"DSK" wrote in message
...
Perhaps, due to the way the present America was taken by force from
the original inhabitants, war is in the cultural heritage of the us
somewhat seen as a legitimate and effective means to an end, much more
than in europe.


That's an interesting idea, maybe true.


Jeff Rigby wrote:
There was a vacumn here as 80% of the origional indians in the eastern
and south easteren continental US were killed by dieases brought in by
spanish explorers.

???

Do you actually believe this stuff, or do you pick it up on some secret
"wishful thinking" history website for fascist morons?

I suggest reading a basic U.S. history text... 5th grade is probably about
right.

DSK

Maybe you should read those books again. You have a selective memory as
indeed these facts were taught in my history books in Florida in the Fifth
grade. The Indians must have been killed by violence because the white man
is evil and the US government practices genocide. That is your world
view..... The truth is man is NOT inherently evil just stupid.

See:
http://www.uic.edu/classes/osci/osci...%20World. htm
18 million Indians die as a result of the first wave of diseases brought to
the new world by the Spanish

See: http://www.thefurtrapper.com/indian_smallpox.htm Rocky mountain
Indians decimated by white man diseases

See: http://www.kporterfield.com/aicttw/a...s/disease.html For a
timeline of diseases spread thru the continental US by European explorers

To be historically accurate Europeans are responsible for the deaths of most
of the Indians killed in the Continental United States.

Jeff Rigby wrote:
...The Indians must have been killed by violence because the white man
is evil and the US government practices genocide. That is your world
view.....

Excuse me? Where did I say any such thing?

Oh wait, I forgot, you prefer too ignore reality.



See:
http://www.uic.edu/classes/osci/osci...%20World. htm
18 million Indians die as a result of the first wave of diseases brought to
the new world by the Spanish

Yep... it says 50%, which is a *very* high mortality rate for such plagues.

Nowhere does it say that diseases brought by Europeans wiped out 80% of
the Indians. One link says that one Caribbean island might have had that
high a mortality rate. The Black Death sweeping medieval Europe is now
believed to have had a mortality rate of about 30%.

Another funny thing, these issues were studied and the figures derived
by the same egg-head professional scholars that you scream about when
they talk about pollution & global warming & evolution. I guess you can
pick your own science to believe in, as convenient at the moment?

Thanks for the interesting links.

DSK

"DSK" wrote in message
news
Jeff Rigby wrote:
...The Indians must have been killed by violence because the white man
is evil and the US government practices genocide. That is your world
view.....

Excuse me? Where did I say any such thing?

Oh wait, I forgot, you prefer too ignore reality.



See:
http://www.uic.edu/classes/osci/osci...%20World. htm
18 million Indians die as a result of the first wave of diseases brought
to the new world by the Spanish

Yep... it says 50%, which is a *very* high mortality rate for such
plagues.

Nowhere does it say that diseases brought by Europeans wiped out 80% of
the Indians.

FIRST wave...was 50%, then the second wave more and the third wave, and on
and on Those that survived the first wave because they had an immunity to
the first disease might be killed by the second disease and so on. If they
happend to have a bad winter and many were undernourish disease would
revisit and many more would be killed. Remember we had a mini ice age just
as the first explorers and settlers were visiting this country. We had for
several years pemafrost as far south as Georgia.

One link says that one Caribbean island might have had that
high a mortality rate. The Black Death sweeping medieval Europe is now
believed to have had a mortality rate of about 30%.

And if you followed up that disease with another totally different
disease....


Another funny thing, these issues were studied and the figures derived by
the same egg-head professional scholars that you scream about when they
talk about pollution & global warming & evolution. I guess you can pick
your own science to believe in, as convenient at the moment?

In this case we have historical records (written and pictographs) as well as
sites in this country to study. Also mass graves with carbon dating.
As to pollution I don't call excess nutrients pollution, mercury and lead
yes and you can google and see my views on that. Evolution as a theory, yes
I believe in it but don't think that GOD would leave that tool out of
his(her) collection of building blocks for our universe just because it
allows us a trail of his works. Global warming, oh, yes any thinking person
will believe in the theory just not the only cause being MAN or the doomsday
senerios used to scare for political purposes.

Thanks for the interesting links.

DSK

Nowhere does it say that diseases brought by Europeans wiped out 80% of
the Indians.


Jeff Rigby wrote:
FIRST wave...was 50%, then the second wave more and the third wave, and on
and on

And yet, you made the claim that 80% of the North American Indians (even
the Eskimos??) were wiped out by disease brought by the Spanish by 1700.
That's ridiculous and the reason your cited web sites (interesting and
fact-filled though they be) do not support your claim.

I suggest you look up some more history, like the Tuscarora War or King
Phillip's War... wars in which the Indians drove white settlers out of
large areas of their lands... temporarily, to be sure... doesn't really
fit your picture, does it? I wonder why?

Now, if you had said that the Indians suffered massive depopulation,
mostly from deisease, starting when the Spanish explorers arrived....
*that* would be truthful. Instead you have to make up some exaggerated
claim and start hurling insults.

And you wonder why you can't get any grown-ups to play.

DSK

"DSK" wrote in message
...
Nowhere does it say that diseases brought by Europeans wiped out 80% of
the Indians.


Jeff Rigby wrote:
FIRST wave...was 50%, then the second wave more and the third wave, and
on and on

And yet, you made the claim that 80% of the North American Indians (even
the Eskimos??) were wiped out by disease brought by the Spanish by 1700.
That's ridiculous and the reason your cited web sites (interesting and
fact-filled though they be) do not support your claim.

I'm just sort of lurking in this part of the debate. Natives in places like
Minnesota were wiped out by the Spanish?

Doug Kanter wrote:
"DSK" wrote in message
...

Nowhere does it say that diseases brought by Europeans wiped out 80% of
the Indians.

Jeff Rigby wrote:

FIRST wave...was 50%, then the second wave more and the third wave, and
on and on

And yet, you made the claim that 80% of the North American Indians (even
the Eskimos??) were wiped out by disease brought by the Spanish by 1700.
That's ridiculous and the reason your cited web sites (interesting and
fact-filled though they be) do not support your claim.


I'm just sort of lurking in this part of the debate. Natives in places like
Minnesota were wiped out by the Spanish?


In my part of the world (Eastern Canada) the tribes usually lined up
with either the English or French and as a result took many loses.

"Doug Kanter" wrote in message
...
"DSK" wrote in message
...
Nowhere does it say that diseases brought by Europeans wiped out 80% of
the Indians.


Jeff Rigby wrote:
FIRST wave...was 50%, then the second wave more and the third wave, and
on and on

And yet, you made the claim that 80% of the North American Indians (even
the Eskimos??) were wiped out by disease brought by the Spanish by 1700.
That's ridiculous and the reason your cited web sites (interesting and
fact-filled though they be) do not support your claim.

I'm just sort of lurking in this part of the debate. Natives in places
like Minnesota were wiped out by the Spanish?
No that's a misquote, I mentioned that the east and southeast of the
continental United States had this massive depopulation. DSK, misread and
or misquoted. I can only guess that it's unconscious on his part.

Climate has a lot to do with the spread of disease. The warmer climates
spread typhus and cholera faster than the cold climates.

I'm just sort of lurking in this part of the debate. Natives in places
like Minnesota were wiped out by the Spanish?

Jeff Rigby wrote:
No that's a misquote, I mentioned that the east and southeast of the
continental United States had this massive depopulation.

Actually, I don't believe you specified *where* 80% of the native
Americans had been been wiped out. And you certainly did not say
anything about long term depopulation.


.. DSK, misread and
or misquoted.

Yeah, that must be it!

You don't ever actually say untruthful or stupid things, you just get
misunderestimated!


Climate has a lot to do with the spread of disease. The warmer climates
spread typhus and cholera faster than the cold climates.


Duh. Funny how there's little malaria in Canada, eh?

OTOH diseases like smallpox, which is among most deadly and is
documented to have ripped thru the New England tribes in several waves,
is virulent in all climates and is contagious for years. In fact, one of
the web sites you gave links to mentioned a smallpox epidemic caused by
digging a pipeline thru a graveyard of smallpox victims, decades later.

It is possible... not very likely, but possible... that by the early
1800s the overall Indian population was down to 20% of what it had been
at peak, before the arrival of Europeans. But since we don't know how
many there were at either time, there's not much point in insisting on it.

One thing we agree on, the white man's diseases (including alcoholism)
killed a lot more Indians than bullets ever did.

DSK

"Doug Kanter" wrote:
"DSK" wrote:

And yet, you made the claim that 80% of the North American Indians (even
the Eskimos??) were wiped out by disease brought by the Spanish by 1700.
That's ridiculous and the reason your cited web sites (interesting and
fact-filled though they be) do not support your claim.

I'm just sort of lurking in this part of the debate. Natives in places like
Minnesota were wiped out by the Spanish?

Yep. But it would have been better to say "by 1600".

Herenando de Soto, using wealth he obtained as a leader in the
conquest of the Inca Empire, personally outfitted a 4 year
voyage that began in 1539 probably at about where Tampa Bay
Florida is today. He inflicted a campaign of terror all along
the way. He was also well aware that his army was spreading
disease as it went.

What he was not aware of was the effect his invasion had. He
purposely avoided to every degree he could any retracing of his
path. He was afraid his return would be met with organized
resistance. As it turned out, his outgoing path necessarily
crossed his incoming path on a least two occasions, and what he
found was virtually nothing. And 20 years later when other
explorers traveled through many of the same areas, they found
little of the civilization that de Soto had described. The
people where he had been were inundated by 1) the massive
violence of de Soto's invasion, and 2) by the death from de
Soto's disease ridden army.

Survivors scattered, and spread the diseases far more widely
than de Soto's army.

De Soto's army traveled through Ohio, Indiana, and Illinois,
with his scouts going as far a Chicago.

De Soto single handedly depopulated much of what today is the
United States.

--
Floyd L. Davidson http://www.apaflo.com/floyd_davidson
Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska)

"DSK" wrote in message
...
Nowhere does it say that diseases brought by Europeans wiped out 80% of
the Indians.


Jeff Rigby wrote:
FIRST wave...was 50%, then the second wave more and the third wave, and
on and on

And yet, you made the claim that 80% of the North American Indians (even
the Eskimos??) were wiped out by disease brought by the Spanish by 1700.
That's ridiculous and the reason your cited web sites (interesting and
fact-filled though they be) do not support your claim.

"There was a vacumn here as 80% of the origional indians in the eastern and
south easteren continental US were killed by dieases brought in by spanish
explorers. When the english and dutch sought to colonize this country there
were many unclaimed lands."

No mention of Eskimos in my post, nor was there mention of the northeast
where Dutch, English and French were very brutal in claiming, defending and
exploiting their claims. We were talking about Americans killing off the
indians and for the most part I identify with the south and have a greater
grasp of our history than the northeast and Canada. The settlers in the
northeast have been the most brutal unethical humans on this earth for
hundreds of years. That culture I won't defend. The yankee traders of the
1800's gave us the reputation that we are still living down


I suggest you look up some more history, like the Tuscarora War or King
Phillip's War... wars in which the Indians drove white settlers out of
large areas of their lands... temporarily, to be sure... doesn't really
fit your picture, does it? I wonder why?

Again, I was talking, or defending Americans not europeans.


Now, if you had said that the Indians suffered massive depopulation,
mostly from deisease, starting when the Spanish explorers arrived....
*that* would be truthful. Instead you have to make up some exaggerated
claim and start hurling insults.

That's what I did say and you for some reason twisted it. I didn't START
hurling insults just responded to your comment that I should reread the 5th
grade history books which contained many of the statements I made but which
you seemed to have forgotten.

And you wonder why you can't get any grown-ups to play.

DSK

Misquoting, distorting and hurling insults are not what I call adult
behavior.