24-03-2004 17:17									#61
	Support Apolyton, buy Call to Power 2

quote: Originally posted by Dissident All I know is white man did not spread blankets full of disease in my region.

You KNOW this, do you?

quote: The Indians were the aggressors, Sava. They did unprovoked attacks on settlers crossing south of Las Vegas, and even on the Old Spanish Trail. Army outposts were established to get the Indian population under control.

Well, you make a pervasive arguments:

"All those who oppose the US are terrorists."

That is the extent of your logic.

The story of the settlement of the Americas is the story of genocide. If you have any interest in truly understanding reality, invest some time learning about what happened. You might, for a quick read, check the chapter about genocide in Jared Diamond's [The First Chimpanzee.

If you have a good stomach, you could then try Bury My Heart At Wounded Knee.

	24-03-2004 17:22									#62
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: Originally posted by PeteH One problem with just saying "disease killed them" is it implies the deaths were accidental, or even regrettable. The killing of a population by disease was not an unknown tactic when the first settlers arrived in north america, and there are numerous explicit examples of deliberate infection, not to mention the imposition of conditions which cause what would normally be a survivable sickness into a deadly condition. Just as the totals for the jewish holocost don't have a separate category for "died of disease" due to the conditions of the death camps and ghettos, it seems to me a disservice to discount the deaths of so many native americans by making it seem accidental

I know you're all hopped up on a Ward Churchill high, but really. The vast majority of Indian death caused by previously "European" disease was completely unintentional by any rational account. To suppose that somehow individual pirates, fishermen, traders, or small groups of conquistadors or settlers would have had the foresight to create such a pandemic is simply ludicrous. As for the trade blanket tactic, there seems to be evidence that it was used by the English military during the French and Indian War (aka the Seven Years War), though the effect on a population which had already been ravaged for over 200 years by this same disease was in comparison negligible.

I'll grant you every death of every Indian who perished while being relocated as genocide, but it was a drop in the bucket compared to the inadvertent death and destruction brought by disease and trade early on.

	24-03-2004 18:09									#63
	Support Apolyton or Terrorists Win

[QUOTE] Originally posted by The Mad Viking
"All those who oppose the US are terrorists."

That is the extent of your logic.[/q]

Uh, he has never said anything even close to that. His point is that the Indians started it. He hasn't claimed high moral ground for the settlers, or anything. Both sides killed civilians.

	24-03-2004 18:21									#64
	Support Apolyton

quote: Originally posted by Kucinich His point is that the Indians started it.

Well, in that case and by that logic, I reckon Britain and France started the war on Germany in 1939 and that their declaration of war against the nazis was "unprovoked".

	24-03-2004 19:50									#65
	Support Apolyton, buy Alpha Centauri

quote: Originally posted by Guardian Well, in that case and by that logic, I reckon Britain and France started the war on Germany in 1939 and that their declaration of war against the nazis was "unprovoked".

Well of course. The Germans weren't even threatening them! They declared war, so they're the ones that created that whole cycle of aggression.

Seriously though, the vast majority of coastal indians were wiped out inintentionally by disease. Even by Jamestown there had been significant population decreases due to disease spread by previous contacts. Especially by those cowardly french who set up trading posts throughout the hinterlands of America.

However we shouldn't forget that it was King Philip's war and the resulting 'Praying Towns' that finally subjegated the coastal indians and allowed deeper expansion.

In fact it can be argued that the first Indian wars were caused by a mutal build up of animosty between Colonists and Indians.
After the white man won, the boot was firmly on their foot and they practically did what they wanted in their mad rush across the plains.

	24-03-2004 20:20									#66
	Got spare money?

quote: How were the american indians subjugated?

... wit a quickness.

	24-03-2004 21:54									#67
	Support Apolyton, buy Call to Power 2

I have no idea how many of the indigenous north american population died by disease and how many were killed in the various disputes with the invaders. I am entirely happy to accept that many more died by disease if that is the received wisdom in the USA. Pestilence well deserves its place beside War among the four riders.

But citing deaths from disease as though this makes everything else that happened between the indians and the invaders insignificant or OK does not make sense.

The US should be - and I rather think it is - ashamed of two things. One is the various well documented atrocities in which indian villages were raided by US military forces and the entire population slaughtered. And the other is the way in which treaty after treaty was negotiated and then just dishonourably torn up.

Those actions were both actions of the federal authorities, not actions of individual settlers involved in local blood feuds.

Nor do they have anything to do with people dieing or not dieing from disease.

I have some sympathy for those involved. The interests of the two groups were irreconcileable. And I would go so far as to say that the notion that nomadic hunter gatherers could continue to dominate large parts of half a continent seems rather unrealistic.

Also the story is not confined to north america. The experience of aboriginal Australians and the incoming settlers there is much the same. (Including the disease part for those who find that aspect so significant.) And even to-day jungle dwelling hunter gatherers are being replaced by incoming farmers in the south american rain forests and in Borneo.

But these are all sad and shaming stories.

As a boy I always wanted to be on the side of the cavaliers against the roundheads, the outlaws against the sheriff of Nottingham and the cowboys against the indians. I might still join the cavaliers (but maybe not) and I might join the outlaws (but maybe not). But I would definately now want to be on the side of the indians.

	24-03-2004 22:50									#68
	Increase Your PM Length

The vast majority lf the indigenous Americans were killed off by disease, not warfare. Read Plagues and Peoples, or Guns, Germs, and Steel. The diseases were almost entirely accidental, not deliberate, although much later the invaders did rarely deliberately introduce diseases. The native populations were reduced by disease to levels as low as 5%, 10%, 20%, or 30% of the levels when Europeans arrived -- sometimes just between the first contact and the second contact a few years later. This was one of the main reasons that the invaders were able to take over. And the remaining populations were then eradicated by whatever means seemed effective, so the fact that the initial slaughter was not a deliberate act doesn't seem to matter much.

	24-03-2004 23:10									#69
	Re: How were the american indians subjugated? Browse Apolyton AD-FREE

quote: Originally posted by Dissident What do you think? Where am I wrong? Enlighten me. This is your thread to discuss late 19th century american history in the west. Or did problems persist into the 20th century? I do recall problems with Pancho Villa, but he was mexican, and had different motivations. Actually it doesn't even have to be late 19th century. There were problems way before that. But it was during that time period that things really began to fall in place it seems to me. Or am I wrong?

Why focus on the late nineteenth century only, when diplomatic relations and conflict with Amerindian tribes of the Great Lakes and Ohio Valley region in the late eighteenth through the early nineteenth century helped shape our transition from the pre-constitutional confederation, to the United States of America with a more centralized government.

Congress in the late eighteenth century before the constitutional convention, and the Congress of United States in the early nineteenth century were frustrated not only with their lack of control over the Amerindian tribes in the regions mentioned above, but also sought ways to control their own white settlers.

This was one of the reasons why Congress sought to increase government centralization -- to better control the direct relations between Amerindians and white settlers, but then this centralization policy did not succeed as originally planned.

	24-03-2004 23:19									#70
	Tired of ads?

Approximately 85% of the Indians in North America were wiped out by disease and warfare (motly disease) by the 19th Century. In the 19th Century, 90% of the remaining Indians were wiped out by warfare and starvation, so that there were slightly more than a quarter million remaining Indians by 1900. Today there are approximately 1.4 million people who are classified as Indians (as many more of us have are of Indian decent but, but not enough to qualifiy for membership in a nation). The U.S. government estimated thre were three million Indians living in what was or what would become the United States in 1800.

As recently as the 1970s, the US government was engaged in genocidal policies: including the destruction of Indian cultures and forced sterilization of resveration women. In the 1980s, Regan proposed abolishing the last reservations altogether. In the 1990s, the U.S. finally forced many Navaho off their lands and gave the land to the more compliant Hpoi, who then sold mineral concessions on the formerly Navaho lands (which the Navaho had refused). In Wisconsin there was a campaign to abolish Indian treaty rights.

	25-03-2004 05:06									#71
	Help yourself to an AD-FREE life

After the French and Indian wars ( 7 Years War for Europeans), the British drew the Applachian Line of 1763. The purpose of this was to restrict the colonial sprawl to the east of the mountain range and leave the lands to the west to the natives. Greedy colonials ignored the line and ought to expand westwardly, provoking Indians. Anyway just one example.

One tribe - the Cherokees - decided the best course of survival was to become like the white man. They 'civilized' themselves, had houses, owned slaves, grew plantations, and devised their own written language. They were accepted generally by the whites and they were considered as a model for the 'savages.'

That is, until somebody found gold on their lands. Boom! They were expelled and forced to walk what became known as the Trail of Tears to some barren lands in Oklahoma. Off my head, 4,000 to 6,000 Cherokees died on that Trail.

One interesting tidbit - The horses Plain Indians were famous for weren't native to Americas. Those horses were descendants of those brought to the New World by early Spaniard explorers.

Indians had their own share of disease spreading - syphills. Doesn't exactly cancel out the horde of diseases Europeans brought with them, although.

	25-03-2004 06:45									#72
	Get a bigger avatar today!

quote: Originally posted by Guardian Well, in that case and by that logic, I reckon Britain and France started the war on Germany in 1939 and that their declaration of war against the nazis was "unprovoked".

Again, neither he nor I made moral judgements. But yes, Britain and France did declare war on Germany. "Unprovoked" is a moral judgement.

	25-03-2004 07:22									#73
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization: The Boardgame

Ships of the London Comapny first landed on Virginia soil April 30, 1607. Though they were initially welcomed by the natives 26 days later a force of 200 attacked the settlers. The men built forts and held off a number of attacks until a sort of truce was established the next year. After attacks by the natives resumed in 1609 the settlers destroyed a village and another truce was established. This truce lasted until 1622, when the "Powhatan" tribe attacked in force eradicating nearly half of the English settlers in Virginia. The remnants held out in the forts of Jamestown until relieved by the arrival of ships. The next year, during talks held at a nearby native encampment an English medical doctor, Dr. Butler, surrepititiously poisoned some 500 warriors. The power of the Powhatan Confederacy was broken, never to recover, and from henceforward English settlers would look upon Native Americans as implacable enemies and unworthy of trust.

	25-03-2004 08:48									#74
	Lose 30 kilos (of popups)

Another recommendation for Jared Diamond's Guns Germs and Steel. A very complete answer to this question, as well as most other instances where one culture subjugated another.

	25-03-2004 08:55									#75
	Lose 30 kilos (of popups)

quote: Both sides killed civilians.

If civilian bodycounts makes someone a terrorist... than the United States is the greatest terrorist nation in the history of the world.

	25-03-2004 09:00									#76
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

But they don't, so it isn't.

	25-03-2004 09:09									#77
	Suffering from ads?

quote: Originally posted by Kucinich But they don't, so it isn't.

well... other countries and peoples do see things that way... it's important for you to understand that.

	25-03-2004 09:12									#78
	Full PM-box? Change here!

I don't know why anyone would even try to defend the genocide of Native Americans at US hands. That is one of the few acts in history I see as one of our nation's greatest and almost unforgivable crimes. The only reason I can see for this is some sort of cryptoracism, though I considered nationalism (which easily translates into the same thing) but I wonder, if these weren't Native Americans and the US instead decimated some Native Viking civilizations, would this thread have ever been raised?

Now I know many were killed by diseases, and many did attack settlers (though they were often times provoked by settlers first...more likely the majority of times). I'm also aware that much of the slaughter was not government sanctioned but spontanious action taken by colonists themselves (that the government would of course side with.)

But the fact of the matter is for the most part, the US didn't even try to intregrate the natives (some attempts were made but they weren't really serious), instead the US slaughtered them out of pure prejudice. And yes I have read Guns, Germs and Steel and another fact is while Diamond does aknowledge diseases as the main culprit, he points out that ethnic cleansing played a major role as well (though Diamond has been criticized for high counting on this matter).


Now I'm not adhering to Noble Savage myths. I know the Native Americans were not eco-friendly (there are almost a dozen cases of ecocide involving native americans, as well as evidence that they wiped out 80% of north american megafauna) nor were they utopian, (with a death by warfare rate almost 30 times higher then our own).


But genocide isn't ok just because one person's society isn't as developed as another's.

And I have no doubt that they sometimes used brutal tactics, but they had little choice as US residence were slaughtering them with tactics more brutal still, more frquently and more efficiently.


The US of course is not all among the major western, or any powers for that matter in it's decimination of indiginous peoples, and the matter happened a long time ago under a very different establishment then the one we have today. Hence trying to hold the US accountable now for actions committed by ancestors over 100 years ago is a bit extreme.

	25-03-2004 09:15									#79
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization: The Boardgame

quote: Originally posted by Sava well... other countries and peoples do see things that way... it's important for you to understand that.

How many civilians you kill doesn't matter... the whole point is intent.

Moreover, judging present-day America by offenses committed over a century ago makes about as much sense as judging present-day Russia for the Soviets.

	25-03-2004 09:22									#80
	Suffering from ads?

quote: Originally posted by DataAeolus Indians had their own share of disease spreading - syphills. Doesn't exactly cancel out the horde of diseases Europeans brought with them, although.

Not necessarily. There is evidence of syphallis existing in the old world before 1492. It just wasn't as virulent.

	25-03-2004 09:23									#81
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

Well, that doesn't change the fact that the syphilis brought back from the Americas actually was pretty harmful.

	25-03-2004 09:25									#82
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: Originally posted by Kucinich How many civilians you kill doesn't matter... the whole point is intent.

only in your mind...

quote: Moreover, judging present-day America by offenses committed over a century ago makes about as much sense as judging present-day Russia for the Soviets.

while America may be ignorant and short-sighted when it comes to history... other peoples aren't. To the Islamic world, for instance, the Crusades weren't "ancient".

you have a lot to learn

	25-03-2004 09:27									#83
	Help yourself to an AD-FREE life

The "evidence" for syph being a new wolrd disease is circumstantial, based on the fact that it didn't appear until 1495. Where it first appeared, however, is curious, if it was brought back from the New World . . . the French army beseiging Naples. That's an odd place for a disease brought back by Spanish sailors to appear.

Diseases do mutate, and that's what appears to have happened here. Usually they become less dangerous overtime, like leprosy, but not always. Even Syph changed from being a rapidly wasting disease to something you could live with for years and then decades.

	25-03-2004 09:28									#84
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization: The Boardgame

quote: Originally posted by Sava only in your mind...

Uh, no. Terrorism, by definition, depends on the intent, not the result.

quote: while America may be ignorant and short-sighted when it comes to history... other peoples aren't. To the Islamic world, for instance, the Crusades weren't "ancient".

Which proves that they really need to get a grip.

quote: you have a lot to learn

I guess I need to learn to think critically, too.

	25-03-2004 09:33									#85
	Full PM-box? Change here!

quote: I guess I need to learn to think critically, too.

among other things

	25-03-2004 12:46									#86
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization: The Boardgame

close this thread please

I apologize if it is deemed offensive. But I have native american blood in me. And I didn't feel offended

Okay maybe the indians weren't terrorists. but I do know they attacked settlers in my area. American settlers. The americans did not steal the land directly from the Indians. The Spanish did. And we took the land from Spain.

If the Indians needed that land, they should have defended it.

It's was tough world. If you are unwilling or unable to defend your land. Tough luck. Things are not like that now days.

But I find far too many of Apolytoners use modern day morals to talk about actions in the past. The fact is, the world was more brutal in the past.

I'm so tired of this forum. Yes I do advocate killing every single terrorist. **** their families. If they have something to say about it, they better become terrorists themselves. You people don't understand they want every single american and jew dead.

	25-03-2004 13:59									#87
	Increase the size of your Attachments

quote: Originally posted by chegitz guevara The "evidence" for syph being a new wolrd disease is circumstantial, based on the fact that it didn't appear until 1495. Where it first appeared, however, is curious, if it was brought back from the New World . . . the French army beseiging Naples. That's an odd place for a disease brought back by Spanish sailors to appear. Diseases do mutate, and that's what appears to have happened here. Usually they become less dangerous overtime, like leprosy, but not always. Even Syph changed from being a rapidly wasting disease to something you could live with for years and then decades.

'What is perhaps even more interesting is that there are at least four skeletons with clear evidence of syphilis. The stratification of some of these clearly shows they were buried in about 1450 - 75. The disease, which takes some 20 years before it begins to leave its mark on bone, was quite advanced at the time of death. These victims had contracted syphilis long before the return of Columbus and his ships from the New World - traditionally regarded as the time when `The Great Pox' was introduced into Europe. '

http://www.britarch.ac.uk/ba/ba53/ba53feat.html

	25-03-2004 14:06									#88
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization 2

I was wrong I admit it.

Obviously it was wrong to purposely infect the Indians. But wouldn't they have eventually been introduced to smallpox anyways? Don't forget- americans and europeans weren't immune to this. They were dying as well. It's just that their populations have been exposed to it for a while, many of the really weak have long been dead. Although I'd imagine many still died from it.

Indians dying from diseas was inevitable. That is what happens when you introduce a new species to an environment. It was only sped up by purpsely spreading the disease.

	25-03-2004 15:19									#89
	Suffering from ads?

quote: Originally posted by Kucinich How many civilians you kill doesn't matter... the whole point is intent.

First, I do not agree with you on the matter of civilian casualties - they do matter!
Second, America needs to realize that - in more than a few cases - other people do not know your intent.

At the risk of going off topic here, I'm going to elaborate a little:

Even your closest allies - even many of your own people - question your motives from time to time. And with relatively good reason much of the time.

For instance, during the first Gulf War, Bush senior stood up in front of the whole world and said that the whole purpose of this war was to restore freedom and democracy to the people of Kuwait. Kuwait being a nation where democracy had never existed in the first place, I don't find it so strange if a few people thought they smelled a rat...

This is just one example of US foreign policy appearing incoherent and inconsistent with your stated goals and principles, and your enemies use this against you for all it's worth.

For instance, the whole world sees that Israel gets to use UN resolutions as toilet paper, and US officials won't even speak against it. But when Iraq fails to comply with a UN resolution - they get bombed.

So, obviously, the US is commited to the principles of the UN - but only when it suits your purposes. Once again, the impression the people of the world get is that your so-called principles are a mere front and that your true motives are likely to be found elsewhere.

The war on terrorism is nothing new. For the past 3 decades at least - American politicians have been preaching against the evils of terrorism. But all this time, it seemed people could only ever be terrorists if they were also somehow against you or perceived to be threatening your interests.

You keep holding up these bright and shiny ideals and principles, but they seem to be extremely selectively enforced, and this makes a lot of people wonder if you're really who you say you are.

Hence, when you go trolling about dropping bombs here, there and everywhere, you are easily misinterpreted as being just plain evil.

In Vietnam, all the overwhelming military power achieved was to make more enemies. And more and more and more. Faster than even the US military could kill them off. The generals and the leaders thought they could just keep on bombing until the other side collapsed and gave up. It never worked. The other side never did give up. Instead, more and more people turned to communism, believing it to be the only hope for the future of their country. As the carnage reached mind-numbing proportions, it seemed clear to them that the US and their southern puppets were destroying the country, not saving it.

Some times, when reality seems too far from what American leaders say they're doing, it seems almost as if Americans are living in some kind of fantasy world, while the rest of us have to live with the reality of the wreckage you are creating.

And that is dangerous - no matter what your intentions are.

	25-03-2004 18:21									#90
	Help yourself to an AD-FREE life

During Pontiac's siege of Fort Detroit in 1763, he was clearly gaining momentum vs. the English. That is when General Ambrose wrote in his journal that he instructed his soldiers to throw blankets infected with smallpox into the camps of the "Council of the three tribes", Ottowa, Chippewa, and Pottawatomi.

I saw it on the History Channel.

The first documented case of bio-warfare.