Found this interesting! http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=a21_1393443685
-
-
For those too lazy to click...
It's going to be a rough transition for those white folks when they find themselves and their attitudes in the minority in the not too distant future.
ADG -
Use coupon 'pauljohn' for a $1 discount at already super cheap NameSilo!
Anal Webcams | Kinky Trans Cams Live | Hotwife XXX Tube | Get your Proxies hereComment
-
-
Native Americans have been set up with millions of acres of reservation land to do as they please. They don't even have to pay taxes.
And if you want to go back to early settlement, keep in mind that native Americans were no more advanced than people living in the stone age. They hadn't even invented the wheel yet. They lagged too far behind the rest of the human race to form partnerships with beyond trading for simple goods.Comment
-
wow! you're completely fucking stupid aren't you? and who do you think the Native Americans took the land from? you think Indians were fucking hippies? think maybe they ran around with flowers in their hair smoking pot singing shitty songs?
the nature of man is to TAKE from the weaker... sad but TRUE... BTW it's wasn't AMERICANS who took the land dipshit.... it was EUROPEAN SCUM... well..... just like you!!!!
Comment
-
Comment
-
Popular theory is that native Americans came here when a land bridge still existed near Alaska (no proof of this land bridge exists). There is however a growing belief that the Chinese sailed the Pacific and native Americans are descendants of the (possibly shipwrecked) Chinese.
It is also becoming more accepted that Vikings sailed the Atlantic and landed in America also. So it could very well be that the native Americans people like to think of as having claim to America are actually a mix of Asians and Europeans.
That makes more sense than a hypothetical land bridge that exists only because we need a way to explain how people got here before Columbus.Comment
-
americans aren't the descendents of indians? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indigen...f_the_AmericasLast edited by xpimp; 02-27-2014, 05:10 AM.Comment
-
Comment
-
Nobody is native to North America you stupid fucks! Indians didn't just sprout out from the ground!
You want to debate anything I'm open anytime I love proving brainwashed liberal idiots wrong that learned everything they know about there country from high school history class.
They want the White man's land back that was sold to them because now they see the value of it (Indian givers), civilization and welfare, but they don't want the White Man in it even though Europeans built everything.
Fucking Aboriginals should pack up and go back to China where they came from.Comment
-
Ahh, gotta love the irony of countering an exaggeratedly high figure not based in accepted historical research with an exaggeratedly low one not based in research.
The population estimates from actual historians of pre-Columbian North American (i.e. excluding SA) range from 1-2 million to around 20 million. After the bulk of them died, it actually took centuries for many regions to climb back to their pre Columbian population levels.Last edited by deltav; 02-27-2014, 09:37 AM.*********
DeltaofVenus.com - Vintage Erotica from the 1800s through 1979Comment
-
Wow, talk about pissed off and racist people..
Adult Biz Consultant A tech head since 1995
Affiliate Support: Chaturbate | CCBill Live
Comment
-
and I love people that point their fingers at others re: a lack of reseach without even showing 1 iota of being capable of research
I over-exaggerated, btw.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%)."Comment
-
Welp, I *did* take multiple classes on pre-Columbian & colonial New World history for my degree - I'm no expert by any means, but I did have to study primary and secondary sources so I've got a decent idea what the research indicates. The range I cited is pretty well accepted among historians.
This is true, give or take.Last edited by deltav; 02-27-2014, 09:45 AM.*********
DeltaofVenus.com - Vintage Erotica from the 1800s through 1979Comment
-
Natives battled and killed just like white man, just like every civilization.
Meanwhile, white man damn near wiped out the bison. Let's fight about that instead. Had a bison burger last night, was good.Vacares - Web Hosting, Domains, O365, Security & More - Paxum and BTC Accepted
Windows VPS now available
Great for TSS, Nifty Stats, remote work, virtual assistants, etc.
Click here for more details.Comment
-
Ok man, whatever you say. I am citing the generally accepted population figures, removing the crazy non-credible outliers on both sides.
I think there is miscommunication in that you're citing deaths by direct violence, which yes, were probably not in the millions. It should be noted though that the 14k figure referenced above is only referring to a 40 year period of battles in the Western US, not anywhere close to the full colonial/expansion period or range of conflicts. It's also based only on US Army estimates rather than corroborated elsewhere.Last edited by deltav; 02-27-2014, 10:13 AM.*********
DeltaofVenus.com - Vintage Erotica from the 1800s through 1979Comment
-
What are you talking about? North American Indian population went from an 15 million in 1500 to barely 230 000 in 1910.
Sorry to disappoint you. But..
Comment
-
It's funny how the open borders advocates fall back on the "stolen native land" argument every single time. Where do you think Mexicans came from? Their bloodline is Spanish conquerors.
Better get the hell out of Mexico and go back to Spain!!!! Give Mexico to the native Americans who rightfully own it!!!!Last edited by Matt 26z; 02-27-2014, 10:21 AM.Comment
-
you don't disappoint me in slightest. You actually confirm my view re: you.
Are you really trying to argue that pictures depicts American soil, as your meme states? And that the white man intentionally inflicted Indians with diseases such as small pox in order to wipe them out?
Comment
-
Let's take a fair middle ground on these numbers and say 5million.
estimates show well over 90% of them were wiped out with disease, let's choose a low estimate, say 92%.
8% of 5m leaves 400,000. and let's assume that 230,00 remaining Indians in 1910
= 170,000 killed by Europeans and their descendants, of which the US Army killed ~20,000.Comment
-
True, it is a classic piece of history.
Smallpox was bad news. Now, one could make the argument that white man purposely gave natives smallpox, and that could be considered murder/slaughter/genocide. How to get those numbers? No clue. I suppose we could pull them out of our ass. I mean, we've already seen so much of that in this thread, let's throw in another chunk of dookie.Vacares - Web Hosting, Domains, O365, Security & More - Paxum and BTC Accepted
Windows VPS now available
Great for TSS, Nifty Stats, remote work, virtual assistants, etc.
Click here for more details.Comment
-
The 100 million figure most likely came from History Professor David Stannard, in his book, "American Holocaust" (1992):
For four hundred years--from the first Spanish assaults against the Arawak people of Hispaniola in the 1490s to the U.S. Army's massacre of Sioux Indians at Wounded Knee in the 1890s--the indigenous inhabitants of North and South America endured an unending firestorm of violence.
During that time the native population of the Western Hemisphere declined by as many as 100 million people. Indeed, as historian David E. Stannard argues in this stunning new book, the European and white American destruction of the native peoples of the Americas was the most massive act of genocide in the history of the world.
Stannard begins with a portrait of the enormous richness and diversity of life in the Americas prior to Columbus's fateful voyage in 1492. He then follows the path of genocide from the Indies to Mexico and Central and South America, then north to Florida, Virginia, and New England, and finally out across the Great Plains and Southwest to California and the North Pacific Coast.
Stannard reveals that wherever Europeans or white Americans went, the native people were caught between imported plagues and barbarous atrocities, typically resulting in the annihilation of 95 percent of their populations.
What kind of people, he asks, do such horrendous things to others? His highly provocative answer: Christians. Digging deeply into ancient European and Christian attitudes toward sex, race, and war, he finds the cultural ground well prepared by the end of the Middle Ages for the centuries-long genocide campaign that Europeans and their descendants launched--and in places continue to wage--against the New World's original inhabitants.
Advancing a thesis that is sure to create much controversy, Stannard contends that the perpetrators of the American Holocaust drew on the same ideological wellspring as did the later architects of the Nazi Holocaust. It is an ideology that remains dangerously alive today, he adds, and one that in recent years has surfaced in American justifications for large-scale military intervention in Southeast Asia and the Middle East.
At once sweeping in scope and meticulously detailed, American Holocaust is a work of impassioned scholarship that is certain to ignite intense historical and moral debate.
Elsewhere you mocked the idea that "the white man intentionally inflicted Indians with diseases such as small pox in order to wipe them out?"
People can scholarly discuss and dispute the numbers, however is it well-documented and indisputable that the U.S. Army committed outrageous atrocities against various Indian tribes, and that a number of these atrocities were explicitly genocidal in intent.
Letters exist between two British officers, General Jeffrey Amherst (later Lord Amherst) and Colonel Henry Bouquet, that explicitly advocate the idea of using smallpox-infested blankets to kill Indians at the Siege of Fort Pitt.
Bouquet suggests the distribution of blankets to "inocculate the Indians." Amherst approves this plan and suggests "to try Every other method that can serve to Extirpate this Execrable Race." Also cited by this source is an entry in the Journal of William Trent, who was the local militia commander: "we gave them two Blankets and an Handkerchief out of the Small Pox Hospital. I hope it will have the desired effect."Bouquet discussed the matter in a postscript to a letter to Amherst on July 13, 1763:
P.S. I will try to inocculate the Indians by means of Blankets that may fall in their hands, taking care however not to get the disease myself. As it is pity to oppose good men against them, I wish we could make use of the Spaniard's Method, and hunt them with English Dogs. Supported by Rangers, and some Light Horse, who would I think effectively extirpate or remove that Vermine.On July 16 Amherst replied, also in a postscript:
P.S. You will Do well to try to Innoculate the Indians by means of Blanketts, as well as to try Every other method that can serve to Extirpate this Execrable Race. I should be very glad your Scheme for Hunting them Down by Dogs could take Effect, but England is at too great a Distance to think of that at present.
On July 26 Bouquet wrote back:
I received yesterday your Excellency's letters of 16th with their Inclosures. The signal for Indian Messengers, and all your directions will be observed.
ADGComment
-
Fear China not the Mexicans
Comment
-
-
I'm the one that mocked that.
Small pox can only be transmitted person to person. A couple of military can send letters back and forth about blankets, but that doesn't = a widespread effort and especially doesn't mean anything came from it since blankets can't transfer the disease.Comment
-
This isn't correct. From the NIH's own website entry on smallpox: "Contaminated clothing or bed linens also can spread the virus. Those caring for people with smallpox need to use special safety measures to ensure that all bedding and clothing from the infected person are cleaned appropriately with bleach and hot water. Caretakers can use disinfectants such as bleach and ammonia to clean contaminated surfaces."
But it's true there aren't too many documents indicating anything like intentional biological warfare - just a few. Again, I think we're running into a semantics issue where you're citing deaths as a direct result of violence and others are totaling them as a direct result of European expansion (including violence, disease brought by Euros, famine due to eradicated food sources and loss of land, etc).
Either way, lotta people died, same as everywhere else.*********
DeltaofVenus.com - Vintage Erotica from the 1800s through 1979Comment
-
More Dyna Mo disinformation...
From the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases:
http://www.niaid.nih.gov/topics/smal...nsmission.aspxTransmission
Smallpox is highly contagious. In most cases, people get smallpox by inhaling droplets of saliva, which are full of virus, during face-to-face contact with an infected person. When someone becomes infected, they do not immediately feel sick or shed virus to their household contacts. In addition, they have no symptoms for 10 to 12 days. After the virus has multiplied and spread throughout the body, a rash and fever develop. This is the "illness" portion of the disease, and it's when someone is most infectious.
Some risk of transmission lasts, however, until all scabs have fallen off. Contaminated clothing or bed linens also can spread the virus. Those caring for people with smallpox need to use special safety measures to ensure that all bedding and clothing from the infected person are cleaned appropriately with bleach and hot water. Caretakers can use disinfectants such as bleach and ammonia to clean contaminated surfaces.
Getting back on topic, I am appalled at the ignorance and hatred displayed in the video that started this thread. Not sure how much good can come from such attitudes.Transmission occurs through inhalation of airborne variola virus, usually droplets expressed from the oral, nasal, or pharyngeal mucosa of an infected person. It is transmitted from one person to another primarily through prolonged face-to-face contact with an infected person, usually within a distance of 6 feet (1.8 m), but can also be spread through direct contact with infected bodily fluids or contaminated objects (fomites) such as bedding or clothing.
As I indicated earlier, American white racists are going to be in for a rude awakening as the demographics rapidly change over the next 10-20 years. If they are not very happy with minorities now, wait until the tables are turned on them.
ADGComment
Comment