White Settlers Vs. Native Americans

All peoples, in relation to the earth, are bloodsucking fleas clinging by tiny fangs to a leviathan's back. The planet never shed a tear for one people killing or oppressing another or demociding their own. Might has always made right. In the case of Native Americans, the might they wielded wasn't a match for the might of the colonizers. Manifest Destiny, motherfuckers. If Gods of the plains could have resisted the God of the good book perhaps we'd all be speaking Apache or Navajo. Like all armed peoples down through history and since time immemorial, the Natives paid their money, took their chances, and lost and became (hardly) living ghosts.
Nature Is a Crime Against Humanity. Only Subhumans Think Nature Is Supernatural.

Bright makes might. White High IQs invented everything that prevents people from living like wild animals. Inferior races are pre-intelligent; that's why they live the way they do and have no right to survive if they get in the way of homo sapiens destiny.
 
Japanese called smallpox the "red death" and 25% of the population died.

Some immunity was built up over time but millions died of the virus.

Then when Europe reached the new world, smallpox found new victims.

It's nobody's fault, really. They didn't even know what a virus was back then.

But yeah, smallpox probably killed 1 out of every 4 Native Americans. Smallpox killed that many everywhere it went.
Mongoloid Bandit Gangs on the Run From Asia


The inferiority of the Indigenees' immune system was consistent with their mental and moral inferiority.
 
I am not sure of the scale of this biological warfare, but it likely pales in comparison to the more simple technique of wholesale slaughter.

How about zero?

There was no "biological warfare", the concept of bacteria and germ theory did not even exist yet. Incidental spread of a disease is not "biological warfare". By the "17th century", the population had already crashed from the high-water of around 1.8 million to around 600,000 and was already increasing again. So once again, you are simply making things up which is actually contradictory to history.
 
Who said 16th century? It was the 17th century, mainly. I am not sure of the scale of this biological warfare, but it likely pales in comparison to the more simple technique of wholesale slaughter.
My father’s side arrived at Boston just prior to the American Revolution, from Northern Ireland. They settled in eastern Tennessee where the found the land empty of people. They found evidence the land was previously inhabited. No doubt the natives had died from Euro diseases.
 
My father’s side arrived at Boston just prior to the American Revolution, from Northern Ireland. They settled in eastern Tennessee where the found the land empty of people. They found evidence the land was previously inhabited. No doubt the natives had died from Euro diseases.

Actually not, especially as that would have been hundreds of years later.

It is much more likely they were victims of the Anglo-Cherokee War. And that was not so much the English making war on the Cherokee, as the Cherokee picked the wrong side to back in the French-Indian War (Seven Years War in Europe). During that war the Cherokee roamed widely hitting any settlements they could find, and in retaliation the British did the same. Both sides then did pretty much the same thing. They pulled back to reduce the number of outlying villages and concentrated their communities for defense.

If they arrived just prior to the Revolution, that is what they found. The diseases had largely burned out over 2 centuries before that.

Once again, knowing about history helps prevent a person from making silly and incorrect assumptions.
 
Actually not, especially as that would have been hundreds of years later.

It is much more likely they were victims of the Anglo-Cherokee War. And that was not so much the English making war on the Cherokee, as the Cherokee picked the wrong side to back in the French-Indian War (Seven Years War in Europe). During that war the Cherokee roamed widely hitting any settlements they could find, and in retaliation the British did the same. Both sides then did pretty much the same thing. They pulled back to reduce the number of outlying villages and concentrated their communities for defense.

If they arrived just prior to the Revolution, that is what they found. The diseases had largely burned out over 2 centuries before that.

Once again, knowing about history helps prevent a person from making silly and incorrect assumptions.
Actually yes. They didn’t get to Tennessee until about the year 1800.
 
Actually yes. They didn’t get to Tennessee until about the year 1800.

That is another 35 years later. Still the same situation, the pandemics were centuries earlier.

There was a small pox outbreak in the 1775-1782 era, but it was not that bad as only around 130,000 died. Out of a population of around 3.5 million. By that time, the Indians had almost the same immunity level as most of the colonists and their descendants did. Once the population crash of the 16th century wiped out around 75%, the survivors were not much more susceptible to diseases than the Europeans were.

The era that the vast majority died was from around 1500-1550. That was when an entire continent was virgin ground for a slew of diseases from the common cold to chicken pox that the natives had no immunity against. The survivors of that era were those with the strongest immune systems, and the constant introduction of more diseases made their descendants even better to fight off future diseases.

Otherwise, we would be seeing massive death tolls on the reservations today because of COVID.
 
How about zero?

There was no "biological warfare", the concept of bacteria and germ theory did not even exist yet. Incidental spread of a disease is not "biological warfare". By the "17th century", the population had already crashed from the high-water of around 1.8 million to around 600,000 and was already increasing again. So once again, you are simply making things up which is actually contradictory to history.

He's probably babbling about some stuff that fake 'historian' Ward Churchhill spewed about 'small pox infected blankets' that was all the rage with dumbasses 20 years ago, another idiot 'theory' that keeps popping up over and over no matter how many times it gets shot down.
 
He's probably babbling about some stuff that fake 'historian' Ward Churchhill spewed about 'small pox infected blankets' that was all the rage with dumbasses 20 years ago, another idiot 'theory' that keeps popping up over and over no matter how many times it gets shot down.

Oh yes, the fake Indian professor/protester. Who sold his own "artwork" as "Authentic Indian Art", then screamed when a law was passed that only allowed real Indians to advertise their art as such.

And tried to claim to be a member of at least two different tribes, both of which disassociated themselves from him, and extensive genealogical investigations have not found a single Indian ancestor. He is just another white man who tried to get rich off of persecuting Indians. He even stated that the "Blood Quantum" requirement of the US Government and Indian Tribes to confirm heritage is the equivalent of genocide.
 

Forum List

Back
Top