Hacker News Reader

Comment by Andre_Wanglin | Hacker News Reader

[citation needed]

The "genocide" of native Americans was a result of European diseases, not barbarism.[1] As the people had no idea of germ theory, it is impossible to claim this was intentional.

[1]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Native_American_disease_and_ep...

View on HN

Well that's an oversimplification. Diseases wiped out 90% before they ever saw a soldier. BUT...

'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."' -- http://www.history.org/foundation/journal/spring04/warfare.c...

More commonly rumored to be used by British against Americans, though.

How is it an oversimplification if 90% of the population decrease was because of initial contact, not overt actions by the Europeans against the natives?

Do you really need this spelled out, like for real? Your statement that the genocide was not due to overt actions by Europeans is false. Accidentally wiping out 90% of a population through spread of disease is one thing. Deliberately killing off much of the rest is another.. you seem to think of that as a rounding error lol? I also provided a citation in which an American soldier admits to attempting to infect natives with small pox, despite his lack of germ theory. This also explicitly contradicts your account.

Yes, the number killed by warfare is a rounding error in this context. And finding a single instance where someone suggested (there is no proof it was carried out) trying to infect the natives is an anecdote, not proof of a systematic program of biological warfare.

I just provided the historical evidence. It was written in the past tense. Do you think he fictionalized his account so that hundreds of years later you'd have a stronger argument on HN lol? Can you think of another reason to fictionalize such an account? Will be be ignoring the fact that just a few posts ago you maintained with equal confidence that this could not have happened at all?

More importantly, the argument that American settlers and later government policies deliberately exterminated large populations of natives does not even remotely rest on this. Are you really conflating them? Are you that ignorant of the history?

You also don't seem to understand the concept of genocide, the whole point of which is that it's extra bad to kill off a population as it gets smaller.

What a disgusting excuse for a thought process. What is it do you think that's wrong with you that gives you such a deep need to ensure that your ancestors were morally pure?

Calling something an anecdote is not saying it is untrue. Anecdotes can be entirely true yet still tell us nothing about the prevalence or significance of the described activity. And I never stated that the kind of activity described in your anecdote never happened. (Please provide a citation for this assertion.) I stated such activity was not the reason for the reduction in the population of indigenous Americans. Who do you think my ancestors are and why do you think this? My ancestors had nothing to do with any of this. And there is no such thing as moral purity, not that I would care about it if there were. What we like we call good (moral) and what we don't like we call bad (immoral) and that's the entire scope of what "morality" is. You should engage in some self-reflection and evaluation regarding your own poor reasoning abilities before criticizing those of others.

"As the people had no idea of germ theory, it is impossible to claim this was intentional."

What is the subject that intentional modifies in that sentence? That would be the 90% reduction in the native population, right? You aren't going to win any attempt at verbal/logical gamesmanship with me.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com