Turkeys Died To Set The White Man Free?

[ILG]

Originally Posted by Evang.Benincasa

What would be some situations which would make reparations unavailable?

Too much passage of time. There needs to be a year of Jubilee.

[Praxeas]

Now the issue of disease decimating the people, on page 31-32 of The State of Native America: Genocide, Colonization, and Resistance, the editor writes on page 31, in all probability the first epidemics occurred in Florida which were brought on by the Spanish explorers, and was spread by the Indians who traveled to other areas. So, these Europeans diseases came via ships. Yet, your post after reading just one book I offered may cause the causal reader to walk away believing that before any European ever set a foot on the soil of America?

Spaniards were not the Colonists. It was not an intentional infection. Therefore it was not genocide. You are obfuscating what we were discussing.

That topic was that YOU said it was a campaign of Genocide AND that the Tribe was NOT decimated by disease down to a small number.

Saying the Spaniards first introduced disease does NOT affect the discussion, it obfuscates it. In other words what you did was to try to change the topic and hope nobody noticed

The point I made was that the Indians were reduced by 75% BEFORE the Colonists arrived. Spaniards were EXPLORERS not COLONISTS

The facts are, the Colonists did not set out on a genocidal campaign to rid the planet of Indians. They were attacked and defended themselves. The large numbers of Indians being killed were from disease introduced by Explorers not the Colonists

Disease is a natural disaster.

I left out the deliberate attempt because it was a part of the colonists WARFARE tactict. That's right...some colonists were already in a war with the Indians and part of their desperate plan to win was to infect that particular tribe.

Once again that is not genocide, that is war. Dropping a bunch of bombs on your enemy to kill them and win a war is not genocide just because a lot of people died. It might stink but that is not Genocide.

So the part you left out fails to mention that the intentional infection occurred AFTER most of the Tribes had been reduced by 75% through disease AND during a war with certain colonists defending themselves.

Spreading Disease to win a war might be right or wrong BUT that is again all beside the point. This is again part of your attempt to change the topic and obfuscate things.

The point is unchanged. MOST of the Tribe in question was already decimated by disease by the time the colonists arrived contrary to your claims and supported by the very book you suggested. In other words your book supports everything Essias and I said so far.

There were very few of them left by the time the new indian leader came into power and started war with the Colonists. It was therefore NOT Genocide but war.

[Evang.Benincasa]

Originally Posted by Praxeas

Spaniards were not the Colonists. It was not an intentional infection. Therefore it was not genocide. You are obfuscating what we were discussing.

That topic was that YOU said it was a campaign of Genocide AND that the Tribe was NOT decimated by disease down to a small number.

Saying the Spaniards first introduced disease does NOT affect the discussion, it obfuscates it. In other words what you did was to try to change the topic and hope nobody noticed

That's amusing, anyway I brought up the Spaniard explorers due to their being mentioned in page 31, and its lead to the topic of the Wampanoag accusations against the colonists.

[Evang.Benincasa]

Anyway we shall resume this discussion next year.

Now it is time to chop down the Xmas tree.

Merry Krishna.

[Praxeas]

Originally Posted by Evang.Benincasa

That's amusing, anyway I brought up the Spaniard explorers due to their being mentioned in page 31, and its lead to the topic of the Wampanoag accusations against the colonists.

No it doesn't. What led, supposedly because it's just a theory, was that OTHER colonists while in a war, tried to infect their indian enemies.

The Infection by the Spaniards was many years earlier. Your own source names the supposed reason they suspected the colonists of passing on disease has nothing to do with the Spaniards but years later during war with the Colonists in one area they resorted to "germ warfare"

The facts remain, the Indians were vastly decimated BEFORE this war and before the Colonists arrived by disease contrary to what you argued

AND

It was not Genocide.

[Evang.Benincasa]

Originally Posted by Praxeas

No it doesn't. What led, supposedly because it's just a theory, was that OTHER colonists while in a war, tried to infect their indian enemies.

The Infection by the Spaniards was many years earlier. Your own source names the supposed reason they suspected the colonists of passing on disease has nothing to do with the Spaniards but years later during war with the Colonists in one area they resorted to "germ warfare"

The facts remain, the Indians were vastly decimated BEFORE this war and before the Colonists arrived by disease contrary to what you argued

AND

It was not Genocide.

Still amusing, excuse me, but did you really read pages 31, and 32? You do understand why the writer speaks of INDIAN epidemics starting in the Florida peninsula? If you follow what the writer is conveying to the readers how that some conventional anthropologists and historians were of the mindset that these epidemics were merely natural disasters, yet this might not be the case. He brings up the Wampanoag, and Narragansett confederacy and how they were under the impression that it was the colonials who gave them the diseases. I brought this out in my post, because you evidently did not, but wanted your readers to believe that the Wampanoag were already decimated by the time of King Phillip's War, and where foolish to think they could fight the mighty Puritans. The three epidemics which were from 1616 to 1619 were a major distance of the time of King Phillip's War in 1675. So, therefore the greater epidemics were before the Mayflower even hit the shores of the Americas. If we are to say that it was the three epidemics of 1616 to 1619 to claim the Europeans were not at fault for the major reduction in the Wampanoag Confederacy would be totally incorrect.


Still it was the Wampanoag who were the Thanksgiving friends of the Pilgrims. So, it is pretty ironic that we end up with the Europeans beheading and piking the head of the son of Massasoit the chief who once had sweet fellowship with the Europeans of Thanksgiving fame.

The Indians of the North East suffered greatly under the Europeans, and the American Indian would continue to suffer to this day. Genocide of the American Indian was the ultimate focus, and by the end of King Phillip's War against the colonials caused reduction of only a claimed 40% of the Wampanoag? Yet, what about a large majority of young men sold into slavery, also with women and young children? Brings the number of reduction up even higher. I suggest you may want to re-read pages 31, and 32 again to see what the writer is saying about Decimation by Disease. Please also read Genocide on page 34, which speaks of the Pequot Indians being surrounded by the Puritans who then lit their camp on fire burning the Pequot out, then hacking men, women, children, with swords, and axes as they fled the flames.

Yet, I'm finished here I will give you the final word, maybe we can pick this topic up for conversation next year after you read the other four books I offered.

Be blessed and stay well in Jesus name.

[Praxeas]

Originally Posted by Evang.Benincasa

Still amusing, excuse me, but did you really read pages 31, and 32? You do understand why the writer speaks of INDIAN epidemics starting in the Florida peninsula? If you follow what the writer is conveying to the readers how that some conventional anthropologists and historians were of the mindset that these epidemics were merely natural disasters, yet this might not be the case. He brings up the Wampanoag, and Narragansett confederacy and how they were under the impression that it was the colonials who gave them the diseases. I brought this out in my post, because you evidently did not, but wanted your readers to believe that the Wampanoag were already decimated by the time of King Phillip's War, and where foolish to think they could fight the mighty Puritans. The three epidemics which were from 1616 to 1619 were a major distance of the time of King Phillip's War in 1675. So, therefore the greater epidemics were before the Mayflower even hit the shores of the Americas. If we are to say that it was the three epidemics of 1616 to 1619 to claim the Europeans were not at fault for the major reduction in the Wampanoag Confederacy would be totally incorrect.


Still it was the Wampanoag who were the Thanksgiving friends of the Pilgrims. So, it is pretty ironic that we end up with the Europeans beheading and piking the head of the son of Massasoit the chief who once had sweet fellowship with the Europeans of Thanksgiving fame.

The Indians of the North East suffered greatly under the Europeans, and the American Indian would continue to suffer to this day. Genocide of the American Indian was the ultimate focus, and by the end of King Phillip's War against the colonials caused reduction of only a claimed 40% of the Wampanoag? Yet, what about a large majority of young men sold into slavery, also with women and young children? Brings the number of reduction up even higher. I suggest you may want to re-read pages 31, and 32 again to see what the writer is saying about Decimation by Disease. Please also read Genocide on page 34, which speaks of the Pequot Indians being surrounded by the Puritans who then lit their camp on fire burning the Pequot out, then hacking men, women, children, with swords, and axes as they fled the flames.

Yet, I'm finished here I will give you the final word, maybe we can pick this topic up for conversation next year after you read the other four books I offered.

Be blessed and stay well in Jesus name.

This has nothing to do with the facts. That tribe was already decimated by disease contrary to your assertion.

They were aggressive and started a conflict and so it was war not genocide.

Everything else is obfuscation