I'm posting this to the list, because I made a very careless remark which upset Bob and I want to apologize. I was very careless and I said something very inaccurate and wrong and maybe it upset somebody else out there besides him.
In the future I will refer to my sources before posting anything that could be construed as factual (as opposed to personal opinion) so that what comes out of my head, into the keyboard, onto my computer screen, into my email program, out through the servers, over the internet and appears in the JMDL discussion list (I'm sure I left out a few steps somewhere, please correct me if I'm wrong!) is flawless and perfect and won't upset anybody. Dream on.... :^D Marian Vienna + + + + + + + This is what I posted that was so inaccurate: > "The American immigrants intentionally wiped > out much of the Native Indian population by > giving them blankets which had > been used for people who died of smallpox." This is wrong. I mixed up two different sources (which I posted yesterday) - the one about where some British forces gave infected items to indians and another one about much (all in some places) of the native population in Central America being wiped out by smallpox. On 23 October 2001 06:46, [EMAIL PROTECTED] [SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] wrote: > I am not a historian, and do not profess to know much history. That said, > I do not know whether what you posted about the British soldiers circa the > end of the French and Indian wars resulted in a successful attack, or > whether natural forces were at work (that goes to the difference between > intent and commission). I do not think it really matters in this case, but > in the interest of furthering my education, I will try to pursue it with my > cousin... I would like to hear about what your cousin has to say about it, in the interests of furthering my own education. > That said, I found your choice of words provocative and (for me) rather inflammatory. I apologize for making such a general and largely inaccurate statement. I was in a hurry at the time I wrote it and didn't have time to go back to the sources in order to be more accurate. I didn't mean to be either provocative or inflammatory. I was just careless and I'm very sorry that it was so upsetting to you. I will try to be more careful in the future. > Well, first there was that word "American". I used that because I couldn't remember whether it was the British or the Spanish and I didn't want to be wrong. But I was still wrong because what I said was too general. > I found the term very broad, vague and indistinct, > especially when used in such a pejorative if not > slanderous sense. You are right. The blankets / handkerchiefs incident was a terrible crime which should have been attributed to the right people. > Similarly so for the term "Native Indian population". That was too general also, but more accurate in that a large part of the native population North, Central and South America was wiped out by the disease. > Second, it did sound as though the whole population > was pretty much in on it (which it was not, apparently). That was wrong too. > Third, the British soldiers were not exactly American > immigrants (they were the the military police of the area). Well a lot of them ended up settling here. They didn't all go back to Britain. It was before the Revolution. Everybody was basically an immigrant of some sort or another. "British soldiers" is a convenient way to disown the fact that some of us are probably descended from the likes of them. Anyway, it is impossible to know one way or the other. Maybe we did send all the baddies back to Britain, but I rather doubt it. The source I posted did refer to them as British, though. > I do not know how isolated the intentional acts were - perhaps they were > more prevalent than the isolated ones you cite. As I said, I do not know. I don't know either. I would hope that they were very few. Maybe your cousin can shed some light on the subject. > But you did imply (or at least I inferred - and would do so again) that > the intentional acts of bio-terror led to the wiping out of 'much' of the > Native Indian population. I doubt that it true. I was wrong. I'm sorry. I also doubt that there were many such isolated incidents. > These were much more primitive times, and humans behaved very badly, > not only in America, but pretty much throughout the world. The Native > Indians included - they had been at war with each other for hundreds - > according to my encyclopedia thousands - of years (over the best hunting > grounds, village sites and revenge). Yes. But people are still behaving badly. People are still fighting over territory. I guess things are better today - more people are living in larger numbers in relative peace and fewer equally large groups of people are able to wage war upon them. Ideally everybody should agree to work together for a better place for everyone - to have as a common goal cooperative living and enough for all. There's certainly enough to go around, but it never will as long as there is avarice. Marian
