Talk:Genocides in history/Archive 16

Archive 10

←

Archive 14

Archive 15

Archive 16

Archive 17

Archive 18

Archive 19

Parenthetical insertion

An unregistered editor has added the following parenthetical addition to the article, and I have removed it as problematic:

(and the Europeans brought back to Europe a strain of syphilis which killed millions of people there, the Great Pox)

While that is a known theory, the proposed wording states it in Wikipedia's voice as an assertion of fact, when it is actually widely disputed, and far from a resolved issue. In addition, there doesn't seem to be any relevance to the subject of this Wikipedia article, which is about Genocides. I am interested in knowing why it was introduced here. Regards, Xenophrenic (talk) 21:03, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

Did you even read the article you posted? It says the very thing I tried to add to the article: that they brought a strain of syphilis, not syphilis in entirety. The article offers two theories: either syphilis was entirely from the new world or not, but in either case the strain was brought over. The strain of syphilis they brought back is written in that article to have caused the 1495 outbreak known as the Great Pox.

I also see that other editors resist your attempted changes to the article and your edits in general here are broadly against concensus. You stopped responding to RockyMtnGuy above, why?

I looked into the matter you had with RockyMtnGuy. The first source doesn't mention Amherst nor Fort Pitt but just a vague mention of smallpox blankets. The second citation does but states that some doubt it. Why isn't this mentioned? The first of the third sources firstly says that it was decimating both Indians and Europeans and that the plan may have been a failure due to reasons it then lists. Later it states that the epidemic wasn't likely caused by blankets. The second of the third sources states the same. The others either don't seem to mention it or are inaccessible. Why are these important bits being left out? Also, this would have taken place hundreds of years after the native populations were actually truly "decimated" by the brought diseases. This belongs at the end of the paragraph if anything because it takes place hundreds of years later. 93.106.50.229 (talk) 01:03, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

Did you even read the article you posted?

No. I just like the title, and thought it had pretty pictures.

in either case the strain was brought over

No. In one of many competing theories, yaws (which shares a Treponema characteristic with syphilis and other diseases) was brought from the new world, and may later have morphed into syphilis in the old world. I also see where the article says What we still don’t know, though, is where syphilis came from. and More than anything, though, it serves as a case study for just how murky the origins of syphilis remain, and how far scientists are from reaching a consensus. We shouldn't be inserting one preferred side of a multi-sided, unresolved issue - and more importantly, as I asked above, what does that have to do with the subject of this article (Genocide) anyway?

your edits in general here are broadly against concensus

I seem to have missed the development and posting of that consensus. Could you please provide a link to the discussion where that development took place?

You stopped responding to RockyMtnGuy above, why?

I've never stopped responding. He stopped asking questions. I tried to respond to every relevant question he posed.

The second citation does but states that some doubt it. Why isn't this mentioned?

Because in the very next sentence, and the rest of the essay, all the evidence is laid out "to set the record straight". Some "doubt" that the earth is round instead of flat, or that it doesn't revolve around the sun instead of the sun circling the earth, but we don't add to the end of our articles on the earth and sun: "but some doubt this".

...it takes place hundreds of years later

Later than what? A previous paragraph gives figures from 1997. I understand the logic behind having things chronologically ordered, but I'm not convinced you are applying that correctly in this instance. Can we discuss that further? Regards, Xenophrenic (talk) 15:39, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

Looking over the available literature, it appears that the bacterium responsible for syphilis (Treponema pallidum) originated in the Old World, was carried to the New World by humans when they first populated it c.14,000 years ago, and was carried back to the New World by Christopher Columbus's crew around 1492. The subspecies causing yaws, pinta, and bejel are indistinguishable from syphilis by examining old skeletons, and T. pallidum shows very little genetic variation, so tracing its path using DNA testing is very difficult. Since most of the suspected variants are extinct now, it is impossible to do DNA testing to determine at what point T. pallidum started causing syphilis instead of the other diseases. It also occurs in non-humans so we don't know that non-humans weren't responsible for introducing syphilis to the human race. This is all very interesting, but has little to do with genocide. The take away message is, "Don't introduce new diseases to people who may not have any immunity to them." Since the germ theory had not been invented at the time (c.1492) that syphilis and smallpox were cross-transmitted between the Old and New Worlds, it was really just plain old ignorance rather than genocide that caused the deaths of millions if not billions of people on both sides.RockyMtnGuy (talk) 18:05, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

I agree with much of what RockyMtnGuy just said, but would like to add a couple clarifications: (1) The stigma associated with syphilis is such that there has been great motivation to pin its origins (and thus "responsibility") to some "other" group of people, but that matter is far from conclusively settled. (2) The scholars in the field of Native American Genocide are already aware that disease was a major factor in the depopulation of the "new world", and that its spread was mostly unintentional, but that doesn't negate their position that genocide was perpetrated against the indigenous inhabitants by the invading colonists - in fact, it just made it much easier. Had the inhabitants not also been subjected to slavery and subjugation, forced relocation, rape, war, destruction of land, livestock and culture, then they would have likely survived and prospered through the pandemics just as the Europeans had done. Or so they argue. Xenophrenic (talk) 19:16, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

I don't think accidental destruction of a people counts as genocide - yes, there have been incidents throughout history and prehistory when people were wiped out by accident, but more where they wiped themselves out by accident. And, speaking of slaves, it was not just Europeans who kept slaves. I once worked in a town called Slave Lake. It was named after the the Slavey Indians. And why were they called that, you might ask? Because the Cree Indians who gave them their name routinely captured Slavey Indians and keep them as slaves. It's similar to the Slavic people of central Europe who got their name because the Vikings, who took over Russia, had a thriving business capturing the Slavs and selling them in the slave markets of the Middle East. Slav, Slave, Slavey, it's all the same root. "Slavery and subjugation, forced relocation, rape, war, destruction of land, livestock and culture", Yeah that was kind of the Viking business model, and it worked for the Cree, too. And then there were the Blackfeet, who leaned more toward "kill", especially toward the Cree. I know too much about these people to think they were all eligible for the Goody Two-Shoes award.RockyMtnGuy (talk) 21:41, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

No one said "accidental destruction" counts as genocide. There was nothing accidental or unintentional about the "slavery and subjugation, forced relocation, rape, war, destruction of land, livestock and culture". As for why Slaveys and Slavs are called what they are, I'll wait until your theories are published. Regards, Xenophrenic (talk) 21:46, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

These are not my theories, they are already published. Try reading Encyclopedia Britannica "Slave People"

Their name, Awokanak, or Slave, was given them by the Cree, who plundered and often enslaved numbers of them, and this name became the familiar one used by the French and English, for the Slave had a general reputation for timidity or pacifism, whether deserved or not.

or the BBC World Service "Roots of Slavery"

The term slave has its origins in the word slav. The slavs, who inhabited a large part of Eastern Europe, were taken as slaves by the Muslims of Spain during the ninth century AD.

Except that it was really the Vikings who captured the Slavs after they took over Russia, and sold them down the Volga to the Muslims. Slavery and subjugation, forced relocation, rape, war, etc, was just what everyone did back them, and sometimes things were already so bad that people would volunteer to be slaves just to get fed. OTOH, the Mongols wiped out 90% of the population of Romania in the 13th century and came close to that in other countries. The Mongols pioneered germ warfare by catapulting black death victims over city walls to infect the residents. The British were much more enlightened in their colonial expansion, so I don't think their actions qualify as genocide. The Spanish were less gentle in treating native people, so maybe some of their actions do qualify. RockyMtnGuy (talk) 20:02, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for those links, they were interesting. But slavery has existed since before recorded history, so I do not see how that fits as an argument against the description of genocide. I never implied that the colonists from Europe were the only people to enslave others. Xenophrenic (talk) 18:45, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

Well, if we need a consensus, I prefer the reasoning and edits of RockyMtnGuy (talk) and the unregistered editor 93.106.50.229 (talk) over those of Xenophrenic Does that help? OoflyoO (talk) 01:30, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

Consensus on what, exactly? I can't tell what issue you are commenting about, or with what "reasoning" you agree. Xenophrenic (talk) 18:45, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

Then go back and read the talk between you, RockyMtnGuy (talk) and the unregistered editor 93.106.50.229. IF we need a consensus, I agree with both of them. OoflyoO (talk) 02:58, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

Consensus on what, exactly? Xenophrenic (talk) 08:37, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

Edit consensus

So, I'm once again checking everyone's (Xenophrenic, RockyMtnGuy and OoflyoO) opinion on the edit: [1]. Let's just take this in two parts and handle the Amherst matter first. Who thinks the edit mentioning the witness testimonies is just and who thinks the Amherst note belongs nearer the end of the section rather than amongst the early Columbian times? If you want to delve into the second matter right away, see History of syphilis. Etsybetsy (talk) 11:55, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

Perhaps it would be more productive if you could explain what information about Genocides in history you are trying to convey to our readers with your edit. If I am reading your edit correctly, you've made three changes:

• added the text: (and the Europeans brought back to Europe a strain of syphilis which killed millions of people there, the Great Pox)

I don't see the relevance of this text to the article subject (Genocide), and especially no relevance to the article subsection subject (population decimation of indigenous Americans). Are you trying to convey by implication that native Americans made a genocidal attempt at people in Europe by giving them the Great Pox? Perhaps you could clarify.

• added the text: However according to testimonies by Gershom Hicks, a trader turned "white Indian" and captured by the British; and a captive to natives, John McCullough: the Indian settlements in question were already ravaged with smallpox.

You added this sentence immediately after two other sentences which convey that (1) the highest ranking British officer in the Americas authorized/ordered the use of germ warfare against the Native Americans, and (2) in a separate incident, British officers and militia actually attempted germ warfare against Native Americans. Can you explain what information you are attempting to convey to our readers with your added sentence, and how the "However" juxtaposition applies?

• You moved the Amherst orders and also the Ft. Pitt incident content "nearer the end of the section rather than amongst the early Columbian times". It wasn't part of the "earlier Columbian times", which was covered in the two prior paragraphs. The content you moved was at the beginning of the discussion about whether genocide, defined as a crime of intent, accurately describes the colonization experience. Could you please explain more clearly why you would want to move those 2 examples of intent during colonization elsewhere?

You asked for "opinions" about your proposed edit, and I can offer a great many, on the messed up ref formatting, misuse of terms like "testimony" and "Indian settlements", to the use of content unsupported by the cited references, etc., -- but I think a better (re-)starting point would be to get your input as to just what it is you are trying to convey to the reader about Genocides in history. Regards, Xenophrenic (talk) 19:39, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

I pointed out the edit and wrote it's about the Amherst matter. (Personal attack removed)

• And like I wrote, the matter at hand is also of the Amherst matter first, not the syphilis. Again you ignored that completely and just do what you want and read what you want. Even then the syphilis was to showcase the Columbian Exchange.
• When you actually start writing about the Amherst matter, you write that Amherst authorizing the blankets at Fort Pitt and the blankets being handed out at Fort Pitt are separate incidents. If they are, then Amherst doesn't even deserve a mention for it's pointless. I don't understand why you're now arguing against it. (Personal attack removed) If testimonies say they were already infected then the blankets were also pointless. All you're trying to do here is paint it as the singular cause of the smallpox epidemic amongst natives.
• And you have placed the Amherst paragraph near the beginning where it talks about early colonization instead of near the end where it talks about the American West. Like I wrote before, you try to paint it as the singular cause of the smallpox epidemic amongst natives.
• Lastly you complain of ref formatting, completely pointless and besides the matter, (Personal attack removed). Settlement is used by the sources and so is deposition. Do you want testimony changed to deposition? Is that your complaint?

In summary, you offered absolutely no counterarguments and instead actually argued against keeping the Amherst bits. Etsybetsy (talk) 23:31, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

Hi, Etsybetsy. Please refrain from making personal attacks upon your fellow editors; thank you for your consideration. As for your comments on the three matters - the syphilis issue, the Fort Pitt event, and the Amherst issue - your concerns are somewhat unclear to me, but I'll (again) attempt to respond as clearly as I can:

the matter at hand is also of the Amherst matter first, not the syphilis

The order in which we handle and resolve the concerns isn't important to me. What is important is that we resolve them all. (I note that this thread was initiated about your syphilis content addition, and only about your syphilis content addition - but, no matter.)

... the syphilis was to showcase the Columbian Exchange.

Please remember that this article is about Genocides in history, not about the Columbian Exchange article, or about theories about origins of diseases, etc. Unless you have found a reliable source which says that Native Americans intended to "sex to death" the whole European colonist peoples with venereal diseases, your syphilis content has no relevance to the topic of this article. I've asked you multiple times above to explain what you think syphilis has to do with the subject of Genocide, the subject of this article, and you still refuse to explain.

...you write that Amherst authorizing the blankets at Fort Pitt and the blankets being handed out at Fort Pitt are separate incidents

They are two separate incidents; examples of what has been described as genocidal intent: (1) the highest ranking British officer in the Americas (Amherst) authorized/ordered (Colonel Bouquet) the use of germ warfare against the Native Americans and "Every other method that can serve to Extirpate this Execrable Race", and (2) in a separate incident, British officers and militia (Captains Ecuyer, Trent and McKee) actually attempted germ warfare against Native Americans, hoping "it will have the desired effect". Amherst's orders & recommendations were made chronologically after this specific biological warfare attempt at Ft. Pitt, so yeah, they are separate incidents. (It's perfectly possible that Amherst also gave similar orders earlier to the folks at Ft. Pitt, but evidence of that hasn't yet surfaced.)

Amherst doesn't even deserve a mention for it's pointless

Huh? Amherst's expression of intent is in this article as one of many examples researchers have cited to make their case of "genocide against Native Americans". Pointless, you say? You'll need to explain.

All you're trying to do here is paint it as the singular cause of the smallpox epidemic amongst natives.

False. History is full of many examples of smallpox epidemics among Native Americans. As for this specific biological warfare attempt made at Fort Pitt, our article already says "it is uncertain how successful the attempt was against the target population." How effective the attempt was can't really be proven, but that's okay because it also doesn't need to be proven, as the sources say only "intent" needs to be proven, and not actual "success" in wiping out a people.

Settlement is used by the sources and so is deposition.

Indeed they are, but I never mentioned those. I mentioned "Indian settlements", which won't appear in any reliable source, because the Indians weren't the settlers, and I mentioned testimony, which is a solemn statement or declaration of fact under oath, as opposed to the statements given under duress when deposed by your captors. And you seem to forget that he later changed his "deposition", and your sources were refuted in later scholarship (as you were previously informed here).

In summary, you offered absolutely no counterarguments...

...because the burden isn't on me. I am still patiently waiting for you to:

(1) Explain why content about syphilis origin theories has any reason being in a Wikipedia article about Genocide.

(2) Explain why a sentence about Hicks and McCullough has any reason being in a paragraph about two "genocidal intent" examples?

Until you provide those explanations, there is nothing for me to "counter argue" against. Once you've made it clear what it is you are trying to convey to our readers with your edit, we can open an RfC to get wider community input on the merits of your proposed additions. Regards, Xenophrenic (talk) 23:15, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

(Comments having nothing to do with article improvement moved to user Talk page for further discussion. -Xenophrenic)

Let's get to the main matter. Firstly, you again state you don't care about which matter should be discussed first. The earlier section was about syphilis but the section before that was about Amherst.

You write about the Amherst case, again arguing against their inclusion. Like you have written, this is an article about Genocides in history. This isn't an article about Intents of Genocide But Which Weren't Followed Through With in History. I can't understand why you even want to include Amherst in that case. The only reason I can think of, considering how especially vague you yourself have worded the paragraph, it seems that you try to masquerade Amherst as having authorized it. Possibly it matters to you more if you make a high-ranking officer seemingly having done it rather than lower-ranking officers? I'm just trying to understand why would anyone even bother with such a pointless case when in the paragraphs above and below we're talking about the Spanish colonization, which if you know anything about the depopulation crisis of native Americans ranks at numbers 1-20 on the list of top 25 causes of native American depopulation. And you try to refer to your own writing as a source? Pretty much all sources state that it likely didn't do even little if anything. And settlement is used in the very source you use. I used your sources. I didn't dig up any of my own. Are you saying your sources are unreliable? What? The first of the sources also states "the epidemic was likely not caused by Ecuyer's distribution of infected blankets." The sources state in clear that it wasn't likely or particularly effective. You also offered Mann 2009 but haven't added it as a source and don't offer any links. When I google "mann 2009 amherst" I get nothing.

This is about Genocides in history and whether smallpox was genocide or not is the matter at hand. Pointing out the Columbian Exchange and exchange of diseases illustrates that perfectly. I added 20 words in parentheses. I have explained all of this many times already.

And the two are witnesses who state there already was smallpox among the Indians the lower-ranking officers gave the two blankets two. Etsybetsy (talk) 16:05, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

Like you have written, this is an article about Genocides in history. This isn't an article about Intents of Genocide But Which Weren't Followed Through With in History.

I don't understand what you mean. "Weren't Followed Through"? Our articles convey that some scholars cite as evidence of genocidal intent the following incidents (I'm not saying whether I concur or not, but my personal opinion matters not here):

• (1) the highest ranking British officer in the Americas (Amherst) authorized/ordered (Colonel Bouquet) the use of germ warfare against the Native Americans and "Every other method that can serve to Extirpate this Execrable Race", and
• (2) in a separate incident, British officers and militia (Captains Ecuyer, Trent and McKee) actually attempted germ warfare against Native Americans, hoping "it will have the desired effect", and
• (3) When smallpox swept the northern plains of the US in 1837, Secretary of War Lewis Cass ordered that no Mandan (along with the Arikara, the Cree, and the Blackfeet) be given smallpox vaccinations.

Amherst did indeed follow through in giving such orders; Trent, et al., did indeed follow through in giving tainted gifts to Natives; Cass did indeed follow through in giving such orders. Or are you trying to argue that "genocide" isn't really genocide unless it is actually successful, regardless of intent? Now please provide the reliable sources indicating why "syphilis" should be introduced to the Genocide articles as a "counterexample" of genocidal intent.

And settlement is used in the very source you use.

"Indian settlement" is not, which is what I said. I am very anxious for you to point out the reliable source, with exact page number, that refers to Indian settlers and their "Indian settlements".

You also offered Mann 2009 but haven't added it as a source and don't offer any links.

The Tainted Gift; Barbara Alice Mann; ABC-CLIO; 2009; Pgs. 1-18 and especially the footnotes, is what I referred to. There is also Elizabeth Fenn (1999), and many others that examine Hicks, McCullough, and others in much more detail than your sources. And I haven't added them as sources because this isn't an appropriate article to argue how effective the attempts were or weren't, just that the intent was there and action was taken.

Regards, Xenophrenic (talk) 01:56, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

So, it's just intent? And if you're drawing a comparison with my syphilis edit you think doesn't belong and removed, aren't you stating that you think yours should be removed as well? I also took a look at your Mann book and it doesn't refute the testimonies whatsoever? It points Gershom out among a case I hadn't seen before as well? There is a Mohawk messenger now possibly having had smallpox or syphilis too. Mann concludes there was an epidemic, but is seemingly unsure about the origin of it. And this is from a book with the title "The Tainted Gift: The Disease Method of Frontier Expansion," written by a native history historian. This likely the most opionated source on the matter and even it questions this. Your two main sources used in the article state that it wasn't likely, or particularly effective. I'm literally quoting them. Etsybetsy (talk) 00:40, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

So, it's just intent?

No. It's intent and action, as exemplified by examples (1), (2) and (3) above. You appear to want to also argue "success" in this article, which is not a factor. And if you read the sources I indicated, then you already know that "depositions" you cite were recanted, and when re-questioned, there was no mention of smallpox.

I'm still waiting for your reliable source citation which says syphilis was used for attempted genocide (successful or not - doesn't matter). Regards, Xenophrenic (talk) 01:30, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

But it's not even the weasel word "action" if there is no indication the lower-ranking officers intended genocide unlike Amherst who you have described as a completely separate case. The action also likely wasn't successful as written by your main sources. Success very much is a factor. Add to that the likelihood of it being successful, which in this case is non-existent due to the method and the testimonies of the natives already having been infected.

There are now three cases saying otherwise and out of the three of them one described a part of his story false. As to what part,it's anyone's guess. No description of any requestioning and lack of smallpox. It's even still one of three now.

And syphilis is again used as an example of an accidentally introduced disease inadvertently killing millions but not being genodical. It's even more related when it was spread by the same people who originally spread smallpox. Etsybetsy (talk) 01:48, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

syphilis is again used as an example of an accidentally introduced disease inadvertently killing millions but not being genodical.

You have just made a case for adding it, along with 100s of other accidentally introduced diseases, to a Wikipedia article about "what is not genocidal." This article, however, is about Genocides, and you have not explained why it should be added to this article.

Success [for it to be considered genocide] very much is a factor.

You are quite mistaken (from our lead paragraph): "any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such: killing members of the group; causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group; deliberately inflicting on the groups conditions of life, calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part; imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group; [and] forcibly transferring children of the group to another group."

Regards, Xenophrenic (talk) 21:13, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

I just did explain. Syphilis is again used as an example of an accidentally introduced disease inadvertently killing millions but not being genodical, like smallpox. Smallpox is talked about at length here so it would only make sense to very shortly mention the flip side. It's even more related when it was spread by the same people who originally spread smallpox. It's part of the same event. What I tried to add were a few words in parenthesis.

And you quote a sentence which disagrees with you. Amherst didn't commit any of what you mentioned. Trent did. So again Amherst should be cut completely? Even then success is still a factor and so is the group targeted. Trent never gave out his intent. He was at war and only stated that he "hoped it will have the desired effect". Is that your genocide listing? All while there are three testimonies of the tribe already having smallpox? Etsybetsy (talk) 18:12, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

How (again) is syphilis "the flip side" to colonists deliberately giving smallpox tainted blankets to Native Americans with the intent to infect them? And (again) what source says Trent, et al., and Amherst or Bouquet also tried to spread syphilis? You really do need to provide sources for this, Etsybetsy, regardless whether you use parenthesis or not.

Amherst didn't commit any of what you mentioned. Trent did.

Incorrect. Amherst committed the act of ordering that smallpox be used against the natives, to "extirpate the race". Trent (and crew) committed the act of physically delivering the smallpox-tainted articles to Native Americans. None of them, as far as I know, expressed the intent, or ordered, or used, syphilis to commit genocide. Are you being intentionally obtuse, or do you need assistance with reliable sources? I have all of the sources here if you need help. Xenophrenic (talk) 18:48, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

Wow. That's it. You just admitted you're trying to paint the 1763 blanket case (decribed by sources as not likely or particularly effective) as the cause of the widespread smallpox epidemic in the Americas that has been verified by all sources to have began in the 15th century.

You're also completely mistaken at the end. Ecuyer did it before Amherst: "At the time of this exchange, neither Amherst nor Bouquet knew that Captain Ecuyer, without authorization, had already put the plant into motion." It was done in June and Amherst brought the matter up with Bouquet in July. One of your sources (the website post thing) is quoting a NY: Facts on File book which for some reason incorrectly states the letter was to Ecuyer, but it was to Bouquet a month later as verified by all other sources. It seems Trent may have been an accomplice of Ecuyer.

I noticed that your paragraph repeats this same mistake. I don't know how I didn't notice this myself before. This needs to be fixed immediately regardless of the syphilis edit. Etsybetsy (talk) 20:34, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

Please cease misrepresenting what I have said.

you're trying to paint the 1763 blanket case ... as the cause of the widespread smallpox epidemic in the Americas...

I am not. Don't be ridiculous. Our article doesn't say that, and neither have I.

You're also completely mistaken at the end. Ecuyer did it before Amherst...

That is common knowledge, and I've never said otherwise. That is why I referred to them as separate incidents above. Careful reading of sources is required, Etsy. Please meet that requirement.

I noticed that your paragraph repeats this same mistake...

"My" paragraph? Please be specific. You are aware that no one owns an article, or the paragraphs within an article, right? Xenophrenic (talk) 20:47, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

I wrote it's the flip side of smallpox. You then ask what syphilis has to do with the blankets. Thus you directly equate introduction of smallpox in the Americans with the two blankets....

And seemingly you have indicated that Amherst ordered the Ecuyer action? This rose from the NY: Facts on File book mistaking the letter being sent to Ecuyer and not Bouquet, and it even missed that it was a month later at that. Etsybetsy (talk) 21:13, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

You then ask what syphilis has to do with the blankets.

No. I did not. Careful reading of sources is required, Etsy. Please meet that requirement. I asked: How (again) is syphilis "the flip side" to colonists deliberately giving smallpox tainted blankets to Native Americans with the intent to infect them? Note the lack of the necessary INTENT in your irrelevant syphilis content. Xenophrenic (talk) 21:39, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

Is this about the sources for the syphilis introduced to the black communities again? There is cited intent for that. I don't know why there would be intent in accidental introduction? It's part of the retort that it was accidental. Etsybetsy (talk) 21:44, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

I asked: How (again) is syphilis "the flip side" to colonists deliberately giving smallpox tainted blankets to Native Americans with the intent to infect them? Note the lack of the necessary INTENT in your irrelevant syphilis content addition.

Is this about the sources for the syphilis introduced to the black communities again? There is cited intent for that.

Again? Sorry, you lost me. It sounds to me that you are now introducing a wholly new topic. Black communities? I am looking forward to reviewing your reliable sources showing there was genocidal intent in your "syphilis introduced to the black communities" content. Shall we create a new discussion section for that? And does this mean we've finally resolved the issue of your proposed insertion of syphilis origin theories into the content about genocidal acts toward Native Americans? Xenophrenic (talk) 03:16, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

Does this edit belong

We've already been through this, but for perfect clarity: does this edit [2] belong at the article, yes or no? Etsybetsy (talk) 18:21, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

You asked the same thing just above: here. Have you since come up with an argument for introducing irrelevant "syphilis" content to a "Genocides in history" article (or can produce reliable sources which explain how "syphilis" is relevant to genocide)? Xenophrenic (talk) 21:15, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

This time it's made simpler as I just mentioned. And how much time did you give me between posting there and here? 0 seconds? You posted in both sections the same time stating I still haven't come up with a response? What? And did you just delete editor RockyMtnGuy's comment from here? Etsybetsy (talk) 18:22, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

Have you come up with an argument for introducing irrelevant "syphilis" content to a "Genocides in history" article (or can produce reliable sources which explain how "syphilis" is relevant to genocide)? If so, could you please post here? Xenophrenic (talk) 18:48, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

As for your arguments, the logical flaws in them are too numerous to mention. Here's a list of informal logical fallacies for your edification.RockyMtnGuy (talk) 18:13, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

I'm aware of the list you linked, and unless it has changed significantly since the last time I reviewed it, I won't be reviewing it now. I haven't made any arguments. I've been requesting that Etsybetsy provide his/her argument (backed by reliable sources also making that argument) for adding irrelevant content about syphilis theories to an article about genocide. The reliable sources are key here. If you could make the argument for Etsy, and provide the required reliable sources showing the relevance to genocide, that could speed things up considerably and would be greatly appreciated. Or should I interpret Etsy's and your refusal to provide the requested reliably sourced argument as the end of the matter? Xenophrenic (talk) 07:24, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

"Europeans brought deadly viruses and bacteria, such as smallpox, measles, typhus, and cholera, for which Native Americans had no immunity (Denevan, 1976). On their return home, European sailors brought syphilis to Europe. Although less deadly, the disease was known to have caused great social disruption throughout the Old World (Sherman, 2007)."

"The Voyage of Columbus Led to the Spread of Syphilis to Europe."

Ancient Spanish historics describe the origin of the Naples disease as having been from the crew of Columbus:

"Bartolomé de Las Casas (1474-1566) censured Oviedo's work strongly, but they both agree that the natives of Haiti gave syphilis to the white race. After referring to the spread of the disease to Naples..."

and like de Las Casas and Oviedo, so does Ruiz Diaz de Isla, who similarly records the spread of the new disease to Naples and leading to the epidemic.

The American origin of syphilis has been written as early as our modern understanding of diseases goes. There are writings of "the American origin of syphilis" as early as from the 1920s and 1930s.

And only that late because:

"Except for the matter of syphilis, few took much notice of the effects of the Columbian exchange on Europe, Africa and Asia until the twentieth century."

right after talking about smallpox and the Columbian exchange.

We have established that the first epidemic of syphilis in Europe happened in Naples. By this point we have established they brought over the strain of the Great Pox that caused the wide epidemic. It's not a matter of whether the disease pre-existed or not, it's a case of the strain. You have scientists who believe in pre-Columbian but who still assert the new strain was brought over, the strain that was then named "the Great Pox." The term was used to differentiate from smallpox, which didn't affect Europeans as much anymore after gained resistance. Etsybetsy (talk) 20:46, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

That is all wonderful content for the Columbian Exchange article. But you seemed to miss the question I posed above:

I've been requesting that Etsybetsy provide his/her argument (backed by reliable sources also making that argument) for adding irrelevant content about syphilis theories to an article about genocide.

I don't see any of those sources you just listed making the case that orders were given to use syphilis to commit genocide, or where actual attempts were made to intentionally spread syphilis with genocidal intent. So are we through here? Xenophrenic (talk) 20:55, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

That question is ridiculous. To illustrate: what do concentration camps have to do with genocide? Gas chambers and firing squads were to be the means of the Holocaust, not the camps; but the camps proved very deadly themselves. Smallpox is mentioned in our article as genocide. Then there are retorts that it was accidental. Syphilis is there to illustrate that. What more do you want? Syphilis is actually cited as genocide multiple times as it was tested on black communities in America's history. The section is about America. If I add a mention of the black communities genocide, you'll be happy? Etsybetsy (talk) 21:11, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

Smallpox is mentioned in our article as genocide.

No, it is not. Official orders to use disease to "extirpate their race" is mentioned as genocidal. Note the intent. The actual act of intentionally giving deadly disease tainted items to the Native Americans with the hopes of giving them smallpox is mentioned as genocidal. Note the intent. See the difference? There has to be INTENT to do harm for it to be genocidal. Where in your list of sources is the necessary intent? Xenophrenic (talk) 21:32, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

My opinion is that if you mention the Jeffery Amherst, 1st Baron Amherst incident at all, it should be nuanced because in the context of genocide it is something of an urban myth and an example of historical negationism. You should note that the incident cannot really be genocide by germ warfare because, 1) The germ theory was not developed by scientists until much later and at that time nobody knew what caused smallpox, 2) It wouldn't have worked anyway because smallpox cannot be spread by giving people infected blankets, 3) It wasn't British policy to kill the Indians, it was just an isolated incident by a rogue commander, and 4) His commander in Chief, George III, recalled Amherst to London and put a stop to the French and Indian wars that year by granting the Indians what they wanted. However, if you mention smallpox, in the interest of balance you should also mention syphilis, which apparently was transmitted in the reverse direction in the Columbian Exchange, and is a counterexample to the charge of genocide.RockyMtnGuy (talk) 18:30, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

You should note that the incident cannot really be genocide... --RockyMtnGuy

Reliable Source Citation, please. By now you should know that we can't cite "your personal opinion", despite how much you've filled these talk pages with it, and that applies to your original research and your synthesis, too. If you want to add content that "the Amherst incident is a myth", please provide the reliable sources that state that. (I've already showed you reliable sources which say he really did exist, he really did order the use of smallpox-exposed blankets, and any other available method, to "extirpate the race" of Native Americans. He's really not a myth.) If you want to add content that says syphilis in Europe is a "counterexample to the charge of genocide" of Native Americans, please provide the reliable sources that state that. This was already explained to you in considerable detail here. Xenophrenic (talk) 01:42, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

The Jeffery Amherst, 1st Baron Amherst incident is similar in that it was NOT genocide, and even fewer people, i.e. nobody, was killed. How can it be genocide if nobody was killed? It basically is an urban myth and an example of historical revisionism by modern people imposing modern standards on people who didn't have the same standards or even the necessary technology. It should not be included in a Wikipedia article except as an example of urban myth and historical revisionism. --RockyMtnGuy

You are repeating yourself, without advancing the discussion. I am really going to need to see your reliable sources now. Reliable Source Citation, please. By now you should know that we can't cite "your personal opinion", despite how much you've filled these talk pages with it, and that applies to your original research and your synthesis, too. If you want to add content that "the Amherst incident is a myth", please provide the reliable sources that state that. (I've already showed you reliable sources which say he really did exist, he really did order the use of smallpox-exposed blankets, and any other available method, to "extirpate the race" of Native Americans. He's really not a myth.) If you want to add content that says syphilis in Europe is a "counterexample to the charge of genocide" of Native Americans, please provide the reliable sources that state that. This was already explained to you in considerable detail here. Xenophrenic (talk) 01:42, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

There was no genocide of Afghans during the Soviet Occupation

Soviet Communists never wanted annihihalte the Afghan People. The Soviet war in Afghanistan was just like the Vietnam War of the USA.--Aaron Yehuda Wiesenberg (talk) 11:29, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

Canadian Residential schools and genocide

There is a lot of politically correct crap in what Xenophrenic posted, for instance:

The Indian (Aboriginal) residential schools were primarily active following the passage of the Indian Act in 1876, until 1996, and were designed to remove children from the influence of their families and culture, and assimilate them into the dominant Canadian culture. Over the course of the system's existence, about 30% of native children, or roughly 150,000, were placed in residential schools nationally; at least 6,000 of these students died while in attendance

If you actually read the historical documents, you get a completely different picture of what was going on. For instance this document from the Canadian Department of Indian Affairs to the principle of the Residential School on the Sarcee Reserve in Southern Alberta:

Ottawa, February 17, 1917.

Very Reverend Sir: The attention of the Department has been called to a condition existing at the Sarcee Boarding School regarding the practice of allowing children to go home on sick leave at the request of their parents. During January last, three pupils became ill and were allowed to go home, with the result that they did not get proper treatment for their illness and became much worse. As there is a nurse at the school and a room provided for pupils who became ill, they should be kept in the school, in order to receive proper supervision and the necessary medicines and treatment. In cases where children in ill health are allowed to go home they do not receive proper medicine or food and the hygienic conditions of their homes are usually of the poorest.

If this system of granting leaves is allowed to continue it will be very detrimental to the health of the pupils and should, therefore, be discontinued. In future you should grant no leave to children who are sick without the doctor first approves of such leave being granted, as all such children should receive proper medical care and treatment in the school instead of being allowed home. You should deal firmly with the parents in this matter and not permit them to take their children home for treatment.

Your obedient servant, L.D. McLean, M.D.

Asst. Deputy and Secretary

The main concern of the Indian Affairs Department was that the Indians were all going to be wiped out by disease if they didn't do something about it. There was no cure for tuberculosis at that time, and the only prevention was to isolate the patients and give them good nutrition. In that case it meant isolating the children from the disease source, i.e. their parents, and feed them better than their parents would. Tuberculosis was not an imported disease, it existed in Western Hemisphere before the white men arrived, and white men were equally susceptible to it. In England it was called "consumption" and it was considered rather fashionable to be slowly dying from it.

There is still a major problem with tuberculosis in the world even though many people think it has been conquered. No, it hasn't. Millions of people still die from it, 1.5 million last year. Many of them are people in Western countries naive enough to believe it has been conquered.RockyMtnGuy (talk) 20:48, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

No one is interested in your flimsy OR, RockyMtnGuy. And "politically correct crap"? You should keep in mind WP:CIVIL. --BowlAndSpoon (talk) 20:53, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

Original research? I didn't make this stuff up, I only read it. I was just quoting from the original documents at the Glenbow Museum in Calgary, which is the largest museum in Western Canada and has a huge archive of documents about native culture available on-line. And what it says is often different from what people who apparently have political agendas say it says.RockyMtnGuy (talk) 21:42, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

quoting from the original documents at the Glenbow Museum in Calgary

But that is clearly OR. Citing a single original document is insufficient. Secondary sources only, written by people who are familiar with all the relevant documentation! This is, and has to be, non-negotiable. --BowlAndSpoon (talk) 21:49, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

Who cares? There's no prohibition against OR on talk pages. (If secondary sources conflict, OR can even be a useful tool to determine which one is correct.)TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 22:02, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

Not in this instance. I don't find it edifying, and it reminds me of the Stolen Generations issue in Australia. Such documents only express the mindset of the writer without broader context for the policies and impact. It doesn't represent the intent of anyone other than that of L.D. McLean and his concerns regarding how ill students should be handled. That's why secondary sources are a must for articles of this calibre. On the other hand, BowlAndSpoon's strident commentary is unnecessarily antagonistic... nor do I find RockyMtnGuy's sarcastic interpretation for other editors to be anything other than condescending. Where is the documentation demonstrating that students who remained in the care of the school had a profoundly higher survival rate? --Iryna Harpy (talk) 22:33, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

There's no prohibition against OR on talk pages.

Indeed not, as one can learn from the lead to WP:OR, but his OR (probably too generous a descriptor) consists of a derisive ad hominem ("politically correct crap") and a single document. That's it. That's the basis in which he is proposing to alter the article. I think my unhappiness with his looming alterations was merited.

If secondary sources conflict, OR can even be a useful tool…

This is irrelevant, for where are the conflicting secondary sources? All we have laid before us is a single original document and some grouching. --BowlAndSpoon (talk) 01:50, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

I was going back to the original historic documents to vet the sources in the article, and it didn't go that well. They all have a high political content without much historical fact checking. The article said that "at least 6,000 of these students died while in attendance" and my question is, "Was that unusual for native children at the time?" So, I checked, and in the case of the Sarcee Reserve, there was a major tuberculosis epidemic going on. All the Sarcee were dying like flies, especially the children. From an original population of 450 when they settled on the reserve in 1881, the population fell to 160 by 1924. Letters in the archives indicate that Indian Affairs was in a state of panic about the situation and were worried that the entire tribe would be wiped out. The Department even sent out experts to do "rescue anthropology" on the Tribe so their culture would not be lost even if they all died.

The only medical solution at the time was to isolate the infected from the non-infected. They tried excluding children who had tuberculosis from the school, but testing revealed that ALL the children who were of school age already had tuberculosis. However, in 1921 things started to change. A tuberculosis sanitarium was established and the children with tuberculosis were isolated, given a better diet, and flush toilets. The improvement in their health was immediate and significant. Vaccinations for tuberculosis were invented and the children were all vaccinated. After 1932 students no longer had to reside at the school and were sent home. Then post WWII drugs to cure tuberculosis were invented, and the Canadian government accepted the responsibility of providing all Indians with free medical care. Then in 1966 we white Canadians got free medical care, too, while you Americans? Well, you're still waiting for it, aren't you? You can read "Medicine that Walks: Disease, Medicine and Canadian Plains Native People, 1880-1940" by Maureen Katherine Lux for more details.

For the record, the Sarcee population has rebounded from the low of 160 in 1924 to over 2200 today. And, today the Tsuu T'ina First Nation (formerly Sarcee Reserve) is one of Canada's wealthiest reserves due to oil and gas royalties. They are planning a massive series of commercial developments along a 10-kilometre stretch of Calgary's future southwest ring road, which they condescendingly agreed to let the white men build across their land, and they also have their gas station, casino, and real estate developments. Just so you know how things are going for them today. RockyMtnGuy (talk) 17:05, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

RockyMtnGuy, your issue is with the content at Canadian Indian residential school system, not with me. If you are proposing changing or adding encyclopedic content to the Canada schools section in this article, I can't tell from what you have posted here. Some indication of reliable sources would be helpful. Regards, Xenophrenic (talk) 21:36, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

Yes, I have serious doubts of the validity of that article, but I'm not going to bother to edit it. My main concern is the idea of classifying sending children to residential schools as "genocide" since that is what the British upper classes did with their own children. Historically Canada was a British Colony. Before the end of WWII when the wheels fell off the British Empire there was no such thing as a "Canadian Citizen" - all the people of Canada were "British Subjects". The British upper classes shipped their children off to residential schools for someone else to raise. I guess it avoided them having any responsibility for their children's education. Apparently they thought it would work just as well for lower class and native people as well. Close to where I live is the Prince of Wales Kingsley Fairbridge Farm School on Vancouver Island. The British used to sweep up "waifs and strays" from the slums of industrial British cities and ship them off to Australia and Canada to be educated and employed. They sent most of their criminals to Australia, but they sent most of the slum children (80,000 or so) to Canada. The Canadian residential schools for First Nations were just an extension of that idea. In the modern perspective, it was not a good idea, but that was then and this is now. Is it genocide if you treat some other people's children as bad as you treat your own? RockyMtnGuy (talk) 18:06, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

Please stop using comparatives as if this were a game of who has the monopoly on suffering. Home Children has, indeed, been treated as a serious issue (known as Forgotten Australians in Australian lexicology). Focus on the article per its WP:TITLE. Reiterating: it isn't our function as editors to analyse and draw conclusions from primary sources because we WP:JUSTDONTLIKEIT or, conversely, we like it. Our function is to reflect what secondary sources actually say on the matter. Whether we agree with it or not is irrelevant because we a neutral parties... well, that's the theory. Scrutinising secondary sources in order to establish whether they are WP:FRINGE is essential. If, however, it is demonstrable that scholarly discourse genuinely considers a subject to be a valid area of Genocide studies, it must be accepted. There is much in the way of discourse over trivialising genocide, and this discourse runs the full gamut from using the term too loosely to the denial of events that bear all the characteristics of genocide/genocidal intent. That's not for us, as editors, to quibble about because we run behind the ball. We don't kick it or set the goalposts. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 03:44, 12 October 2016 (UTC)