whites are the real immigrants, are they not?

[Trajan Octavian Titus]

Deliberate infection: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Population_history_of_American_indigenous_peoples

Ya you kind of left out the parts about how it didn't work:

A number of recent scholars, however, have noted that evidence for connecting the blanket incident with the smallpox outbreak is doubtful, and that the disease was more likely spread by native warriors returning from attacks on infected white settlements.

Or the fact that it was the Indians that were attacking the white people not the other way around. The people at the fort were only trying to defend themselves.

Or rather broken treaties constitute broken treaties, which in of themselves would be considered extremely negative by many people.

Yes yes because the evil whitemen were the only ones to break the treaties right? And because we all know that the Native Americans were innocent bystanders who never hurt a fly living peacefully with one another in bounty that is before the arrival of the evil Europeans.

Currently accepted estimate is at 54 million before Spanish incursion, and currently 35 million, that is, for the entire continent.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Population_history_of_American_indigenous_peoples
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indigenous_peoples_of_the_Americas

I was only talking about North of Mexico. If you want to speak for the whole continent then you have to include the Mestizos that being the case the populations today for peoples of indiginious ancestry are way way higher than before the arrival of the Europeans.

Maybe not, but the slavery and/or demanding tribute of another group of people for the soul purpose of profit combined with uncontrolled killing of natives without punishment was bad enough. The absence of full-scale genocide is a small concession.

Uncontrolled killing? Prove it. Demanding tribute? What tribute? Indian slaves? What indian slaves? Prove it.

 

[justone]

What is with the incoherent ramblings? You do this in every post, not that you show the ability or insight to display intelligence to this point...but, "hysterical argument"?

And I will contunie to do it as as long as you keep on displaying you intellegence by throwing steam irons in my face as an argument. Calm down, lady.

If I throw something in your face, I may have to start screaming? Why? Because you know how to "calm down hysterics"?

No, you missunderstood me - that was that I may have to make you start screaming with pleasure... my dear
lady's hysterics are quite easy to turn into a scream of pleasure.

 

[BodiSatva]

I understood you completely...it was obvious what you were saying the first time...that I would be screaming because you were good at calming down hysterics. Do you know why this was obvious? It is because this is what you said...you said it and it was obvious, at least to me. Perhaps you confuse yourself and think that we are as confused as you?

Don't try to throw things in my face, lady, you (BodiSatva) may have to start screaming out loud that things don't fly. I (you) know a few good ways to calm down hysterics.

What is humorous, again for the second time...
Is how does making a person scream for any reason promote calming them down?
What you are trying to say contradicts what you are saying, that is all.
This is something that children eventually learn...to say what they mean, don't worry, you will get it...maybe. Girls like you just don't get it Justone...all overrun with emotion...it clouds your judgment.

 

[justone]

I understood you completely...it was obvious what you were saying the first time...that I would be screaming because you were good at calming down hysterics.
Is how does making a person scream for any reason promote calming them down?
.

Lady, this reason is not any reason, it is called orgasm - you will be happy and calm the next minute.. - the best way to calm down hysterics... ask any doctor...

(may be my mistake - should I use the word squeal or scream still works?)

 

[BodiSatva]

Lady, I get it...it is obvious as I said. Who cares what happens the next minute, what matters is what you said you could do now. I get it Lady Justone! Besides...I am already calm

What you are not getting is that you said you can CALM DOWN my hysterics by making me SCREAM. GET IT?

If I am SCREAMING then I am NOT CALM!!!

Please tell me you can understand this finally...please God..Oh God OH GOD OH GOD
PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE !!!!!

AaahhhHHH.....

 

[justone]

Lady, I get it...it is obvious as I said. Who cares what happens the next minute, what matters is what you said you could do now. I get it Lady Justone! Besides...I am already calm

What you are not getting is that you said you can CALM DOWN my hysterics by making me SCREAM. GET IT?

If I am SCREAMING then I am NOT CALM!!!

Please tell me you can understand this finally...please God..Oh God OH GOD OH GOD
PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE !!!!!

AaahhhHHH.....

it is a very colorful hysterics... Reasoning cannot help... just try not to hurt yourself

 

[BodiSatva]

It is called...once again...SARCASM.
Reasoning can't help because you can't seem to reason.
I guess we are done here then bro.

 

[justone]

It is called...once again...SARCASM.
Reasoning can't help because you can't seem to reason.
I guess we are done here then bro.

In a certain way hystercs and sarcasm are a way of reasoning. We have spend a good ammount of time trying to put one another down as a person with no relation to the topic, - which should make both us the same kind of jerks, –congrads, bro.. Fortunately, this morning, I have signed a couple of good contracts (at last!)which should keep me busy from being a jerk for a while… I hope you will not miss me too much.

 

[BodiSatva]

But I will miss you Justone.
Whom am I to banter with if not you?
Jenny? Larry? :shock:

Good luck with the new work.

 

[-Demosthenes-]

Ya you kind of left out the parts about how it didn't work:

A number of scholars are on both sides of the argument, maybe it happened maybe it didn't.

Yes yes because the evil whitemen were the only ones to break the treaties right? And because we all know that the Native Americans were innocent bystanders who never hurt a fly living peacefully with one another in bounty that is before the arrival of the evil Europeans.

No one said that the Europeans were evil or the Indians were all innocent, don't insult us by sidestepping the subject with sarcasm, like we won't notice. The evilness/innocence of any party involved is completely irrelevant when assessing who broke what treaty.

I was only talking about North of Mexico. If you want to speak for the whole continent then you have to include the Mestizos that being the case the populations today for peoples of indiginious ancestry are way way higher than before the arrival of the Europeans.

Cool, there's more now. But there's more people everywhere, and most other races didn't have to pass a bottle neck population number as low as 5 million. And again we are ignoring the fact that you don't have to kill people to screw them over. Forcing them into slavery, to pay tribute, or off of land all fall under the classification "screwing people over."

Uncontrolled killing? Prove it. Demanding tribute? What tribute? Indian slaves? What indian slaves? Prove it.

I'm sure your high school offers some sort of history class, it would be beneficial to your overall scholarship, I assure you.

Slavery:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indigenous_peoples_of_the_Americas

The first indigenous group encountered by Columbus were the 250,000 Arawaks of Hispaniola. They were enslaved. The culture was extinct before 1650, and only 500 survived by the year 1550, though the bloodlines continued through the modern populace.

Indian slavery was a practice of the Spanish from the earliest days on the Caribbean islands they first settled. One of the first localities for intensive use of slaves was the gold mines of Hispaniola. This resulted in the extermination of Native Americans on most of the islands. A very few mixed-blood survivors remain, especially on Jamaica, and are called Maroons as do some mixed blood survivors of the Arawak on Cuba. Some Carib survive on Dominica.

Indian slavery was also practiced by the English in the Carolinas who sold Native American captives into slavery on the English plantations in the Caribbean.

Enslaved Native Americans generally died after a short time in the conditions of plantation slavery. Life was difficult on the plantation, much work was insisted on by the Europeans. The work was hard and strenuous, often with little food or nutrients. Native Americans also commonly died from diseases brought by the Europeans, which their bodies were not immune to nor could they fight off.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spanish_colonization_of_the_Americas

After conquering an area, the colonists usually enslaved the native people, using them for forced labor. However disease continued to kill them off in large numbers, and so African slaves, who had already developed immunities to these diseases, were quickly brought in to replace them.

As large numbers of Indians died under the cruel working conditions in Spanish mines, ranches and encomiendas, and as Bartolomé de Las Casas and others began to call attention to Spanish mistreatment of the natives, landowners in New Spain began to look for alternative sources of labor. Starting in the 1530s, black slaves from Africa began to be imported to the Spanish New World, especially to the Caribbean coasts and islands. The descendants of these slaves would become members of the african and mulatto (mixed-race) classes in Latin-American society. Some slaves escaped to form palenque communities, some of which survive to this day, with their own African-influenced dialects of Spanish. African spirituality and musical styles would influence the developing Latin-American culture.

Tribute:
http://www.eaglerocktradingpost.com/columbusday.htm

It was also about this time that Columbus establishes the tribute system where every Taino Indian 14 years or older are required to fill a hawks bell full of gold every 3 months but the Spaniards were also ordered to cut off the hands of those who didn't comply and that they were to be left to bleed to death.

Here's a picture of indians paying tribute to the French:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/f/f0/Indians_paying_tribute_to_French_in_Flordia.jpg

You can find more if you want, and as for the killing, I think that it's rather obvious. If you want to find some primary sources, go ahead. I'd suggest reading a standard text book on the subject.

 

[Calm2Chaos]

Fortunately any one can form an opinion from simple search. This is just a qute from wiki:.
Citing figures from a 1894 estimate by the United States Census Bureau, one scholar has noted that the more than 40 Indian wars from 1775 to 1890 reportedly claimed the lives of some 45,000 Indians and 19,000 whites
This rough estimate includes women and children, since noncombatants were often killed in frontier warfare
Some historians now emphasize that to see the Indian wars as a racial war between Indians and "whites" simplifies the complex historical reality of the struggle. Indians and whites often fought alongside each other; Indians often fought against Indians.For example, although the Battle of Horseshoe Bend is often described as an "American victory" over the Creek Indians, the victors were a combined force of Cherokees, Creeks, and Tennessee militia led by Andrew Jackson.
From a broad perspective, the Indian wars were about the conquest of Native American peoples by the United States; up close it was rarely quite as simple as that.
Gliding further - thruogh numerous serious sites: no genocide, none, zero. I am saying for sure: it did not happen. Wars, blood, cruelty, death, brutality - yes - on both sides, - no genocide.


You must be kidding me - if you are not you are also going to tell me that steam irons cannot fly.

So your saying there were no incidents of Indian massacre?