Guns, Guns Guns

MAD-4A wrote:

gcomeau wrote:What bullshit revisionist history have you been getting taught???

Apparently you don't know the definition of 'revisionist history'. that would be 'revising' 'history', such as, to include your 'germ warfare' version.

gcomeau wrote:...William Trent..."
And...
Sir Jeffery Amherst, commander of British forces in North America...

So your saying that the actions of 2 men at one time (1760s)are automaticly the actions of an entire continent past and future (1600s-1800s)?

I'm saying that the recorded statement that smallpox was *deliberately transmitted among the native population*... one of those recorded statements being from an army commander who issued the instructions to do it, is evidence it was done and wasn't an accident.

So you go on and tell us how, people who were so poor, that they could barely afford a 1-way passage on an old rotting leaky tub to the ‘New World’, were well educated in germ warfare and willing to risk death by say “hey, give me some Small Pox and I’ll sail over to the new world and give it to the Indians so you can come later and take their land.“ How idiotic.

You can't possibly be that stupid, and I have trouble believing you could believe I am.

Did they have an in depth technical understanding of the function of germs at a cellular level?

No.

Did they damn well know HOW TO SPREAD FUCKING SMALLPOX?

Yes. They wrote down exactly how they were doing it. They took blankets from a smallpox ward that had been exposed to people with the disease and which they KNEW could cause other people to catch it and they distributed them with malice aforethought.


Is deliberately spreading a disease with the express intent of wiping out an adversary germ warfare whether the person doing it has an in depth medical knowledge of how that disease works or not?


YES.


And not understanding that... that would be idiotic.

gcomeau wrote:

MAD-4A wrote:What bullshit revisionist history have you been getting taught???

Apparently you don't know the definition of 'revisionist history'. that would be 'revising' 'history', such as, to include your 'germ warfare' version.

gcomeau wrote:...William Trent..."
And...
Sir Jeffery Amherst, commander of British forces in North America...

So your saying that the actions of 2 men at one time (1760s)are automaticly the actions of an entire continent past and future (1600s-1800s)?

I'm saying that the recorded statement that smallpox was *deliberately transmitted among the native population*... ''one of those recorded statements being

from an army commander who issued the instructions to do it, is evidence it was done and wasn't an accident.

So you go on and tell us how, people who were so poor, that they could barely afford a 1-way passage on an old rotting leaky tub to the ‘New World’, were well educated in germ warfare and willing to risk death by say “hey, give me some Small Pox and I’ll sail over to the new world and give it to the Indians so you can come later and take their land.“ How idiotic.

You can't possibly be that stupid, and I have trouble believing you could believe I am.

Did they have an in depth technical understanding of the function of germs at a cellular level?

No.

Did they damn well know HOW TO SPREAD FUCKING SMALLPOX?

Yes. They wrote down exactly how they were doing it. They took blankets from a smallpox ward that had been exposed to people with the disease and which they KNEW could cause other people to catch it and they distributed them with malice aforethought.


Is deliberately spreading a disease with the express intent of wiping out an adversary germ warfare whether the person doing it has an in depth medical knowledge of how that disease works or not?


YES.


And not understanding that... that would be idiotic.[/quote]

1) Microscope invented ??? Compound microscope: Gallileo Gallilei 1625 [IIRC]

2) germ theory postulated in 1546 as an alternate to The Miasma Theory

3) Louis Pasteur, killing germs with heat, circa 1857.

Maybe some farmer was ignorant of the theory of Evolution, but even the creationists in the bible knew how to breed spotted sheep. They might not have known anything about cellular biology, but they understood Animal Husbandry.

I may be one dumb, I damn sure ain't two [sic] dumb!

I was going to say that germ warfare, though not known as such, was practiced in the dark ages.

Turns out the Hittites did it in 1500BC or so.

Sent from my SM-G920I using Tapatalk

Why don't you bother reading your own citations (http://www.history.org/foundation/journal/spring04/warfare.cfm)
before using foul language and making yourselves look like complete morons. Here, let me help you...

During Pontiac's uprising in 1763, the Indians besieged Fort Pitt. They burned nearby houses, forcing the inhabitants to take refuge in the well-protected fort. The British officer in charge, Captain Simeon Ecuyer, reported to Colonel Henry Bouquet in Philadelphia ... two Indian chiefs had visited the fort, urging the British to abandon the fight, but the British refused. Instead, when the Indians were ready to leave, Trent wrote: "Out of our regard for them, we gave them two Blankets and an Handkerchief out of the Small Pox Hospital. I hope it will have the desired effect."

No this was not!

gcomeau wrote:I'm saying that the recorded statement that smallpox was *deliberately transmitted among the native population*...

WeirdlyWired wrote:I'm saying that the recorded statement that smallpox was *deliberately transmitted among the native population*... ''one of those recorded statements being

No the did not! This is not some commoner 'trapper' going to some harmless, peaceful village, not hurting anyone with some 'gifts' and hiding some 'Trojan-horse' germs in the 'gifts'. nor is it any evidence that the Europeans were sending smallpox to America to purposely infect the natives and kill them off! THIS WAS A MILITAR SIEGE AGAINST A HOSTILE [i]ARMY!!![/i]
It was a long standing (about a 1000 years by then) military siege tactic to send the bodies (usually by catapult) of those who died from disease, to the enemy. Did they know disease could be spread, yes, cave men knew that. did they know how? NO. It was also a long standing knowledge that the natives were brutal and non-respective of the (white) dead, which the settlers were not willing to subject their relatives (even those who died of small pox) too.

gcomeau wrote:Did they damn well know HOW TO SPREAD FUCKING SMALLPOX?

WeirdlyWired wrote:Did they damn well know HOW TO SPREAD FUCKING SMALLPOX?

gcomeau wrote:Yes. They wrote down exactly how they were doing it. They took blankets from a smallpox ward that had been exposed to people with the disease and which they KNEW could cause other people to catch it and they distributed them with malice aforethought.

WeirdlyWired wrote:from an army commander who issued the instructions to do it, is evidence it was done and wasn't an accident.

WeirdlyWired wrote:Yes. They wrote down exactly how they were doing it. They took blankets from a smallpox ward that had been exposed to people with the disease and which they KNEW could cause other people to catch it and they distributed them with malice aforethought.

No they did not! They wrote down that they were trying to

I hope it will have the desired effect."

infect the besieging ARMY. This was an experiment in military tactics not a case of genocide against peaceful neighbors as you keep claiming!

WeirdlyWired wrote:1) Microscope invented ??? Compound microscope: Gallileo Gallilei 1625 [IIRC]
2) germ theory postulated in 1546 as an alternate to The Miasma Theory
3) Louis Pasteur, killing germs with heat, circa 1857.

Again as YOUR OWN citings show:
SOME scientists had an inkling that MAYBE some tinny 'bugs' may be responsible. but this was NOT general knowledge. Nothing had been proven, there were still other PREVELENT theories/hypothesis/myths on how people got sick - bad air, spirits and YES witches! Few outside the scientific community knew about 'tinny bugs' and certainly not some Capitan in a frontier fort out on the border of nowhere! He knew that previous sieges had been broken by catapulting dead plague victims into the siege camp and he "HOPED" that giving them blankets used by the dead MAY have the same effect ON THE SEIGING ARMY
.

How many Army Capitan's, out in the middle of Afghanistan right now, do you think have an understanding of M-theory? Not many, if any.

<snip incoherent multi colored inconsistently sized ranting...>

So, you have now given up completely on trying to deny they engaged in germ warfare, and are simply trying to excuse it by saying they did it against the enemy so that makes it ok to try to commit genocide with a biological weapon or something.


I believe this part of the debate is concluded.

Worrying MAD-4A that you actually seem to think that action was reasonable and warranted. If others think as you do it is no surprise that atrocities occur in war. You did seem to be emotionally wound up in your statement, with highlights and multiple misspellings.

gcomeau wrote:blahblah... ok to try to commit genocide with a biological weapon or something.

No, they were not trying to commit 'genocide' anymore than the French were attempting 'genocide' against all of England (or English to French or French to Italian etc...) when they catapulted (one of thousands or millions) Plague (Small Pox etc...) victims into-or-out-of any one of hundreds of castles all across Europe, Asia, Middle East. They were hoping to maybe weaken the army attacking them.

Daryl wrote:Worrying MAD-4A that you actually seem to think that action was reasonable and warranted...

No I said it was standard for the time. Your putting your politically corrected ideas of this era onto the actions of people in another era, Who did not understand diseases or germs. They had no clue what might happen, and only had the effects on their own people to go by. (Clearly not a historian.)

Daryl wrote:You did seem to be emotionally wound up in
your statement, with highlights...

No, I was highlighting fact because, they didn't seem able to pick them out in normal font with a whole webpage to look at.

Daryl wrote:...multiple misspellings.

No, where are you reading? Not one single misspelled word, one typo, but it was a valid word.

Very petty being a grammar nazi, but you did ask. Capitan captain - tinny tiny - militar military - your you're - (i)army army - fowl foul. More there, and grammatical errors as well, but I've been nitpicking more than I like.
It seemed to me that you had consistently denied that they did it, and when proved wrong went over the top to sort of justify it as normal for the times. Our pioneers did similar, but it wasn't right then either.

MAD-4A wrote:

gcomeau wrote:blahblah... ok to try to commit genocide with a biological weapon or something.

No, they were not trying to commit 'genocide'

"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."




Now... do you or do you not speak English?

gcomeau wrote:"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."

Now... do you or do you not speak English?

For Heaven's sake, the US engaged in a brutal war for territory. Our government fought with very little restraint. Less restraint than they would have used had they fought a European power. I believe that was less to do with race than it had to do with relative power. The US did not fear the Native American's ability to retaliate in a meaningful way.

Did some racist bastards wish to truly engage in genocide? Yes, they did. The US as a whole stopped short of that goal. We treated the Native Americans horribly even while stopping short of true genocide. Stopping short of genocide also did not stop the US from thoroughly destroying the Native American way of life.

The result for Native Americans was brutally Darwinian. The survival of Native Americans beyond that brutal war relied on the mercy of the American people. They got enough for some of them to survive, but not much more.

How can that awful episode of American history be described in any other way? I don't see one.