Posted on 12/15/2012 8:45:53 AM PST by BunnySlippers
Determining how many people died as a direct result of armed conflict between Native Americans, and Europeans and their descendants, is difficult as accurate records were not always kept.[51] Various statistics have been developed concerning the devastation of the American Indian Wars on the peoples involved. One notable study by Gregory Michno used records dealing with figures "as a direct result of" engagements and concluded that "of the 21,586 total casualties tabulated in this survey, military personnel and civilians accounted for 6,596 (31%), while Indian casualties totaled about 14,990 (69%)." for the period of 1850–90. However, Michno says he "used the army's estimates in almost every case" & "the number of casualties in this study are inherently biased toward army estimations".[52]
According to the U.S. Bureau of the Census (1894), "The Indian wars under the government of the United States have been more than 40 in number. They have cost the lives of about 19,000 white men, women and children, including those killed in individual combats, and the lives of about 30,000 Indians."[53]
In God, Greed, and Genocide: The Holocaust Through the Centuries, Grenke quotes Chalk and Jonassohn with regards to the Cherokee Trail of Tears that "an act like the Cherokee deportation would almost certainly be considered an act of genocide today".[54] The Indian Removal Act of 1830 led to the Trail of Tears. About 17,000 Cherokees — along with approximately 2,000 black slaves owned by Cherokees — were removed from their homes.[55] The number of people who died as a result of the Trail of Tears has been variously estimated. American doctor and missionary Elizur Butler, who made the journey with one party, estimated 4,000 deaths.[56]
So, a total number over 200 years of several tens of thousands is reasonable for the territory covering the United States, noting that most of these were actually combat casualties in which Whites also were killed in substantial numbers. In no way would this been enough to cause a large decrease in the native American population. Btw, Andrew Jackson, the first Democrat Party president of the United States, was personally responsible for the Trail of Tears - the single greatest crime against North American Native Americans.
All this handwaving about millions of Indians killed in genocide does is create hot air which I think we have more than enough of already particularly from Leftists.
Actually, these figures are probably good since 1500 AD because prior to 200 years ago, Whites living in the current territory of the US were were almost entirely constrained to portions of the territory of the 13 original colonies, and not much of that for most of this period of time. There were less than 4 million people enumerated in the 1790 census. To imagine that these people making an existence for themselves in the relative wilderness had nothing to do but rove the North American continent butchering millions of defenseless Native Americans is laughable.
Doctors did a good job of messing up my mom so I'm not very open minded to these drugs and the doctors who prescribe them.
By you own confession, you can't produce numbers any more valid than anyone else, so you can't prove any numbers I produce are wrong.
Unless you can provide such verifiable specific documented records with numbersx, you will in have in effect conceded my point.
So let's see, if neither of us can produce verifiable numbers, then I conceded your point?
So, a total number over 200 years of...
Trying to frame the debate around the last 200 years? Nice try, but it started in the 1400s.
several tens of thousands is reasonable for the territory covering the United States, noting that most of these were actually combat casualties in which Whites also were killed in substantial numbers.
First of all, killing tens of thousands while in the act of invasion and ethnic cleansing is an atrocity all by itself, although you don't seem to think so. Furthermore, if whites were killed in substantial numbers, they were killed while committing these acts.
The actual deaths by combat may have been in the tens of thousands, although even the US government says it's in the hundreds of thousands - no one knows for sure - but the diseases brought by Europeans to America are estimated to have killed millions of Natives who had no immunity to them. But I guess you don't have a problem with that either. After all, we didn't mean to infect them, it just accidentally happened while we were invading them and stealing their land, right?
Actually, these figures are probably good...
"Probably good", is that all you have? Pathetic.
Anyway, here are some estimates which, according to your logic, prove your estimates wrong since you can't produce solid numbers to refute them.
BTW, may I conclude that you agree with the point I was making in the post you originally replied to, which is that blaming violent video games for these shooting outbreaks is wrong?
You should thank me, actually, for disabusing you of the idiot Leftist propaganda that 'millions' of native americans have been murdered by whites during this period. You wouldn't want to go around coming off like an imbecile in the future to other people with over room temperature IQs with this manifestly impossible claim that white people in North American murdered millions of native americans over the last 500 years, now would you? Especially since you clearly can't back any of this BS up to save your life?
Video games most certainly can desensitize people to others humanity making it easier for them to kill. The military and police use realistic simulations, including videos, for this exact reason.
Give me a break. ‘Disease’ is specifically excluded from any consideration here unless you are willing to say that ‘disease’ is the same as an act of violence, say in a video game. In that case, I would consider you as out to lunch as this Adam Lanza freak. Effed up Lefties.
Oh, I am well aware that the tedious point you were so proudly droning on about is that human slaughter has been happening for a long time-—gee look at the big brain on you!
My irritation is that even someone as unoriginal as yourself ought to take a little care (or maybe spend more than a little time reading) before mouthing stupid platitudes about whites slaughtering Indians, or whites committing genocide on Indians, and all the rest of that tired Hollywood claptrap.
(A better question would be whether knuckleheads like you were running around making such claims before the invention of Hollywood movies...now there is a topic for your next ‘History of Evil Whiteys 504’ class paper...)
I don’t think you know anything about the history of indigenous people on this continent, nor anything about their widely differing cultures, nor any actual indigenous people, for that matter.
That’s why you p!$$ed me off.
Ohhh..really????.....millions????
According to the US Bureau of Census (1894).....
The Indian Wars under the government of the United States have been more than 40 in number. They have cost the lives of about 19,000 white men, women and children, including those killed in individual combats, and the lives of about 30,000 indians.
Millions???? Really???
How are you including me on this?
That’s how Lefties justify their bigotry against Western Civilization - there must be something genetically wrong with ‘white people’, er, Western Civilization’s ascendency from the 15th Century forward. Rather than taking any lessons from it, Lefties merely want to destroy it all without understanding any of it.
But Twelve Off is right about one thing - this is a side issue from the main subject of this thread. Here’s my opinion regarding gun control in this case - if there is a household which has such an individual with certified social deficiencies as this Adam Lanza - their firearms except for one licensed CCW weapon per individual, should be kept in a secure environment away from the residence where the individual having social deficiencies resides. This addresses the problem and doesn’t affect the vast majority of households with legal firearms.
I’d say this is definitely a ‘fool me once, shame on you’, ‘fool me twice, shame on me’ situation for Twelve of Twenty regarding Leftist propoganda.
I made no such concession. I only conceded that there were no solid figures to prove one side or the other.
as the figures show, although you have been a remarkably poor sport about it.
Not really, I just missed the part where you proved anything.
You should thank me, actually, for disabusing you of the idiot Leftist propaganda that 'millions' of native americans have been murdered by whites during this period.
You have offered nothing to prove those figures wrong, or that yours are correct.
You wouldn't want to go around coming off like an imbecile in the future to other people with over room temperature IQs with this manifestly impossible claim that white people in North American murdered millions of native americans over the last 500 years, now would you?
I would rather be called an imbecile by you than be associated with deniers like you.
Especially since you clearly can't back any of this BS up to save your life?
I've posted far more in support of my views than you have in support of yours.
Video games most certainly can desensitize people to others humanity making it easier for them to kill. The military and police use realistic simulations, including videos, for this exact reason.
And how many video games did Hitler play? Stalin? Tojo? The slave owners? The whites who lynched blacks in the first half of the previous century? Hmmm?
Give me a break. ‘Disease’ is specifically excluded from any consideration here unless you are willing to say that ‘disease’ is the same as an act of violence, say in a video game. In that case, I would consider you as out to lunch as this Adam Lanza freak. Effed up Lefties.
I would agree with you, if it had happened through contact during normal relations. After all, the American Indians would have come into contact with foreigners eventually, and this could have happened to some extent even if the Europeans had come here peacefully.
But this wasn't the accidental result of peaceful contact. It was the byproduct of a war of aggression with no regard for the results. In fact, many Europeans saw the Indians contracting and dying from diseases they had no immunity against as a sign from above that they were meant to take this land. Surely, you can tell the difference.
Why don't you try some reading. Start here.
or whites committing genocide on Indians, and all the rest of that tired Hollywood claptrap. (A better question would be whether knuckleheads like you were running around making such claims before the invention of Hollywood movies...now there is a topic for your next ‘History of Evil Whiteys 504’ class paper...)
I stopped watching Hollywood westerns, because all I saw in them was how the righteous Europeans were liberating the land from the "evil, savage Indians". That became offensive after a while.
I don’t think you know anything about the history of indigenous people on this continent, nor anything about their widely differing cultures, nor any actual indigenous people, for that matter.
I know many, and I know that a war of aggression and ethnic cleansing was waged against the entire continent. How you figure that a war of ethnic cleansing on that scale could be waged while only killing "tens of thousands" defies logic.
That’s why you p!$$ed me off.
I pissed you off because I pointed out a part of our past that none of us are proud of.
1894? US government? And you believe the government that waged war on the Indians would tell the truth about how many they slaughtered. I suppose you also believe the holocaust deniers.
Millions???? Really???
Point taken, however, men have forever been thinking with the wrong organ. It’s only been in these last 40 or so years that we women haven’t allowed any other kind of “imput”. We’ve become all knowing, all powerful bitches to be frank. The decent guy can’t win with both the bitches AND the “horn-dogs” against him. I don’t begin to have any ideas short of helping my husband to raise our boys to be decent men, and pray that they eventually cross paths with a sweet ‘ol down home country girl who wants lots of critters and babies.
You make a good point. On one side, you have women who want the children without the fathers. On the other side, you have the horn dogs shooting their sperm all over the landscape, which essentially means the women who want the children without the husbands will have no problems getting them. What's a decent guy to do?
About your tagline, check out the post before yours in this thread.
I have a hard time getting past your smugness. But I will add a couple things just to explain my perspective, whether or not it ends up meaning anything to you.
My hometown is on a reservation (I am white), and I grew up amid a group of tribes who were hounded across the Plains for untold generations by Indians of superior warring strength, primarily (and very rudimentarily) the various Siouxan or Lakotan tribes.
As a matter of fact the native people in my home area often still can’t abide the company of the Lakota, and the young men (and women) will often come to blows when they meet, just as they did when I was young.
I am grateful to have lived where I do and I have long been proud of just how well the tribes and the whites have managed to get along and grow together, through friendship and marriage and business partnerships, in the face of many and very considerable challenges.
The challenges grow greater and more painful with the passing years, as families break up (both white and Indian) and as racial strife is exacerbated by the same political opportunism—pitting group against group—that we see everywhere in the nation.
Below are a couple links to a recent story from my hometown, which recounts one of the greatest blows to community harmony in my memory (which reaches back nearly to the founding of the town).
By the way don’t let the town name throw you...it is only a startling coincidence...
http://www.bakkentoday.com/event/article/id/34430/
and, of general interest (I don’t know why the link goes to ‘Story #5...you can actually peruse the whole site):
None of these pieces is specifically relevant to the kind of talk you were throwing around. I post them for you simply to underscore that when you live the life, when you raise your family there, when you grew up as teammates and best friends with some of the people involved (and I am talking the NATIVE family here, the family of the perpetrator, not the murder victims), then you are reflexively just a little bit resentful of mouthfuls of cliches and slurs and ad hominems...can you understand that?
And I have a hard time trying to figure out exactly who it is you're debating. My only point (originally) was that killings and atrocities occurred long before video games came along, but in your anger at America hating liberals, you keep reading their talking points into my posts. The fact that I included Tojo as an example wasn't enough to keep you from taking it as an attack on western civilization.
I post them for you simply to underscore that when you live the life, when you raise your family there, when you grew up as teammates and best friends with some of the people involved (and I am talking the NATIVE family here, the family of the perpetrator, not the murder victims), then you are reflexively just a little bit resentful of mouthfuls of cliches and slurs and ad hominems...can you understand that?
Do I understand that the descendants of enemies can put an end to the hostilities of the past and come together? Yes. Does this conflict with my original point or anything else I've posted? You seem to think it does.
So hold the line. Concession is loss, period.
Another law will not prevent someone from going on a rampage, it will only provide a means to prosecute and place liability on those who did not commit murder.
For once, resist the push to "do something" and realize the solution to the problem, inasmuch as there can be one is not the addition of legal burdens, but the removal of the prohibitions which prevent those who would defend the helpless.
In virtually every mass murder the victims have been sitting ducks, sited in a 'gun free zone' that only the law-abiding have respected. The murderer won't, they have nothing to lose.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.