adolf hitler, i mean andrew jackson's

[Iplayboard]

[ QUOTE ]


Actually, it is an exaggeration, and you're stupid if you can't see why. Columbus was a bastard, but surely you don't believe he intended for smallpox to kill the vast majority of the Native American population. Given that he did not understand the germ theory of disease, or immunity, it's hard to see how he could have.

Furthermore, it's hard to see how the Native American population could have avoided being decimated by a massive smallpox epidemic. Eventually Europeans were going to "find" the New World and interact with the Indians. BAM, epidemic.

[/ QUOTE ]

"Columbus made four voyages to the New World. He encountered the Arawaks, who occupied Haiti. An early census of the Arawak was 1.1 million, not counting children. According to a conservative estimate over 3 million Arawak lived on Haiti in pre-Columbian times.

Seeking gold, he enslaved the remaining Arawaks to work the mines. Those who refused had their hands cut off. Conditions for the Arawak become so intolerable that as many as 100 at a time would commit suicide. Women were known to kill their newborn babies, rather than have them raised in such hideous circumstances. Columbus would reward his officers with women to rape. Girls 10 to 12 were especially desired for rape.


When Columbus son took over in 1505, he continued the slaughter. Only some 12,000 remained by 1516. By 1555 not a single Arawak remained."

web page

I'm not blaming Columbus for the demise of every Native American tribe, but clearly he and his men wiped some 3 million Arawaks off the face of the Earth. Hitler and Columbus both committed mass genocide, therefore the comparision is completely valid.

[Iplayboard]

[ QUOTE ]


Some of us have gotten beyond the second grade:



[/ QUOTE ]

We still have a national holiday called Columbus Day. I always assumed this was to honor Christopher Columbus. I must be mistaken.

Maybe members of Congress didn't make it past second grade. I don't know about you, but I wasn't taught about all the things Columbus did until high school. Guess you were in a better school system than me.

[bobman0330]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]


Actually, it is an exaggeration, and you're stupid if you can't see why. Columbus was a bastard, but surely you don't believe he intended for smallpox to kill the vast majority of the Native American population. Given that he did not understand the germ theory of disease, or immunity, it's hard to see how he could have.

Furthermore, it's hard to see how the Native American population could have avoided being decimated by a massive smallpox epidemic. Eventually Europeans were going to "find" the New World and interact with the Indians. BAM, epidemic.

[/ QUOTE ]

"Columbus made four voyages to the New World. He encountered the Arawaks, who occupied Haiti. An early census of the Arawak was 1.1 million, not counting children. According to a conservative estimate over 3 million Arawak lived on Haiti in pre-Columbian times.

Seeking gold, he enslaved the remaining Arawaks to work the mines. Those who refused had their hands cut off. Conditions for the Arawak become so intolerable that as many as 100 at a time would commit suicide. Women were known to kill their newborn babies, rather than have them raised in such hideous circumstances. Columbus would reward his officers with women to rape. Girls 10 to 12 were especially desired for rape.


When Columbus son took over in 1505, he continued the slaughter. Only some 12,000 remained by 1516. By 1555 not a single Arawak remained."

web page

I'm not blaming Columbus for the demise of every Native American tribe, but clearly he and his men wiped some 3 million Arawaks off the face of the Earth. Hitler and Columbus both committed mass genocide, therefore the comparision is completely valid.

[/ QUOTE ]

Wow, you found that on the internet?? Then it must be true!

This webpage doesn't even pass the laugh test. 3 million people on Haiti alone. First of all, Haiti isn't an island. Second, there are only 15 million in both Haiti and the DR today. No way 3 million were subsisting on the same area in that time period.

This article gives 400,000 as a maximal estimate for the entire (pan-Caribbean) population of the Taino, the population enslaved and destroyed by the Spaniards. Furthermore, it notes that most of the decline was due to smallpox. Not genocide...

[[censored]]

I'm pretty sure I should feel all outraged or whatever over the treatment of indians so many years ago but I just don't. Anyone else?

[Iplayboard]

[ QUOTE ]


This article gives 400,000 as a maximal estimate for the entire (pan-Caribbean) population of the Taino, the population enslaved and destroyed by the Spaniards.

[/ QUOTE ]

According to your article, the Taino were a subset of the total Arawak population, so the number range of 100k-400k you provide is meaningless. Basically it just proves there had to have been AT LEAST that many Arawaks.

"The term Arawak (from aru, the Lokono word for cassava flour), was used to designate the friendly Amerindians encountered by the Spanish in the Caribbean. These include the Taino..."

[ QUOTE ]
Furthermore, it notes that most of the decline was due to smallpox. Not genocide...

[/ QUOTE ]

This statement isn't actually true. Here is what it actually says.

"The main reasons for the Taino's massive decline was their lack of resistance to disease introduced by Europeans, especially smallpox, and being mercilessly overworked and tortured by the Spanish in mines and on farms. The Spanish also murdered the Taino in countless massacres to try to create obedience through fear."

So it was a combination of disease and the fact that they were brutally murdered.

The actual numbers are insignificant. Who cares if Hitler oversaw the execution of 6 million Jews, and Columbus ONLY killed like 200,000 Native Americans. They both committed mass genocide. It is reprehensible to condone a National holiday that celebrates the achievements of a mass murderer.

[ChipWrecked]

[ QUOTE ]


We still have a national holiday called Columbus Day. I always assumed this was to honor Christopher Columbus. I must be mistaken.



[/ QUOTE ]

You are mistaken.

It is to give the Italians a day to get drunk, so they won't feel left out because of St. Patrick's Day.

[ericd]

It's good to see that someone has read more than the Cliff Notes on Jackson. At first glance, and especially in the values of today, Jackson is an easy target to deride. Evaluating Jackson without a deep and well rounded knowledge of his time serves no purpose other than having some "fun".

[KaneKungFu123]

[ QUOTE ]
It's good to see that someone has read more than the Cliff Notes on Jackson. At first glance, and especially in the values of today, Jackson is an easy target to deride. Evaluating Jackson without a deep and well rounded knowledge of his time serves no purpose other than having some "fun".

[/ QUOTE ]

the same could be said of hitler or saddam.

[Felix_Nietsche]

Bsides practicing genocide to kill their 'enemies', the Creeks also were practioners of collecting scalps off they enemies. If the enemy was unfortunate enough to be captured/wounded, they would often scalp the prisoner while he was still alive to demonstrate their 'courage'. Only a self-hating American liberal like OP could sympathize with the practioners of such a sick and demented culture.

http://www.mohicanpress.com/mo08018.html

French writer of the period, known only by his initials of J.C.B., also describes the act.
************************************************** *********
"The savage quickly seizes his knife, and makes an incision around the hair from the upper part of the forehead to the back of the neck. Then he puts his foot on the shoulder of the victim, whom he has turned over face down, and pulls the hair off with both hands, from back to front... When a savage has taken a scalp, and is not afraid he is being pursued, he stops and scrapes the skin to remove the blood and fibres on it. He makes a hoop of green wood, stretches the skin over it like a tambourine, and puts it in the sun to dry a little. The skin is painted red, and the hair on the outside combed. When prepared, the scalp is fastened to the end of a long stick, and carried on his shoulder in triumph to the village or place where he wants to put it. But as he nears each place on his way, he gives as many cries as he has scalps to announce his arrival and show his bravery. Sometimes as many as 15 scalps are fastened on the same stick. When there are too many for one stick, they decorate several sticks with the scalps."

I suppose if your already dead, being scalped is no big deal but to scalp someone while they are alive is disgusting and shows an utter disregard for decency. Not to mention the genocide that the Creeks practiced on other indian tribes and US settlers. Be honest, can you see how acts like these inspired a violent American response to the Creeks? American needed a brave, strong, and ruthless man to bring salvation to the victims of the Creeks and Andrew Jackson was there to make this happen. The American settlers were eternally grateful to Andrew Jackson and he was elected president by a wide margin DESPITE being married a divorced woman, which back then was considered scandalous.

My dream is for the USA to elect another 'Andrew Jackson' to deal with these Al Qaeda scum. And I would not averse if he adopted a few 'Andrew Jackson' tactics.

[tolbiny]

Uhhhh, no. During a war many shitty things happen. The Trail of tears (along with other disgusting acts by AJ) occured when there was no longer any signifigant hostilities from these groups. a more appropriate analogy would be if the allies had rounded up the prisoners of war after germany had surrendured, along with their wives children and parents, and tortured them to death a few days after promising to relocate them to a place where they could start new lives for themselves.
Actions like AJ's for the most part were simply bent on genocide, not on winning a war.