Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
It's still folklore, then. Consider the kinds of things that Cheney et al. (or Michelle Bachman) might have "considered on at least one occasion", which I don't think you want to use as a yardstick to measure our own foreign or domestic policy.
Nevertheless, thank you for bringing to light the facts of the famous smallpox blanket fable.
I don't think that I would go so far as to say that it's folklore or fable. The evidence presented would definitely be enough to achieve at least an indictment. In a earlier letter to Bouquet, Amherst wrote:
"Could it not be contrived to send the Small Pox among those disaffected tribes of Indians? We must on this occasion use every stratagem in our power to reduce them."
The most damning evidence comes from the Journal of William Trent. Trent was the commander of the local militia of of Pittsburgh during Pontiac's seige of the fort. This Journal has been described as "... the most detailed contemporary account of the anxious days and nights in the beleaguered stronghold." [Pen Pictures of Early Western Pennsylvania, John W. Harpster, ed. (University of Pittsburgh Press, 1938).]
Trent's entry for May 24, 1763, includes the following statement:
"... we gave them two Blankets and an Handkerchief out of the Small Pox Hospital. I hope it will have the desired effect."
Trent's Journal confirms that smallpox had broken out in Fort Pitt prior to the correspondence between Bouquet and Amherst, thus making their plans feasible. It also indicates that intentional infection of the Indians with smallpox had been already approved by at least Captain Ecuyer at the fort, who some commentators have suggested was in direct correspondence with General Amherst on this tactic.
Your response raises reasonable questions about mismanagement or misdirected priorities, which cannot be dismissed out of hand. But it still does not suggest anything that would constitute genocide or the intentional mass starvation of the population or any subset of it.
It could be argued that a nuclear power program is not necessarily a bad idea for an overpopulated small country with few resources, particularly when their harvest was an adequate 7-million metric tons. Nuclear weapons would be a logical peripheral to nuclear power, for a country that has been constantly threatened by another nuclear offensive capability for the past 60 years, and it's the only part of their nuclear plan that we ever hear about.
North Korea is, as a whole, the coldest country on earth. Nuclear power to simply heat their homes is a perfectly practical idea. Pyongyang's average January high temperature is the same as Stockholm's, and the highlands are even colder.
North Korea has a population of 25-million, in a rugged mountainous area with the size and climate of Wisconsin. North Korea has less arable land per capita than India or Saudi Arabia. Adequate agricultural production is not a given, and most of the countries of the world spitefully desire to starve North Korea out of existence (would that be genocide?), the same way we did to the poor souls of Cuba for an entire lifetime, as punishment for their dictator's nose-thumbing at our corporate shills.
1. Since the government controls all facets of life within the country I feel it is reasonable to lay blame upon them for killing off 10% or so of thier population due to starvation. Aid totals from foreign countries were close to the entire shortfall due to flood but internal distribution issues due to other shortages also played a key roll. In short, this didn't happen overnight and it's like leaving a dog chained out in the cold and it dies of exposure....it's the owners neglect as they were the ones in control and it was entirely preventable.
2. "spitefully desire to starve NK"....both China the US and SK provided enormous amounts of aid to NK during the famine. Not sure how you can blame them but fail to hold their own government culpable.
(Also, for NK to ask for aid...is truly mindblowing given their leadership and culture and you cannot just teleport food there overnight. Clearly they waited way too long and sure as heck weren't going to be passing out bags of grain labeled USA on it. )
3. The US embargo of Cuba is an ineffective joke and we all know it. Their agricultural woes are common to centrally planned economies and are the fault of their government.....but that's just Raul Castro's opinion.
Cuba is doing quite fine now after recovering from the collapse of the USSR....tourism is their #1 income now passing sugarcane. The only reason we keep the embargo in place is as a political panacea for the large cuban american population in a key swing state called Florida. They don't vote party lines and the Elian Gonzalez fiasco cost Al Gore an estimated 100,000 votes. One small event, the impact on world history had Gore defeated Bush would make for an interesting thread in and of itself.
1. Colonization of the New World by Europe The main countries involved were Spain, England, France, and Portugal. It is widely agreed that native Americans died in droves, both from European diseases to which they had no immunity and from direct warfare, and that they were dispossed of their lands.
2. Slavery in the New World The United States was not the only country to hold African slaves, of course. And the horrific nature of the ship transportation across the Atlantic is well known. In the U.S., and possibly elsewhere, the evils of slavery did not end when the slavery did but continued on to the Jim Crow era which reached into the 1960's.
With #1 in mind, probably worth mentioning the Aztecs in modern day Mexico. They subjugated and slaughtered huge numbers of other tribes and it was those tribes that helped the spainards get their foothold or the 400-500 spainards that started the "revolt" would have been easily overwhelmed.
Re: #2, about 10% of the slaves exported from Africa during the years of US import went to the US with the rest going to the carribean and most going to S. America. (just an interesting sidenote) Much of this coincided with the ivory trade out of Africa where north african traders would buy the slaves from the rival tribes that had captured them. I always found that ironic given the US portrayal of historic slavery focuses pretty much on the sole dynamic of a white slaveowner when US slavery was just a fraction of the overall problem.
I think it's hard to debate the "worst". There isn't a country on Earth that doesn't have some blood on its hands. As far as the yard stick to measure the worse, I think it would be better to judge it as a percentage of the targeted group that was killed. In that case the Holocause along with the Rwanda and Armenian genocides easily rank among the worst ever.
As far as the germ warfare goes, there are historical records dating back to the Middle Ages and even Roman and Greek times that speek of armies launching dead bodies and animals into besieged cities in order to promote the spread of disease. Even if they didn't understand the method of how it worked, they had the idea that it could.
1. Since the government controls all facets of life within the country I feel it is reasonable to lay blame upon them for killing off 10% or so of thier population due to starvation. Aid totals from foreign countries were close to the entire shortfall due to flood but internal distribution issues due to other shortages also played a key roll. In short, this didn't happen overnight . . .
It's still not the same as intentionally creating conditions that are certain to kill 10% of the population, which is the OP of this thread. Little foreign aid was offered until a million or so were already dead. The flooding was neither man made nor predictable. All deaths can be blamed on some negligence, poor planning, or misadventure somewhere. When the number of deaths crosses a threshold, fingers of culpability get pointed.
As clear as it is that government as enablers of corporate greed is responsible in America for the epidemic obesity resulting in the premature death of 30% of our own population, not counting those already killed by tobacco, which also did not happen overnight, even the most cynical are not prepared to call that genocide or mass killing.
Not exactly true though much, if not most, of the infections were unintended. However, there were instances of deliberate biological warfare. While many look at the small-pox infected blanket stories as folklore, the fact of the matter is that on at least one occasion a high-ranking European considered infecting Indians with smallpox as a tactic of war.
Lord Jeffrey Amherst was commander of British forces in North America during the French and Indian War (1756-'63). Amherst and a subordinate discussed, apparently seriously, sending infected blankets to hostile tribes. There are also documents to prove it. Peter d'Errico, legal studies professor at the University of Massachusetts at Amherst did the research on this.
During Pontiac's Rebellion in 1763, the Ottawa who had been allied with the French during the French and Indian War, laid siege to the English at Fort Pitt.
According to historian Francis Parkman, Amherst first raised the possibility of giving the Indians infected blankets in a letter to Colonel Henry Bouquet, who would lead reinforcements to Fort Pitt. In a postscript to a letter to Amherst on July 13, 1763, Bouquet said:
"P.S. I will try to inocculate the Indians by means of Blankets that may fall in their hands, taking care however not to get the disease myself. As it is pity to oppose good men against them, I wish we could make use of the Spaniard's Method, and hunt them with English Dogs. Supported by Rangers, and some Light Horse, who would I think effectively extirpate or remove that Vermine."
On July 16 Amherst replied, also in a postscript:
"P.S. You will Do well to try to Innoculate the Indians by means of Blanketts, as well as to try Every other method that can serve to Extirpate this Execrable Race. I should be very glad your Scheme for Hunting them Down by Dogs could take Effect, but England is at too great a Distance to think of that at present."
On July 26 Bouquet wrote back:
"I received yesterday your Excellency's letters of 16th with their Inclosures. The signal for Indian Messengers, and all your directions will be observed."
We don't know if Bouquet actually put the plan into effect, or if so with what result. We do know that a supply of smallpox-infected blankets was available, since the disease had broken out at Fort Pitt some weeks previously. We also know that the following spring smallpox was reported to be raging among the Indians in the vicinity.
Though it would seems that the Europeans of the day would have had no understanding of germ theory, they obviously had more of an understanding than we realized. D'Errico provides other quotes from Amherst's correspondence that suggest he considered Native Americans subhumans who ought to be exterminated. Check out his research for yourself at www.nativeweb.org/pages/l egal/amherst/lord_jeff.html. He not only includes transcriptions but also reproduces the relevant parts of the incriminating letters.
Well, during the Middle Ages, it was common practice to put disease-laden corpses onto catapults and hurl them into besieged cities. Nevertheless, I don't think any European would have anticipated the virulence of diseases such as smallpox in the western hemisphere.
It's still not the same as intentionally creating conditions that are certain to kill 10% of the population, which is the OP of this thread. Little foreign aid was offered until a million or so were already dead. The flooding was neither man made nor predictable. All deaths can be blamed on some negligence, poor planning, or misadventure somewhere. When the number of deaths crosses a threshold, fingers of culpability get pointed.
As clear as it is that government as enablers of corporate greed is responsible in America for the epidemic obesity resulting in the premature death of 30% of our own population, not counting those already killed by tobacco, which also did not happen overnight, even the most cynical are not prepared to call that genocide or mass killing.
I understand the point you are making but I think the delineation is around control and choice.
If a government has control of the food production, distribution and most facets of everyday life (rationing books etc.) like it is in NK then they have a responsibility to feed thier people.
Here in the US, we can CHOOSE to smoke or eat excessively.....or not. In that case the onus is on us. Tobacco use and other poor health habits pre-date the formation of the US government and will continue long after it is gone. And then when the government tries to crack down on drug use they are the bad guy....so really....at some point there has to be personal responsibility or at least responsibility assigned to the decision maker.
Now if the US mandated that every American had to eat 4,000 calories a day and not exercise....and shot people for non-compliance then yes the government would be at fault and it would be a mass killing no doubt.
I would again note that NK's food production had already fallen from 9 to 5billion or fewer metric tons in the 5-6 years PRIOR to any flooding and then waited in asking for help. I note that you are blaming foreing aid but it's an isolated country and they waited WAYYYYYY too long after knowing they had a problem. You might want to scroll back over the news articles decribing all the conditions NK put on receiving aid too.
Again, you are blaming foreign governments for not offering aid fast enough with one hand while absolving the government with complete control of the food production, distribution etc? Really, there is a serious disconnect over whom has the power and knowledge in the situation and where you are assigning blame.
Again, you are blaming foreign governments for not offering aid fast enough with one hand while absolving the government with complete control of the food production, distribution etc? Really, there is a serious disconnect over whom has the power and knowledge in the situation and where you are assigning blame.
It's important to note that the rest of the world HAD food, and NK didn't, regardless of anyone's intentions. And there is no evidence of hunger or starvation in NK (other than in the '96-97 famine) any more severe than in dozens of purely capitalist countries around the world.
Kim no doubt has many faults, but there is no evidence that lack of resolve to feed his people is one of them. Yet, there remains a great deal of doubt that America and its allies have more concern for the feeding of North Koreans (and Cubans), than for attaining purely political goals of deposing their leaders. As America proved luminously in Viet Nam, we don't care how many people die while achieving the higher goal of placing "our" man in power. In fact, the dominant political party in the USA today has the stated objective of abolishing all forms of public assistance to our own people, caring not a whit how many of them starve to death as a result. If the majority party in the USA today were to rewrite the Constitution according to their clearly stated social philosophy, and there followed a natural disaster of grand proportions, the government would be unable to legally hand so much as a glass of milk to a single starving child.
In India, virulently anti communist, the much-heralded rising star of capitalist progress and enlightenment, the annual death toll, year after year, among children, due to malnutrition, is about 7 million---50% of all childhood deaths. http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/i...ow/5913976.cms
Who do you blame for this mass killing, when there is no Kim? The number of children in free and capitalist India, who die of malnutrition in three years, equals the entire population of North Korea. Are you still ?
It's important to note that the rest of the world HAD food, and NK didn't, regardless of anyone's intentions. And there is no evidence of hunger or starvation in NK (other than in the '96-97 famine) any more severe than in dozens of purely capitalist countries around the world.
Kim no doubt has many faults, but there is no evidence that lack of resolve to feed his people is one of them. Yet, there remains a great deal of doubt that America and its allies have more concern for the feeding of North Koreans (and Cubans), than for attaining purely political goals of deposing their leaders. As America proved luminously in Viet Nam, we don't care how many people die while achieving the higher goal of placing "our" man in power. In fact, the dominant political party in the USA today has the stated objective of abolishing all forms of public assistance to our own people, caring not a whit how many of them starve to death as a result. If the majority party in the USA today were to rewrite the Constitution according to their clearly stated social philosophy, and there followed a natural disaster of grand proportions, the government would be unable to legally hand so much as a glass of milk to a single starving child.
In India, virulently anti communist, the much-heralded rising star of capitalist progress and enlightenment, the annual death toll, year after year, among children, due to malnutrition, is about 7 million---50% of all childhood deaths. http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/i...ow/5913976.cms
Who do you blame for this mass killing, when there is no Kim? The number of children in free and capitalist India, who die of malnutrition in three years, equals the entire population of North Korea. Are you still ?
Actually yes, I do hold the Indian govt. culpable to some degree. Their malnutrition problems are different however than the mass starvation that ensued in NK as the former has MANY contributors including cultural issues etc. as well as the governments basically inherent racism (or caste views if you will)
I feel like you are trying to give NK a pass due to politics when this is pretty much an example of ineptness married with complete control. Their own interal paranoia, distrust etc. hid the problem from a lot of the outside world.
A good analogy would be a lady with 20 dogs that she can barely feed on her pension check. She decides to start spending more on her model rocketry project and her dogs start to get more and more emaciated as thier food is cut back. A year later she asks her neighbor for help who finds one dog already dead and 2 more die while the rest recover. Now let's blame the neighbor for not helping fast enough.
If you like dark humor I leave you with this bit of comic relief.....
Japan gave them no aid whatsoever due to NK being a bad neighbor and kidnapping some Japanese over the years. Ironic given what Japan did to them in the 1930's-40's eh?
I feel like you are trying to give NK a pass due to politics when this is pretty much an example of ineptness married with complete control. Their own interal paranoia, distrust etc. hid the problem from a lot of the outside world.
No, I'm just trying to place NK in a realistic perspective, within a global spectrum, without my perception being colored by the dogmatic subjectivity that was spoon fed to me in grade school and continuously reinforced by the media.
Every socioeconomy is "controlled" by some powerful entity or another. It doesn't matter if it is the government or the church or the media or corporate empires or the military or a caste system or monarchy or kleptocracy or institutionalized greed or pure delusion. There are a couple of hundred countries in the world, and NK ranks among the lowest only if you are very selective in the criteria you choose. For example, NK's life expectancy ranks above Brazil, Romania, and Morocco, in spite of what is here alluded to as the government's negligent homicide of 5 or 10% of the population. A higher literacy rate than Austria, Israel, or South Korea.
Drinking water access (according to WHO) to 100% of the NK population (South Korea = 92%). Don't overlook the fact that neglect to provide safe drinking water is the number one institutionalized killer on earth. In fact, if America's entire foreign military aid and overseas military budget for one year were diverted exclusively to third-world drinking water development, it would save more lives than any genocide or mass killing named so far in this discussion. Using the logic of blaming Kim for starvation, one can put the blood on the hands of America for every child in the world who dies because we place our global military masturbation above relieving water-borne disease.
Distrust? They distrust a nation that has 15x their population, half the world's arms, nearly all the world's nuclear capability, an armed and trained soldier standing on their border for every 1,000 inhabitants, declared your country to be in an elite class of evil, and a penchant for arbitrarily invading and militarily occupying countries to eliminate imaginary weapons or arrest a suspected drug dealer. And you call that distrust paranoia?
Last edited by jtur88; 12-30-2010 at 08:54 AM..
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
)
One small event, the impact on world history had Gore defeated Bush would make for an interesting thread in and of itself.
