---

So if a group does not believe in property and leaves a well open for all to share then another group can come in, take the well and prevent everyone else from using it and this is not "stealing" from those who spent time and energy discovering the source of water?

---

---

Is that truly what you believe? What if a group takes the property of another group by force (one which definitely believes in property) and becomes rich selling or acquiring their possessions and shoves the other group in a concentration camp to starve? Is that "not stealing?"

---

---

What if a group makes treaties with another group and promises goods and services in exchange for land and peace and never delivers on those goods and services or break the treaties when they discover that the piece of shitty land they gave the second group actually contains oil and minerals, is that "not stealing?"

---

---

As a Christian you have a funny conception of what constitutes "not stealing."

---

---

And btw the Americas were very thickly populated before the whites (to use your strange grammar) came over. But lo! They were (literally) INFECTED with the white diseases and died by millions. That is one way to make room for another people.

---

Sure a lot of them died from diseases brought by Whites (which were brought to Europe by non-Whites in the first place) but this was neither intentional or systematic, so it's not really relevant.

---

Of course you will say there are no records that they ever existed (just like those whites in Haiti or those Palestinians in Israel) so who cares right?

Such Christian love I must say.

---

And common sense dictates to find out how many people were actually there before claiming the place was "sparsely populated."

There were reportedly 10 million Native Americans before Europeans arrived, with 4000 tribes. At that rate they were no more "sparsely" populated than European conquerors themselves.

Post edited at 6:05 pm on July 14, 2012 by skaterofthefuture

-------
In the end, we will remember not the words of our enemies,
but the silence of our friends.

---

How do you know they "had a taste of their own medicine?" Do you know what happened 10000 or 20000 years ago?

---

---

And common sense dictates to find out how many people were actually there before claiming the place was "sparsely populated."  

There were reportedly 10 million Native Americans before Europeans arrived, with 4000 tribes. At that rate they were no more "sparsely" populated than European conquerors themselves.

---

Post edited at 7:05 pm on July 14, 2012 by kidd rune

-------
"The Jewish problem is one of the greatest problems in the world, and
no man, be he writer, politician or diplomatist, can be considered mature
until he has striven to face it squarely on its merits." - HW Steed

I was speaking obviously of European conquerors AROUND THAT TIME genius. I was speaking roughly of the 18th and 19th century mainly during the big European influx. Thought it would have been obvious for anyone who knew about history when I spoke of "conquerors". But looks like I have to spell out everything as I would for a moronic 5 year old.

-------
In the end, we will remember not the words of our enemies,
but the silence of our friends.

Amerinds actually welcomed whites initially much more readily than whites have welcomed non white immigrants. Perhaps the mistake of the non white immigrants was not to bring a plague to wipe out the entire white population to 10% its original size. Of course the immigration laws prevented this by requiring all immigrants to undergo thorough medical examinations and rejecting those immigrants. Who failed the tests.

-------
In the end, we will remember not the words of our enemies,
but the silence of our friends.

Also you mention the medical examinations as if they are not a good thing, but why not? Why should Americans allow anyone with whatever disease possible into the country? Should they not want to keep their population clean and healthy?

Sure, disease was brought by Whites and many Amerinds died, but it's unfair to say this was out of anything but coincidence. Smallpox was not used as a weapon - the only allegation of such with smallpox-infested blankets has scanty evidence and most historians do not entertain such positions. It's also important to note that smallpox was brought into Europe by non-Europeans, so really it's not White people's fault anyway, they were just spreading the joys of diversity.

Post edited at 5:46 pm on July 15, 2012 by kidd rune

-------
"The Jewish problem is one of the greatest problems in the world, and
no man, be he writer, politician or diplomatist, can be considered mature
until he has striven to face it squarely on its merits." - HW Steed

It is unknown whether it was actually put into practice but one may wonder if the Native American population was indeed sparsely populated how it could have spread so rapidly across the population without a carrying agent travelling across different tribes. We are speaking of a virus which spread havoc across miles of land and killing people who probably had little direct contact with one another if they were indeed spread out. Since not all whites could have been themselves infected or even carriers then some other agent must have contributed.

If indeed Amherst's intentions were carried out then this would definitely make the use of smallpox a weapon against Native Americans.

-------
Nothing in all the world is more dangerous than sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity.   - Martin Luther King, Jr.
Support your peers!