Which Genocide was the Worst? Poll & Comment

[Trajan Octavian Titus]

So your saying when whites found out they had brought disesases to them, they fled to make sure they wouldn't kill anymore and they didn't use this to their advantage?

So are you saying that you have evidence that the American settlers intentionally killed the indians with disease? Well then kid genius present it and not just your revisionist history spin bullshit.

Your saying some whites didn't purposely plant diseased bodies into tribes?

That's exactly what I'm saying and I'm also saying that you have absolutely not one shred of evidence to back up that claim.

You better start reading your Indian History, your very lacking.

Bullshit I am it is you sir who are lacking or maybe it's just that you're overlyknowlegable in unsubstantiated half truths and revisionist history. See the problem with your brand of history is that it's more like urban legend ie American soldiers giving smallpox blankets to the indians, you just repeat so often that the uniformed masses eventually except such an unmitigated lie as fact.

Next you will tell me the Indian children and women and elderly were armed w/ awesome advanced weapons and hence that's why they were shot no doubt?

I hate to break it to you but not very many Indians were shot the majority died through unintenional disease and starvation, and more Indians died in battle with one another than they did at the hands of the evil white man.

LOL. Heck, the invader is entitled to rights of invasion--native people shouldn't fight back--they got what they deserved.

Umm, the Americas before the colonists came here North America was sparcely populated, the indiginious people were nomadic, cannabalistic, warlike, and due to their unstable societal structure were constantly on the brink of starvation. Europeans coming here was the best thing that ever happened to the Indians.

With that logic why did we even intervene in WW2?

Except that's a totally fallacious analogy, we didn't conquer already settled land and cities, like I said the land was sparcely populated and the indiginious people were nomadic, ie they didn't settle their land. Stick to your revisioinist history leave facts up to the grown ups.

 

[Deegan]

What does the winner receive?:roll:

 

[Trajan Octavian Titus]

I don't think there are more "Native Americans", then there were then. But it would be due to the natural increase in population. Also you think that they were always starving blah blah blah.

A) No listen hard genocide is the systematic slaughter of an entire ethnic group, now there was nothing to stop the U.S. from killing every single Indian like there was the Germans during WW2 with the Jews. So my question is if we were intentionally slaughtering Indians wholesale why the fuc/k didn't we finish the job? Answer because we were not intentionally killing Indians at all.

B) Yes they constantly were on the brink of starvation, that's why they were cannabalistic.

 

[Kelzie]

So are you saying that you have evidence that the American settlers intentionally killed the indians with disease? Well then kid genius present it and not just your revisionist history spin bullshit.

That's exactly what I'm saying and I'm also saying that you have absolutely not one shred of evidence to back up that claim.



Bullshit I am it is you sir who are lacking or maybe it's just that you're overlyknowlegable in unsubstantiated half truths and revisionist history. See the problem with your brand of history is that it's more like urban legend ie American soldiers giving smallpox blankets to the indians, you just repeat so often that the uniformed masses eventually except such an unmitigated lie as fact.



I hate to break it to you but not very many Indians were shot the majority died through unintenional disease and starvation, and more Indians died in battle with one another than they did at the hands of the evil white man.



Umm, the Americas before the colonists came here North America was sparcely populated, the indiginious people were nomadic, cannabalistic, warlike, and due to their unstable societal structure were constantly on the brink of starvation. Europeans coming here was the best thing that ever happened to the Indians.



Except that's a totally fallacious analogy, we didn't conquer already settled land and cities, like I said the land was sparcely populated and the indiginious people were nomadic, ie they didn't settle their land. Stick to your revisioinist history leave facts up to the grown ups.

There was actually one (that I know of) recorded case of intentionally infecting the indians.

Captain Simeon Ecuyer had bought time by sending smallpox-infected blankets and handkerchiefs to the Indians surrounding the fort -- an early example of biological warfare -- which started an epidemic among them. Amherst himself had encouraged this tactic in a letter to Ecuyer

http://academic.udayton.edu/health/syllabi/Bioterrorism/00intro02.htm

The site has some primary sources too. I'm not sure where you heard it was an urban myth.

 

[Trajan Octavian Titus]

There was actually one (that I know of) recorded case of intentionally infecting the indians.



http://academic.udayton.edu/health/syllabi/Bioterrorism/00intro02.htm

The site has some primary sources too. I'm not sure where you heard it was an urban myth.

And he was not an American settler he was a fuc/king redcoat!!! These people like to paint the picture of bluecoats led by general custard riding buckshot across the plains coughing on Indians.

 

[Kelzie]

And he was not an American settler he was a fuc/king redcoat!!! These people like to paint the picture of bluecoats led by general custard riding buckshot across the plains coughing on Indians.

And? I never said he was American. It can be genocide whether it was the Brits or Americans.

 

[Trajan Octavian Titus]

There was actually one (that I know of) recorded case of intentionally infecting the indians.



http://academic.udayton.edu/health/syllabi/Bioterrorism/00intro02.htm

The site has some primary sources too. I'm not sure where you heard it was an urban myth.

Furthermore; and guess who started the myth none other than Ward "little eichman" Churchill himself!

Stealing History: Part 1 - Ward Churchill and the Mandan Smallpox-Blanket Genocide Fraud

History | March 5, 2005 | Tim

In the 1990s, we began to hear that the US Army had deliberately set out to commit genocide against Native Americas by deliberately supplying them with blankets which had been formerly used by smallpox victims.
Now, almost a decade later, most of us have accepted this idea as truth. It has entered our collective consciousness, and influenced a decade's worth of thought on the matter. (And I myself cited the incident as true just recently.)
So imagine my surprise at learning the story seems to have been fabricated. The fraud appears to have been perpetrated one very angry political activist who apparently hoped to gain some personal fame and power from the idea. Perhaps you've heard of him. His name is Ward Churchill.

http://tim.2wgroup.com/blog/archives/000889.html

 

[Trajan Octavian Titus]

And? I never said he was American. It can be genocide whether it was the Brits or Americans.

You have a bullshit definition for the word genocide.

 

[Kelzie]

Furthermore; and guess who started the myth none other than Ward "little eichman" Churchill himself!

First of all, you need to provide a source. Forum rules. You should really know this by now.

http://tim.2wgroup.com/blog/archives/000889.html

Second off. A blog? Not really all that credible. I can find you a blog that aliens are controlling the white house through Bush if you want.

 

[Kelzie]

You have a bullshit definition for the word genocide.

Attempting to exterminate a race by intentionally giving them blankets infested with a disease? Seems like a pretty decent definition to me.

 

[Trajan Octavian Titus]

First of all, you need to provide a source. Forum rules. You should really know this by now.

http://tim.2wgroup.com/blog/archives/000889.html

Second off. A blog? Not really all that credible. I can find you a blog that aliens are controlling the white house through Bush if you want.

I edited it to leave the source, and that's a fact I've read it before, there is absolutely no evidence whatsoever that the U.S. military ever intentionally infected the indiginious peoples with any virus.

Anyways here's a better source:

Abstract:
This essay analyzes Ward Churchill’s accusations that the US Army perpetuated genocide. Churchill argues that the US Army created a smallpox epidemic among the Mandan people in 1837 by distributing infected blankets. While there was a smallpox epidemic on the Plains in 1837—historians agree, and all evidence points to the fact—that it was accidental, and the Army wasn’t involved.

http://hal.lamar.edu/~browntf/Churchill1.htm

 

[Trajan Octavian Titus]

Attempting to exterminate a race by intentionally giving them blankets infested with a disease? Seems like a pretty decent definition to me.

Umm a single isolated incident during a battle when they were under attack by the pontiac in an effort to defend themselves is intentionally exterminating an entire race how exactly? For the record the Pontiac liked to scalp their victims while they were still alive.

 

[beyondtherim55008@yahoo.c]

So my question is if we were intentionally slaughtering Indians wholesale why the fuc/k didn't we finish the job? Answer because we were not intentionally killing Indians at all.

Why, is it so hard to go to google and type "American Native Indian Genocide" Because it's going to be all revisionistic isn't it for you. Can you give me proof that the Indians weren't systematically killed? Don't bother--I will just call it revisionist history anyway; I learned that from you. Can you tell me how many indians are pure-breed anymore chief? Finish the job? Done a long time ago dipshit.

there was the Germans during WW2 with the Jews

Trajan, can you be honest with what you really want to say? You mention the German vs. Jews, no other genocide you mention in comparison and contrast? What's your real agenda? Tell me even if you think the Indians weren't a genocide, would you like the promote the Russian purges because they were white? I'm not going to research all your other past posts yet, but something smells like your hiding something--you really want to say something on the real you--but holding back.

 

[Kelzie]

Umm a single isolated incident during a battle when they were under attack by the pontiac in an effort to defend themselves is intentionally exterminating an entire race how exactly? For the record the Pontiac liked to scalp their victims while they were still alive.

Did you even read my site? There was a letter from one of the commanders about the need to exterminate the indian race.

And who cares what they did? One would assume that dead is dead and the way you died makes little to no difference in the end and certainly doesn't justify genocide.

 

[Trajan Octavian Titus]

Why, is it so hard to go to google and type "American Native Indian Genocide" Because it's going to be all revisionistic isn't it for you. Can you give me proof that the Indians weren't systematically killed? Don't bother--I will just call it revisionist history anyway; I learned that from you. Can you tell me how many indians are pure-breed anymore chief? Finish the job? Done a long time ago dipshit.

Yes you're spouting nothing but revisionist history and you can not back up a single thread of your bullshit with any historical facts. You do what all you leftist ideologs do you serve up the same old revisionist horseshit and tell everyone that it's pudding. Well no thanks skippy I already ate. Oh and you want me to prove a negative . . . . bravo . . . . bravo. :roll:

You made the claim skippy you prove it.

Trajan, can you be honest with what you really want to say? You mention the German vs. Jews, no other genocide you mention in comparison and contrast? What's your real agenda? Tell me even if you think the Indians weren't a genocide, would you like the promote the Russian purges because they were white? I'm not going to research all your other past posts yet, but something smells like your hiding something--you really want to say something on the real you--but holding back.

WTF are you talking about? Why would I need to mention more than one genocide in that argument it was an example you know? An analogy one was sufficient.

 

[Trajan Octavian Titus]

Did you even read my site? There was a letter from one of the commanders about the need to exterminate the indian race.

And who cares what they did? One would assume that dead is dead and the way you died makes little to no difference in the end and certainly doesn't justify genocide.

Do you even know what genocide it? What you gave was not an example of genocide it was an example of germ warfare. Are you saying that wartime actions are the same as in peace time actions? And by the way people didn't even know that viruses existed until the 1800s your whole premise is bullshit and the letter is probably a forgery.

 

[beyondtherim55008@yahoo.c]

Trajan, come join the human race, the blending of the color wheel into one color. You cannot stop it, nor can I stop it. America will be colored and more multi-cultural in the coming decades; by 2050 whites as a whole will be the minority in this the USA; AZ, TX, NM, CA are already colored dominated.

Stop the pain of the resistance you show, the white race has given us many things, many inventions but also terrible things also, the laws of karma state the balance.

All will be assimilated, what is the defence of the whites? They don't have one, as my progenitors didn't have any defence neither. I'm black, hispanic and middle eastern--I didn't decide the color of my skin, through the changing of the economy, politics, wars, social mores I was of three races. Did the Whites prevent this? No. They made the mixtures. No revisionist history--a fact.

I remember when I was so proud of my middle eastern heritage, I became Muslim, pro-arab and all the like and then I came to realize I'm a family of the human race, not just one biased one.

The more all the nations and races put off the one world economy, the one race, one nation-one world of Gaia as some put it. We will live in fear, paranoia, and defense of our beliefs and value systems of ignorance and the constant pain cyclic suffering.

Whites and other races believe they are so special if left intact; Jews also, some blacks, asians, etc., but I would like to dedicate a post to debunking the White Nationalistic White Wakeup Theory. I will post the link following as soon as done. Trajan, tell me of your hopes and fears and whom you really are, I told my agenda, which is of no more secretive. Thank you. Love you brothers and sisters.

 

[Trajan Octavian Titus]

Trajan, come join the human race, the blending of the color wheel into one color. You cannot stop it, nor can I stop it. America will be colored and more multi-cultural in the coming decades; by 2050 whites as a whole will be the minority in this the USA; AZ, TX, NM, CA are already colored dominated.

Stop the pain of the resistance you show, the white race has given us many things, many inventions but also terrible things also, the laws of karma state the balance.

All will be assimilated, what is the defence of the whites? They don't have one, as my progenitors didn't have any defence neither. I'm black, hispanic and middle eastern--I didn't decide the color of my skin, through the changing of the economy, politics, wars, social mores I was of three races. Did the Whites prevent this? No. They made the mixtures. No revisionist history--a fact.

I remember when I was so proud of my middle eastern heritage, I became Muslim, pro-arab and all the like and then I came to realize I'm a family of the human race, not just one biased one.

The more all the nations and races put off the one world economy, the one race, one nation-one world of Gaia as some put it. We will live in fear, paranoia, and defense of our beliefs and value systems of ignorance and the constant pain cyclic suffering.

Whites and other races believe they are so special if left intact; Jews also, some blacks, asians, etc., but I would like to dedicate a post to debunking the White Nationalistic White Wakeup Theory. I will post the link following as soon as done. Trajan, tell me of your hopes and fears and whom you really are, I told my agenda, which is of no more secretive. Thank you. Love you brothers and sisters.

What are you blathering about, are fuc/king calling me a racists? It's you sir who tries to separate the races with your revisionist history in the guise of multiculturalism, I'm all for assimilation but your multiculturalism separates rather than brings the races together. You're calling me a racist because I said that your revisionist history is bullshit what a fuc/king joke, the last desperate plea from the leftist ideolog: when all else fails throw the race card. lmfao catch a clue!

 

[alphieb]

I not real familiar with the other "Genocides" you speak of or how accurate your numbers are. The most inhumane genocide I have ever heard of is the Holocaust.

 

[Michan]

Genocide is genocide regardless of how many people was killed .I would like to add another one and i will post a link, and i would like to add that even Hitler's soldiers were disgusted by this. Also the link under has a gallery of research and its not recommended for people with weak stomach.


http://www.jasenovac.org/index.asp

 

[beyondtherim55008@yahoo.c]

http://www.debatepolitics.com/showthread.php?t=9121
is the link where all CyberRacists must realize the truth and join the world of one. Trajan, I don't know if your a racist or a CyberRacialist; a racist actually belongs to a physical group or let's his views known in public and a cyberRacialist just confines it to the WWW. Your no racist, brother. Love you.

alphieb I not real familiar with the other "Genocides" you speak of or how accurate your numbers are. The most inhumane genocide I have ever heard of is the Holocaust.

Thank you, yes, controversy over numbers will always be in debate, my point was that the holocaust of Jews isn't the only genocide and is actually small in number to other genocides--Indian or not, of course Trajan wants to argue that the Indians died because of.........I don't recall how they all died, maybe a UFO alien ship took them away in the millions, ask him. alphieb, please go to the link I gave on the first thread starting post and it will lead you to the many genocides of mankind. What tribe do you come from?

 

[justone]

AMERICAN INDIANS—CONVERVATIVE ESTIMATES OVER 50 MILLION
§ 40 MILLION IS SOVIET GULAGS FOR
o 15 MILLION Chines killed by Red China
§ 7,000,000 during the Saracen slaughters in Spain.
§ 2,000,000 Saxons and Scandinavians lost their lives opposing the introduction of Christianity.
§ 30 MILLION BLACKS TO SLAVERY DIED ENSLAVED

I do not understand the numbers.
By a mistake I bought a book referring to the same numbers of Indians. I started reading it but could not continue after a number of pages. The simple math did not meet the ends. My son in the second grade does better. I could not count 50 million Indians dead. I don’t remember – it looked like a lot more died than ever were born according to the same authors.

I don’t know how the math about African slaves was done. But what I see here does not meet my understanding of reality.
Trading slaves ( putting aside judging it) may be considered like a business - buying goods, selling goods, using goods. From the business point of view such mortality looks like a huge waste. Simple economy does not work. I don’t see why slave traders would treat slaves worse that horses or cows. You take care of you horse, you have to take care of your slave. If you go to Africa and can buy a slave for a few packs of Budweiser why would be running around with guns and spending expensive bullets and gunpowder and risking to be shot by a poisoned arrow? Also I recently I saw a movie about slave rebellions – the count of the hunted was hardly in hundreds. I don’t see Genocide.
Since I don’t understand the numbers I would not believe anything.

http://www.slaveryinamerica.org/geography/slave_laws_NY.htm
http://www.law.du.edu/russell/lh/alh/docs/virginiaslaverystatutes.html
http://www.virtualjamestown.org/laws1.html#1
Slaves cannot redeem themselves, nor obtain a change of masters, though cruel treatment may have rendered such change necessary for their personal safety"
According to the first U.S. Census, the slave population in New York grew to 21,324 by 1790,
New York slaving ships made over 150 trips to Africa between 1715 and 1776.

How many slaves could be delivered by a ship?? 100?? 100x150 =15,000 per 61 years.
==45,000 in 180 years. What was mortality among the sailors?
How many big ports like NY we are talking about? 10? == 450,000 in a183 years.
""10% mortality among the survivors while crossing the ocean?? "" What was mortality among the sailors?

Now imagine :''50% mortality rate in the first "seasoning" phase of slave labor. "" I cannot.

After a deadly slave revolt in New York City in 1712 that killed nine whites, stricter slave codes were passed. In putting down the upraising of several dozen enslaved people, the authorities executed 25 slaves.
The white community took these fires to be an open slave rebellion, and in the end 13 blacks were burned at the stake, 16 others were hung along with four whites, and 71 were deported from the colony.


About communism. Soviet regime is pretty mush responsible for Chinese and other communist regimes. Therefore it is right to talk about Genocide by Communism. ( Though communists call it RED TERROR.)
It exceeds any imagination. By the way, the death of the slaves in Gulag had a goal of terror on one side, and on another side was not too much different from the situation in other parts of USSR, when ‘’free ‘’ people were dying from starvation and were overworked because of Communists’ rush to enslave the whole world.

 

[beyondtherim55008@yahoo.c]

I do not understand the numbers.
By a mistake I bought a book referring to the same numbers of Indians. I started reading it but could not continue after a number of pages. The simple math did not meet the ends. My son in the second grade does better. I could not count 50 million Indians dead. I don’t remember – it looked like a lot more died than ever were born according to the same authors.

Maybe it was written by a revisionist historian. By mistake you should sell it back. Also, reading 50 million Indian names would take a long time.

My real question is: why do you truly believe 6 million jews died? Because a book said it? Because everyone believes it? Because Billions of dollars were spent on research of it? I'm getting so tired of the Indian number/question that I'm just going to chalk up the Indians as starving themselves and giving themselves disease. Stress cause me to eat--on 6th donut--stop it!! Thank U. Love Beyond. Trajan help me here. Love you.

 

[Trajan Octavian Titus]

Maybe it was written by a revisionist historian. By mistake you should sell it back. Also, reading 50 million Indian names would take a long time.

My real question is: why do you truly believe 6 million jews died? Because a book said it? Because everyone believes it? Because Billions of dollars were spent on research of it? I'm getting so tired of the Indian number/question that I'm just going to chalk up the Indians as starving themselves and giving themselves disease. Stress cause me to eat--on 6th donut--stop it!! Thank U. Love Beyond. Trajan help me here. Love you.

No, we truly believe that 6 million jews died because we have photographic evidence, the Germans documentation, and eyewitness testimony. The Native Americans were a nomadic warlike people constantly on the brink of starvation who hadn't even managed to invent the wheel they killed more of eachother than the Europeans ever did. If you want to blame the Europeans disease on their deaths that's all fine and dandy but that would be analogous to blaming Africans for anyone who has ever died from AIDs, disease is accidental therfor it can't be labled genocide.

 

[beyondtherim55008@yahoo.c]

If I blamed any race, like Whites for anything and tried to enclose all of that same race for some "crimes of humanity" then I was wrong and that would probably label me as a racist and bigot. Forgive this illogical-ambigous man at times.

I'm all for assimilation but your multiculturalism separates rather than brings the races together.

Trajan, explain the difference; I'm not trying to start anything argumentative; in fact, I promise no response to your answer of assimilation vs. multiculturalism.