreds of years to systematically wipe out, yes NINETY PERCENT, of the Native Americans is just ludicrous. You are giving the crafty, sinister, and malevolent white man too much credit. Were many racist and hate the Native Americans? Of course, but did they commit mass genocide on a scale like Hitler, Mao, or Stalin? Absolutely not. It was from unintentional germs being spread. I was only laughing at the torture thing because you squeezed that in there with hunger and war as if torture was such a common and big killer of Native Americans lmao. I'm not laughing at the fact that it happened, but I doubt even 0.000001% of the Native American population was taken out by "torture" xD. Like the Americans had nothing better to do than just go into a village and tie Native Americans to a tree and just poke them with metal objects one by one all day long until they died. I'm not going to get into the unfairness, racism, and anecdotal instances. I'm just correcting and informing you that 90% died from disease only. Saying that Americans/colonists are on par with some of the worst dictators in the 20th century is a flat out lie.

I never said they knew how to treat it. I only said they know how it is created and how it spreads. I never said it was on intention, but if natives wouldn't die of diseases, they would be wiped by immigrants so... it doesn't really matter. Also, you really think its better to annihilate 50, 000, 000 because of stupidity than 6,000,000 because of their wealth to support rest of your people?

Like the Americans had nothing better to do than just go into a village and tie Native Americans to a tree and just poke them with metal objects one by one all day long until they died.

Yes it matters, by this "they would do it if they could" logic Hittler wanted to kill all jews, handicapped,homosexuals and other groups that the nazist considered too useless or dangerous of the "future of their race". It would be a colossal and never ending genocide.

At least they killed people and had semi-logical motives. You just killed them, because they owned land you wanted.

You can't say that it was a "100.000.000 genocide" because it was an accident, we don't even know if Europe would try to kil so many people since it would take forever and take a lot of recources.

Europeans had no problem killing millions of muslims some 300 years before colonization happened. And even if it would take a lot of resources, it would be still economically beneficial, considering the America's wealth back then.

Wait a minute...one more time what the American colonists did was beyond reprehensible...but are you REALLY trying to say what Hitler was doing was more justifiable? Really? Neither are remotely justifiable, but how is killing millions of people simply because you don't like the way they look, act, or by accident of birth and less evil then killing millions of people because they have something you want?

Is it the number of people?

Trust me...if Hitler had had the same number of decades to carry out his INDUSTRIALIZED extermination of people he'd have exceeded the (possibly, because there's no real way to know) 100,000,000 by a LONG shot...and honestly in MUCH less time.

Avatar image for anakon4
#149 Posted by anakon4 (438 posts) - - Show Bio

@anakon4 said:
@bluehope said:
@anakon4 said:
@noone1996 said:

@anakon4: No they didn't. They had no idea what germs were or how they spread or anything like that. Why do you think so many people died in the Civil War? Over 400,000 died from disease and injury because they had no clue how to handle wounds. They'd amputate people and use the same saw without sterilizing it. People would step in excrement and then use their food cutting knife to trim their toe nails. They had no idea about the dangers of germs or anything like that and I dare you to prove otherwise. The idea that the Europeans used biological warfare for hundreds of years to systematically wipe out, yes NINETY PERCENT, of the Native Americans is just ludicrous. You are giving the crafty, sinister, and malevolent white man too much credit. Were many racist and hate the Native Americans? Of course, but did they commit mass genocide on a scale like Hitler, Mao, or Stalin? Absolutely not. It was from unintentional germs being spread. I was only laughing at the torture thing because you squeezed that in there with hunger and war as if torture was such a common and big killer of Native Americans lmao. I'm not laughing at the fact that it happened, but I doubt even 0.000001% of the Native American population was taken out by "torture" xD. Like the Americans had nothing better to do than just go into a village and tie Native Americans to a tree and just poke them with metal objects one by one all day long until they died. I'm not going to get into the unfairness, racism, and anecdotal instances. I'm just correcting and informing you that 90% died from disease only. Saying that Americans/colonists are on par with some of the worst dictators in the 20th century is a flat out lie.

I never said they knew how to treat it. I only said they know how it is created and how it spreads. I never said it was on intention, but if natives wouldn't die of diseases, they would be wiped by immigrants so... it doesn't really matter. Also, you really think its better to annihilate 50, 000, 000 because of stupidity than 6,000,000 because of their wealth to support rest of your people?

Like the Americans had nothing better to do than just go into a village and tie Native Americans to a tree and just poke them with metal objects one by one all day long until they died.

Yes it matters, by this "they would do it if they could" logic Hittler wanted to kill all jews, handicapped,homosexuals and other groups that the nazist considered too useless or dangerous of the "future of their race". It would be a colossal and never ending genocide.

At least they killed people and had semi-logical motives. You just killed them, because they owned land you wanted.

You can't say that it was a "100.000.000 genocide" because it was an accident, we don't even know if Europe would try to kil so many people since it would take forever and take a lot of recources.

Europeans had no problem killing millions of muslims some 300 years before colonization happened. And even if it would take a lot of resources, it would be still economically beneficial, considering the America's wealth back then.

Wait a minute...one more time what the American colonists did was beyond reprehensible...but are you REALLY trying to say what Hitler was doing was more justifiable? Really? Neither are remotely justifiable, but how is killing millions of people simply because you don't like the way they look, act, or by accident of birth and less evil then killing millions of people because they have something you want?

Just because you are brainwashed utopian doesn't necesarily mean that actions are strictly good or bad. Evil doesn't even exist. Jews in germany had everything, when native germans were starving to death. Why do you think people so willingly agreed to take their property away?

Both Hitler and settlers killed people for profit, but Hitler at least TRIED to justify it. Settlers just came and kill them.

Is it the number of people?

Trust me...if Hitler had had the same number of decades to carry out his INDUSTRIALIZED extermination of people he'd have exceeded the (possibly, because there's no real way to know) 100,000,000 by a LONG shot...and honestly in MUCH less time.

If Americans had the option they would try to dominate the entire world. If the OSN and NATO didn't exist, America could easily try to gain military influence by force in European countries one by one. You attacked vietnamese, koreans, japanese, germans twice, you were even involved in Napoleonic Wars ffs and that had NOTHING to do with you.

Avatar image for heroup2112
#150 Edited by HeroUp2112 (18177 posts) - - Show Bio

@anakon4 said:
@heroup2112 said:
@anakon4 said:
@bluehope said:
@anakon4 said:
@noone1996 said:

@anakon4: No they didn't. They had no idea what germs were or how they spread or anything like that. Why do you think so many people died in the Civil War? Over 400,000 died from disease and injury because they had no clue how to handle wounds. They'd amputate people and use the same saw without sterilizing it. People would step in excrement and then use their food cutting knife to trim their toe nails. They had no idea about the dangers of germs or anything like that and I dare you to prove otherwise. The idea that the Europeans used biological warfare for hundreds of years to systematically wipe out, yes NINETY PERCENT, of the Native Americans is just ludicrous. You are giving the crafty, sinister, and malevolent white man too much credit. Were many racist and hate the Native Americans? Of course, but did they commit mass genocide on a scale like Hitler, Mao, or Stalin? Absolutely not. It was from unintentional germs being spread. I was only laughing at the torture thing because you squeezed that in there with hunger and war as if torture was such a common and big killer of Native Americans lmao. I'm not laughing at the fact that it happened, but I doubt even 0.000001% of the Native American population was taken out by "torture" xD. Like the Americans had nothing better to do than just go into a village and tie Native Americans to a tree and just poke them with metal objects one by one all day long until they died. I'm not going to get into the unfairness, racism, and anecdotal instances. I'm just correcting and informing you that 90% died from disease only. Saying that Americans/colonists are on par with some of the worst dictators in the 20th century is a flat out lie.

I never said they knew how to treat it. I only said they know how it is created and how it spreads. I never said it was on intention, but if natives wouldn't die of diseases, they would be wiped by immigrants so... it doesn't really matter. Also, you really think its better to annihilate 50, 000, 000 because of stupidity than 6,000,000 because of their wealth to support rest of your people?

Like the Americans had nothing better to do than just go into a village and tie Native Americans to a tree and just poke them with metal objects one by one all day long until they died.

Yes it matters, by this "they would do it if they could" logic Hittler wanted to kill all jews, handicapped,homosexuals and other groups that the nazist considered too useless or dangerous of the "future of their race". It would be a colossal and never ending genocide.

At least they killed people and had semi-logical motives. You just killed them, because they owned land you wanted.

You can't say that it was a "100.000.000 genocide" because it was an accident, we don't even know if Europe would try to kil so many people since it would take forever and take a lot of recources.

Europeans had no problem killing millions of muslims some 300 years before colonization happened. And even if it would take a lot of resources, it would be still economically beneficial, considering the America's wealth back then.

Wait a minute...one more time what the American colonists did was beyond reprehensible...but are you REALLY trying to say what Hitler was doing was more justifiable? Really? Neither are remotely justifiable, but how is killing millions of people simply because you don't like the way they look, act, or by accident of birth and less evil then killing millions of people because they have something you want?

Just because you are brainwashed utopian doesn't necesarily mean that actions are strictly good or bad. Evil doesn't even exist. Jews in germany had everything, when native germans were starving to death. Why do you think people so willingly agreed to take their property away?

Both Hitler and settlers killed people for profit, but Hitler at least TRIED to justify it. Settlers just came and kill them.

Is it the number of people?

Trust me...if Hitler had had the same number of decades to carry out his INDUSTRIALIZED extermination of people he'd have exceeded the (possibly, because there's no real way to know) 100,000,000 by a LONG shot...and honestly in MUCH less time.

If Americans had the option they would try to dominate the entire world. If the OSN and NATO didn't exist, America could easily try to gain military influence by force in European countries one by one. You attacked vietnamese, koreans, japanese, germans twice, you were even involved in Napoleonic Wars ffs and that had NOTHING to do with you.

We're going to have to agree to disagree. I've seen some truly, I mean truly evil things in my life. Yeah, we're going to have to agree to disagree. Second, the world sucks, I'm damn well not a Utopian. I have zero illusions about the world and I guarantee I've seen and experienced things that would make you wake up screaming. I'm no pie in the sky idealist. You've got the wrong guy.

I will, again, say a few thing. I'm a realist. I am a patriot but I am by no means blind to my country's crimes and faults. However, I also know my country's history, politics (even if I don't always much like them), and goals (even if I don't always like them) for the greater part. The last thing I am is brainwashed, though (I didn't realize this before), you seem to be.

  • So, ALL the Jews in Germany had everything? Certainly there weren't hundreds of thousands of Jews who were poor, or just getting by? No, of course not. Certainly there weren't many rich, non Jewish, Germans who (like most rich people) who lived above the common people not caring what those beneath them had to deal with and contributing little to those in need? Those same rich and influential people that (at first) mocked Hitler for his lack of sophistication and manners when he was an up and coming political figure? Certainly not, it was ALL the Jews fault, right?
  • Certainly Hitler's only beef with the Jews was that they were "stealing from and taking advantage of" the "good upstanding people of Germany" it wasn't because he despised the Jews as a people and considered them sub-human (have you even read Mein Kampf? Certainly Hitler also had no use for all the money and goods that were stolen from Jewish business and landowners, right? (Hmmm, kind of seems to run a little parallel to the American settlers doesn't it...hmmm these aboriginals have what we want, and we consider them sub-human...so why not kill them and take their stuff? Nope no similarity there. Sounds like justification to me, ever heard of Manifest Destiny?)
  • If America had the option they would try to dominate the world? There's almost too much to go with here.
    • Hitler's EXPRESS goal was trying to take over the world. His war was meant to do JUST THAT. I realize that's not exactly your point, but unless I'm reading things wrong, you seem to be defending Hitler more than a little here.
    • Trying to dominate the world? The US got DRAGGED IN to both World Wars...we wanted no part of them. We tried our best to stay out of them. Hell, the President at the time we got dragged in to WW1 got REELECTED on the fact that he kept us out of the war in the first place. So you're accusation that we attacked the Germans, and ESPECIALLY the Japanese (who attacked US lol), is more than a little off base.
    • We stayed out of the Napoleonic Wars for as long as we possibly could (hell the most wildly popular president in our entire history took massive political and public relations hits for keeping us out of the affairs of France) until British ships kept raiding our ships and capturing and impressing our sailors. If England hadn't been screwing with us, we'd have been MORE than happy to stay the hell out of it. So, as you see (whether you choose to believe it or not) it most definitely had something to do with us.
    • Vietnam...yes...you have a point. See? I'm a realist.
    • NATO is keeping us in check??? We were the driving force in creating NATO, we commit more money and resources to NATO than any other country, how exactly is NATO keeping us in check?
    • I'm of the opinion that we do get involved militarily in foreign affairs too often, mainly (these days) in support of purely political or (sometimes) resource interests. Some of which disgust me. However, if we were trying to trying to "dominate the world" military power would be one of the least effective ways to do it. Power these days is secured through political and financial means...businesses, corporations, conglomerates. If you want to look at possible dangers from the US (there are other countries as well...but since you seem fixated on the US as some evil...whoops, you don't believe in evil...empire on the move) I'd be more worried about our president and how he earned his fortune and some of the moves he's making in the back ground than the flashy military moves going on right now. Just a thought.