In article ,
"Casimer" wrote:

    > > And thank god those immigrants got rid of those 40 million nasty
    > > native Americans. Well done, land of the free!
    >
    > The vast majority of Native Americans were killed due to non-native
    > diseases. The immigrants already had developed resistance to many
    > diseases that were quite new to Native Americans. Books like Plagues
    > and Peoples have documented this. Generals Custer, Sheridan, et al,
    > definitely killed a large number, and I am not proud of that, but disease
    > was the major factor.
    >
    > But to get back to the newsgroup title, Europe, you should not be so
    > fast to throw stones. In the 1900s alone, Europeans were responsible
    > for killing 40-50 million people, mainly in the two world wars. If you
    > add in the number that Stalin killed (first decide if they were killed in
    > European or Asian Russia), the number approaches 100 million.
    >
    >
    > Casimer
    >
    >

most of the native Americans died off from disease long before there was
a USA -- i.e. they were killed off as a result of European colonialism
-- much of the disease actually was introduced even before the English
arrived in force. The early Spanish and Portuguese explorers introduced
measles, smallpox and similar diseases that quite literally killed 90+%
of Native Americans.

"Jenn" wrote:

    > most of the native Americans died off from disease long before there was
    > a USA -- i.e. they were killed off as a result of European colonialism
    > -- much of the disease actually was introduced even before the English
    > arrived in force. The early Spanish and Portuguese explorers introduced
    > measles, smallpox and similar diseases that quite literally killed 90+%
    > of Native Americans.


But since the germ theory of disease was not known in those days, the
Spanish, etc. did not do this intentionally, as the term you used ("killed
off") seems to imply.

They simply died as a result of disease.

--
Best
Greg

In article
,
"Gregory Morrow" wrote:

    > "Jenn" wrote:
    >
    > > most of the native Americans died off from disease long before there was
    > > a USA -- i.e. they were killed off as a result of European colonialism
    > > -- much of the disease actually was introduced even before the English
    > > arrived in force. The early Spanish and Portuguese explorers introduced
    > > measles, smallpox and similar diseases that quite literally killed 90+%
    > > of Native Americans.
    >
    >
    > But since the germ theory of disease was not known in those days, the
    > Spanish, etc. did not do this intentionally, as the term you used ("killed
    > off") seems to imply.
    >
    > They simply died as a result of disease.
    >
    > --
    > Best
    > Greg
    >
    >



germ warfare was well known in those days e.g. corpses of plague victims
were hurled into besieged cities -- they didn't know 'germs' but they
associated sick with sick -- the very word quarantine comes from the
Italian practice of holding ships off the coast until 40 days had passed
during plague outbreaks to assure not bringing infected ships in

and of course, the Spanish in particular were busy slaughtering every
native they could find, so one is not inclined to apply any benign
motive to their behavior

"The Juggernaut Jockey" wrote in message news:...
    > I have noticed a sharp increase in the amount of US posters stating that
    > they will be boycotting European holidays because of Europe`s attitude
    > towards the unwarranted destruction of Iraq.
    >
    > Of course, history means nothing to any American. Which is why the USA
    > regards the looting which they brought about as trivial. To Americans, it`s
    > *good* that the museums were ransacked, because now they can "re-construct"
    >
    > In other words, build a McDonalds.
    >
    >
    > Of course, Americans are, by nature, the scum we kicked out 300 years ago,
    > because we could not tolerate them as Europeans any more.
    >
    > My point is this.
    >
    > If you are an American who will not be visiting Europe in the near future,
    > then that`s fine by us. We don`t want you here anyway. We won`t miss you!

This has got to be one of the most ignorant post I have ever seen.
Since when do you speak for ALL Europeans in saying "We won't miss
you"? I am very much looking forward to my trip to Italy this fall
knowing that I will have a good time interacting with the Italians.
It's silly to judge all Americans by what you are seeing posted on a
newsgroup. I mean really, you actually believe that what you have read
on this newsgroups is a reflection of all 250 million+ people living
in the US? Thank goodness I have sense enough not to judge all of
Europe by your immature post.

Marie;

Your rapier wit and deft command of the mother tongue never ceases to
astound me. If all you can do is the spinster equivalent of "I know you are,
but what am I?", trade in your critiquing for a ham radio.



"Marie Lewis" wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
    > In article , Bruce in Calif
    > writes
    > >> If you are an American who will not be visiting Europe in the near
future,
    > >> then that`s fine by us. We don`t want you here anyway. We won`t miss
you!
    > >>
    > >>
    > >>
    > >> --
    > >> Regards,
    > >> Vince
    > >> Truck Driving In Russia- www.coventon.co.uk
    > >>
    > >Jesus... What a loser..
    > >
    > No, you are the losers.
    > --
    > Marie Lewis

In article ,
Aramis writes
    >Your rapier wit and deft command of the mother tongue never ceases to
    >astound me. If all you can do is the spinster equivalent of "I know you are,
    >but what am I?", trade in your critiquing for a ham radio.


Your inferior level of cogent argument leads me to realise that you are
unable to differentiate between retorts which are composed
appropriately to the poster, and those calculated to elucidate logical
responses.

But you won't understand this, will you?
--
Marie Lewis

"Tom R." wrote:

    > .................................................. .........................
    > ordinary people from all
    > nations can be downright decent, loving and a pleasure to meet, then you
    > might realize that some governments can be myopic and tyrannical (including
    > that in the US). Some of us enjoy other cultures, other customs and the
    > chance to meet people with open minds.

The world needs more of this to balance the utter crap that the "superior ones"
spout off on this NG.

Rojosh wrote:

    > And you are a coward. Why not post under your real e-mail address and sign
    > your name? Too chicken shit I guess.
    > "The Juggernaut Jockey" wrote in message

Wonder if it is Johnny Halliday again. He changed his e-mail and ID several
times before and was using Yahoo.co.uk as well. Glad you stated "too chicken
shit..." because earlier someone said Johnny had no balls - assuming that Johnny
was a "he"......

This individual's attitude is exemplified by the "name" on the return address.

On Sat, 19 Apr 2003 22:25:50 +0100, "The Juggernaut Jockey"
wrote:


    >Of course, Americans are, by nature, the scum we kicked out 300 years ago,
    >because we could not tolerate them as Europeans any more.

No, that would be Australia.

In the first place, a large number of Americans are not even of European
descent.

Of those that are, a vast majority did not come 300 years ago. Most of them
came in varying waves over the past 150 years to escape, oh, let's see:
Starvation; serfdom; political repression; being murdered due to their race or
religion; religious persecution; twits like you; etc.

Of those that DID come 300 years ago, they almost exclusively came because they
did not want to be persecuted and possibly executed for their religious beliefs.

Say, for example, wonderful free pacifist France. The Accadians came to America
because the French government was crucifying them by the thousands on the sides
of the roads.

Shall I now give you a history lesson about Germany?
--
"If this is coffee, please bring me some tea. If this is tea, please bring me some coffee."
- Abraham Lincoln

Mason Barge wrote:

    > Of those that DID come 300 years ago, they almost exclusively came because they
    > did not want to be persecuted and possibly executed for their religious beliefs.

This is the grammar-school view of history, but not really accurate.
Yes, _some_ came to escape persecution, but many others (eg: the
"Pilgrim Fathers") came to the new world precisely in order to be able
to persecute those who believed differently.

Or, as Laurie Anderson so nicely put it: "they came to America because
the Dutch wouldn't let them punish people for dancing on Sunday."


--
greg byshenk - [email protected] - Leiden, NL
hate spam?

On 22 Apr 2003 09:14:57 GMT, greg byshenk wrote:

    >Mason Barge wrote:
    >
    >> Of those that DID come 300 years ago, they almost exclusively came because they
    >> did not want to be persecuted and possibly executed for their religious beliefs.
    >This is the grammar-school view of history, but not really accurate.
    >Yes, _some_ came to escape persecution, but many others (eg: the
    >"Pilgrim Fathers") came to the new world precisely in order to be able
    >to persecute those who believed differently.
    >Or, as Laurie Anderson so nicely put it: "they came to America because
    >the Dutch wouldn't let them punish people for dancing on Sunday."
    >
That's a clever phrase -- like saying the American Revolution was nothing but a
bunch of rich white men who didn't want to pay their taxes -- but less accurate
IMO than saying they wanted to escape religious persecution. Certainly the
Puritans wanted to found colonies of persons with homogenous beliefs, and
severely persecuted heretics or whatever they called them, but still -- they
came to the New World to find religious freedom.

And if someone didn't like it, well, Rhode Island was right down the street.

--
"If this is coffee, please bring me some tea. If this is tea, please bring me some coffee."
- Abraham Lincoln

I didn't nee to consult a thesaurus before I wrote mine, so yes, I do
understand yours.

...you snot nosed bitch.


"Marie Lewis" wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
    > In article ,
    > Aramis writes
    > >Your rapier wit and deft command of the mother tongue never ceases to
    > >astound me. If all you can do is the spinster equivalent of "I know you
are,
    > >but what am I?", trade in your critiquing for a ham radio.
    > Your inferior level of cogent argument leads me to realise that you are
    > unable to differentiate between retorts which are composed
    > appropriately to the poster, and those calculated to elucidate logical
    > responses.
    > But you won't understand this, will you?
    > --
    > Marie Lewis

In article
, Aramis
writes
    >I didn't nee to consult a thesaurus before I wrote mine, so yes, I do
    >understand yours.


Nee?
--
Marie Lewis

Mason Barge wrote:
    > On 22 Apr 2003 09:14:57 GMT, greg byshenk wrote:
    > >Mason Barge wrote:

    > >> Of those that DID come 300 years ago, they almost exclusively came because they
    > >> did not want to be persecuted and possibly executed for their religious beliefs.

    > >This is the grammar-school view of history, but not really accurate.
    > >Yes, _some_ came to escape persecution, but many others (eg: the
    > >"Pilgrim Fathers") came to the new world precisely in order to be able
    > >to persecute those who believed differently.

    > >Or, as Laurie Anderson so nicely put it: "they came to America because
    > >the Dutch wouldn't let them punish people for dancing on Sunday."

    > That's a clever phrase -- like saying the American Revolution was nothing but a
    > bunch of rich white men who didn't want to pay their taxes -- but less accurate
    > IMO than saying they wanted to escape religious persecution. Certainly the
    > Puritans wanted to found colonies of persons with homogenous beliefs, and
    > severely persecuted heretics or whatever they called them, but still -- they
    > came to the New World to find religious freedom.

It is "a clever phrase", but is also "nicely put" because it is indeed
'accurate' -- at least regarding some of those who came to America.

How many Americans know that, before sailing from Plymouth, the 'Pilgrims'
lived -- freely and without persecution -- for 12 years in Holland? The
problem was that Holland was a bit too tolerant of varying religious
views, and the Pilgrims found it hard to maintain the integrity of their
community. Some, particularly the young, were becoming too assimilated
and accustomed to freedom. This just would not do; they needed a place
where they could enforce their religious views.

In short: they came to America not to obtain religious freedom (they
already had that), but to enforce religous _un_freedom.


--
greg byshenk - [email protected] - Leiden, NL
hate spam?

Marie Lewis wrote:
    > In article
    > , Aramis
    > writes
    >
    >> I didn't nee to consult a thesaurus before I wrote mine, so yes, I do
    >> understand yours.
    >
    > Nee?

It's from Monty Python and the Holy Grail. The knights who say "nee"
and then demand some shrubberies. Very clever reference, Aramis.