-What I find hysterical is the sensationalized absence of logic that “these tribes are no longer there… obviously, white people killed them”.
The Philistines mentioned in the Bible no longer exist. This must prove they were clipped by the Mafia…
the difference is time. the mafia came long after the philistines. the tribes i mentioned were around when europeans arrived, but sometime later perished. smart ass commentary won’t detract from that any, so when you’re done with that, maybe you could answer the question of what happened since no one else seems to want to bother, for whatever reason.
-That’s actually a MUCH more complex philosophical question than you may realize. The answer is yes and no.
how complex is it to recognize that certain activities will likely, if not probably, cause the effect of spreading a certain disease?
-Aztecs thought the world was a machine that had to be lubricated with human blood, and that was tame compared to beliefs of other tribes. No race has a monopoly on illogically based belief systems.
i was actually insenuating that europeans weren’t as dense as you made them out to be, and they well understood many instances of cause and effect regarding illnesses. so, what does this have to do with anything?
-So they didn’t know there was such a thing as germs or viruses, let alone that there was such a thing as immunobodies which allowed healthy people to be carriers to what could annihilate other healthy people without becoming sick themselves, but they understood how diseases were transmitted. Never mind the well documented beliefs that plague was caused by Jews poisoning wells or God’s wrath over heretics, they knew exactly what has happening and set off to America to wipe out some savages with biowarfare.
what about the instances where they would attempt to catapault the bodies of those affected by the plague over barricades in hopes it would spread to the enemy? does this show a likely understanding of how the disease might be spread, or was that their way of offering up greetings? why do you ignore those instances and focus on the absurd, as if that were all that existed? pretty sneaky. and then to go and attribute some belief to me i didn’t even imply. fan-f*ckin’-tastic.
certainly you aren’t implying that supplying indians with smallpox infested blankets, handkerchiefs, etc., demonstrated a lack of ability on europeans’ part to understand how disease might be spread… are you? mind you they’d had a lot of practice simply observing the myriad possibilities of cause and effect with regard to disease, yet you’d have us believe they knew nothing. again, you want to portray europeans as ignorant when it suits your purposes, yet immanently better (especially when it comes to such things as scientific observation and innovations) than indians or certainly no worse (so indians can be worse in some regards, but europeans can’t when compared to indians. i see) all the same. nice game.
-Nobody’s argued this. However, the intentional distribution of disease represented the vast minority.
that’s to be argued. it’s not a truth. while it probably represents the minority still, the ‘vast minority’ is too extreme.
-Who is scoffing?
A major difference between the Shoah and the killing of Indians, however, was that the SOLE AND EXPLICIT PURPOSE of the Final Solution was the deliberate murder of a race.
yet even if they’d succeeded in killing the members of said race in all of europe, they’d have still only had a success rate far lower than that of the one they had in the americas, or, for instance, in the united states alone, where the population declined over hundreds of years by about 95%.
the parallels are actually deeper than that. at first it was to rid the area of jews and other ‘undesirables,’ even offering them chances to leave, and then, it was to ‘handle their jewish problem’ much like they handled their ‘indian’ problem here since most jews remained, which was doing away with them by any means necessary. sound familiar? it would if you understood more than you let on about american history.
-Every aspect of the nation’s industrialization contributed something to this goal; there is a theory that the Nazis could have prolonged the war for years if they hadn’t used trains to transport Jews and the others to death camps rather than for military use. Show me this much deliberation of purpose in American history.
american history is stained with this sort of thing, from coast to coast. you want to engage in a discussion here and expect to be taken seriously when you don’t even know much of the history you toss around?.. why is it you think something such as offering bounties for scalps by various u.s. polities and calling publicly for it wasn’t deliberate? why is it you think that u.s. cavalries and militiamen targeting noncombatants, burning villages and crops so the people would starve if they couldn’t outright kill them, wasn’t deliberate? why do you think the u.s. appropriating money for these purposes wasn’t deliberate? why do you think trying to give indians disease, or keeping them in conditions which would bring about illness, or denying them vaccinations and other healthcare wasn’t deliberate? why do you think enslaving indian people wasn’t deliberate? the u.s. and its states have had official policies that have allowed all of these things and any other devastation you could imagine. why is this somehow any better? why is it not ‘deliberate’ enough for your sensibilities?
shoot, when they removed indians from different parts of the country to oklahoma and kansas, they didn’t even have the luxury of being on a train let alone most not having any form of transportation other than their feet.
-After some research, I can’t, so I retract the DNA inclusion with apologies. However, one reason that there hasn’t been more DNA testing is NAGPRA; for cites for this, simply do a google using some of the following terms:
NAGPRA, “Spirit Cave Man”, “Kennewick Man”, litigation, DNA
What is used instead is the study of bone structure, much of which has to be from photos due to, again, NAGPRA, and cranial studies abound that note the similarities fo remains to other ethnic groups and the dissimilarity to Indian ethnic groups.
i know all about it. god bless nagpra. imagine how it must’ve been for indian people all those years to see their ancestors’ remains dug up and placed in boxes in some warehouse, and their cultural items stolen and sold off for profit, or to see the great burial mounds ripped apart, leveled, or generally violated by anyone anyway they saw fit. many remains still are in boxes, for that matter. that’s deplorable. nobody has the inherent right to do that to anyone as they please, for any purposes.
-what is reverse genocide supposed to mean?
Whatever. Let’s not get into semantics.
don’t say stupid sh*t then. we won’t have that kind of problem.
-But the whole point is that THERE’S NO PROOF THESE ARE THEIR ANCESTORS.
“we are all related.” ever hear that?
they may not be those persons’ ancestor(s) specifically, but they are the remains of american indian people, and i have no problem with american indian people honoring them as their relatives. the likelihood is great that they were. many tribes have been in specific regions for millenia. they know where they’ve been at.
i don’t think it’s incumbent upon american indian people to entertain suggestions that these skeletal remains they keep finding are white, or africa, or alien, or whatever, let alone to have to cater to them. it’s remains of peoples of their race, most likely a distant relative, and it’s absurd to weigh scientific theories into what happens to them. more of the same white man telling the indian what to do and what’s what nonsense.
-See THERE’S NO PROOF THESE ARE THEIR ANCESTORS note above. These are in some cases 9,500 year old remains that have no skeletal similarity to the indigenous groups. To assume this is an ancestor and be awarded the remains, which could shed ENORMOUSLY BRILLIANT light on what is and is not known of ancient America due to the unsubstantiated oral traditions of a group that probably didn’t even occupy that land prior to 2000 years ago is an absurdity worthy of Kurt Vonnegut at his zenith.
why would you expect 9,000 year-old bones to resemble modern-day peoples that much? modern-day peoples don’t even necessarily resemble each other when it comes to bone structure, though we’ve all been told a bit differently, i’m aware. for your information, none of the remains have been found to most resemble europeans anyway, but have been mostly compared to pacific islanders. this still does not mean pacific islanders got here first and were the ancestors of today’s modern people or were killed off and so forth, yet it doesn’t mean they never got here at all either.
do you understand convergent and divergent population theories? to have any kind of understanding on these issues, it’s imperative. populations will change sometimes drastically over time, but they will always change no matter if they stay within the group. say you have 20 people, half men and half women. 14 of these have narrow skulls, the others don’t. those ones with narrow skulls eventually are surprisingly ‘outbred,’ for lack of a better term, by the others, and eventually the population of narrow skulls become so few, it is actually somewhat of an anomaly 10,000 years down the line. yet most of those people all had several narrow-skulled ancestors… consider this then consider the multitude of physical combinations one could possess and how the populations would adjust accordingly. then tell me that comparing the physical attributes of a specimen so old to people now and making such a definitive statement on supposed relationship is sound science.
it just gets ridiculous sometimes. it’s like the still-perpetuated claims that indians weren’t the ones who built the great mounds, temples, and effigies across much of the u.s. rather, it had to be some long-extinct race which preceded them (which indians are usually blamed for wiping out, like they do with every other imagined group of peoples indians had to have slaughtered, just because), 'cause we all know injuns ain’t bright enough to have done those things. next they’re going to find the remains of a 14,000 year-old toddler in oregon and we’re going to hear about how indians weren’t really the first americans at all… it was a race of leprechauns, most probably wiped out by the later-arriving indians, which we have no proof for but can assert anyway because it detracts from the fact that the colonizers did that to them and we can reasonably assume because we know that’s probably what the indians did anyway.
heh.
-Please explain what is arrogant about refusing to allow the obstruction of science by superstition?
what’s arrogant is believing science always has the right to be so intrusive, especially when it ignores cultural matters.