1  2  3  4  5 ... 10  Next

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid ... nrepentant

   

No comment Mustang?

You requested proof?

Everyone in this documentary is notable.

Did you take note of the Retired RCMP?
Two of the women are no longer with us.
At least those "courageous people" got a chance to speak and volumes they spoke.

You don't seem to have much to say about this do you?

GENOCIDE?
There is no question.

   

I think i have heard of this, er,,,writer


In the 1980s, Annett graduated from the University of British Columbia with a Bachelor's degree in anthropology and a Master's degree in political science. In 1990, he graduated from the Vancouver School of Theology with a Master of Divinity, and was subsequently ordained by British Columbia Conference of the United Church of Canada. In 1990-1991 he served in churches in rural Manitoba, and in 1991-1992 served at the Fred Victor Mission in Toronto, an outreach street-ministery of The United Church of Canada.

From 1992 until January 1995 he was the minister to St. Andrew's United Church in Port Alberni, British Columbia. The circumstances of his departure from Port Alberni remain in dispute - Annett himself sees them as key to understanding the claims advanced in his writings.

Since 1997, Annett has been placed on the Discontinued Service List of The United Church of Canada, and cannot function in any capacity as a minister of that denomination. Annett and the United Church disagree on the reasons for this decision. [1]

The Circle of Justice has distanced itself from Mr. Annett in a public statement in which they say he has “spread unproven gossip,” “slandered and libeled trusted and dedicated First Nations activists,” and has “for purposes of self-promotion assigned to himself and used in print and word non-existent titles like ‘Advisor,’ ‘Chief Researcher,’ ‘Chief Expert Witness to the Vancouver Tribunal’ and others that were neither authorized nor voted on or ratified by the Circle of Justice.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kevin_Annett


Can you try to find someone who is even more biased in their....."reporting"?

   

Yes the British followed by the Americans and Canadians tried to exterminate the native people who were living here before us. I don't think anyone is particularly proud of that.

   

The MEDIA, 24/7.

My message to the readers of this thread:


The most important aspect is "the people" who have suffered trauma.
They are very broken human beings and all the Queens' men can't put them back together again.

Truth is a valuable compass.

Those that manipulate this history will be seen for exactly who they are.
Manipulators, their mandate is always the same.

It is my hope that compassion, understanding and respect carry this thread.
If nothing else, for the sake of those who continue to endure this sadness in their lives.

It's a terrible stain and we need to address this as human beings.

Social carnage is the order of the day.
Understanding the complexities is no easy task.

A marginal sense of understanding is beginning to move "this" mountain.
What we really need is sea change.


Respectfully yours,
Dusk

   

So your saying the First Natons people are going to appologize for the rapes and murders along with all the brutial things they commited aginst the "white man". These acts caused great suffering and trauma.

   

Respectfully i might suggest that if you're searching for 'truth', 'compassion' and 'understanding try posting something less biased, one-sided and inflamatory and understand that not everyone shares your viewpoint in this matter.

You claim that " Those that manipulate this History will be seen for exactly who they are". I might add that the man who created this 'documentray has been accused of making false cliams to his Academic past and his veracity on the concept of 'truth' is very much open to question


This sea change will occur when the indians in this country stop creating a clture of victimhood for themselves and thier children and intergrate into the country - and the 21st century. The sea change is not about the paternal image of government doing alll thigns for all people, or coughing up billions of tax payer earned dollars for percieved slights. The rwality is people taking reponsibility for their own lives and if they want 'sea change' they must effect it themselves.

   

There were never any active efforts to accomplish a genocide by European colonists.

There were individuals who promoted genocide. There were individual incidents of massacres and atrocities and, if you check, you'll usually find that the atrocites against the natives were preceeded by atrocities committed by the natives. Neither side was wholly innocent.

For the most part, though, the "extermination" of the natives was carried out by microbes and not by individuals, nations, or armies.

What many people gloss over is that a happenstance of evolution gave the Europeans immunity to a number of diseases the natives were susceptible to.

It could have easily gone the other way and Columbus or the Vikings could've brought back to Europe some devastating plagues in addition to their cargoes of gold and tobacco.

There's a book idea for you, Zip.

What if it was the Europeans who had wiped themselves out by contracting a disease the natives were immune to?

Imagine the population of Native Europeans, Middle Easterners, and Asians reduced to a few millions while the North American Native population soared into the hundreds of millions.

Imagine England being settled by the Mohawk.

Imagine the French reduced to living on a handful of reservations outside of Marseilles while the Cherokee took over Paris.

Imagine the history books discussing the lost tribes of Germany, Italy, etc.

Imagine Islam being a footnote in history as several million North American Natives colonized the Middle East and destroyed Mecca.

Imagine World War One being fought in North America between the Aztec and the Inca and the North American nations with their European colonies taking sides, too.

But for a twist of evolutionary fate that's what could have happened.

   

Not really. Any peoples on the Americas were essentially doomed to be overrun by Europeans / Asians. The ultimate reason is the geometry of the continents. Asia is very wide east to west. The Americas are tall north to south. Climatic zones are more stable east-west than north-south, so there was a greater ability for advances to spread in Asia than in the Americas. Advancement begets advancement, so European / Asian peoples got a big head start. They also had a broader range of animals and plants to begin with, meaning they could properly domesticate a few large animals whereas the American peoples really didn't have any. As a result, the density of people and animals in Asia grew much higher than in the Americas. This produced the diseases, and they had time to grow immunities. So it wasn't so much that they had the immunity by chance as the immunity was the direct result of their previous advancement. If the Americans had a large number of animals they lived in close proximity to, they may have had a few diseases they were immune to, but they didn't have those animals, so they didn't have the diseases.

Unfortunately, this is already a book, called Guns Germs and Steel by Jared Diamond. It's a fascinating read.

So your basic point was right, that disease was the big killer (often spreading well in advance of the people who brought it - eradicating the Mound Builders of the mississippi for example), but it's wasn't as random as you think. No more intentional, but less random.

   

Asia has deserts the size of the USA, a virtually uninhabitable Siberia, and a rather inhospitable Southeast region. They don't have as many territorial advantages as are found in North America.



We'll never know what large American animals could've been domesticated as the natives hunted almost all of them to extinction long before the Europeans ever showed up.



Again, but for a twist of evolutionary fate the Europeans may well have run into a plague in the Americas that the natives were immune to just as the Europeans were immune to what they carried with them.




I'm just making the very simplistic musing that had fate been a hair different the Europeans would've brought about their own demise and possibly that of the Africans and Asians as well.

As an idle fantasy it is kind of interesting to wonder that if fate had been different and it was the natives settling into Europe instead of the vice-versa - would the natives have treated the Europeans better than the Europeans treated the natives?

I wonder.

   

I don't have the greatest souces on this, but as I recall there are stories (I'm not giving them any more or less credit than that) that the Europeans traded blankets intentionally infected with small pox. If that is true then it was a diliberate act of biological warfare, and would have the modern equivelent of using nuclear weapons against cities. Now if those stories aren't true then the creation of the story was intended to create a bad image of the early settlers.

   

Bart, although it is interesting to speculate on what if senarios in history, you can keep going on and on and on changing things. What if the natives had gunpowder? Then they could have faught off the europeans
What if nobody thought to find a short cut to asia?
Then the natives could have built an advanced civilization and none of us would be over here now
What if your aunt had balls?
Then she would be your uncle.

The point is, you can't argue history using alternate history. It just doesn't work. history needs to be debated using the world at the time of the events. The fact that europe was rampant with disease and the new world was fairly healthy cannot be reversed. So many other things would also need to happen to make that true that it would be a completely different world and thus impossible to compare.

   

It's still very difficult to move a plant or animal very far north or south, which is the principle direction that Americans had to move in.



This is due in large part to the fact that Asian animals had teh advantage of being ble to adapt thir behaviour to become wary of humans as the humans' hunting skills developed. American animals were presented with a highly advanced stone age culture with refined flint knapping and hunting skills. We do know, though, what animals they have now, and those animal are just not as well suited to domestication.



Possible, but highly unlikely. Nothing produces virulent plagues like living in close proximity to animals and other people, which the Europeans did and the Americans did not.



And I'm just saying that the eck was pretty heavily stacked against the Native Americans, and it would have taken more than a hair's difference to overcome that.

As to your idle fantasies, we'll never know, will we? Many cultures were wiped out entirely before we encountered them. They couldn't write, and we never talked to them, so we have absolutely no idea what their society was like.

   

   

Total BS.

The Europeans had no knowledge of virology until the late 1800's and to accuse them of biological warfare before they ever had an understanding of biology is just pure, unadulterated BS. There were some observational understandings of smallpox by the late 1700's but still, the understanding of communicability was decades away.

As an example, I recall the story of somewhere in Canada in the mid-1800's when an undergound pipeline or utility was run through a mass grave of smallpox victims from a couple hundred years before and the exposed smallpox spores started a fresh outbreak of the disease. It was assumed that the intervening years had somehow rendered the disease inert.

That blankets may well have been given to natives or anyone else after the original owners died is no surprise. Blankets in that time before mass production were a valuable commodity and you didn't just throw them away.

Had the blankets simply been boiled (which was a common way to clean bedding in days of yore) they would've been sterilised and safe to reuse. Too bad people were so filthy back then as simple hygiene would've prevented so many outbreaks of disease.

Adding to the BS factor here is that anyone handling the blankets that held smallpox virus spores would also have been exposed to the lethal disease just as much as the recipients of the blankets were.

   

1  2  3  4  5 ... 10  Next