America

[Augustus]

Here we go. The last tactic of those that can't make their case, to attempt to change the subject. How about you first admit that it is a myth that Europeans used blankets to attempt to spread smallpox among native Americans.

It might have happened on a very small number of occasions, but deliberately conflating it with the natural pandemics that killed large numbers is a bit dishonest.

 

[The Hammer]

They would have even if folk traded in perfect harmony.

Once the tech was there people would mingle and viruses and bacteria care little for cordiality.

That doesn't really change anything I said. But yes.

 

[ChristineM]

The actual problem is worse. People who view history with their own biased preconceptions are hurting themselves. Oh, and do you think native Americans didn't have doctors among them? That would be racist. If you bother to read the History Channel post I cited you would see that you have referenced the same case. So far you have produced zero documented cases. Zero.

And people to make stuff up massage their preconceptions are worse still, revisionist history is not history.

You said, and i quote...

They lacked both the understanding nor the capability to do so

Having doctors among their number shows that statement to be wishful thinking at best or complete nonsense at worst.


So far i gave a link with names, you don't like it then tough.


And why the **** do you continually try and change the subject to racism. A quote of yours from another post..

The last tactic of those that can't make their case, to attempt to change the subject.

 

[Guitar's Cry]

"Before"? There was smallpox among the native Americans since 1500. That was over 150 years before the incident you referenced. Furthermore you completely went by the fact that the native Americans there gave smallpox to the British, NOT the other way around. So it could be argued that the native Americans were attempting to use smallpox against the British and not vice versa. In addition smallpox is indiscriminate. It killed native Americans and Europeans alike. So arguing that one side could use it against the other is impractical if not impossible. Yes, you said one case (and possibly more). But the one and only case you have referenced is dubious at best. Moreover it is no case at all. In other words, you haven't produced a single case in support of your case.

Smallpox had been occurring there for decades, and as your article (from History.com) stated it may have come from the local Native Americans (where it had originated from European colonization). That does not mean the Native Americans were weaponizing it. In fact, there is more evidence that General Amherst had at least suggested it than that Native Americans had used it.

The horrific part of the incident is how it adds to the genocidal ideology Europeans had towards the Native Americans. "...as well as to try Every other method that can serve to Extirpate this Execreble Race" (as stated by Amherst in his letters) is a pretty sick mindset and looking at it from the historical context of what did end up happening to Native Americans it doesn't really matter whether the method would have worked or not.

 

[ChristineM]

Smallpox had been occurring there for decades, and as your article (from History.com) stated it may have come from the local Native Americans (where it had originated from European colonization). That does not mean the Native Americans were weaponizing it. In fact, there is more evidence that General Amherst had at least suggested it than that Native Americans had used it.

The horrific part of the incident is how it adds to the genocidal ideology Europeans had towards the Native Americans. "...as well as to try Every other method that can serve to Extirpate this Execreble Race" (as stated by Amherst in his letters) is a pretty sick mindset and looking at it from the historical context of what did end up happening to Native Americans it doesn't really matter whether the method would have worked or not.

Consider the like to be a useful frube.

 

[Shaul]

And people to make stuff up massage their preconceptions are worse still, revisionist history is not history.

You said, and i quote...

Having doctors among their number shows that statement to be wishful thinking at best or complete nonsense at worst.


So far i gave a link with names, you don't like it then tough.


And why the **** do you continually try and change the subject to racism. A quote of yours from another post..

No, it is not revisionist history to note that the Europeans lacked the understanding and capability to weaponize smallpox. It is a fact that people in the 1700s did not have certain knowledge. Among the knowledge they did not have was knowledge of the nature of germs nor how contagious diseases spread. You want it to be that the European settlers had doctors so that proves something. It doesn't. First off, the native Americans also had access to doctors. Furthermore all of the doctors at that time did not have effective treatment for smallpox. In other words, your point about doctors is useless.

I haven't tried to change the subject at all. The subject I have discussed is that it is a myth that the British used smallpox as a weapon against the native Americans. And it is a myth.

 

[Shaul]

Smallpox had been occurring there for decades, and as your article (from History.com) stated it may have come from the local Native Americans (where it had originated from European colonization). That does not mean the Native Americans were weaponizing it. In fact, there is more evidence that General Amherst had at least suggested it than that Native Americans had used it.

The horrific part of the incident is how it adds to the genocidal ideology Europeans had towards the Native Americans. "...as well as to try Every other method that can serve to Extirpate this Execreble Race" (as stated by Amherst in his letters) is a pretty sick mindset and looking at it from the historical context of what did end up happening to Native Americans it doesn't really matter whether the method would have worked or not.

I didn't state as a fact that the native Americans had weaponized it. I suggested it could be plausibly argued that they had as the inverse. But I don't think there is much evidence either the native Americans nor the British did that. Others here want to argue the British did. I maintain that is, at best, a myth.

 

[Guitar's Cry]

I didn't state as a fact that the native Americans had weaponized it. I suggested it could be plausibly argued that they had as the inverse. But I don't think there is much evidence either the native Americans nor the British did that. Others here want to argue the British did. I maintain that is, at best, a myth.

From my perspective, with the evidence so far presented, there is more weight to the argument that the British, at least during Pontiac's War, did it. It was at least considered, and while this doesn't prove it occurred, it is evidence for the possibility.

 

[Shaul]

From my perspective, with the evidence so far presented, there is more weight to the argument that the British, at least during Pontiac's War, did it. It was at least considered, and while this doesn't prove it occurred, it is evidence for the possibility.

"From my perspective". Absent actual evidence we are dealing with bias and anachronistic projection more likely.

 

[ChristineM]

No, it is not revisionist history to note that the Europeans lacked the understanding and capability to weaponize smallpox. It is a fact that people in the 1700s did not have certain knowledge. Among the knowledge they did not have was knowledge of the nature of germs nor how contagious diseases spread. You want it to be that the European settlers had doctors so that proves something. It doesn't. First off, the native Americans also had access to doctors. Furthermore all of the doctors at that time did not have effective treatment for smallpox. In other words, your point about doctors is useless.

I haven't tried to change the subject at all. The subject I have discussed is that it is a myth that the British used smallpox as a weapon against the native Americans. And it is a myth.

Bull. It is documented

The native Americans have nothing to do with your nonsense about not knowing.

A myth or not, it has nothing to do with racism as you continually tried to claim

 

[ChristineM]

@Shaul
You may be interested in this.

How Commonly Was Smallpox Used as a Biological Weapon? - JSTOR Daily​

 

[Augustus]

is a fact that people in the 1700s did not have certain knowledge. Among the knowledge they did not have was knowledge of the nature of germs nor how contagious diseases spread.

This isn’t quite accurate.

People didn’t understand germs but did have a rudimentary understanding or cause and effect regarding diseases.

It’s not that hard to observe people get sick because they spend time with others who get sick.

The Mongols probably used corpses to try to spread plague 500 years earlier than this.

So if a handful of isolated individuals used such a tactic half a millennium later it’s not implausible. Maybe some people did do it and it killed a few dozen people. There is some evidence this may have happened, but hard to confirm either way.

But you can accept this while also rejecting the attempt to conflate natural epidemics and outbreaks which killed 99.99% of casualties with some imaginary genocidal “biological warfare” that many seem to insinuate was a major cause of death.

 

[Jimmy]

It's verifiable history. Don't wallow in willful ignorance.

Is it?

 

[Shaul]

@Shaul
You may be interested in this.

How Commonly Was Smallpox Used as a Biological Weapon? - JSTOR Daily​

You're kidding, right? The guy just rehashed and regurgitated what Fenn wrote. There is nothing new there. Also I don't think a guy with a background in library science and film science ("lapsed"?!) and writes a blog is any expert nor authority.

 

[ChristineM]

You're kidding, right? The guy just rehashed and regurgitated what Fenn wrote. There is nothing new there. Also I don't think a guy with a background in library science and film science ("lapsed"?!) and writes a blog is any expert nor authority.

Of course there is nothing new, it all happened so long ago.

And a really don't think ad homonym is getting us anywhere. Bye

 

[Guitar's Cry]

"From my perspective". Absent actual evidence we are dealing with bias and anachronistic projection more likely.

But we are not absent evidence. Primary source material discussing the action is evidence. It's not proof. The distinction is important.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

If you bother to read the History Channel post I cited

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! A source that LOVES pseudoarcheology, pseudoscience, cryptozoology, aliens, Nostradamus and conspiracy thoeries? Surely you can find a credible source that isn't regularly called out over fictional bs it passes off as history.

 

[metis]

The earliest evidence of the disease dates to around 1500 BC in Egyptian mummies.[15][16] The disease historically occurred in outbreaks.[10] In 18th-century Europe, it is estimated that 400,000 people died from the disease per year, and that one-third of all cases of blindness were due to smallpox.[10][17] Smallpox is estimated to have killed up to 300 million people in the 20th century[18][19] and around 500 million people in the last 100 years of its existence.[20] Earlier deaths included six European monarchs.[10][17] As recently as 1967, 15 million cases occurred a year.[10] -- Smallpox - Wikipedia

 

[Stevicus]

Why do people say colonization wiped out Native Americans when most of them died from European disease? I guess it was colonization really but people make it sound like they died in war.

It wasn't just the "colonization" part, but also aggressive expansionism and industrial development which occurred over the centuries as Europeans were migrating to America.

I don't think that anyone knew much about infectious diseases back in those days, but there were epidemics which killed a lot of people.

Colonization, in and of itself, probably wouldn't have been quite so bad, when it involved a few people settling on unclaimed land, to farm, trap, hunt - and possibly trade with the Native tribes. I don't think they would have objected to just that happening, but the early colonists wanted total control and all of the land. The Native Americans were more than willing to share the land, but they couldn't understand why the white man wanted ALL of the land.

 

[Shaul]

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! A source that LOVES pseudoarcheology, pseudoscience, cryptozoology, aliens, Nostradamus and conspiracy thoeries? Surely you can find a credible source that isn't regularly called out over fictional bs it passes off as history.

Feel free to cite a cite that refutes the article. Until then try to be less smug.