Mario Goveia wrote: > >There are other professional historians who have >studied the history of native Americans who dispute >those overheated descriptions, often revisionist, >which deliberately use phrases which demonstrate >obvious bias. >
What facts are disputed? How does one know who is right? What is the nature of the bias? Why would European historians be biased against their own kind? > >For example, the term holocaust, which was first used >to describe Nazi atrocities, is now being >retroactively applied to other, much older situations >that don't even come close to what the Nazis did. > I think the term holocaust was used before for sacrificial immolation. I don't see any reason not to apply it to any form of mass killing, especially of defenseless people. > >The fact is that many native American tribes who did >not resist the colonialists, survived, and many native >Americans intermarried with the settlers. > I don't think anybody is claiming that Amerindians were completely annihilated. Many Jews survived the holocaust. That does not mean there was no Jewish holocaust. > >I wonder how these same "professional" historians >would describe the actions of Genghis Khan and Attila >the Hun. > I don�t understand why any of the European or American historians would be biased in favor of Genghis Khan or Attila the Hun. What point is being made here? > >There are now endless attempts at historical >revisionism, in a futile attempt at laying guilt on >the descendants. > How does one tell who is revising history? > >The claims of smallpox infected blankets would have >also taken a toll on the settlers, which make such >claims questionable. > As I said before, these claims are contained in some letters written by British soldiers who carried out these acts. The copies of these letters and the letters themselves are available in the historical archives. It should be noted that those who have already had small pox develop life-long immunity against it, and that Amerindians did not have any immunity against it at least in part because of a complete lack of exposure. Cheers, Santosh
