Do Liberals Care if Third World Illnesses Infect Americans?

American Thinker ^ | 02/10/2014 | Jeannie DeAngelis

[goodwithagun]

And limit how much Big Pharm lines thier pockets?

[Pearls Before Swine]

Do they care? No, and for two reasons.

1) They don’t think those diseases will affect them, because their reality judgement is impaired, but if they do,
2) It will bring us closer together, sharing our burdens with our third-world friends.

[frog in a pot]

Interesting, was not familiar with such a plague.

But do have first hand knowledge of the ravaging results of drinking clear and sparkling fast moving water contaminated upstream with the carcasses of animals. One further wonders about the lack of effective handsoap and basic toilet articles.

[frog in a pot]

Not well enough versed to argue the point, but the only reference I could (quickly) find a couple of weeks ago re any contaminated blankets suggested only circumstantial evidence in support. There is reference in correspondence between an American colonist military commander and a British commander re the concept. Apparently nothing more was found by the researchers to indicate the concept was put in play.

If you have anything, would appreciate reading it.

Thanks.

[DNME]

Who came up with the notion that Columbus and his crew carried “bubonic and pneumonic plague, chicken pox, cholera, diphtheria, influenza, measles, scarlet fever, smallpox, typhus, tuberculosis, and whooping cough,” on their voyage?

I can see maybe one or two of these scourges hitching a ride, on one crewman, but there is no bleeping way all of them came along. Would you be willing to work with a plague victim on one side and some guy hacking up a lung from TB on the other? Didn’t think so. They wouldn’t be allowed aboard in most cases.

[Lou L]

These were usually the ones with smallpox to infect the Indians.

While this may have happened like you describe, I think what's missing is the intent. We didn't know about smallpox back then, certainly not what caused it, nor did we know sharing blankets would transmit the virus to the Indians. I know liberals tell this story to make our European ancestors sound like they intentionally planned a genocide on the American Indians, but I think it's a stretch to imply that.

[Mogger]

We didn't know about smallpox back then, certainly not what caused it, nor did we know sharing blankets would transmit the virus to the Indians.

We knew some about smallpox in the early to mid 1700s.

Inoculation against it was known and practiced in the mid 1700s.

Many church leaders were against it, and a high penalty was paid for letting it be known you were inoculated.

Ethan Allen and many of the Green Mountain Boys left Connecticut to Vermont, and many of their relatives to the Wyoming valley of Pennsylvania over this and many other issues caused by the New Awakening and Puritan (Congregational) churches in Connecticut and Massachusetts.

Ethan and most of his relatives were inoculated with smallpox.

In the 1760s there is correspondence between British Officers regarding the smallpox and blanket trick to be used against Indians at Fort Pitt.

In 1759, Benjamin Franklin published the simple procedure for inoculation that anyone could do.

In 1777 there was mandatory inoculation in the Continental (our) army.

Of a force of 10,000 Continental Army soldiers in Quebec, about 5,000 fell ill with smallpox. A British commander may have deliberately intended to spread the disease by sending recently variolated civilians into Continental Army encampments.

The Continental task force commander, Major General John Thomas, died of smallpox. The unit retreated southward in May 1776. Arguably, this defeat preserved the status of the northern British colonies, permitting Canada to become the separate country it is today.

About 3000 of these soldiers, smallpox victims, including some of my relatives are buried in a mass grave on an island in the Richelieu, just north of the Vermont border in Quebec.

The Europeans at this time didn't think of their actions as genocide, but ridding themselves of savages.

The Indians were by no means nice, friendly people either, be that amongst themselves or against the whites.

They had been brutally killing one another for centuries, and were quite good at it.

Several of my relatives (babies and small children) had their brains dashed out against trees and rocks by Indians, others tomahawked, and the survivors who made it to Quebec kept as slaves or sold to the French as slaves.

Under those circumstances, had any of us been alive I that period, would any of us used the old blanket trick?

You betcha!

Chances are high, some of the Indians involved are also related to me.

It was a brutal era, and there were saints and rogues on all sides.

Any Indian or white today who is "holier than thou" about it has some learning to do.

[Lou L]

Under those circumstances, had any of us been alive I that period, would any of us used the old blanket trick?

You make some interesting points, many of which I was not familiar. I'll have to do some further research.

But, are you seriously suggesting we knew enough about smallpox to make biological weapons out of blankets? And, that we deliberately did this in such a way so as to eradicate the Indians?

Thanks for your post.

[WashingtonSource]

Are you kidding with that question? Of course they don’t care. Quite the contrary. They want those diseases here. It creates conditions conducive to their accumulation of power.

[Mogger]

But, are you seriously suggesting we knew enough about smallpox to make biological weapons out of blankets? And, that we deliberately did this in such a way so as to eradicate the Indians?

Yup. In any conflict, after you've had friends or relatives killed by an enemy, you begin to seek any method possible to stop their ability to act against you and your friends and relatives.

Had the Indians had such a weapon to use, I'm sure they would have used it too.

I don't think people thought of it as "biological warfare" at the time, but just the ridding of themselves of a very deadly pest.

The Indians weren't the "noble warriors" the liberals make them out to be, and neither were the Europeans.

They were both vicious killers when they needed or wanted to be.

[dennisw]

http://www.jrbooksonline.com/HTML-docs/tom_quick_schoonmaker.htm

Never heard of him before. Reading it now

[neverdem]

BTTT!

[generally]

I don’t believe that the majority of liberals are quite as evil as wanting to destroy America and/or civilization. I think they fall into several categories.

1. Small percentage who are evil and want to destroy America, capitalism, anything good. These are the bitter, vengeful, self-loathing few who in turn hate others and want to drag everyone down to their level or lower.

2. Small percentage who wield power. Some in the power hungry group are also in group 1. These people want power at all costs. So long as they are in power and telling others how to run their lives, they are satisfied. The damage they cause is of no consequence to them. Sometimes the damage is intentional. Sometimes they are just too stupid to realize the consequences of their policies and actions. This group includes most politicians, media bigshots and liberal celebrities.

3. Large percentage are in the deadbeat class. They just want free stuff. I was going to say that as long as they are getting free handouts they are satisfied, but that isn’t true. It’s never enough. They always want more. Some of these people also fall into group 1. Anyone who is milking the system, taking when they could choose to be productive, is in this group.

4. “social justice” voters. This group includes the people with “white guilt”, the people who who are well-meaning but clueless, and many who are single issue voters who can see nothing outside of their pet issue which could be abortion rights, civil rights, the environment, or many others. Most of these people are well-meaning (even if they are wrong on the issue). They vote their emotions and are oblivious to facts, especially to the fact that their votes often work counter to the cause they support. For example, they think they are “curing” poverty by enacting ever more generous welfare laws, when they are actually creating more and more poverty and dependence. These are people, who if they have kids, never discipline them, then wonder why they turn out to be bratty/nasty or dysfunctional after being raised by parents who were always “nice” and gave them everything they wanted. This group includes most of the activists who aren’t making money from their activism.

5. This group wants to make the world a better place, much like group 4, but there are a lot more of them. They differ from group 4 in that they want someone else to do all the work and to pay for the “better world”. Other than voting, they aren’t willing to expend any effort or time or money on what they supposedly believe in. Much more guilt and much less genuine concern in this group.

[raybbr]

There’s a lot of the GOPe who don’t care either. Hence the allowing of illegals to invade.

[raybbr]

Several of my relatives (babies and small children) had their brains dashed out against trees and rocks by Indians, others tomahawked, and the survivors who made it to Quebec kept as slaves or sold to the French as slaves.

You must be really, really old.

[Mogger]

You must be really, really old.

I am.

The victims were my 8th (or so) great grandparents, 1st, second and third cousins, 8th removed and 8th grand uncles and aunts.

All very well documented.