Colonialism: Good or Bad
- Thread starter Jersay
- Start date
95% of all American indigenous people died within 100 years of Columbus' arrival. The survivors were subjected to Residential schools, sterilization programs as well as forceful removal from their land, not to mention mass slaughter by the military. Just because they were not completely exterminated (they were extirpated in many areas) doesn't mean that genocide was not attempted. That any survive is a miracle.
I won't bother with what colonialism has done for the rest of the world.
We've been through this before. Death via incidental exposure to "foreign" bacteria and disease is not genocide. Further, Columbus traveled with the intention of colonizing the lands, not to engage a program of genocide... Call it murder, conflict or whatever you like but invoking "genocide" is no different than any group that screams "racism" whenever they don't get what they want.
Out of curiosity, can we consider the American indigenous population as colonists or did they grow straight out of the ground?
If it helps you sleep at night, you can call it whatever you want.
Well if you want to go back a million years or so, you could say the whole planet was colonized, if you want to nit pick.
... So, no answer then, eh?
I'm not asking about the whole planet, am I? I am curious if you are willing to apply the same standard to American indigenous populations that you apply to everyone else.
So how about it?
The next logical question is if the actions (Columbus) were intentional?
Columbus didn't intentionally use disease. He enslaved, worked to the bone, malnourished, played factions against one another, and used torture. It's later Europeans like British Commander-in-Chief Amherst who used disease as part of a systematic genocide. Though this is outside the 100 year window Cliffy mentioned.
The Spanish murdered, maimed and mutilated millions of people. The real slaughter began in earnest after settlers arrived. Then there were the cultural genocides conducted at residential schools, the eugenics practiced by various governments, Alberta being a prime example with their sterilization programs.
The more we dig, the more we find that the population of the Americas happened much earlier than formally thought. I suspect that one day we'll find that people lived here for a few hundred thousand years just like the indigenous people claim. It is obviously not in the best interests of the dominant society to want that known.
The more we dig, the more we find that the population of the Americas happened much earlier than formally thought. I suspect that one day we'll find that people lived here for a few hundred thousand years just like the indigenous people claim. It is obviously not in the best interests of the dominant society to want that known.
I believe that one could easily make the argument that Amherst employed biological (germ) warfare in his campaign against the indians, however, it would take much more to convince anyone that Amherst's actions were part of a clinical and deliberate attempt to erase an entire race akin to what happened in Rwanda or via the Nazis.
In terms of this discussion, the above represents the discussion that I attempted to pursue with Cliffy.... I believe that he referred (or insinuated) that 95% of the amerindians were subjected to a genocidal-style program. This is nothing more than Cliffy employing extreme exaggerations and shock tactics on an issue. It's a tired old technique that has long lost its effectiveness.
He says so explicitly in a letter he wrote to Colonel Henry Bouquet in 1763, the infamous part of the quote is "to extirpate this execrable race"...it was clinical and deliberate.
The war/conflict against the indians was deliberate as well, but it is not proof positive of genocide.
Give this quote a read:
Despite his fame, Jeffrey Amherst's name became tarnished by stories of smallpox-infected blankets used as germ warfare against American Indians. These stories are reported, for example, in Carl Waldman's Atlas of the North American Indian [NY: Facts on File, 1985]. Waldman writes, in reference to a siege of Fort Pitt (Pittsburgh) by Chief Pontiac's forces during the summer of 1763:
Amherst also wrote another letter to Bouquet dated three days earlier than te letter you refer to where Amherst suggests in a postscript the distribution of blankets to "inocculate the Indians".
Give this quote a read:
Despite his fame, Jeffrey Amherst's name became tarnished by stories of smallpox-infected blankets used as germ warfare against American Indians. These stories are reported, for example, in Carl Waldman's Atlas of the North American Indian [NY: Facts on File, 1985]. Waldman writes, in reference to a siege of Fort Pitt (Pittsburgh) by Chief Pontiac's forces during the summer of 1763:
... 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. [p. 108]
Some people have doubted these stories; other people, believing the stories, nevertheless assert that the infected blankets were not intentionally distributed to the Indians, or that Lord Jeff himself is not to blame for the germ warfare tactic.Amherst also wrote another letter to Bouquet dated three days earlier than te letter you refer to where Amherst suggests in a postscript the distribution of blankets to "inocculate the Indians".
Innoculate is exactly what he suggested, which means to introduce foreign pathogens...Jenner's first small pox vaccine was only made in 1796. The meaning of innoculate has changed...
The letter is catalogued in the Library of Congress, read for yourself:
extirpate this execrable race
The letter is catalogued in the Library of Congress, read for yourself:
extirpate this execrable race
So is the one that he wrote three days earlier.
http://www.nativeweb.org/pages/legal/amherst/34_40_305_fn.jpeg
http://www.nativeweb.org/pages/legal/amherst/34_40_305_fn.jpeg
You are passing a personal judgment on how the word inoculation is being used. Considering that the practice has been around for centuries, I find it hard to believe that Bouquet was employing the word to mean "infect to cause genocide". Accounts of inoculation against smallpox in China can be found as early as the late 10th century,
(ĭ-nŏk'yə-lā'shən)
n.
(ĭ-nŏk'yə-lā'shən)
n.
- The act or an instance of inoculating, especially the introduction of an antigenic substance or vaccine into the body to produce immunity to a specific disease.
- Informal. A preemptive advertising tactic in which one party attempts to foresee and neutralize potentially damaging criticism from another party by being the first to confront troublesome issues.
No, I'm not ignoring the context of the conversation in an attempt to revise history. If one is speaking of inoculation, and extirpating a race, the form of the verb should be fairly obvious.
in·oc·u·late (
1. To introduce a serum, vaccine, or antigenic substance into (the body of a person or animal), especially to produce or boost immunity to a specific disease.
2. To communicate a disease to (a living organism) by transferring its causative agent into the organism.
(ĭ-nŏk'yə-lā'shən)
n.
- The act or an instance of inoculating, especially the introduction of an antigenic substance or vaccine into the body to produce immunity to a specific disease.
- Informal. A preemptive advertising tactic in which one party attempts to foresee and neutralize potentially damaging criticism from another party by being the first to confront troublesome issues.
That's the noun form as well. The sentence in which it was used was clearly the verb form.
Last edited:
Maybe this will help you decide how it was intended.
Amherst expressed his desire to extirpate the race he's in conflict with:
ex·tir·pate
–verb (used with object), -pat·ed, -pat·ing. 1. to remove or destroy totally; do away with; exterminate.
2. to pull up by or as if by the roots; root up: to extirpate an unwanted hair.
So now if you want to extripate a race of people, which definition of inoculate makes sense? Are you going to provide them protection, or is it going to be malicious? –verb (used with object), -pat·ed, -pat·ing. 1. to remove or destroy totally; do away with; exterminate.
2. to pull up by or as if by the roots; root up: to extirpate an unwanted hair.
There is only one form which fits.