I'm always amazed to see people making absurd claims like this:
@Startheon, would you like to review your horsecrap?
So what is genocide? According to the United Nations (whose definition everyone seems to take as the most official one), it is inflicting upon a group of people conditions calculated to bring about its destruction in whole or in part. In fact, this is only a portion of the UN definition, but it is the most relevant portion.
The UN doesn’t seem to make clear in its definition the difference between a genocide and, for example, a war. Wars often involve races, nationalities, ethnical or religious groups and the killing involved in a war is generally quite deliberate. Presumably the difference is in the intent. If the war is being fought for the purpose of wiping out a group of people, it is genocide. If a bunch of them die as a consequence of a war for some other purpose, it is not. The wars between the Amerindians and European colonists, then, were not genocide. They were, in nearly all cases, started by the incessant treaty-violations of the Amerindians, and ended by the Europeans attempting a new treaty with them instead of simply wiping them out.
Meanwhile, there is no real argument from anyone that most of the Amerindian deaths associated with European colonization resulted from diseases, not war. The left asserts that this was intentional, that centuries before Germ Theory existed, Europeans were using germ-warfare against the Amerindians. The absurdity of this assertion is obvious to any thinking person: The only place Europeans could hope to get diseases to pass to the Amerindians was from each other, but unless they were also committing germ-warfare against themselves, the ready transmission of the same diseases from European to European had to be entirely accidental.
To support this assertion of enormous numbers of intentionally inflicted “germ-warfare casualties,” they found one sentence in a private letter written by a European in a fort under siege by Amerindian marauders prior to the existence of the United States. And what does the sentence say? It says that maybe they can get the marauding gang of Amerindians to stop murdering them by making them sick with smallpox transmitted by offering them a stack of blankets that would first have been handled by people who had smallpox.
There are a few massive problems with this “evidence,” however—a few technical issues with this one tiny sentence that constitutes the entirety of liberals’ proof of deliberate germ-warfare against the Amerindians: First, the Amerindians were already getting smallpox and had been for some time, most often via robbing and raping and murdering Whites, some of whom obviously were suffering from the disease. (Otherwise how could anyone at the fort hope to infect a blanket before giving it to an Indian?) In fact, this appears to have been the case for the gang of savages that was attacking the fort in question: They already had it, most likely contracted from the home of a nearby White family that they had murdered and robbed a few days before the siege at the fort began.
Next, there is absolutely no evidence that such a scheme of transmitting smallpox using blankets was ever attempted there or anywhere else. Ward Churchill’s assertion to the contrary turned out to be another lie from a leftist. He made the whole thing up and there was not, in reality, a fort within eight hundred miles of the location at which he claimed a fort’s soldiers had distributed infected blankets.
Last, the transmission via blankets almost certainly would not have worked in any case because smallpox cannot survive very long outside of a host’s body. The blankets would have to be freshly and wetly infected. What kind of an idiot would accept and use a stack of puss-covered blankets? The entire proposal in the sentence in question was a desperate and empty suggestion by an exhausted and distraught person grasping at straws to try to save his people.
The Amerindian Genocide claim also entirely fails to explain the enormous efforts the Europeans went to in order to keep the Amerindians from dying out. Concerned about their falling population, the American government first tried giving the individual Indians land, but they promptly sold it off for liquor, weapons, and the like instead of working it or living on it. Finally, the government set aside large reservations that could not ever be sold to any White person, nor taken away under any circumstances (hence the name “reservations”). It worked, as all Amerindian tribes presently show steadily increasing populations and when including the mixed-race Latinos and others who group with them genetically, they now have populations in the tens or millions in the US and Canada.
In short, all of this means huge sums of money were spent by Whites to (successfully) save the people liberals claim Whites were trying to exterminate. If this was attempted genocide on the part of Europeans, we really suck at it.
Recall that the UN definition of genocide includes the stipulation of “calculated” conditions. This means awareness and willful choice. Clearly Whites recognized that Amerindians were dying out, but chose NOT to maintain the detrimental conditions, and instead went to great lengths to reverse them. Compare this with the ongoing genocide of the White race by anti-Whites, who admit freely that they are aware of our falling population, and vehemently insist on maintaining the conditions resulting in our destruction. By definition, the Amerindian situation was not a genocide. The White situation IS a genocide, and liberals care not at all.
One of the most interesting and pernicious aspects of the Amerindian Genocide myth, however, is in the numbers. A favorite liberal claim is that “greater than 90%” of the Amerindians died in the wake of the arrival of Europeans. How do they know that? The Amerindians were far too primitive, illiterate, and ignorant to have censuses, and trying to search for remains at this point to count them from so long ago would be like trying to do the same for antelope or horses—ridiculous and utterly futile. The leftist solution has simply been to make up numbers—the higher the better—because then it appears that more Amerindians must have died when one looks at the far lower population numbers after Whites started counting them.
Before the age of anti-White liberalism, the best estimates by the academics were very different than they are today. For the territory that is now the United States and Canada, the US Census Bureau estimated in 1894 that the pre-Columbian Amerindian population was half a million. This was a rational estimate considering the primitive, literally stone-age conditions under which they lived throughout most of that region. In 1928, James Mooney, an ethnologist employed by the Smithsonian, estimated a little over twice this number, 1.2 million. Again, this is probably more or less reasonable for their level of technology.
It is worth pausing for a moment to reflect on the fact that liberals consider a debate “won” for their side if they can find a supporting figure from an authority such as an ethnologist working for the Smithsonian or the US Census Bureau. They consider such authority estimates final and unquestionable, unless those estimates do not serve their agenda.
The estimates above were good enough by all academic accounts until it became beneficial to the anti-Whites to bump them up in the 1960’s. Then leftist anthropologist Henry Dobyns resolved to work backward to get the answer that he wanted: He decided to assume (without reason or proof) that over 95% of the “native” population died from European diseases (which would be a truly astonishing mortality rate for ANY plague). Using census figures for Amerindians from after the arrival of English colonists, he declared that the pre-Columbian population for the same territory already described must have been in excess of twelve million—ten to twenty times higher than the previous estimates.
After all, the numbers come from “experts.” If the population fell from 12 million to 490 thousand by 1900, then that’s a lot of dead people. If, however, the other experts (the ones liberals don’t approve of and whose estimates were around 500 thousand) are correct, then their population barely fell at all. Their argument boils down to declaring that the high estimates are the right ones because White people are evil, and White people are evil because the high estimates are the right ones. Got it?
Think about that for a moment: The upper estimate is more than thirteen thousand percent higher than the lower estimate. How does one justify such a thing mathematically? This is like saying that the weight of the average adult female is between 200 and 26000 pounds, or that the cost of a loaf of bread is between five dollars and seven hundred dollars. In math circles, this is referred to as being completely full of crap.
@Startheon, would you like to review your horsecrap?
So what is genocide? According to the United Nations (whose definition everyone seems to take as the most official one), it is inflicting upon a group of people conditions calculated to bring about its destruction in whole or in part. In fact, this is only a portion of the UN definition, but it is the most relevant portion.
The UN doesn’t seem to make clear in its definition the difference between a genocide and, for example, a war. Wars often involve races, nationalities, ethnical or religious groups and the killing involved in a war is generally quite deliberate. Presumably the difference is in the intent. If the war is being fought for the purpose of wiping out a group of people, it is genocide. If a bunch of them die as a consequence of a war for some other purpose, it is not. The wars between the Amerindians and European colonists, then, were not genocide. They were, in nearly all cases, started by the incessant treaty-violations of the Amerindians, and ended by the Europeans attempting a new treaty with them instead of simply wiping them out.
Meanwhile, there is no real argument from anyone that most of the Amerindian deaths associated with European colonization resulted from diseases, not war. The left asserts that this was intentional, that centuries before Germ Theory existed, Europeans were using germ-warfare against the Amerindians. The absurdity of this assertion is obvious to any thinking person: The only place Europeans could hope to get diseases to pass to the Amerindians was from each other, but unless they were also committing germ-warfare against themselves, the ready transmission of the same diseases from European to European had to be entirely accidental.
To support this assertion of enormous numbers of intentionally inflicted “germ-warfare casualties,” they found one sentence in a private letter written by a European in a fort under siege by Amerindian marauders prior to the existence of the United States. And what does the sentence say? It says that maybe they can get the marauding gang of Amerindians to stop murdering them by making them sick with smallpox transmitted by offering them a stack of blankets that would first have been handled by people who had smallpox.
There are a few massive problems with this “evidence,” however—a few technical issues with this one tiny sentence that constitutes the entirety of liberals’ proof of deliberate germ-warfare against the Amerindians: First, the Amerindians were already getting smallpox and had been for some time, most often via robbing and raping and murdering Whites, some of whom obviously were suffering from the disease. (Otherwise how could anyone at the fort hope to infect a blanket before giving it to an Indian?) In fact, this appears to have been the case for the gang of savages that was attacking the fort in question: They already had it, most likely contracted from the home of a nearby White family that they had murdered and robbed a few days before the siege at the fort began.
Next, there is absolutely no evidence that such a scheme of transmitting smallpox using blankets was ever attempted there or anywhere else. Ward Churchill’s assertion to the contrary turned out to be another lie from a leftist. He made the whole thing up and there was not, in reality, a fort within eight hundred miles of the location at which he claimed a fort’s soldiers had distributed infected blankets.
Last, the transmission via blankets almost certainly would not have worked in any case because smallpox cannot survive very long outside of a host’s body. The blankets would have to be freshly and wetly infected. What kind of an idiot would accept and use a stack of puss-covered blankets? The entire proposal in the sentence in question was a desperate and empty suggestion by an exhausted and distraught person grasping at straws to try to save his people.
The Amerindian Genocide claim also entirely fails to explain the enormous efforts the Europeans went to in order to keep the Amerindians from dying out. Concerned about their falling population, the American government first tried giving the individual Indians land, but they promptly sold it off for liquor, weapons, and the like instead of working it or living on it. Finally, the government set aside large reservations that could not ever be sold to any White person, nor taken away under any circumstances (hence the name “reservations”). It worked, as all Amerindian tribes presently show steadily increasing populations and when including the mixed-race Latinos and others who group with them genetically, they now have populations in the tens or millions in the US and Canada.
In short, all of this means huge sums of money were spent by Whites to (successfully) save the people liberals claim Whites were trying to exterminate. If this was attempted genocide on the part of Europeans, we really suck at it.
Recall that the UN definition of genocide includes the stipulation of “calculated” conditions. This means awareness and willful choice. Clearly Whites recognized that Amerindians were dying out, but chose NOT to maintain the detrimental conditions, and instead went to great lengths to reverse them. Compare this with the ongoing genocide of the White race by anti-Whites, who admit freely that they are aware of our falling population, and vehemently insist on maintaining the conditions resulting in our destruction. By definition, the Amerindian situation was not a genocide. The White situation IS a genocide, and liberals care not at all.
One of the most interesting and pernicious aspects of the Amerindian Genocide myth, however, is in the numbers. A favorite liberal claim is that “greater than 90%” of the Amerindians died in the wake of the arrival of Europeans. How do they know that? The Amerindians were far too primitive, illiterate, and ignorant to have censuses, and trying to search for remains at this point to count them from so long ago would be like trying to do the same for antelope or horses—ridiculous and utterly futile. The leftist solution has simply been to make up numbers—the higher the better—because then it appears that more Amerindians must have died when one looks at the far lower population numbers after Whites started counting them.
Before the age of anti-White liberalism, the best estimates by the academics were very different than they are today. For the territory that is now the United States and Canada, the US Census Bureau estimated in 1894 that the pre-Columbian Amerindian population was half a million. This was a rational estimate considering the primitive, literally stone-age conditions under which they lived throughout most of that region. In 1928, James Mooney, an ethnologist employed by the Smithsonian, estimated a little over twice this number, 1.2 million. Again, this is probably more or less reasonable for their level of technology.
It is worth pausing for a moment to reflect on the fact that liberals consider a debate “won” for their side if they can find a supporting figure from an authority such as an ethnologist working for the Smithsonian or the US Census Bureau. They consider such authority estimates final and unquestionable, unless those estimates do not serve their agenda.
The estimates above were good enough by all academic accounts until it became beneficial to the anti-Whites to bump them up in the 1960’s. Then leftist anthropologist Henry Dobyns resolved to work backward to get the answer that he wanted: He decided to assume (without reason or proof) that over 95% of the “native” population died from European diseases (which would be a truly astonishing mortality rate for ANY plague). Using census figures for Amerindians from after the arrival of English colonists, he declared that the pre-Columbian population for the same territory already described must have been in excess of twelve million—ten to twenty times higher than the previous estimates.
After all, the numbers come from “experts.” If the population fell from 12 million to 490 thousand by 1900, then that’s a lot of dead people. If, however, the other experts (the ones liberals don’t approve of and whose estimates were around 500 thousand) are correct, then their population barely fell at all. Their argument boils down to declaring that the high estimates are the right ones because White people are evil, and White people are evil because the high estimates are the right ones. Got it?
Think about that for a moment: The upper estimate is more than thirteen thousand percent higher than the lower estimate. How does one justify such a thing mathematically? This is like saying that the weight of the average adult female is between 200 and 26000 pounds, or that the cost of a loaf of bread is between five dollars and seven hundred dollars. In math circles, this is referred to as being completely full of crap.
Man got along just fine for eons without these "advancements."
