Discussion:
BEST SUMMARY I HAVE EVER SEEN OF OUR BLACK/WHITE CULTURE
Add Reply
Byker
2017-09-04 23:23:06 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
The European 'civilization' was not so 'majestic' in the 15th century. It
became more 'majestic' later mainly due to the colonial exploitation
practices, and - in the particular British-American case - also due to the
intensive and ruthless use of the African slaves. The slave labor greatly
contributed to the accelerated economic development, and on the base of
that the 'majestic civilization' became possible. The black-skinned
descendants of those slaves are in no way an alien element in 'western
civilization', they are an integral and essential part of it, because
without those slaves such a 'civilization' simply could not happen.
You're just jealous because the Czars never exploited their serfs enough...
D.R. Strange
2017-09-05 00:28:08 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Byker
The European 'civilization' was not so 'majestic' in the 15th century. It
became more 'majestic' later mainly due to the colonial exploitation
practices, and - in the particular British-American case - also due to the
intensive and ruthless use of the African slaves. The slave labor greatly
contributed to the accelerated economic development, and on the base of
that the 'majestic civilization' became possible. The black-skinned
descendants of those slaves are in no way an alien element in 'western
civilization', they are an integral and essential part of it, because
without those slaves such a 'civilization' simply could not happen.
You're just jealous because the Czars never exploited their serfs enough...
He has fetal alcohol syndrome. just like his commie master Pooting.
Oleg Smirnov
2017-09-05 06:08:38 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
"Oleg Smirnov" wrote in message
The European 'civilization' was not so 'majestic' in the 15th century. It
became more 'majestic' later mainly due to the colonial exploitation
practices, and - in the particular British-American case - also due to the
intensive and ruthless use of the African slaves. The slave labor greatly
contributed to the accelerated economic development, and on the base of
that the 'majestic civilization' became possible. The black-skinned
descendants of those slaves are in no way an alien element in 'western
civilization', they are an integral and essential part of it, because
without those slaves such a 'civilization' simply could not happen.
You're just jealous because the Czars never exploited their serfs enough...
Likening the American slavery to the (east-)European serfdom is one of
the smartass myths promoted by the ideologues of the 'western' Nazism in
order to make the American shit look less shitty.

Another smartass myth, for example, is to explain the extinction of the
indigenous peoples in the N. America by epidemic diseases rather than by
genocidal practice of the European invaders.
saracene
2017-09-05 08:15:59 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Oleg Smirnov
"Oleg Smirnov" wrote in message
The European 'civilization' was not so 'majestic' in the 15th century. It
became more 'majestic' later mainly due to the colonial exploitation
practices, and - in the particular British-American case - also due to the
intensive and ruthless use of the African slaves. The slave labor greatly
contributed to the accelerated economic development, and on the base of
that the 'majestic civilization' became possible. The black-skinned
descendants of those slaves are in no way an alien element in 'western
civilization', they are an integral and essential part of it, because
without those slaves such a 'civilization' simply could not happen.
You're just jealous because the Czars never exploited their serfs enough...
Likening the American slavery to the (east-)European serfdom is one of
the smartass myths promoted by the ideologues of the 'western' Nazism in
order to make the American shit look less shitty.
Another smartass myth, for example, is to explain the extinction of the
indigenous peoples in the N. America by epidemic diseases rather than by
genocidal practice of the European invaders.
The origin of Russian serfdom was rational. Open for many centuries to invasion from the nomadic peoples of the steppes, it made sense to force the peasants to stay in one place and resist, rather than just move away when under threat. Later on after the threat had eased with the development of military technology, getting rid of it posed a serious problem. Nicholas I had liberal instincts but went down in history as an archetypal despot. He was warned against emancipating the serfs for fear of revolution. That actually happened a few decades after emancipation.
Oleg Smirnov
2017-09-05 10:47:13 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by saracene
"Oleg Smirnov" wrote in message
The European 'civilization' was not so 'majestic' in the 15th century. It
became more 'majestic' later mainly due to the colonial exploitation
practices, and - in the particular British-American case - also due to
the intensive and ruthless use of the African slaves. The slave labor
greatly contributed to the accelerated economic development, and on the
base of that the 'majestic civilization' became possible. The
black-skinned descendants of those slaves are in no way an alien element
in 'western civilization', they are an integral and essential part of it,
because without those slaves such a 'civilization' simply could not
happen.
You're just jealous because the Czars never exploited their serfs enough...
Likening the American slavery to the (east-)European serfdom is one of the
smartass myths promoted by the ideologues of the 'western' Nazism in order
to make the American shit look less shitty.
Another smartass myth, for example, is to explain the extinction of the
indigenous peoples in the N. America by epidemic diseases rather than by
genocidal practice of the European invaders.
The origin of Russian serfdom was rational. Open for many centuries to
invasion from the nomadic peoples of the steppes, it made sense to force the
peasants to stay in one place and resist, rather than just move away when
under threat. Later on after the threat had eased with the development of
military technology, getting rid of it posed a serious problem. Nicholas I
had liberal instincts but went down in history as an archetypal despot. He
was warned against emancipating the serfs for fear of revolution. That
actually happened a few decades after emancipation.
The serfdom wasn't a unique Russian thing, it was common for eastern and
central Europe. Britain could afford to do without it on the earlier stage
since Britain is a [small] island, you know. Situation in Japan was somewhat
similar, by the way. Because one needs to make much more effort to leave an
island in comparison with traveling through a large continuous land.

The serfdom lasted a little longer in western/central Russia than in Europe
because in Russia there was a mechanism to reduce internal stress: those who
wanted less regulation and more personal freedom, persistently migrated to
periphery while keeping loyalty to the central power, - and such a mechanics
significantly contributed to the Russia's great territorial expansion btw.

Likening of serfdom to the American slavery is a bogus exercise. The serfdom,
basically, meant restriction of the right of movement and delegating to the
landlords some functions of government agent, tax agent, judicial agent etc.
It might be called slavery as a hyperbolic metaphor, but it still was not a
slavery. It's possible to find specific examples when serfdom practices
manifested some ugly things comparable to the Atlanticist slavery, but in
general and overall these phenomena are not comparable. The well-promoted
American / 'western' historical mythology makes a bogus and false analogy by
likening the 1861 in Russia and the 1865 in the US.

The especial 'western' fixation on specifically the Russian serfdom is due the
genuine western Nazism as well as due to the legacy of the leftist Bolshevist
propaganda that overdemonized the tsarist / imperial Russia's history.

The acute 'western' speculations on such things resemble the teenager's talks
about sexual issues, when no one has a real experience, but everyone seeks to
show their theoretical awareness of some interesting bold things.
abelard
2017-09-05 10:58:41 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Oleg Smirnov
Post by saracene
"Oleg Smirnov" wrote in message
The European 'civilization' was not so 'majestic' in the 15th century. It
became more 'majestic' later mainly due to the colonial exploitation
practices, and - in the particular British-American case - also due to
the intensive and ruthless use of the African slaves. The slave labor
greatly contributed to the accelerated economic development, and on the
base of that the 'majestic civilization' became possible. The
black-skinned descendants of those slaves are in no way an alien element
in 'western civilization', they are an integral and essential part of it,
because without those slaves such a 'civilization' simply could not
happen.
You're just jealous because the Czars never exploited their serfs enough...
Likening the American slavery to the (east-)European serfdom is one of the
smartass myths promoted by the ideologues of the 'western' Nazism in order
to make the American shit look less shitty.
Another smartass myth, for example, is to explain the extinction of the
indigenous peoples in the N. America by epidemic diseases rather than by
genocidal practice of the European invaders.
The origin of Russian serfdom was rational. Open for many centuries to
invasion from the nomadic peoples of the steppes, it made sense to force the
peasants to stay in one place and resist, rather than just move away when
under threat. Later on after the threat had eased with the development of
military technology, getting rid of it posed a serious problem. Nicholas I
had liberal instincts but went down in history as an archetypal despot. He
was warned against emancipating the serfs for fear of revolution. That
actually happened a few decades after emancipation.
The serfdom wasn't a unique Russian thing, it was common for eastern and
central Europe. Britain could afford to do without it on the earlier stage
since Britain is a [small] island, you know. Situation in Japan was somewhat
similar, by the way. Because one needs to make much more effort to leave an
island in comparison with traveling through a large continuous land.
The serfdom lasted a little longer in western/central Russia than in Europe
because in Russia there was a mechanism to reduce internal stress: those who
wanted less regulation and more personal freedom, persistently migrated to
periphery while keeping loyalty to the central power, - and such a mechanics
significantly contributed to the Russia's great territorial expansion btw.
Likening of serfdom to the American slavery is a bogus exercise. The serfdom,
basically, meant restriction of the right of movement and delegating to the
landlords some functions of government agent, tax agent, judicial agent etc.
It might be called slavery as a hyperbolic metaphor, but it still was not a
slavery. It's possible to find specific examples when serfdom practices
manifested some ugly things comparable to the Atlanticist slavery, but in
general and overall these phenomena are not comparable. The well-promoted
American / 'western' historical mythology makes a bogus and false analogy by
likening the 1861 in Russia and the 1865 in the US.
The especial 'western' fixation on specifically the Russian serfdom is due the
genuine western Nazism as well as due to the legacy of the leftist Bolshevist
propaganda that overdemonized the tsarist / imperial Russia's history.
The acute 'western' speculations on such things resemble the teenager's talks
about sexual issues, when no one has a real experience, but everyone seeks to
show their theoretical awareness of some interesting bold things.
the usa descendants of african slaves are much better off that the
average african...they are even better off than rooshians
with all that land you should be among the wealthiest countries on
earth

you're too busy dreaming instead of working...
--
www.abelard.org
saracene
2017-09-05 14:31:50 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Oleg Smirnov
Post by saracene
"Oleg Smirnov" wrote in message
The European 'civilization' was not so 'majestic' in the 15th century. It
became more 'majestic' later mainly due to the colonial exploitation
practices, and - in the particular British-American case - also due to
the intensive and ruthless use of the African slaves. The slave labor
greatly contributed to the accelerated economic development, and on the
base of that the 'majestic civilization' became possible. The
black-skinned descendants of those slaves are in no way an alien element
in 'western civilization', they are an integral and essential part of it,
because without those slaves such a 'civilization' simply could not
happen.
You're just jealous because the Czars never exploited their serfs enough...
Likening the American slavery to the (east-)European serfdom is one of the
smartass myths promoted by the ideologues of the 'western' Nazism in order
to make the American shit look less shitty.
Another smartass myth, for example, is to explain the extinction of the
indigenous peoples in the N. America by epidemic diseases rather than by
genocidal practice of the European invaders.
The origin of Russian serfdom was rational. Open for many centuries to
invasion from the nomadic peoples of the steppes, it made sense to force the
peasants to stay in one place and resist, rather than just move away when
under threat. Later on after the threat had eased with the development of
military technology, getting rid of it posed a serious problem. Nicholas I
had liberal instincts but went down in history as an archetypal despot. He
was warned against emancipating the serfs for fear of revolution. That
actually happened a few decades after emancipation.
The serfdom wasn't a unique Russian thing, it was common for eastern and
central Europe. Britain could afford to do without it on the earlier stage
since Britain is a [small] island, you know. Situation in Japan was somewhat
similar, by the way. Because one needs to make much more effort to leave an
island in comparison with traveling through a large continuous land.
The serfdom lasted a little longer in western/central Russia than in Europe
because in Russia there was a mechanism to reduce internal stress: those who
wanted less regulation and more personal freedom, persistently migrated to
periphery while keeping loyalty to the central power, - and such a mechanics
significantly contributed to the Russia's great territorial expansion btw.
Likening of serfdom to the American slavery is a bogus exercise. The serfdom,
basically, meant restriction of the right of movement and delegating to the
landlords some functions of government agent, tax agent, judicial agent etc.
It might be called slavery as a hyperbolic metaphor, but it still was not a
slavery. It's possible to find specific examples when serfdom practices
manifested some ugly things comparable to the Atlanticist slavery, but in
general and overall these phenomena are not comparable. The well-promoted
American / 'western' historical mythology makes a bogus and false analogy by
likening the 1861 in Russia and the 1865 in the US.
The especial 'western' fixation on specifically the Russian serfdom is due the
genuine western Nazism as well as due to the legacy of the leftist Bolshevist
propaganda that overdemonized the tsarist / imperial Russia's history.
The acute 'western' speculations on such things resemble the teenager's talks
about sexual issues, when no one has a real experience, but everyone seeks to
show their theoretical awareness of some interesting bold things.
Poland offers an instructive comparison. There the peasants were treated worse, which accounts much for Poland’s territorial expansion. Nearby nobles thought the aristocratic privilege in Poland particularly congenial, so they were happy to join up. The peasants were kept in subjection by permitting no Christian middle class. Instead Jews were employed as tax collectors and other intermediaries.
Oleg Smirnov
2017-09-06 05:42:52 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by saracene
Post by Oleg Smirnov
Post by saracene
Post by Oleg Smirnov
Likening the American slavery to the (east-)European serfdom is one of
the smartass myths promoted by the ideologues of the 'western' Nazism in
order to make the American shit look less shitty.
Another smartass myth, for example, is to explain the extinction of the
indigenous peoples in the N. America by epidemic diseases rather than by
genocidal practice of the European invaders.
The origin of Russian serfdom was rational. Open for many centuries to
invasion from the nomadic peoples of the steppes, it made sense to force
the peasants to stay in one place and resist, rather than just move away
when under threat. Later on after the threat had eased with the
development of military technology, getting rid of it posed a serious
problem. Nicholas I had liberal instincts but went down in history as an
archetypal despot. He was warned against emancipating the serfs for fear
of revolution. That actually happened a few decades after emancipation.
The serfdom wasn't a unique Russian thing, it was common for eastern and
central Europe. Britain could afford to do without it on the earlier stage
since Britain is a [small] island, you know. Situation in Japan was
somewhat similar, by the way. Because one needs to make much more effort to
leave an island in comparison with traveling through a large continuous
land.
The serfdom lasted a little longer in western/central Russia than in Europe
because in Russia there was a mechanism to reduce internal stress: those
who wanted less regulation and more personal freedom, persistently migrated
to periphery while keeping loyalty to the central power, - and such a
mechanics significantly contributed to the Russia's great territorial
expansion btw.
Likening of serfdom to the American slavery is a bogus exercise. The
serfdom, basically, meant restriction of the right of movement and
delegating to the landlords some functions of government agent, tax agent,
judicial agent etc. It might be called slavery as a hyperbolic metaphor,
but it still was not a slavery. It's possible to find specific examples
when serfdom practices manifested some ugly things comparable to the
Atlanticist slavery, but in general and overall these phenomena are not
comparable. The well-promoted American / 'western' historical mythology
makes a bogus and false analogy by likening the 1861 in Russia and the 1865
in the US.
The especial 'western' fixation on specifically the Russian serfdom is due
the genuine western Nazism as well as due to the legacy of the leftist
Bolshevist propaganda that overdemonized the tsarist / imperial Russia's
history.
The acute 'western' speculations on such things resemble the teenager's
talks about sexual issues, when no one has a real experience, but everyone
seeks to show their theoretical awareness of some interesting bold things.
Poland offers an instructive comparison. There the peasants were treated
worse, which accounts much for Poland's territorial expansion. Nearby nobles
thought the aristocratic privilege in Poland particularly congenial, so
they were happy to join up. The peasants were kept in subjection by
permitting no Christian middle class. Instead Jews were employed as tax
collectors and other intermediaries.
In the [early] medieval mores it was normal to the nobles to substantiate
their right to power by being of a certain superior 'tribe' or 'race'. The
royal intermarriage practice is one of the embodiments of such a concept
that prescribes not to mix with inferiors. This way the Russian Rurikids of
the 11 - 12 centuries promoted the idea of their 'remote' Varangian origin
(that later gave rise to the vulgar theory that the early Russia was founded
by the Vikings). 3 centuries later, in the Age of Discovery and Renaissance,
the Polish nobles discovered the fact that they are descendants of the
Sarmatians while their populace are of inferior Slavic and Baltic tribes.
saracene
2017-09-06 13:24:43 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Oleg Smirnov
Post by saracene
Post by Oleg Smirnov
Post by saracene
Post by Oleg Smirnov
Likening the American slavery to the (east-)European serfdom is one of
the smartass myths promoted by the ideologues of the 'western' Nazism in
order to make the American shit look less shitty.
Another smartass myth, for example, is to explain the extinction of the
indigenous peoples in the N. America by epidemic diseases rather than by
genocidal practice of the European invaders.
The origin of Russian serfdom was rational. Open for many centuries to
invasion from the nomadic peoples of the steppes, it made sense to force
the peasants to stay in one place and resist, rather than just move away
when under threat. Later on after the threat had eased with the
development of military technology, getting rid of it posed a serious
problem. Nicholas I had liberal instincts but went down in history as an
archetypal despot. He was warned against emancipating the serfs for fear
of revolution. That actually happened a few decades after emancipation.
The serfdom wasn't a unique Russian thing, it was common for eastern and
central Europe. Britain could afford to do without it on the earlier stage
since Britain is a [small] island, you know. Situation in Japan was
somewhat similar, by the way. Because one needs to make much more effort to
leave an island in comparison with traveling through a large continuous
land.
The serfdom lasted a little longer in western/central Russia than in Europe
because in Russia there was a mechanism to reduce internal stress: those
who wanted less regulation and more personal freedom, persistently migrated
to periphery while keeping loyalty to the central power, - and such a
mechanics significantly contributed to the Russia's great territorial
expansion btw.
Likening of serfdom to the American slavery is a bogus exercise. The
serfdom, basically, meant restriction of the right of movement and
delegating to the landlords some functions of government agent, tax agent,
judicial agent etc. It might be called slavery as a hyperbolic metaphor,
but it still was not a slavery. It's possible to find specific examples
when serfdom practices manifested some ugly things comparable to the
Atlanticist slavery, but in general and overall these phenomena are not
comparable. The well-promoted American / 'western' historical mythology
makes a bogus and false analogy by likening the 1861 in Russia and the 1865
in the US.
The especial 'western' fixation on specifically the Russian serfdom is due
the genuine western Nazism as well as due to the legacy of the leftist
Bolshevist propaganda that overdemonized the tsarist / imperial Russia's
history.
The acute 'western' speculations on such things resemble the teenager's
talks about sexual issues, when no one has a real experience, but everyone
seeks to show their theoretical awareness of some interesting bold things.
Poland offers an instructive comparison. There the peasants were treated
worse, which accounts much for Poland's territorial expansion. Nearby nobles
thought the aristocratic privilege in Poland particularly congenial, so
they were happy to join up. The peasants were kept in subjection by
permitting no Christian middle class. Instead Jews were employed as tax
collectors and other intermediaries.
In the [early] medieval mores it was normal to the nobles to substantiate
their right to power by being of a certain superior 'tribe' or 'race'. The
royal intermarriage practice is one of the embodiments of such a concept
that prescribes not to mix with inferiors. This way the Russian Rurikids of
the 11 - 12 centuries promoted the idea of their 'remote' Varangian origin
(that later gave rise to the vulgar theory that the early Russia was founded
by the Vikings). 3 centuries later, in the Age of Discovery and Renaissance,
the Polish nobles discovered the fact that they are descendants of the
Sarmatians while their populace are of inferior Slavic and Baltic tribes.
I'm always interested to hear these revisionist historical theories.

Here's Ibn Fadlan on the Varangians:-


They are the filthiest race that God ever created. They do not wipe themselves after a stool, nor wash themselves thereafter, any more than if they were wild asses. They come from their country in the North, anchor their ships in the Volga River, and build large wooden houses on its banks. In every such house there live ten or twenty, more or less. Each man has a couch, where he sits with the beautiful girls he has for sale. Here he is as likely as not to enjoy one of them while a friend looks on. At times several of them will be thus engaged, each in full view of the others. Now and then a merchant will come to a house to purchase a girl, and find her master thus embracing her, and not giving over until he has full had his will. Every morning a girl comes and brings a tub of water, and places it before her master. In this he proceeds to wash his face and hands, and then his hair, combing it out over the vessel. Thereupon he blows his nose, and spits into the tub, and leaving no dirt behind, conveys it all into this water. When he has finished, the girl carries the tub to the man next t him, who does the same. Thus she continues carrying the tub from one to another until each man has blown his nose and spit into the tub, and washed his face and hair. A Viking Funeral I was told that when their chiefs die, they consume them with fire. When I heard that one of their leaders had died, I wanted to see this myself. First they laid him in his grave, over which a roof was erected, for the space of ten days, until they had completed cutting and sowing his funeral clothes. At the death of a rich man, they bring together his goods, and divide them into three parts. The first of these is for his family. The second is expended for the garments they make. And with the third they purchase strong drink, for the day when the girl resigns herself to death, and will be burned with her master. When one of their chiefs dies, his family asks his girls and pages, "Which one of you will die with him?" One will answer: "I." From the moment he utters this word, he may not go back. Mostly, though, it is one of the girls who volunteers. Regarding the man of whom I spoke, one girl answered "I will." She was then entrusted to two other girls, who kept watch over her and accompanied her everywhere she went. The people were preparing the dead man's funeral clothes, and this girl gave herself over to drinking and singing, and was cheerful and gay. When the day had come that the dead man and the girl were to be committed to the flames, I went to the river where his ship lay, but found it had already been drawn ashore. The dead man lay at a distance in his grave, from which they had not yet removed him. Next they brought a couch, placed it in the ship, and covered it with Greek cloth of gold, wadded and quilted, with pillows of the same material. An woman, whom they call the "Angel of Death," came and spread articles on the couch. It was she who was to slay the girl. They drew the dead man out of the grave and clothed him. They carried him into the ship, seated him on the quilted covering, supported him with the pillows, and brought strong drinks, fruits, and herbs to place beside him. Finally they brought a cock and hen, slew them, and threw them in, too. The girl meanwhile walked to and fro, entering one after another of the tents which they had there. The occupant of each tent lay with her, saying, "Tell your master I did this only for love of you." It was now Friday afternoon, and they led the girl to an object they had constructed which looked like a door-frame. They lifted her and lowered her several times. Then they handed her a hen, whose head they had cut off. They gave her strong drink and admonished her to drink it quickly. After this, the girl seemed dazed. At this moment the men began to beat upon their shields, in order to drown out the noise of her cries, which might deter other girls from seeking death with their masters in the future. They laid her down and seized her hands and feet. The old woman known as the Angel of Death knotted a rope around her neck and handed the ends to two men to pull. Then with a broad dagger she stabbed her between the ribs while the men strangled her. Thus she died. The family of the dead men drew near, and taking a piece of wood, lit the ship. The ship was soon aflame, as was the couch, the man, the girl, and everything in it. At my side one of the Northmen was talking with my interpreter. After their conversation I asked my interpreter what he had said. The Northman had said: "You Arabs are stupid! You would take him who is the most revered and beloved among men, and cast him into the ground, to be devoured by creeping things and worms. We, on the other hand, burn him in a twinkling, so that he instantly, without a moment's delay, enters into Paradise.”
saracene
2017-09-06 13:35:40 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by saracene
I'm always interested to hear these revisionist historical theories.
We Emglish can't pretend we weren't conquered and ruled by the Normans, however much we might like to. it's too well documented.
Oleg Smirnov
2017-09-06 18:24:21 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by saracene
Post by saracene
I'm always interested to hear these revisionist historical theories.
You are a bit backward. 10-15 years ago it was considered safe
to automatically label any criticism of the Normanist hoax as
'Russian revisionism', and even make a silly fun of it. Today,
those interested who are closer to the relevant discussions and
data have become much less confident.
Post by saracene
We Emglish can't pretend we weren't conquered and ruled
by the Normans, however much we might like to. it's too
well documented.
Yes, no doubt.
saracene
2017-09-06 20:23:01 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Oleg Smirnov
Post by saracene
Post by saracene
I'm always interested to hear these revisionist historical theories.
You are a bit backward. 10-15 years ago it was considered safe
to automatically label any criticism of the Normanist hoax as
'Russian revisionism', and even make a silly fun of it. Today,
those interested who are closer to the relevant discussions and
data have become much less confident.
I don't claim it's anything I've studied. As I said I'm interested to hear aobut it.
Post by Oleg Smirnov
Post by saracene
We Emglish can't pretend we weren't conquered and ruled
by the Normans, however much we might like to. it's too
well documented.
Yes, no doubt.
D.R. Strange
2017-09-06 21:29:13 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Oleg Smirnov
10-15 years ago it was considered safe
to automatically label any criticism of the Normanist hoax as 'Russian
revisionism'
Still is, commie turd.
Joe
2017-09-07 08:45:19 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On Wed, 6 Sep 2017 06:35:40 -0700 (PDT)
Post by saracene
Post by saracene
I'm always interested to hear these revisionist historical theories.
We Emglish can't pretend we weren't conquered and ruled by the
Normans, however much we might like to. it's too well documented.
Why would we want to? Are we part of Normandy now? Were we absorbed by
the conquerors, or did we absorb them? Who won in the long term, what
language do we speak?

We gained the Channel Islands courtesy of William, why would we want to
give them back to France?
--
Joe
Oleg Smirnov
2017-09-07 12:22:57 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by saracene
We Emglish can't pretend we weren't conquered and ruled by the Normans,
however much we might like to. it's too well documented.
Why would we want to? Are we part of Normandy now? Were we absorbed by the
conquerors, or did we absorb them? Who won in the long term, what language
do we speak?
You speak language that was significantly transformed under the influence
of those Normans in comparison to the version of English that was before
their invasion. Afaik, there are no any disputes about this universally
recognized fact among linguists. Eg. here is <http://u.to/3Is7EA> a popular
article that inter alia describes this influence.

It was a quite usual thing that a ruling class of conquerors imposed their
language on conquered aboriginals, at least partially. Hungary can serve
as another example of the sort (also, related to the same Viking Age time).
The Finnic conquerors <http://u.to/NaA7EA> constituted a small elite class
in the early Hungarian state, but they imposed their language on the mix
of the Slavic, Romanian, Germanic and other people they could gather under
their power. The present day Hungarians are not much different genetically
from their European neighbors, but their language is of Finnic family, and
many Hungarian toponyms also represent the Finnic legacy.

In the case of the ancient Russia, archeology surely confirms a significant
presence of the Scandinavians in the region at the time, as well as their
active engagement in the merchantry related to the river routes leading to
Caspian and Black seas, - but they left no traces in language and toponymy,
which is one of the reasons that suggest that those Scandinavians were not
conquerors and did not actually constitute ruling class, they were rather a
peculiar ethno-social group associated with the early Russian statehood.
We gained the Channel Islands courtesy of William, why would we want to give
them back to France?
abelard
2017-09-09 09:10:36 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Joe
On Wed, 6 Sep 2017 06:35:40 -0700 (PDT)
Post by saracene
Post by saracene
I'm always interested to hear these revisionist historical theories.
We Emglish can't pretend we weren't conquered and ruled by the
Normans, however much we might like to. it's too well documented.
Why would we want to? Are we part of Normandy now? Were we absorbed by
the conquerors, or did we absorb them? Who won in the long term, what
language do we speak?
We gained the Channel Islands courtesy of William, why would we want to
give them back to France?
the vikings had been pretty much bred into the french
population by the time of william the bastard...

i think i recall a genetic study of the uk that suggested
norman genes have been mostly bred out of the uk population

some channel bits of rock were still disputed into the 1950s..
the hague found in favour of the uk!
--
www.abelard.org
Ned Latham
2017-09-09 10:29:19 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by abelard
Post by Joe
Post by saracene
We Emglish can't pretend we weren't conquered and ruled by the
Normans, however much we might like to. it's too well documented.
Why would we want to?
Because of the tragedy of the heroic and almost successful resistance
Harold and the Jarls put up against the pincer movement created by
the simultaneous attacks of Bluetooth in the north and the Bastard
in the south. And because of the hatred the Bastard created with his
genocide in the north.
Post by abelard
Post by Joe
Are we part of Normandy now? Were we absorbed
by the conquerors, or did we absorb them? Who won in the long term,
what language do we speak?
A creole of (Old) English and Norman-French (which is itself a creole
of French and Norwegian) polluted with French.
Post by abelard
Post by Joe
We gained the Channel Islands courtesy of William, why would we want
to give them back to France?
the vikings had been pretty much bred into the french
population by the time of william the bastard...
A gang large enough to "protect" France from Norman raids swallowed
up in six generations? That's a doubtful proposition. And there's
no sign that they were as yet identifying with the French.
Post by abelard
i think i recall a genetic study of the uk that suggested
norman genes have been mostly bred out of the uk population
The UK population isn't the right place to look; the UK aristocracy
is: the older the line, the better.
Incubus
2017-09-11 11:37:14 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by abelard
Post by Joe
On Wed, 6 Sep 2017 06:35:40 -0700 (PDT)
Post by saracene
Post by saracene
I'm always interested to hear these revisionist historical theories.
We Emglish can't pretend we weren't conquered and ruled by the
Normans, however much we might like to. it's too well documented.
Why would we want to? Are we part of Normandy now? Were we absorbed by
the conquerors, or did we absorb them? Who won in the long term, what
language do we speak?
We gained the Channel Islands courtesy of William, why would we want to
give them back to France?
the vikings had been pretty much bred into the french
population by the time of william the bastard...
i think i recall a genetic study of the uk that suggested
norman genes have been mostly bred out of the uk population
I don't think there was ever much interbreeding, as the relative
scarcity of Norman surnames would attest. I would think that the Norman
genes survive to some extent in the aristocracy but not in the
population at large.
abelard
2017-09-11 12:03:40 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Incubus
Post by abelard
Post by Joe
On Wed, 6 Sep 2017 06:35:40 -0700 (PDT)
Post by saracene
Post by saracene
I'm always interested to hear these revisionist historical theories.
We Emglish can't pretend we weren't conquered and ruled by the
Normans, however much we might like to. it's too well documented.
Why would we want to? Are we part of Normandy now? Were we absorbed by
the conquerors, or did we absorb them? Who won in the long term, what
language do we speak?
We gained the Channel Islands courtesy of William, why would we want to
give them back to France?
the vikings had been pretty much bred into the french
population by the time of william the bastard...
i think i recall a genetic study of the uk that suggested
norman genes have been mostly bred out of the uk population
I don't think there was ever much interbreeding, as the relative
scarcity of Norman surnames would attest. I would think that the Norman
genes survive to some extent in the aristocracy but not in the
population at large.
and doubtless they've been diluted out over 1000 years
--
www.abelard.org
Incubus
2017-09-12 11:59:46 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by abelard
Post by Incubus
Post by abelard
Post by Joe
On Wed, 6 Sep 2017 06:35:40 -0700 (PDT)
Post by saracene
Post by saracene
I'm always interested to hear these revisionist historical theories.
We Emglish can't pretend we weren't conquered and ruled by the
Normans, however much we might like to. it's too well documented.
Why would we want to? Are we part of Normandy now? Were we absorbed by
the conquerors, or did we absorb them? Who won in the long term, what
language do we speak?
We gained the Channel Islands courtesy of William, why would we want to
give them back to France?
the vikings had been pretty much bred into the french
population by the time of william the bastard...
i think i recall a genetic study of the uk that suggested
norman genes have been mostly bred out of the uk population
I don't think there was ever much interbreeding, as the relative
scarcity of Norman surnames would attest. I would think that the Norman
genes survive to some extent in the aristocracy but not in the
population at large.
and doubtless they've been diluted out over 1000 years
I'd say over the last one hundred years. Even in the Victorian era, it
would have been scandalous for a member of the aristocracy to marry a
commoner.

D.R. Strange
2017-09-06 16:52:42 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Oleg Smirnov
in the Age of Discovery and Renaissance,
Russkie trash were as drunk as ever....
D.R. Strange
2017-09-05 14:42:40 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Oleg Smirnov
The serfdom wasn't a unique Russian thing,
STFU you vodka swilling piece of shit!
saracene
2017-09-05 14:44:41 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by D.R. Strange
Post by Oleg Smirnov
The serfdom wasn't a unique Russian thing,
STFU you vodka swilling piece of shit!
When Alexander Herzen came to England he was struck by the drunkenness etc of the industrial poor. compared with the common people he had met in Germany, and said they were as degraded as the Russian serfs.
Oleg Smirnov
2017-09-06 18:27:14 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by saracene
Post by D.R. Strange
Post by Oleg Smirnov
The serfdom wasn't a unique Russian thing,
STFU you vodka swilling piece of shit!
When Alexander Herzen came to England he was struck by the drunkenness
etc of the industrial poor. compared with the common people he had met
in Germany, and said they were as degraded as the Russian serfs.
He hardly knows what Herzen is about.

And from what I know about the island, there was an extremely huge
gap between the rich and the poor until the socialist movement
began to gain strength and popularity, - that's also one of those
reasons why I can't share the reactionary romance and enthusiastic
praise of inequality and aristocracy.
saracene
2017-09-06 20:27:23 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Oleg Smirnov
Post by saracene
Post by D.R. Strange
Post by Oleg Smirnov
The serfdom wasn't a unique Russian thing,
STFU you vodka swilling piece of shit!
When Alexander Herzen came to England he was struck by the drunkenness
etc of the industrial poor. compared with the common people he had met
in Germany, and said they were as degraded as the Russian serfs.
He hardly knows what Herzen is about.
Who me? I've read a bit about him and his travels.
Post by Oleg Smirnov
And from what I know about the island, there was an extremely huge
gap between the rich and the poor until the socialist movement
began to gain strength and popularity, - that's also one of those
reasons why I can't share the reactionary romance and enthusiastic
praise of inequality and aristocracy.
In a modern context it's got something to be said for it. No one expects to return to the past. My own ancestors weren't all that poor.
saracene
2017-09-06 20:40:42 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by saracene
Post by Oleg Smirnov
Post by saracene
Post by D.R. Strange
Post by Oleg Smirnov
The serfdom wasn't a unique Russian thing,
STFU you vodka swilling piece of shit!
When Alexander Herzen came to England he was struck by the drunkenness
etc of the industrial poor. compared with the common people he had met
in Germany, and said they were as degraded as the Russian serfs.
He hardly knows what Herzen is about.
Who me? I've read a bit about him and his travels.
Post by Oleg Smirnov
And from what I know about the island, there was an extremely huge
gap between the rich and the poor until the socialist movement
began to gain strength and popularity, - that's also one of those
reasons why I can't share the reactionary romance and enthusiastic
praise of inequality and aristocracy.
In a modern context it's got something to be said for it. No one expects to return to the past. My own ancestors weren't all that poor.
Anyway if your touchiness is anything to go by it is easy to see why the Americans get up the Russians' noses so much. They need to make a diplomatic study of Bruin's character. They could start with you.
Oleg Smirnov
2017-09-06 21:33:04 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by saracene
Post by saracene
Post by Oleg Smirnov
Post by saracene
Post by D.R. Strange
Post by Oleg Smirnov
The serfdom wasn't a unique Russian thing,
STFU you vodka swilling piece of shit!
When Alexander Herzen came to England he was struck by the drunkenness
etc of the industrial poor. compared with the common people he had met in
Germany, and said they were as degraded as the Russian serfs.
He hardly knows what Herzen is about.
Who me? I've read a bit about him and his travels.
The person whom you said about Herzen.
Post by saracene
Post by saracene
Post by Oleg Smirnov
And from what I know about the island, there was an extremely huge gap
between the rich and the poor until the socialist movement began to gain
strength and popularity, - that's also one of those reasons why I can't
share the reactionary romance and enthusiastic praise of inequality and
aristocracy.
In a modern context it's got something to be said for it. No one expects to
return to the past. My own ancestors weren't all that poor.
The modern context requires modern, more accurate phrasing
to reveal and describe the perversion of the left, rather than
a regressive trolling effort against it.
Post by saracene
Anyway if your touchiness is anything to go by it is easy to see why the
Americans get up the Russians' noses so much. They need to make a diplomatic
study of Bruin's character. They could start with you.
Here you're already talking with voices in your head.
saracene
2017-09-06 21:58:21 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Oleg Smirnov
Post by saracene
Post by saracene
Post by Oleg Smirnov
Post by saracene
Post by D.R. Strange
Post by Oleg Smirnov
The serfdom wasn't a unique Russian thing,
STFU you vodka swilling piece of shit!
When Alexander Herzen came to England he was struck by the drunkenness
etc of the industrial poor. compared with the common people he had met in
Germany, and said they were as degraded as the Russian serfs.
He hardly knows what Herzen is about.
Who me? I've read a bit about him and his travels.
The person whom you said about Herzen.
I've read this book, many years ago.

http://tinyurl.com/y7otj7be
Post by Oleg Smirnov
Post by saracene
Post by saracene
Post by Oleg Smirnov
And from what I know about the island, there was an extremely huge gap
between the rich and the poor until the socialist movement began to gain
strength and popularity, - that's also one of those reasons why I can't
share the reactionary romance and enthusiastic praise of inequality and
aristocracy.
In a modern context it's got something to be said for it. No one expects to
return to the past. My own ancestors weren't all that poor.
The modern context requires modern, more accurate phrasing
to reveal and describe the perversion of the left,
Perversion? That's just the left.
Post by Oleg Smirnov
rather than
a regressive trolling effort against it.
Post by saracene
Anyway if your touchiness is anything to go by it is easy to see why the
Americans get up the Russians' noses so much. They need to make a diplomatic
study of Bruin's character. They could start with you.
Here you're already talking with voices in your head.
You are touchy though. Very proud.
Oleg Smirnov
2017-09-06 22:15:07 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by saracene
I've read this book, many years ago.
http://tinyurl.com/y7otj7be
Post by Oleg Smirnov
Post by saracene
Post by Oleg Smirnov
And from what I know about the island, there was an
extremely huge gap between the rich and the poor
until the socialist movement began to gain strength
and popularity, - that's also one of those reasons
why I can't share the reactionary romance and
enthusiastic praise of inequality and aristocracy.
In a modern context it's got something to be said for
it. No one expects to return to the past. My own
ancestors weren't all that poor.
The modern context requires modern, more accurate phrasing
to reveal and describe the perversion of the left,
Perversion? That's just the left.
No, it mutated.
Post by saracene
Post by Oleg Smirnov
rather than
a regressive trolling effort against it.
D.R. Strange
2017-09-06 21:29:35 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Oleg Smirnov
I can't share the reactionary romance
Fuck off commie tool.
Oleg Smirnov
2017-09-06 21:38:57 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by D.R. Strange
Post by Oleg Smirnov
I can't share the reactionary romance
Fuck off commie tool.
<http://tinyurl.com/donald-the-great>
D.R. Strange
2017-09-06 22:25:58 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Oleg Smirnov
Post by D.R. Strange
Post by Oleg Smirnov
I can't share the reactionary romance
Fuck off commie tool.
donald-the-great
Why yes he is, Ivan.
D.R. Strange
2017-09-05 18:20:36 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Oleg Smirnov
The serfdom wasn't a unique Russian thing,
Yes it was, you drunken commie shill.
george152
2017-09-05 20:29:44 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Oleg Smirnov
The serfdom lasted a little longer in western/central Russia than in Europe
because in Russia there was a mechanism to reduce internal stress: those who
wanted less regulation and more personal freedom, persistently migrated to
periphery while keeping loyalty to the central power, - and such a mechanics
significantly contributed to the Russia's great territorial expansion btw.
This from a country that enslaved their entire population and on the
least pretext sent their citizens to slavery and death beyond the Urals
in the Gulags...

---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus
D.R. Strange
2017-09-05 20:37:28 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by george152
Post by Oleg Smirnov
The serfdom lasted a little longer in western/central Russia than in Europe
because in Russia there was a mechanism to reduce internal stress: those who
wanted less regulation and more personal freedom, persistently migrated to
periphery while keeping loyalty to the central power, - and such a mechanics
significantly contributed to the Russia's great territorial expansion btw.
This from a country that enslaved their entire population and on the
least pretext sent their citizens to slavery and death beyond the Urals
in the Gulags...
Another glass of polonium for Ivan Oleg please!
abelard
2017-09-05 10:23:14 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Oleg Smirnov
"Oleg Smirnov" wrote in message
The European 'civilization' was not so 'majestic' in the 15th century. It
became more 'majestic' later mainly due to the colonial exploitation
practices, and - in the particular British-American case - also due to the
intensive and ruthless use of the African slaves. The slave labor greatly
contributed to the accelerated economic development, and on the base of
that the 'majestic civilization' became possible. The black-skinned
descendants of those slaves are in no way an alien element in 'western
civilization', they are an integral and essential part of it, because
without those slaves such a 'civilization' simply could not happen.
You're just jealous because the Czars never exploited their serfs enough...
Likening the American slavery to the (east-)European serfdom is one of
the smartass myths promoted by the ideologues of the 'western' Nazism in
order to make the American shit look less shitty.
Another smartass myth, for example, is to explain the extinction of the
indigenous peoples in the N. America by epidemic diseases rather than by
genocidal practice of the European invaders.
most of the rooshian empire that have broken free of rooshia
are now doing better than rooshia...

rooshia was merely an exploiting empire...

ppp figures 2016:
57 Czechia $33,200
58 Slovenia $33,100
60 Slovakia $31,200
63 Lithuania $29,900
64 Estonia $29,500
68 Poland $27,700
70 Hungary $27,200
72 Russia $26,100
73 Kazakhstan $25,700
74 Latvia $25,700


uk $42,500
usa $57,300

put your own house in order smeary
--
www.abelard.org
Gunner Asch
2017-09-05 13:15:54 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Oleg Smirnov
"Oleg Smirnov" wrote in message
The European 'civilization' was not so 'majestic' in the 15th century. It
became more 'majestic' later mainly due to the colonial exploitation
practices, and - in the particular British-American case - also due to the
intensive and ruthless use of the African slaves. The slave labor greatly
contributed to the accelerated economic development, and on the base of
that the 'majestic civilization' became possible. The black-skinned
descendants of those slaves are in no way an alien element in 'western
civilization', they are an integral and essential part of it, because
without those slaves such a 'civilization' simply could not happen.
You're just jealous because the Czars never exploited their serfs enough...
Likening the American slavery to the (east-)European serfdom is one of
the smartass myths promoted by the ideologues of the 'western' Nazism in
order to make the American shit look less shitty.
Another smartass myth, for example, is to explain the extinction of the
indigenous peoples in the N. America by epidemic diseases rather than by
genocidal practice of the European invaders.
What..you are in denial of the facts?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Native_American_disease_and_epidemics

Disease as a weapon against Native Americans
"You will do well to try to inoculate the Indians, by means of
blankets, as well as to try every other method that can serve to
extirpate this execrable race." — Jeffery Amherst[12]

The spread of disease from European contact was not always accidental.
Europeans arriving in the Americas had long been exposed to the
diseases, attaining a measure of immunity, and thus were not as
severely affected by them. Therefore, disease could be an effective
biological weapon.[12]

During the French and Indian War, Jeffery Amherst, 1st Baron Amherst,
Britain's commander in chief in North America authorized the use of
smallpox to wipe out their Native American enemy. In his writings to
Colonel Henry Bouquet about the situation in western Pennsylvania,[12]
Amherst suggested that the spread of disease would be beneficial in
achieving their aims. Colonel Bouquet confirmed his intentions to do
so.
Biological warfare during the Siege of Fort Pitt
"Out of our regard to them we gave them two Blankets and an
Handkerchief out of the Small Pox Hospital. I hope it will have the
desired effect."
William Trent, William Trent's Journal at Fort Pitt

This event is well known for the documented instances of biological
warfare. British officers, including the top British commanding
generals, ordered, sanctioned, paid for and conducted the use of
smallpox against the Native Americans. As described by one historian,
"there is no doubt that British military authorities approved of
attempts to spread smallpox among the enemy", and "it was deliberate
British policy to infect the indians with smallpox".[13]

In this instance, as recorded in his journal by sundries trader and
militia Captain William Trent, on June 24, 1763, dignitaries from the
Delaware tribe met with Fort Pitt officials, warned them of "great
numbers of Indians" coming to attack the fort, and pleaded with them
to leave the fort while there was still time. But the commander of the
fort refused to abandon the fort. Instead, the British gave as gifts
two blankets, one silk handkerchief and one linen from the smallpox
hospital,[14] to two Delaware delegates after the parley, a principal
warrior named Turtleheart, and Maumaultee, a Chief. The tainted gifts
were, according to their inventory accounts, given to the Indian
dignitaries "to Convey the Smallpox to the Indians".[15][16]
INVOICE for 1763 June
Levy, Trent and Company: Account against the Crown, Aug. 13, 1763[14]
"To Sundries got to Replace in kind those which were taken from people
in the Hospital to Convey the Smallpox to the Indians Vizt:

2 Blankets @ 20/ £299 099 0
1 Silk Handkerchef 10/
& 1 linnen do: 3/6 099 1399 6

Captain Ecuyer later certified that the items "were had for the uses
above mentioned", in the inventory reimbursement request, and General
Thomas Gage would later approve that invoice for payment, endorsing it
with a comment and his signature.[14]

While Ecuyer, Trent and McKee were conducting their early form of
biological warfare upon the Indian dignitaries at Fort Pitt, their
superiors were discussing similar plans. General Amherst, having
learned that smallpox had broken out among the garrison at Fort Pitt,
and after learning on July 7 of the loss of his forts at Venango, Le
Boeuf and Presqu'Isle, wrote to Colonel Bouquet, "Could it not be
contrived to send the small pox among the disaffected tribes of
Indians? We must on this occasion use every stratagem in our power to
reduce them." In addition, Amherst wrote, "Captain Ecuyer Seems to Act
with great Prudence, & I approve of everything he mentions to have
done." Bouquet, who was already marching to relieve Fort Pitt and Fort
Detroit, responded on the 13th, "I will try to inoculate the Indians
with some blankets that may fall into their hands, and take care not
to get the disease myself. I wish we could make use of the Spanish
method to hunt them with English dogs, supported by rangers and some
light horse, who would, I think, effectually extirpate or remove that
vermin." On July 16, Amherst replied, "You will do well to try to
inoculate the Indians by means of blankets, 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."[17]
General Amherst, July 8: "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."
Colonel Bouquet, July 13: "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."
Amherst, July 16: "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 Execreble Race."
Bouquet, July 19: "all your Directions will be observed."
Papers of Col. Henry Bouquet, ed. Stevens and Kent, ser. 21634, p.
161.

The correspondence between Amherst and Bouquet reflected how pervasive
Indian hating had become by 1763 and how far British officers were
willing to go in ignoring their own soldiers' code of warfare.[17] A
devastating smallpox epidemic plagued Native American tribes in the
Ohio Valley and Great Lakes area through 1763 and 1764, but the
effectiveness of individual instances of biological warfare remains
unknown. After extensive review of surviving documentary evidence,
historian Francis Jennings concluded the attempt at biological warfare
was "unquestionably effective at Fort Pitt";[18] Barbara Mann deduced
"it is important to note that the smallpox distribution worked";[19]
Howard Peckham noted the resulting fatal epidemic "certainly affected
their vigorous prosecution of the war".[15]

---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus
Oleg Smirnov
2017-09-06 05:33:20 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On Tue, 5 Sep 2017 09:08:38 +0300, "Oleg Smirnov"
Post by Oleg Smirnov
Another smartass myth, for example, is to explain the extinction of
the indigenous peoples in the N. America by epidemic diseases rather
than by genocidal practice of the European invaders.
What..you are in denial of the facts?
Just some very general considerations.

In the first millennium AD various peoples (eg the Huns, the Ugrians
aka Hungarians) came (on fast horses) from quite remote areas and
invaded Europe. Using 'American' logic, such migrations and contacts
between peoples that were previously mutually isolated, might cause a
transmission of certain diseases to which some of the parties had no
enough immunity. But I don't know that something of the epidemics kind
was emphasized with regard to the history of those incursions.

The notorious Vikings visited the N.America 500 years before Columbus,
and there seems to be nothing to hint at dramatic pestilences neither
in the Norse sagas nor in any artifacts related to those visits.

The Russians reached remote / isolated areas in Siberia in the first
half of the 17 century, and soon came to Alaska and Aleutian islands.
Some facts of introduced diseases among the locals were known, but
they were still not known as so large epidemics that led to extinction
of peoples. When it comes the Russian expansion to Siberia, the
'western' writers love very much, with genuine enthusiasm and ecstasy,
to describe and exaggerate bloody horrors as much as possible.

But when it comes to the west-European colonization of America, then
'epidemics' becomes the huge buzzword intended to explain the alleged
extinction of the locals in a huge continent, and in view of the above
I think there's a deliberate misinterpretation of the fabulous role of
diseases in order to make up a less ugly version of the history.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Native_American_disease_and_epidemics
Disease as a weapon against Native Americans "You will do well to try to
inoculate the Indians, by means of blankets, as well as to try every other
method that can serve to extirpate this execrable race." -
Jeffery Amherst[12]
The spread of disease from European contact was not always accidental.
Europeans arriving in the Americas had long been exposed to the diseases,
attaining a measure of immunity, and thus were not as severely affected by
them. Therefore, disease could be an effective biological weapon.[12]
During the French and Indian War, Jeffery Amherst, 1st Baron Amherst,
Britain's commander in chief in North America authorized the use of smallpox
to wipe out their Native American enemy. In his writings to Colonel Henry
Bouquet about the situation in western Pennsylvania,[12] Amherst suggested
that the spread of disease would be beneficial in achieving their aims.
Colonel Bouquet confirmed his intentions to do so.
Biological warfare during the Siege of Fort Pitt "Out of our regard to them
we gave them two Blankets and an Handkerchief out of the Small Pox Hospital.
I hope it will have the desired effect."
William Trent, William Trent's Journal at Fort Pitt
This event is well known for the documented instances of biological warfare.
British officers, including the top British commanding generals, ordered,
sanctioned, paid for and conducted the use of smallpox against the Native
Americans. As described by one historian, "there is no doubt that British
military authorities approved of attempts to spread smallpox among the
enemy", and "it was deliberate British policy to infect the indians with
smallpox".[13]
In this instance, as recorded in his journal by sundries trader and militia
Captain William Trent, on June 24, 1763, dignitaries from the Delaware tribe
met with Fort Pitt officials, warned them of "great numbers of Indians"
coming to attack the fort, and pleaded with them to leave the fort while
there was still time. But the commander of the fort refused to abandon the
fort. Instead, the British gave as gifts two blankets, one silk handkerchief
and one linen from the smallpox hospital,[14] to two Delaware delegates
after the parley, a principal warrior named Turtleheart, and Maumaultee, a
Chief. The tainted gifts were, according to their inventory accounts, given
to the Indian dignitaries "to Convey the Smallpox to the Indians".[15][16]
INVOICE for 1763 June
Levy, Trent and Company: Account against the Crown, Aug. 13, 1763[14] "To
Sundries got to Replace in kind those which were taken from people in the
1 Silk Handkerchef 10/
& 1 linnen do: 3/6 099 1399 6
Captain Ecuyer later certified that the items "were had for the uses above
mentioned", in the inventory reimbursement request, and General Thomas Gage
would later approve that invoice for payment, endorsing it with a comment
and his signature.[14]
While Ecuyer, Trent and McKee were conducting their early form of biological
warfare upon the Indian dignitaries at Fort Pitt, their superiors were
discussing similar plans. General Amherst, having learned that smallpox had
broken out among the garrison at Fort Pitt, and after learning on July 7 of
the loss of his forts at Venango, Le Boeuf and Presqu'Isle, wrote to Colonel
Bouquet, "Could it not be contrived to send the small pox among the
disaffected tribes of Indians? We must on this occasion use every stratagem
in our power to reduce them." In addition, Amherst wrote, "Captain Ecuyer
Seems to Act with great Prudence, & I approve of everything he mentions to
have done." Bouquet, who was already marching to relieve Fort Pitt and Fort
Detroit, responded on the 13th, "I will try to inoculate the Indians with
some blankets that may fall into their hands, and take care not to get the
disease myself. I wish we could make use of the Spanish method to hunt them
with English dogs, supported by rangers and some light horse, who would, I
think, effectually extirpate or remove that vermin." On July 16, Amherst
replied, "You will do well to try to inoculate the Indians by means of
blankets, 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."[17] General Amherst, July 8: "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."
Colonel Bouquet, July 13: "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." Amherst, July 16: "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 Execreble Race."
Bouquet, July 19: "all your Directions will be observed." Papers of Col.
Henry Bouquet, ed. Stevens and Kent, ser. 21634, p. 161.
The correspondence between Amherst and Bouquet reflected how pervasive
Indian hating had become by 1763 and how far British officers were willing
to go in ignoring their own soldiers' code of warfare.[17] A devastating
smallpox epidemic plagued Native American tribes in the Ohio Valley and
Great Lakes area through 1763 and 1764, but the effectiveness of individual
instances of biological warfare remains unknown. After extensive review of
surviving documentary evidence, historian Francis Jennings concluded the
attempt at biological warfare was "unquestionably effective at Fort
Pitt";[18] Barbara Mann deduced "it is important to note that the smallpox
distribution worked";[19] Howard Peckham noted the resulting fatal epidemic
"certainly affected their vigorous prosecution of the war".[15]
D.R. Strange
2017-09-06 16:52:16 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Oleg Smirnov
Just some very general considerations.
Fuck off commie, you are done here.
Byker
2017-09-05 15:11:43 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Oleg Smirnov
Another smartass myth, for example, is to explain the extinction of the
indigenous peoples in the N. America by epidemic diseases rather than by
genocidal practice of the European invaders.
More tribes disappeared though assimilation than by bullets or bacteria.
When you mix a lot of White with a little bit of red, the mixture looks
mostly White, as I can attest to personally (both of my great-grandmothers
were Indians). What happened to a lot of Indian tribes is that they were
simply assimilated out of existence...
Gunner Asch
2017-09-05 16:40:11 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Byker
Post by Oleg Smirnov
Another smartass myth, for example, is to explain the extinction of the
indigenous peoples in the N. America by epidemic diseases rather than by
genocidal practice of the European invaders.
More tribes disappeared though assimilation than by bullets or bacteria.
When you mix a lot of White with a little bit of red, the mixture looks
mostly White, as I can attest to personally (both of my great-grandmothers
were Indians). What happened to a lot of Indian tribes is that they were
simply assimilated out of existence...
Actually..bacteria killed off more Native Americans than did bullets
or assimilation. Though assimilation did largely destroy tribes

Same with the Aztecs and Incas. Before the Spanish..Aztecs numbered
between 30-50 million in population. Within 10 yrs of the Spanish
coming ashore..they were down to 3 million.

That wasnt war, that wasnt slavery..that was disease. Which is one of
the main reasons the Spanish imported around 5 million african slaves.
There werent enough Aztecs left to do the work the Spanish demanded


---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus
M.I.Wakefield
2017-09-05 17:12:54 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Actually..bacteria killed off more Native Americans than did bullets or
assimilation.
And disease raced ahead of the settlers ... people were coming into a
largely unoccupied landscape.
Oleg Smirnov
2017-09-06 18:21:00 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
"Oleg Smirnov" wrote in message
Post by Oleg Smirnov
Another smartass myth, for example, is to explain the extinction of the
indigenous peoples in the N. America by epidemic diseases rather than by
genocidal practice of the European invaders.
More tribes disappeared though assimilation than by bullets or bacteria.
When you mix a lot of White with a little bit of red, the mixture looks
mostly White, as I can attest to personally (both of my great-grandmothers
were Indians). What happened to a lot of Indian tribes is that they were
simply assimilated out of existence...
The Europeans considered them sort of animals (as eg. Gunner Asch cited)
so such an assimilation might be possible only in later stages, when most
of the initial natives already had 'extinct' (ie. been genocided out).
D.R. Strange
2017-09-06 21:28:46 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Oleg Smirnov
The Europeans considered them sort of animals
Russkies ARE animals!
D.R. Strange
2017-09-05 18:20:01 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Oleg Smirnov
ikening the American slavery to the (east-)European serfdom is one of
the smartass myths promoted by the ideologues of the 'western' Nazism in
order to make the American shit look less shitty.
Go guzzle some more vodka, Putin's little whore!
saracene
2017-09-05 19:19:16 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by D.R. Strange
Post by Oleg Smirnov
ikening the American slavery to the (east-)European serfdom is one of
the smartass myths promoted by the ideologues of the 'western' Nazism in
order to make the American shit look less shitty.
Go guzzle some more vodka, Putin's little whore!
How do the French prounce Putin? Putain?

What is your own tipple of choice?
Loading...