Two Plus Two Newer Archives  

Go Back   Two Plus Two Newer Archives > Other Topics > Politics
FAQ Community Calendar Today's Posts Search

 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Prev Previous Post   Next Post Next
  #11  
Old 04-06-2007, 05:34 AM
tolbiny tolbiny is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Posts: 7,347
Default Re: Anarchocapitalism = economic totalitarianism?

[ QUOTE ]


Oh, I see, it was the disease that did it, not the genocidal campaign of wars against the uncivilized savages that had no conception of property rights.



[/ QUOTE ]

The major cause of depopulation of natives in the Americas was due to disease. This is not disputed by any historian. From the wiki article for convenience

[ QUOTE ]
The earliest European immigrants offered two principal explanations for the population decline of the American natives. The first was the brutal practices of the Spanish conquistadores, as recorded by the Spanish themselves, most notably by the Dominican friar Bartolomé de Las Casas, whose writings vividly depict atrocities committed on the natives by the Spanish. The second explanation was a perceived divine approval, in that God had removed the natives as part of His divine plan in order to make way for a new Christian civilization. Many natives of the Americas also understood their troubles in terms of religious or supernatural causes. Scholars now believe that, among the various contributing factors, epidemic disease was the overwhelming cause of the population decline of the American natives.[5]

Disease began to kill immense numbers of indigenous Americans soon after Europeans and Africans began to arrive in the New World, bringing with them the infectious diseases of the Old World. One reason this death toll was overlooked (or downplayed) is that disease, according to the widely held theory, raced ahead of European immigration in many areas, thus often killing off a sizable portion of the population before European observations (and thus written records) were made. Many European immigrants who arrived after the epidemics had already killed massive numbers of American natives assumed that the natives had always been few in number. The scope of the epidemics over the years was enormous, killing millions of people—in excess of 90% of the population in the hardest hit areas—and creating "the greatest human catastrophe in history, far exceeding even the disaster of the Black Death of medieval Europe."[6]

[/ QUOTE ]

WIKILINK

For some perspective on raw numbers

The massacre at woulded knee where 300 Native Americans were killed
and The Trail of tears where 2,000 - 8,000 Cherokee died.
and
custer's last stand at little bighorn where less than 2,000 total took place in the battle combined.

Individual battles, massacres and skirmishes are not enough to wipe out 50 million people. The genocide that occurred during the 19th century was the final nail, but was limited in scope when compared to the numbers who died without ever seeing a white person.

Back to the original point, which is that the majority of western settlers had no need to steal the land, or to violently evict or murder to get it. It had already been emptied out by smallpox.
Reply With Quote
 


Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 08:15 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions Inc.