Posted on 01/21/2012 6:34:18 PM PST by chessplayer
The only movie of MM’s I want to see is one of muzzies sawing at his neck with a rusty knife...
While most of the Indians who died, died of disease, it is a fact that the Massachusetts and Maine colony legislatures voted to pay a bounty for Indian scalps, a higher price for men’s scalps, a lower price for women’s and children’s, in order to kill off or drive away the tribes who kept making raids on the towns. This is genocide even if it was a local and time-limited genocide, even if it was a response to attacks.
The Great Migration, of Puritans to New England, was between 1620 and the early 1640s. Nearly all of my New England ancestors arrived then, not later, and they multiplied. Northern New England was mostly settled by Great Migration Puritans. The natural increase was greater in the 1700s, the 1600s being hard times, what with hunger, Indian attacks, and disease (from being hungry, and crowded in fortified towns to escape Indian attacks.) Immigration stayed relatively low until the 1800s.
Hanta virus: carried by rodents. Europeans aren’t immune. If it was a New World plague, the Indians ought to have had better immunity than the Europeans. My vote is for Old World diseases, small pox, measles, influenza, etc.
Either way, I’m not consumed by white guilt or victor’s guilt or better immunity guilt.
If you take the entire north american continent, maybe. Although the numbers are in dispute, the indian population of north america probably numbered around ten million with the great bulk of the pre-european settlement indian population of it in central america. North of the Rio Grande, the Indian population most likely didn't number over a few million. Hunter-gatherer societies simply do not generate mass amounts of people. The europeans who settled the land north of the Rio Grande faced a virtually uninhabited land for the most part. In fact, the land west of the Missouri River and east of the Sierra Nevadas, is still largely unpopulated.
Michael More...He’s more than America.
But I think I was referring to THE AMERICAS, and just Mexico probably had nearer 50 million than not.
To call our country "founded on genocide and built on the backs of slaves" only proves how ignorant Moore really is.
The New Englanders come up short of that on any fair analysis of the situation.
In reality, the winters of 1646 and 1647 left European settlers in 1648 in the cat bird's seat ~ the Indians died of disease, as did many of the Europeans.
The Indians had no great reservoir of Indians to draw on to replenish their numbers. The Europeans brought in more Europeans.
It's noteworthy that the 300+year war between the Iroquois and the Mohicans (over the fur trade) ENDED. The Mohican residual were adopted by the Oneida, as were later on many of the Brotherton Indians (Europeanized Christian Indians from throughout New England and Lower New York).
By 1676 ~ a propitious date, Indians in New England had lost all political power and the smart ones were leaving the area.
The only Indians with any authority in the East turned out to be the Iroquois, and it wasn't until 1831 that the Europeans (now called Americans) broke their economic structure by turning the Oneida lands over to recent illegal aliens.
Every Tax payer is a slave. And this Government is the biggest of slave holders since the Pyramids.
What shocks me is that michael is able to walk and breath at the same time with the limited brain power he has.
Michael Moore: America ‘Founded on Genocide and Built on the Backs of Slaves’
Michael Moore: Built Out Of Back Bacon.
Howard Zinn, author of “A People’s History of the United States” should sue tubby.
I take into consideration the fact that most historians are liberal and have an agenda. But after reading various articles about this subject on the internet, even after decades of contention, it seems most historians believe north of the Rio Grande there was maybe only two or three million pre-Columbus inhabitants. Central America was more conducive to population growth, and of course the Aztecs and Mayas did have cities where populations could build. But fifty million people at one time in Mexico? There’s absolutely no proof of that.
I can hardly wait until this fat scumbag dies of congestive heart failure.
It is quite possible I will visit his gravesite and piss on it.
The American Midwest had the ability to support vast populations and did so.
Corn is a wonderful food. So is squash. So is the bean!
Brazil had vast areas under cultivation. The Amazon jungle hasn't always been jungle. Current research demonstrates that the populations in the Americas were far greater than imagined by earlier researchers who simply didn't have the tools to do the job.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.