Jump to content
 
Search In
  • More options...
Find results that contain...
Find results in...

Inherit the Wind


Recommended Posts

Doesn't look like much of a specific prediction to me, though Bryan might be

a little bit sharper than Nostradamus. There is no necessary connection between

Darwin, Nietzsche, and the Nazis. If Hitler had not been appointed Chancellor in

1933, it is very possible that all that followed wouldn't have happened. It wasn't

Darwin or Nietzsche or German nationalism that was the linchpin, it was Hitler,

and that came about by an act of political chance.

 

Every one for oneself is a motivating force that long preceded the theory of

evolution, as did power politics and the conquest of other nations. These

happened both in the pagan and Christian eras in Europe, long before evolution.

So everything that the teaching of evolution, however distorted, is blamed for

was already a part of the West's history. What was that the natural result of?

Link to post
Share on other sites

> {quote:title=C.Bogle wrote:}{quote}

> There is no necessary connection between

> Darwin, Nietzsche, and the Nazis.

 

Here's Hitler's 1925 book, the same year Bryan wrote his speech. This is Darwinian eugenics.

 

?Mein Kampf?, 1925, by Adolph Hitler

 

 

?STERILIZATION OF INCURABLES Page 255

 

...ruthlessly and without wavering in the face of all the shouting

and screaming that will naturally be let loose. If we do not lift

the youth out of the morass of their present-day environment,

they will drown in it. Anyone who refuses to see these things sup-

ports them, and thereby makes himself an accomplice in the slow

prostitution of our future which, whether we like it or not, lies

in the coming generation. This cleansing of our culture must be

extended to nearly all fields. Theater, art, literature, cinema,

press, posters, and window displays must be cleansed of all mani-

festations of our rotting world and placed in the service of amoral,

political, and cultural idea.

 

Public life must be freed from the stifling perfume

of our modem eroticism, just as it must be freed

from an unmanly, prudish hypocrisy. In all these things the goal

and the road must be determined by concern for the preservation

of the health of our people in body and soul. The right of per-

sonal freedom recedes before the duty to preserve the race.

 

Only after these measures are carried out can the medical strug-

gle against the plague itself be carried through with any prospect

of success. But here, too, there must be no half-measures; the

gravest and most ruthless decisions will have to be made. It is a

half-measure to let incurably sick people steadily contaminate

the remaining healthy ones. This is in keeping with the humani-

tarianism which, to avoid hurting one individual, lets a hundred

others perish.

 

The demand that defective people be prevented

from propagating equally defective offspring is a demand of the

clearest reason and if systematically executed represents the

most humane act of mankind. It will spare millions of unfortu-

nates undeserved sufferings, and consequently will lead to arising

improvement of health as a whole. The determination to proceed

in this direction will oppose a dam to the further spread of vene-

real diseases. For, if necessary, the incurably sick will be pitilessly

segregated, a barbaric measure for the unfortunate who is

struck by it, but a blessing for his fellow men and posterity. The

passing pain of a century can and will redeem millenniums from

sufferings.

 

-------------------------------------------

 

Page 404 MEIN KAMPF

 

...considered reprehensible to withhold healthy children from the

nation. Here the state must act as the guardian of a millennial future

in the face of which the wishes and the selfishness of the individual

must appear as nothing and submit.

 

It must put the most modern medical means in

the service of this knowledge. It must declare unfit

for propagation all who are in any way visibly sick or who have in-

herited a disease and can therefore pass it on, and put this into actual

practice. Conversely, it must take care that the fertility of the healthy

woman is not limited by the financial irresponsibility of a state regime

which turns the blessing of children into a curse for the parents. It

must put an end to that lazy, nay criminal, indifference with which

the social premises for a fecund family are treated today, and must

instead feel itself to be the highest guardian of this most precious

blessing of a people. Its concern belongs more to the child than to the

adult.

 

Those who are physically and mentally unhealthy and unworthy

must not perpetuate their suffering in the body of their children. In

this the folkish state must perform the most gigantic educational task.

And some day this will seem to be a greater deed than the most victori-

ous wars of our present bourgeois era. By education it must teach the

individual that it is no disgrace, but only a misfortune deserving of

pity, to be sick and weakly, but that it is a crime and hence at the same

time a disgrace to dishonor one's misfortune by one's own egotism in

burdening innocent creatures with it, that by comparison it bespeaks

a nobility of highest idealism and the most admirable humanity if

the innocently sick, renouncing a child of his own, bestows his love

and tenderness upon a poor, unknown young scion of his own na-

tionality, who with his health promises to become some day a powerful

member of a powerful community. And in this educational work the

state must perform the purely intellectual complement of its practical

activity. It must act in this sense without regard to understanding or

lack of understanding, approval or disapproval.

 

A prevention of the faculty and opportunity to procreate on

the part of the physically degenerate and mentally sick, over a

period of only six hundred years, would not only free humanity

from an immeasurable misfortune, but would lead to a recovery

which today scarcely conceivable.?

Link to post
Share on other sites

To Fred and all the members who posted about this particular film: having read so many of the posts, and watching the direction in which the conversation ran, I am very happy to be a member of TCM and wish I had become involved a long time ago. I was educated, alarmed, saddened, and challenged to learn more about the particular subject matter of the film. This is a group of extremely intelligent, erudite, and diverse people, and I am always happy to know that I can still be taught, in my middle age, and can still want to learn. Unlike so many other social networks, when I come away from this one, I don't feel I need to shower, hide, or pray. Isn't it ironic, however, that the Demon Hollywood can produce something so positive without putting it on celluloide?

Link to post
Share on other sites

This is a more like a screwball who came across bastardized, simplified,

popularized information about eugenics, added it to the idea of

superior and inferior races that had been around long before Darwin,

and came up with a nonsensical hodgepodge. And in some of the

first paragraphs, all the blather about civilization going down the tubes,

there is a hint of some of the more extreme fringes of the contemporary

right wing.

 

Taking a look at the index to Mein Kampf, the number of times the

words Darwin, evolution, and eugenics appear: 0.

 

People who want to oppress and kill those they consider to be of an

inferior race didn't need Darwin or evolution to give them the idea.

For example, the horrendous depredations of Columbus and many of

those who came after him to the New World occurred three hundred

plus years before Darwin, and were as devastating as any holocaust.

Link to post
Share on other sites

> {quote:title=C.Bogle wrote:}{quote}

> Taking a look at the index to Mein Kampf, the number of times the

> words Darwin, evolution, and eugenics appear: 0.

 

He didn't want to credit a British author or scientist with the theory of evolution or eugenics. He wanted the Germans to put it into effect, not the British.

Link to post
Share on other sites

> {quote:title=C.Bogle wrote:}{quote}

> This is a more like a screwball who came across bastardized, simplified,

> popularized information about eugenics, added it to the idea of

> superior and inferior races that had been around long before Darwin,

> and came up with a nonsensical hodgepodge.

 

The purposeful extermination of ?inferior? races and individuals came about with Darwinism.

 

The ancient Romans thought the Romans were more superior than anyone else, but they didn?t try to exterminate everyone who wasn?t Roman. They wanted them to carry on their normal commerce in their own countries (which became Roman colonies), and this added to the income, treasury, and products flowing into Rome.

 

The Western settlers used some Indians as slaves, but they found they didn?t make good slaves. Thus the importation of Africans. The Indians were used as workers where possible, and they were left alone in many tribes, and they intermarried with Spanish, English, and other Europeans. Many Americans today have Indians in their ancestry. The ones that were attacked and wiped out were the raiders, robbers, killers, and kidnappers, such as the fate of the Natchez Indians, wiped out by the French after the Natchez Indians wiped out most of the French at Fort Rosalie.

 

Here, Bertrand Russell explains the Darwin eugenics theory in his book, ?Marriage and Morals?, published in 1929 and 1938. This text was scanned from my copy of Russell?s 1938 edition. The British at that time understood the theory, but they were more hesitant to put it into full effect, but the Germans seemed to like the idea quite a lot and did put it into effect, hoping to eventually eradicate everyone except the "supermen" Aryans.

 

Bertrand Russell:

 

?EUGENICS is the attempt to improve the

biological character of a breed by de-

liberate methods adopted to that end. The

ideas upon which it is based are Darwinian,

and appropriately enough, the President of

the Eugenics Society is a son of Charles Dar-

win; but the more immediate progenitor of

eugenic ideas was Francis Galton, who

strongly emphasized the hereditary factor in

human achievement.

 

----------

 

Eugenics is of two sorts, positive and nega-

tive. The former is concerned with the en-

couragement of good stocks, the latter with the

discouragement of bad ones. The latter is at

present more practicable. It has, indeed, made

great strides in certain states in America, and

the sterilization of the unfit is within the scope

of immediate practical politics in England.

 

-----------

 

Feeble-

minded women, as everyone knows, are apt

to have enormous numbers of illegitimate chil-

dred, all, as a rule, wholly worthless to the

community. These women would themselves

be happier if they were sterilized, since it is not

from any philoprogenitive impulse that they

become pregnant. The same thing, of course,

applies to feeble-minded men. There are, it is

true, grave dangers in the system, since the

authorities may easily come to consider any

unusual opinion or any opposition to them-

selves as a mark of feeble-mindedness. These

dangers, however, are probably worth incur-

ring, since it is quite clear that the number of

idiots, imbeciles, and feeble-minded could, by

such measures, be enormously diminished.

 

----------

 

In extreme cases there can be little doubt

of the superiority of one race to another.

North America, Australia and New Zealand

certainly contribute more to the civilization of

the world than they would do if they were still

peopled by aborigines. It seems on the whole

fair to regard negroes as on the average in-

ferior to white men, although for work in the

tropics they are indispensable, so that their

extermination (apart from questions of hu-

manity) would be highly undesirable. But

when it comes to discriminating among the

races of Europe, a mass of bad science has to

be brought in to support political prejudice.

Nor do I see any valid ground for regarding

the yellow races as in any degree inferior to

our noble selves.?

Link to post
Share on other sites

I think the reason for Hitler not mentioning Darwin or evolution in Mein Kampf

had little to do with not acknowledging the British, but much to do with the fact

that there is little of a direct link between Darwin or evolution and Hitler, as some

would like to suppose. This is the most extensive exposition of his political and other

beliefs and evolution is nowhere to be found. And simply because Darwin's writings

appeared before Hitler advocated eugenics doesn't mean that there was a cause

and effect relationship between the two.

 

There have been purposeful exterminations of "inferiors" since time immemorial, long

before Darwin. They didn't equal the scope or number that advanced technology

permitted the Nazis to achieve, but they did occur, and Darwin had nothing to do

with them.

 

 

It's sheer nonsense to think that all the Indians killed by the Europeans were themselves

killers, robbers, raiders, etc. The Europeans wanted the Indians gone from the land

the Europeans coveted, so many were killed, forcibly removed, cheated, etc. Some

of them are still trying to recover the lands they lost today. In the second place, the

Indians had every right to kill the European invaders, just as we would have every

right to kill those who would attempt to invade our country today.

 

The Germans didn't like the idea of eradicating everyone except the "Aryans." A small

group of Germans, who wielded dictatorial power in a police state, were the ones who

wanted to do this.

Link to post
Share on other sites

> {quote:title=C.Bogle wrote:}{quote}

> I think the reason for Hitler not mentioning Darwin or evolution in Mein Kampf

> had little to do with not acknowledging the British, but much to do with the fact

> that there is little of a direct link between Darwin or evolution and Hitler,

 

After all I?ve documented so far, it?s pretty difficult to cover up Darwinism and eugenics and its connection to Nationalsozialistische Rassenhygiene in Germany in the 1930s, and in Hitler?s book in 1925, especially after you?ve read William Jennings Bryan?s own warning specifically about eugenics in Germany in his 1925 speech. With the scientific progressives in Germany in the late 19th and early 20th Century, they tried to take over Darwin?s eugenics theory and present it to their own people, in German books, as if it was a German idea in the first place. But here?s where they got it:

 

Here?s what Charles Darwin wrote in ?The Descent of Man?, 1871:

 

? But all these breaks depend merely on the number of related forms which have become extinct. At some future period, not very distant as measured by centuries, the civilized races of man will almost certainly exterminate and replace throughout the world the savage races. At the same time the anthropomorphous apes, as Prof. Schaaffhausen has remarked, will no doubt be exterminated. The break will then be rendered wider, for it will intervene between man in a more civilized state, as we may hope, than the Caucasian, and some ape as low as a baboon, instead of as at present between the negro or Australian and the gorilla.?

 

What Darwin is talking about here is a ?superman?. Some type of human that is above mere Caucasians. About 60 years later, this next advance in human evolution eventually became, according to the Germans, the super Aryans of the Nazi empire.

 

http://www.ushmm.org/propaganda/archive/aryan-family-neues-volk/

 

http://www.ushmm.org/propaganda/assets/images/500x/aryan-family-neues-volk.jpg

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neues_Volk

 

Eugenics eventually became known in Germany as ?Rassenhygiene? or ?Nationalsozialistische Rassenhygiene?.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Did yall know that the smallpox virus was used as perhaps the first biological weapon against the Native Americans by the Europeans? Infected blankets were given to the unsuspecting victims, and the epidemic began with the satisfying results of viral death, thus saving physical warfare, the lives of the "insurgents," their ammunition, and generally providing easier sleeping by the courageous founders of our country.

Link to post
Share on other sites

>Did yall know that the smallpox virus was used as *perhaps* the first biological weapon against the Native Americans by the Europeans? *Infected blankets were given to the unsuspecting victims,* and the epidemic began with the satisfying results of viral death, thus saving physical warfare, the lives of the "insurgents," their ammunition, and generally providing easier sleeping by the courageous founders of our country.

 

Is it "perhaps" or is it definite?

 

PS - Let's just cut to it. Here is the complete diary entry from William Trent, the commander at Fort Pitt, on May 24, 1763:

 

[May] 24th [1763] The Turtles Heart a principal Warrior of the Delawares and Mamaltee a Chief came within a small distance of the Fort Mr. McKee went out to them and they made a Speech letting us know that all our [postS] as Ligonier was destroyed, that great numbers of Indians [were coming and] that out of regard to us, they had prevailed on 6 Nations [not to] attack us but give us time to go down the Country and they desired we would set of immediately. The Commanding Officer thanked them, let them know that we had everything we wanted, that we could defend it against all the Indians in the Woods, that we had three large Armys marching to Chastise those Indians that had struck us, told them to take care of their Women and Children, but not to tell any other Natives, they said they would go and speak to their Chiefs and come and tell us what they said, *they returned and said they would hold fast of the Chain of friendship. 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. They then told us that Ligonier had been attacked, but that the Enemy were beat of*

 

http://www.nativeweb.org/pages/legal/amherst/trent.html

 

Europhobes love to quote it out of context, but he clearly gave the blankets as a token of friendship.

 

Edited by: LuckyDan on Mar 4, 2011 10:27 PM

Link to post
Share on other sites

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smallpox#cite_ref-48

 

?By the mid-18th century smallpox was a major endemic disease everywhere in the world except in Australia and in several small islands. In Europe smallpox was a leading cause of death in the 18th century, killing an estimated 400,000 Europeans each year.[51] Through the century smallpox resulted in the deaths of perhaps 10% of all the infants of Sweden every year,[7] and the death rate of infants in Russia may have been ever higher.[41] The widespread use of variolation in a few countries, notably Great Britain, its North American colonies, and China, somewhat reduced the impact of smallpox among the wealthy classes during the latter part of the 18th century, but a real reduction in its incidence did not occur until vaccination became a common practice toward the end of the 19th century.?

 

-------

 

?Since Jenner demonstrated the effectiveness of cowpox to protect humans from smallpox in 1796, various attempts were made to eliminate smallpox on a regional scale. As early as 1803, the Spanish Crown organized a mission (the Balmis expedition) to transport the vaccine to the Spanish colonies in the Americas and the Philippines, and establish mass vaccination programs there.[52] The US Congress passed the Vaccine Act of 1813 to ensure that safe smallpox vaccine would be available to the American public. By about 1817, a very solid state vaccination program existed in the Dutch East Indies.[53] In British India a program was launched to propagate smallpox vaccination, through Indian vaccinators, under the supervision of European officials.[54] Nevertheless, British vaccination efforts in India, and in Burma in particular, were hampered by stubborn indigenous preference for inoculation and distrust of vaccination, despite tough legislation, improvements in the local efficacy of the vaccine and vaccine preservative, and education efforts.[55] By 1832, the federal government of the United States established a smallpox vaccination program for Native Americans.?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hitler's extermination of the Jews can simply be explained by his anti-Semitism.

Jews weren't one of Darwin's "savage races" of other climes. They were

just as civilized as their German gentile counterparts. So if Hitler were following

Darwin's theory, why did he pick a civilized people to kill off instead of a "race"

of "savages?" Because he wasn't a Darwinian, he was an anti-Semitic fanatic.

During the First Crusade of the late 11th century a number of German Jews

were killed. This was 750 years before Darwin. Hitler was just repeating history

on a grander scale.

 

It's funny. The more you examine Bryan's "prediction," the more suspicious it looks.

The part that seems to be the closest to a prediction about Germany is from a book

that Bryan is quoting, but it is not in the future tense, but in the past tense.:

 

 

"Kidd says that Nietzsche gave Ger-

many the doctrine of Darwin's effi-

cient animal in the voice of his

superman, and that Bernhardi and

the military textbooks in due time

gave Germany the doctrine of the

superman translated into the na-

tional policy of the superstate aim-

ing at world power. (Page 67.)"

 

 

I think the use of blankets infected with smallpox as a widespread phenomena

is apparently not supported by history. That isn't to say it might have been thought

about on a few occasions. The most well-known example is the discussion by Jeffrey

Amherst on the possibility of doing this to the Indians during Pontiac's Rebellion.

What is interesting is the phraseology that Amherst used in a P.S. to a fellow

officer in 1763:

 

 

P.S. You will Do well to try to Innoculate the Indians by means of Blanketts, as well as

to try *Every other method that can serve to Extirpate this Execrable Race.* I should be

very glad your Scheme for Hunting them Down by Dogs could take Effect, but England

is at too great a Distance to think of that at present.

 

A hundred years before Darwin, Amherst was using language very reminiscent of that

which the Nazis later used in the 1930s and 1940s.

Link to post
Share on other sites

With friends like William Trent, who needs enemies?

 

 

 

 

But it was not Amherst, apparently, who first proposed the use of smallpox against the Delaware, Shawnee, and Mingo Indians surrounding Fort Pitt. Nor was it Amherst who executed the scheme. While the actual provenance of the plan remains unclear, a brief description of the deed itself appears in the diary of William Trent, a trader and land speculator with ties to the more prominent George Croghan. On June 23, the very day that Bouquet penned his letter to Amherst from Philadelphia, Trent reported that two Delaware dignitaries, Turtle's Heart and Mamaltee, visited Fort Pitt late at night and asked to speak with post officials. A conference took place the following day, June 24, in which the Indians urged the British to abandon the fort, and the British, for their part, refused. The parleys came to a close, and the Indians asked for "a little Provisions and Liquor, to carry us Home." The British obliged their request. "Out of our regard to them," wrote William Trent, "we gave them two Blankets and an Handkerchief out of the Small Pox Hospital. I hope it will have the desired effect."4 He does not mention who conceived the plan, and he likewise does not mention who carried it out, but Fort Pitt account books make it clear that the British military both sanctioned and paid for the deed. The records for June 1763 include this invoice submitted by Levy, Trent and Company: 4

 

 

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

 

 

http://www.politicsandthelifesciences.org/Biosecurity_course_folder/readings/fenn.html

Link to post
Share on other sites

> {quote:title=C.Bogle wrote:}{quote}

> Hitler's extermination of the Jews can simply be explained by his anti-Semitism.

 

The answer is simple. They were the largest non-Aryan group in and around Germany. Hitler also went after the Slavs, who were also nearby.

 

A big thing about eugenics is that each group that practices it, decides which other group is the most ?undesirable?. Such as the Japanese hatred of and mass murder of the Chinese during WW II.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slavic_peoples

?One of Hitler's ambitions at the start of World War II was to exterminate, expel, or enslave most or all East and West Slavs from their native lands so as to make living space for German settlers. This plan of genocide was to be carried into effect gradually over 25 to 30 years.?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hey, LuckyDan, are you teaching or preaching? I read a brutally honest and terrifying book regarding smallpox several years ago, and it broached the probability that the disease will recur---considering the generations of unvaccinated persons in our country and the world, and the fact that the CDC has not only smallpox, but any number of other infectious diseases in their vaults. I do appreciate your interest in my post, and also the exact quote, which I do not recall having read in the book here remarked upon. My usage of the word "perhaps" was used because I am not an expert on everything. Thank you for your expertise. (And I am sure that the CDC in Atlanta is not the only geographical nightmare waiting to happen on the planet.) And please pardon our ignorance, but exactly what is a "europhobe"?

 

Edited by: jbh on Mar 5, 2011 5:51 PM

Link to post
Share on other sites

> The Western settlers used some Indians as slaves, but they found they didn?t make good slaves. Thus the importation of Africans. The Indians were used as workers where possible, and they were left alone in many tribes, and they intermarried with Spanish, English, and other Europeans. Many Americans today have Indians in their ancestry. The ones that were attacked and wiped out were the raiders, robbers, killers, and kidnappers, such as the fate of the Natchez Indians, wiped out by the French after the Natchez Indians wiped out most of the French at Fort Rosalie.

>

 

Europeans did NOT leave the tribes alone. They moved in, chopped down the trees and cleared land that the tribes needed to support their hunter/gatherer lifestyle. (And before someone jumps on that, I realize that some Native Americans were farmers and so forth--they didn't come off so well either) When the tribes fought back, the English, French and later US govt sent in troops with superior weapons and forced them out. When they had to, they made treaties with various tribes, few of which were actually honored and kept forcing them West, usually onto land that was far inferior to the land they'd been living on. (Can anyone argue for instance that Oklahoma is better than the Tennesee-N Carolina area where the Cherokees used to live?)

And what about the Trail of Tears and the pox-infected blankets? Leave them alone my Aunt Fanny...

 

Edited by: traceyk65 on Mar 5, 2011 6:40 PM

Link to post
Share on other sites

> {quote:title=jbh wrote:}{quote}

> Did yall know that the smallpox virus was used as perhaps the first biological weapon against the Native Americans by the Europeans? Infected blankets were given to the unsuspecting victims, and the epidemic began with the satisfying results of viral death, thus saving physical warfare, the lives of the "insurgents," their ammunition, and generally providing easier sleeping by the courageous founders of our country.

 

 

Andrew Jackson okayed that one, I believe. And we put him on the $20 bill...

Link to post
Share on other sites

> {quote:title=LuckyDan wrote:}{quote}

>. 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. They then told us that Ligonier had been attacked, but that the Enemy were beat of+*

>

 

 

Of course you could argue that that "regard" might not have been benign...why, knowing how contagious small pox was would they think that giving the indians blankets and a handkercheif from a small pox hospital could possibly have been a good thing?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Couple of things.

 

>On *June 23*, the very day that Bouquet penned his letter to Amherst from Philadelphia, Trent reported that two Delaware dignitaries, Turtle's Heart and Mamaltee, visited Fort Pitt late at night and asked to speak with post officials ...

 

Trent recorded that visit and the blanket exchange on May 24, not June 23, and even if it had been in June, he still would not have been in receipt of any orders from the Brits to infect the Indians with the virus.

 

Col. Bouquet's "P.S. I will try to inocculate the Indians by means of Blankets..." to Gen. Amherst was written several weeks later, on July 13. Clearly Trent was not acting under any orders from Amherst. Or anyone else.

 

The Bouquet-Amherst correspondence may indicate intent, but Trent's prior actions do not prove anything involving conspiracy occurred.

 

Then there is the question of how likely transmission of small pox via bedding might be. The virus enters through the nose. Transmission-by-blanket, while not impossible, would seem less likey than, say, direct contact with an infected person with a nasty cough. I assume if Trent had access to a "Small Pox Hospital" he also had access to a small pox victim to do the job right.

 

Regarding "the invoice"

 

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

 

I can't find an historical record or photo of this document. I don't say it's phony, but it does have the look and feel of a "Baby Milk Factory Iraq" T-shirt about it.

 

Tracey said that maybe Trent's "regard" for the Indans might not have been a friendly one. There is nothing in the tone of his journal entry that indicates hostility. He is said by those who have studied his journals to have kept very detailed records. It would seem, if he had planned germ warfare and had targeted the Delaware, Shawnee and Mingo, he would have spoken up about it with some pride.

 

Finally, to JBH, by europhobe I mean those who maintain that the white men were eee-vil and bent on genocide. Ward Churchill, for example.

Link to post
Share on other sites

> {quote:title=LuckyDan wrote:}{quote}

> Couple of things.

>

> >On *June 23*, the very day that Bouquet penned his letter to Amherst from Philadelphia, Trent reported that two Delaware dignitaries, Turtle's Heart and Mamaltee, visited Fort Pitt late at night and asked to speak with post officials ...

>

> Trent recorded that visit and the blanket exchange on May 24, not June 23, and even if it had been in June, he still would not have been in receipt of any orders from the Brits to infect the Indians with the virus.

>

> Col. Bouquet's "P.S. I will try to inocculate the Indians by means of Blankets..." to Gen. Amherst was written several weeks later, on July 13. Clearly Trent was not acting under any orders from Amherst. Or anyone else.

>

> The Bouquet-Amherst correspondence may indicate intent, but Trent's prior actions do not prove anything involving conspiracy occurred.

>

> Then there is the question of how likely transmission of small pox via bedding might be. The virus enters through the nose. Transmission-by-blanket, while not impossible, would seem less likey than, say, direct contact with an infected person with a nasty cough. I assume if Trent had access to a "Small Pox Hospital" he also had access to a small pox victim to do the job right.

>

> Regarding "the invoice"

>

> 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

>

> I can't find an historical record or photo of this document. I don't say it's phony, but it does have the look and feel of a "Baby Milk Factory Iraq" T-shirt about it.

>

> Tracey said that maybe Trent's "regard" for the Indans might not have been a friendly one. There is nothing in the tone of his journal entry that indicates hostility. He is said by those who have studied his journals to have kept very detailed records. It would seem, if he had planned germ warfare and had targeted the Delaware, Shawnee and Mingo, he would have spoken up about it with some pride.

>

> Finally, to JBH, by europhobe I mean those who maintain that the white men were eee-vil and bent on genocide. Ward Churchill, for example.

 

 

OK, I've been looking at the dates and realize that Trent and the pox blankets was about 50 years before the Cherokee Removal, so we're actually talking about two different instances of "germ warfare." My question regarding Trent is this: if he meant no harm and really admired the Indians, why blankets from a pox hospital? Why not fresh new blankets right off the ship? Or out of the storeroom or whatever? Why give them blankets that had been used by people infected by small pox? (I looked it up--small pox can be spread by contaminated clothing or bedding--that's why they burned the clothing and so forth of people who had it.)

Link to post
Share on other sites

Tracey, before we go any further off topic, or further astray into the old "Indians Good - White Boys Evil" argument, let me ask directly: Is it your contention that Indians contracted small pox as a direct result of blankets given by whites?

 

Cuz if not, we have no argument.

Link to post
Share on other sites

LuckyDan: First of all, THERE IS NO NEED TO SHOUT! We appreciate your passion on this particilar subject. But allow us our passion, as I feel that you are rather disingenuous in your defense of our predecessors who practiced germ warfare. In reading other posts, and understanding that we are all connected, it is unpalatable to think of our military committing outright murder and justifying it in the historical documents (anyone remember Custer?), but there it is. As for contagion on blankets, how can you possibly think transference of this type can't happen? And as for being a europhobe, hmmm, from whence do your ancestors hail? I am ashamed to say, considering the posts, that some of mine were from Germany, but others were from Scotland. Really, LD, where ya from?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
© 2021 Turner Classic Movies Inc. A Time Warner Company. All Rights Reserved Terms of Use | Privacy Policy | Cookie Settings
×
×
  • Create New...