"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.

You expext adult behavior out of DSK?

"Jeff Rigby" 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.

"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.

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. When the english and dutch sought to colonize this country there
were many unclaimed lands."


Really? How come there is no mention of that in any land title documents?

Usually land grants were given by the king, who owned the land by right
of conquest or divine providence, depending... or the large land
grantees also posted ownership claims based on grants & purchases from
Indian tribes.

If you know of any land titles originated by a European settler arriving
in North America, and stating "There was nobody here, so it's my land
now," I'd be interested to see it.

There is certainly no such in North Carolina, because the royal land
grants covering the area are still extant. AFAIK that's also true of all
the original colonies and the Louisiana Purchase.

No mention of Eskimos in my post

No, I mentioned the Eskimos because in your original statement, they
could well have been included. That's what happens when you make vague
and unsupportable claims, and at at the same time try to insert dramatic
statistics.

If you make clear and accurate statements, then people find it much more
difficult to make you look stupid and prove you wrong.

... 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.

Well, good for you. I think you still have a little ways to go, and
maybe you can also start on some world history too.


... 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


No argument from me on that.



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.


???

You mean the Indians? It's a bit late to defend them, although they may
end up buying the country back with casino proceeds.


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.

No, I would never do such a thing!

... 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.


Is that why none of the web sites you cited backed up your claims?

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


I have never once misquoted or distorted anything you posted. And you
OTOH have attributed to me several statements I never made and would not
make.

As for hurling insults, you did indeed start. And continue.

DSK

DSK wrote:
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. When the english and dutch sought to colonize this country there
were many unclaimed lands."


Really? How come there is no mention of that in any land title documents?

Usually land grants were given by the king, who owned the land by right
of conquest or divine providence, depending... or the large land
grantees also posted ownership claims based on grants & purchases from
Indian tribes.

So you are saying they ignored occupancy, but you insist that it
should have been mentioned if it happened? That isn't logical.

If you know of any land titles originated by a European settler arriving
in North America, and stating "There was nobody here, so it's my land
now," I'd be interested to see it.

Ahem, try taking a look at the history of the Mayflower's
landing at Plymonth Rock. And keep in mind that that was 200
years *after* de Soto depopulated what is now the eastern US.

The European diseases were *still* making the rounds...

There is certainly no such in North Carolina, because the royal land
grants covering the area are still extant. AFAIK that's also true of all
the original colonies and the Louisiana Purchase.

No mention of Eskimos in my post

No, I mentioned the Eskimos because in your original statement, they
could well have been included. That's what happens when you make vague
and unsupportable claims, and at at the same time try to insert dramatic
statistics.

The only correction needed there is that of course it wasn't
pre-1700 and it wasn't the Spanish. But the Native populations
of Alaska suffered just about the exact same depopulation that
happened elsewhere. Due to the remote access it happened later,
but by about 1900 it was in full fury, and lasted well into the
life times of living people.

I lived for about 20 years in a place known as Salcha, where
there is still a cemetery (well hidden from casual tourists),
and the old village, and when I lived there the last surviving
Salcha Indian was my next door neighbor. She was one of the few
(a dozen or so) who had survived an epidemic in the late 1930's

In fact, at one time or another virtually *every* Native village
in Alaska was all but wiped out, with less that 15 or 20%
surviving. (Imagine what that does to a culture, when 90% of
the knowledge required to make it function disappears in a
matter of days.)

And while you've all heard of the wonderful race to Nome with
diptheria serum to save the Whites, you won't hear, even in the
1950's of anyone going to that effort to save the Natives.

It is a *disgusting* history, that continues today. We made a
deal with Native people to take their land, and the primary
payment for that was to be health care. Today the Indian Health
Service is funded at 50% of need. Think about that, and what it
means to Native children and elders. (Or to people like me, who
even though I am non-Native, must rely on the same health care
facilities.)

You mean the Indians? It's a bit late to defend them, although they may
end up buying the country back with casino proceeds.

How about if they just forclose on the mortgage for non-payment,
and take all their land back.

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

Jeff Rigby wrote:
".... When the english and dutch sought to colonize this country there
were many unclaimed lands."


Really? How come there is no mention of that in any land title documents?

Usually land grants were given by the king, who owned the land by right
of conquest or divine providence, depending... or the large land
grantees also posted ownership claims based on grants & purchases from
Indian tribes.



Floyd Davidson wrote:
So you are saying they ignored occupancy, but you insist that it
should have been mentioned if it happened? That isn't logical.


Not at all. I'm saying that nobody claimed land based on lack of
occupancy, which is what Jeff said happened.


If you know of any land titles originated by a European settler arriving
in North America, and stating "There was nobody here, so it's my land
now," I'd be interested to see it.


Ahem, try taking a look at the history of the Mayflower's
landing at Plymonth Rock. And keep in mind that that was 200
years *after* de Soto depopulated what is now the eastern US.


There were definitely Indians living around the Plymouth colony. Who do
you think fed the Pilgrims thru the first winter?

That's not to say that they *weren't* affected by plagues brought by the
Europeans, because tehy definitely were. But the Pilgrims certainly
didn't move into uninhabited land, nor did they claim it because it was
empty of humans.


The European diseases were *still* making the rounds...


Yep. They were in Europe, too. Funny how we still have the same problem
today.



The only correction needed there is that of course it wasn't
pre-1700 and it wasn't the Spanish. But the Native populations
of Alaska suffered just about the exact same depopulation that
happened elsewhere. Due to the remote access it happened later,
but by about 1900 it was in full fury, and lasted well into the
life times of living people.
...(snip for brevity)...


I wonder if the plagues in the far north were made worse by climate &
diet, too.




You mean the Indians? It's a bit late to defend them, although they may
end up buying the country back with casino proceeds.


How about if they just forclose on the mortgage for non-payment,
and take all their land back.


Hmm, did we take out an interest-only ARM on the place? Well, they'll be
pleased with my yard, I've been letting it go back to Nature for years.

DSK

DSK wrote:
Jeff Rigby wrote:
".... When the english and dutch sought to colonize this country there
were many unclaimed lands."


Really? How come there is no mention of that in any land title documents?

Usually land grants were given by the king, who owned the land by right
of conquest or divine providence, depending... or the large land
grantees also posted ownership claims based on grants & purchases from
Indian tribes.


Floyd Davidson wrote:
So you are saying they ignored occupancy, but you insist that it
should have been mentioned if it happened? That isn't logical.


Not at all. I'm saying that nobody claimed land based on lack of
occupancy, which is what Jeff said happened.

Okay. Except of course that has nothing to do with the
statement quoted above. He did *not* claim that anyone made
land claims based on occupancy, he just state that ".... When
the english and dutch sought to colonize this country there were
many unclaimed lands." Which is true to the extent that the
previous claimants were either all killed by disease, or
weakened to the point were forcible removal was easy.

If you know of any land titles originated by a European settler arriving
in North America, and stating "There was nobody here, so it's my land
now," I'd be interested to see it.
Ahem, try taking a look at the history of the Mayflower's
landing at Plymonth Rock. And keep in mind that that was 200
years *after* de Soto depopulated what is now the eastern US.

There were definitely Indians living around the Plymouth colony. Who do
you think fed the Pilgrims thru the first winter?

They occupied a recently "abandoned village", where there were
no survivors. None, not a one. There was exactly one living
person who had been from that village. He had been taken as a
slave to Europe, managed to escape and return.

That's not to say that they *weren't* affected by plagues brought by the
Europeans, because tehy definitely were. But the Pilgrims certainly
didn't move into uninhabited land, nor did they claim it because it was
empty of humans.

Wrong. They not only moved into an entire village, with no
inhabitants, there is a surviving copy of sermon preached on
Sunday, thanking their Christian God for removing the previous
inhabitants to make room for them, and requesting of course that
such divine assistance continue.

The only correction needed there is that of course it wasn't
pre-1700 and it wasn't the Spanish. But the Native populations
of Alaska suffered just about the exact same depopulation that
happened elsewhere. Due to the remote access it happened later,
but by about 1900 it was in full fury, and lasted well into the
life times of living people.
...(snip for brevity)...


I wonder if the plagues in the far north were made worse by climate &
diet, too.

The disease free nature of the Arctic prior to high technology
travel is in fact an attribute of climate and diet.

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

Floyd Davidson wrote:
Okay. Except of course that has nothing to do with the
statement quoted above.

It does if you can parse relatively simple sentences in English.

... He did *not* claim that anyone made
land claims based on occupancy, he just state that ".... When
the english and dutch sought to colonize this country there were
many unclaimed lands."

Along with a few other statements which added up to what I said: that
Jeff thinks many white settlers grabbed land that was totally empty
(possibly true but rare enough that it's hard to find references to it)
and legally justified their ownership based on lack of previous
inhabitants (false as far as I've been able to determine, and you
certainly haven't gotten far with this one either).

... Which is true to the extent that the
previous claimants were either all killed by disease, or
weakened to the point were forcible removal was easy.


In a few cases, sure. In many other cases the Indians were numerous and
strong enough to push white settlers out of their tribal lands, and even
held off outright military invasion for a while at least.


DSK

On Thu, 10 Nov 2005 07:53:43 -0500, DSK wrote:



In a few cases, sure. In many other cases the Indians were numerous and
strong enough to push white settlers out of their tribal lands, and even
held off outright military invasion for a while at least.

Columbus's arrival sure did change the Indians way of life. For instance,
the Great Plains Horse Culture, wasn't. Besides all the disease, the
horse came back over with the white man. I've always been curious about
Indian history before the white man arrived, but there doesn't seem to be
much written on it. At least, that I have been able to find.

DSK wrote:
Floyd Davidson wrote:
Okay. Except of course that has nothing to do with the
statement quoted above.

It does if you can parse relatively simple sentences in English.

Apparently you can't.

... He did *not* claim that anyone made
land claims based on occupancy, he just state that ".... When
the english and dutch sought to colonize this country there were
many unclaimed lands."

Along with a few other statements which added up to what I said: that

What he said is quoted above. That you didn't understand it is
obvious, and you are now trying to defend that misunderstanding.

Jeff thinks many white settlers grabbed land that was totally empty

It certainly did happen exactly that way!

One obvious example is Plymouth Rock, where the colonists on the
Mayflower eventually settled, after looking at more promising
locations and deciding to move on because of a potentially
hostile Indian population.

They selected Plymouth Rock simply because it was *not*
populated.

(possibly true but rare enough that it's hard to find references to it)

A second example that is well documented is the Willamette
Valley in Oregon. There were no people there when the settlers
arrived, but they found cleared fields... which is why they
settled there.

(Just as with Plymouth Rock, the Willamette Valley had been
depopulated by diseases introduced by the first European
explorers, in the immediate years prior to the arrival of
colonists.)

and legally justified their ownership based on lack of previous
inhabitants (false as far as I've been able to determine, and you
certainly haven't gotten far with this one either).

Legal justification was not the issue. That's just your strawman.

... Which is true to the extent that the
previous claimants were either all killed by disease, or
weakened to the point were forcible removal was easy.


In a few cases, sure. In many other cases the Indians were numerous and
strong enough to push white settlers out of their tribal lands, and even
held off outright military invasion for a while at least.

The operative words are "for a while at least", and of course then
the diseases and the genocide ended all resistance.

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