"Calling Holocaust Deniers....part deux"

[Desperado]

So was the African slaves brought to the Americas an exaggerated tale also??...........

No.

" the millions of black slaves brought to America to be slaves?"
Not so fast, millions of black slaves were not brought to America.... in fact only 388,000 came here directly.

The most comprehensive analysis of shipping records over the course of the slave trade is the Trans-Atlantic Slave Trade Database, edited by professors David Eltis and David Richardson. (While the editors are careful to say that all of their figures are estimates, I believe that they are the best estimates that we have, the proverbial "gold standard" in the field of the study of the slave trade.) Between 1525 and 1866, in the entire history of the slave trade to the New World, according to the Trans-Atlantic Slave Trade Database, 12.5 million Africans were shipped to the New World. 10.7 million survived the dreaded Middle Passage, disembarking in North America, the Caribbean and South America.

And how many of these 10.7 million Africans were shipped directly to North America? Only about 388,000. That's right: a tiny percentage.

In fact, the overwhelming percentage of the African slaves were shipped directly to the Caribbean and South America; Brazil received 4.86 million Africans alone! Some scholars estimate that another 60,000 to 70,000 Africans ended up in the United States after touching down in the Caribbean first, so that would bring the total to approximately 450,000 Africans who arrived in the United States over the course of the slave trade.

Incredibly, most of the 42 million members of the African-American community descend from this tiny group of less than half a million Africans. And I, for one, find this amazing.

How Many Slaves Came to America? Fact vs. Fiction

 

[PoliticalChic]

So was the African slaves brought to the Americas an exaggerated tale also??...........

No.

" the millions of black slaves brought to America to be slaves?"
Not so fast, millions of black slaves were not brought to America.... in fact only 388,000 came here directly.

The most comprehensive analysis of shipping records over the course of the slave trade is the Trans-Atlantic Slave Trade Database, edited by professors David Eltis and David Richardson. (While the editors are careful to say that all of their figures are estimates, I believe that they are the best estimates that we have, the proverbial "gold standard" in the field of the study of the slave trade.) Between 1525 and 1866, in the entire history of the slave trade to the New World, according to the Trans-Atlantic Slave Trade Database, 12.5 million Africans were shipped to the New World. 10.7 million survived the dreaded Middle Passage, disembarking in North America, the Caribbean and South America.

And how many of these 10.7 million Africans were shipped directly to North America? Only about 388,000. That's right: a tiny percentage.

In fact, the overwhelming percentage of the African slaves were shipped directly to the Caribbean and South America; Brazil received 4.86 million Africans alone! Some scholars estimate that another 60,000 to 70,000 Africans ended up in the United States after touching down in the Caribbean first, so that would bring the total to approximately 450,000 Africans who arrived in the United States over the course of the slave trade.

Incredibly, most of the 42 million members of the African-American community descend from this tiny group of less than half a million Africans. And I, for one, find this amazing.

How Many Slaves Came to America? Fact vs. Fiction

Give the man his due.....he said "the Americas."

Yes...95% went to Brazil.


It is also an interesting stat that more black Africans have emigrated to the US than were brought here as slaves.

 

[freedombecki]

So was the African slaves brought to the Americas an exaggerated tale also??...........

How many Africans were shipped directly to North America? Only about 388,000....
Incredibly, most of the 42 million members of the African-American community descend from this tiny group of less than half a million Africans.
The Root*

*The Root is owned by the Washington Post Company and is an online source of news and commentary from an African-American perspective. About TheRoot

Sunni Man, there is a lot more to the story than I listed, and after reading it, although it was double some other sources I had read a couple of months back on this very subject, I thought it a good idea to bring forward the story that the African-Americans themselves believe. I hope the source meets with your approval.

 

[freedombecki]

The Final Solution - Part 6 - The World at War - YouTube

Muslims are of course the biggest Deniers. their jealous because the holocaust receives more world attention than them. there used to be tons of em on here. wonder what happened??? hmmm

Some Muslims do not deny the Holocaust and are as sorry as the German government that it ever happened.

We only hear the sensational stuff and the drum beating of certain Middle East leaders who want attention for their reasons. They've seen the mountains of evidence left by Germans--lists and photographs of which the Nazis were very proud of, having been convinced by Hitler's henchmen and Hitler that ridding Europe of Jewish people would solve all their nation's sad problems left over by WWI.

Reconstruction of Europe after WWII is a belweather of good that humanity can do when all seems ruined. I've traveled there, and the European people have come a long way, conduct society in a far better way, almost to a fault, and hopefully, they will be leaders in the world on building an accepting society.

We can hope and pray that all goes well for the EU and all the people they have taken in over the years and tried to manage. That will only happen if they play nice, and it seems to me that they do at this point in time.

 

[there4eyeM]

The 'Indians' got miserable treatment in far too many cases. 'A raw deal' doesn't even describe it.

They were, in most cases, not peaceful people and were only too glad to partner with the French or the English to attack their enemies. War, as in the rest of the war, was not the big killer.

Disease did the deed.

Yours is one more variation of NoBrain's tale.


1. Attacks by French-allied Indians hit Pennsylvania in October 1755. Sixty to one hundred arrived beyond the settlements, and divided into smaller groups, which went into different valleys to reconnoiter. Each spy ”lay[ing] about a House some days & nights, watching like a wolf” to see ”the situation of the Houses, the number of people at Each House, the places the People most frequent, & to observe at each House where there is most men, or women.” The individual farmsteads they chose a targets were at last attacked in parallel by still smaller groups, each only big enough to kill or capture the number of people it was likely to meet. Col. James Burd, “Pennsylvania Archives,” 199-104

a. The brunt of these attacks fell on people who were outside doing field work. The attacks were manufactured to instill paralyzing fear- and they did.

b. In 1756,William Fleming gave an unrivaled account of life in one of these little attack groups. Delawares stormed the house of Fleming’s neighbor, a farmer named Hicks, and took one of the Hicks boys as prisoner. The Indians then went on to instill fear by having Fleming witness the Hicks boys’ murder: they bludgeoned the boy to the ground with a tomahawk, split open his head- pausing at this point, in “Sport…to imitate his expiring Agonies” – and scalped him, and continued “all over besmared with [Hicks’s] blood.”

c. Fleming wrote of watching while a youth from a neighboring family was taken by Indians while inside were “numerous Family of able young Men” and despite his “scream[ing] in a most piteous Manner for help,” his brothers made no attempt to help. A narrative of the sufferings and surprizing deliverances of William and Elizabeth Fleming [electron... | National Library of Australia

d. Northampton County, Pennsylvania, 1778. Four men, two with wives and eight children, were attacked by Indians. [T]his occaion’d our men to flee as fast as they could,…before they were out of sight of the wagon they saw the Indians attacking the women & Children with their Tomahawks.” The net day, the three men came back to the scene for the corpses, which include the stabbed and scalped bodies of Smith’s wife, and of “a Little girl kill’d & sclped, [and] a boy the same.” Pa. Arch. 1:6:591

2. The essential fact about Indian-European warfare in the middle colonies was that the Europeans almost always did very badly. Though the American Revolution brought about a glorified, misleading view of frontier fighters and riflemen, during the eighteenth century country people practically never managed to mount even faintly convincing defenses against Indian attacks….The only thing that worked was leaving.
"Our Savage Neighbors: How Indian War Transformed Early America," by
Peter Silver, p. 53

'No brain' is rather reading what one prefers to see rather than what another has written.

It is absolutely indisputable that the majority of the deaths of peoples indigenous to the 'New World' were as a result of contact with previously un-encountered biohazards. It was not necessarily or, probably, even conceived of to spread disease expressly; it happened on its own.

 

[NoNukes]

Beg to differ.

Sorry that you were willing to accept the tale of Indian genocide.....

1. The decimation of Indian populations stemmed only rarely from massacres or military actions, but the majority of Indian deaths came from infectious disease. There is the romanticized view that paints the settlers as barbaric, and the Indians as peaceful victims. Genocide means deliberate and systematic. As described by the UN Convention, Article II, it involves “ a series of brutal acts committed with intent to destroy, …a national, ethnical, racial, or religious group as such.”

2. Whatever the original number, historians agree that infectious disease brought about 75-95% decline after European settlement began. Jared Mason Diamond is an American geographer, evolutionary biologist, physiologist, lecturer, and nonfiction author. Diamond works as a professor of geography and physiology at UCLA. He is best known for the Pulitzer Prize-winning book Guns, Germs, and Steel (1998), which also won the Phi Beta Kappa Award in Science, in which he states “diseases introduced with Europeans spread from tribe to tribe far in advance of the Europeans themselves…[including] smallpox, measles, influenza, and typhus…”

3. During the 4 centuries following European entry into North America, Indian population fell. By the beginning of the 20th Century, officials found only 250,000 Indians in the territory of the US, as opposed to 2,476,000 identified as “American Indians or Alaska Natives” in the 2000 census. Scholars estimate pre-Columbian North American population range from 1.2 million (1928 tribe-by-tribe assessment) up to 20 million by activists.

Collectively these data suggest that population numbered about 1,894,350 at about A.D. 1500. Epidemics and other factors reduced this number to only 530,000 by 1900. Modern data suggest that by 1985 population size has increased to over 2.5 million.
North American Indian population size, A.D. 1500 to 1985 - Ubelaker - 2005 - American Journal of Physical Anthropology - Wiley Online Library

The reported population of Native Americans by the most recent Census has soared more than 1000% since 1900, over 3 times that of the US as a whole. A reasonable explanation is that intermarriage and assimilation reveal that a portion of the reported disappearance of native Americans may be that many still exist but in a different description..
Covered in "The 10 Big Lies," Medved.

You mean like giving the Indians infected blankets.

You are a holocaust denier.

Always interesting to see the simpletons who have bought the Leftist rants that are centered on making America, or the early Americans, seen in a bad light.


Let's call them "NoBrains" or is that too close for comfort?
Have you seen a source of such a tale?
Proof....or simply the Leftist academic's version of the game of 'telephone'?


Edification coming right up:

"There is the often repeated story of Lord Jeffrey Amherst ordering the distribution of smallpox-infected blankets to the Indians, as an example of ‘germ warfare’ used by Europeans. The story is not documented, except as a ‘possibility.’

See the study of Professor d’Errico:
Historian Francis Parkman, in his book "The Conspiracy of Pontiac and the Indian War after the Conquest of Canada" [Boston: Little, Brown, 1886] refers to a postscript in an earlier letter from Amherst to Bouquet wondering whether smallpox could not be spread among the Indians:

“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”. [Vol. II, p. 39 (6th edition)]

I have not found this letter, but there is a letter from Bouquet to Amherst, dated 23 June 1763, three weeks before the discussion of blankets to the Indians, stating that Captain Ecuyer at Fort Pitt (to which Bouquet would be heading with reinforcements) has reported smallpox in the Fort. This indicates at least that the writers knew the plan could be carried out.
It is curious that the specific plans to spread smallpox were relegated to postscripts.
From "The 10 Big Lies," Medved.

Again....d'Errico says: "I have not found this letter."



If some 'scholar' wrote of a note he had heard of in which Obama admits to being born on the moon....I'm certain you'd jump to spread the tale of than note......wouldn't you.


And you are a dunce.

Right wing revisionist history? Should I begin to quote Howard Zinn?

Your name calling shows the weakness of your arguments.

 

[editec]

German law prohibits public denial of the holocaust. its an automatic 5 years prison sentence. that speaks volumes. and they condem countries like Iran as well. there is no better of the two. only worse. the worst crime in history

Really??

Worse than the almost total genocide of the American Indian?

Or the millions of black slaves brought to America to be slaves?

If your point is that comparison of crimes against humanity is a futile exercise, I quite agree.

In total numbers the two aforementioned events killed far more people.

So what?

They are all events that we all ought to be able to condemn.

 

[PoliticalChic]

You mean like giving the Indians infected blankets.

You are a holocaust denier.

Always interesting to see the simpletons who have bought the Leftist rants that are centered on making America, or the early Americans, seen in a bad light.


Let's call them "NoBrains" or is that too close for comfort?
Have you seen a source of such a tale?
Proof....or simply the Leftist academic's version of the game of 'telephone'?


Edification coming right up:

"There is the often repeated story of Lord Jeffrey Amherst ordering the distribution of smallpox-infected blankets to the Indians, as an example of ‘germ warfare’ used by Europeans. The story is not documented, except as a ‘possibility.’

See the study of Professor d’Errico:
Historian Francis Parkman, in his book "The Conspiracy of Pontiac and the Indian War after the Conquest of Canada" [Boston: Little, Brown, 1886] refers to a postscript in an earlier letter from Amherst to Bouquet wondering whether smallpox could not be spread among the Indians:

“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”. [Vol. II, p. 39 (6th edition)]

I have not found this letter, but there is a letter from Bouquet to Amherst, dated 23 June 1763, three weeks before the discussion of blankets to the Indians, stating that Captain Ecuyer at Fort Pitt (to which Bouquet would be heading with reinforcements) has reported smallpox in the Fort. This indicates at least that the writers knew the plan could be carried out.
It is curious that the specific plans to spread smallpox were relegated to postscripts.
From "The 10 Big Lies," Medved.

Again....d'Errico says: "I have not found this letter."



If some 'scholar' wrote of a note he had heard of in which Obama admits to being born on the moon....I'm certain you'd jump to spread the tale of than note......wouldn't you.


And you are a dunce.

Right wing revisionist history? Should I begin to quote Howard Zinn?

Your name calling shows the weakness of your arguments.

1."...revisionist history?"
Well, then....should be simple enough for you to provide the actual letter as proof.

No doubt one of your ability will succeed where so many hopeful academics failed.


2. "Your name calling shows the weakness of your arguments."
No...the accuracy of my perceptions.




Here's some more "Right wing revisionist history:"

Let me remind of a Left-wing professor (is that redundant?) who claimed that there were few guns in colonial times.
He was praised by the pacifist Liberals (redundant again?) who gave him kudos and awards.

Then the was found to have made up the whole thing.



Read if you have the time:

1. “Arming America: The Origins of a National Gun Culture is a largely discredited 2000 book by Michael A. Bellesiles on American gun culture. The book is an expansion of a 1996 Journal of American History article by Bellesiles, and argues that guns were uncommon during peacetime in early America, and that a culture of gun ownership arose only much later. It initially won the prestigious Bancroft Prize, but later became the first book in that prize's history to have its award rescinded. The revocation occurred after Columbia University's Board of Trustees decided that Bellesiles had "violated basic norms of scholarship and the high standards expected of Bancroft Prize winners." Arming America - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

a. “The book garnered many enthusiastic professional reviews and won the prestigious Bancroft Prize in 2001….Clayton Cramer, a software engineer, gun enthusiast, and early critic of Bellesiles, later argued that the reason "why historians swallowed Arming America's preposterous claims so readily is that it fit into their political worldview so well... Arming America said things, and created a system of thought so comfortable for the vast majority of historians, that they didn’t even pause to consider the possibility that something wasn’t right." Cramer, Clayton E. (January 6, 2003). "What Clayton Cramer Saw and (Nearly) Everyone Else Missed". History News Network.

b. Bellesiles energized this professional consensus by attempting to play "the professors against the NRA in a high-wire act of arrogant bravado."[7] For instance, he replied to Heston’s criticism by telling the actor to earn a Ph.D. before criticizing the work of scholars….In the end, however, the politics of the issue mattered less to historians "than the possibility that Bellesiles might have engaged in faulty, fraudulent, and unethical research….As critics subjected the historical claims of the book to close scrutiny, they demonstrated that much of Bellesiles' research, particularly his handling of probate records, was inaccurate and possibly fraudulent. Arming America - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

2. As criticism grew and charges of scholarly misconduct were made, Emory University conducted an internal inquiry into Bellesiles's integrity, appointing an independent investigative committee composed of three leading academic historians from outside Emory.[18] Bellesiles failed to provide investigators with his research notes, claiming the notes were destroyed in a flood. ^ "Historian's Prizewinning Book on Guns is Embroiled in a Scandal", The New York Times, December 8, 2001



Now, see if this doesn't apply to you, as well:
"..."why historians swallowed Arming America's preposterous claims so readily is that it fit into their political worldview so well... Arming America said things, and created a system of thought so comfortable for the vast majority of historians,..."



Leftists.
You need no proof to buy the propaganda, nor offer apologies when you are exposed.

 

[IlarMeilyr]

So was the African slaves brought to the Americas an exaggerated tale also??...........

Who sold them to the slave traders?

 

[NoNukes]

Always interesting to see the simpletons who have bought the Leftist rants that are centered on making America, or the early Americans, seen in a bad light.


Let's call them "NoBrains" or is that too close for comfort?
Have you seen a source of such a tale?
Proof....or simply the Leftist academic's version of the game of 'telephone'?


Edification coming right up:

"There is the often repeated story of Lord Jeffrey Amherst ordering the distribution of smallpox-infected blankets to the Indians, as an example of ‘germ warfare’ used by Europeans. The story is not documented, except as a ‘possibility.’

See the study of Professor d’Errico:
Historian Francis Parkman, in his book "The Conspiracy of Pontiac and the Indian War after the Conquest of Canada" [Boston: Little, Brown, 1886] refers to a postscript in an earlier letter from Amherst to Bouquet wondering whether smallpox could not be spread among the Indians:

“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”. [Vol. II, p. 39 (6th edition)]

I have not found this letter, but there is a letter from Bouquet to Amherst, dated 23 June 1763, three weeks before the discussion of blankets to the Indians, stating that Captain Ecuyer at Fort Pitt (to which Bouquet would be heading with reinforcements) has reported smallpox in the Fort. This indicates at least that the writers knew the plan could be carried out.
It is curious that the specific plans to spread smallpox were relegated to postscripts.
From "The 10 Big Lies," Medved.

Again....d'Errico says: "I have not found this letter."



If some 'scholar' wrote of a note he had heard of in which Obama admits to being born on the moon....I'm certain you'd jump to spread the tale of than note......wouldn't you.


And you are a dunce.

Right wing revisionist history? Should I begin to quote Howard Zinn?

Your name calling shows the weakness of your arguments.

1."...revisionist history?"
Well, then....should be simple enough for you to provide the actual letter as proof.

No doubt one of your ability will succeed where so many hopeful academics failed.


2. "Your name calling shows the weakness of your arguments."
No...the accuracy of my perceptions.




Here's some more "Right wing revisionist history:"

Let me remind of a Left-wing professor (is that redundant?) who claimed that there were few guns in colonial times.
He was praised by the pacifist Liberals (redundant again?) who gave him kudos and awards.

Then the was found to have made up the whole thing.



Read if you have the time:

1. “Arming America: The Origins of a National Gun Culture is a largely discredited 2000 book by Michael A. Bellesiles on American gun culture. The book is an expansion of a 1996 Journal of American History article by Bellesiles, and argues that guns were uncommon during peacetime in early America, and that a culture of gun ownership arose only much later. It initially won the prestigious Bancroft Prize, but later became the first book in that prize's history to have its award rescinded. The revocation occurred after Columbia University's Board of Trustees decided that Bellesiles had "violated basic norms of scholarship and the high standards expected of Bancroft Prize winners." Arming America - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

a. “The book garnered many enthusiastic professional reviews and won the prestigious Bancroft Prize in 2001….Clayton Cramer, a software engineer, gun enthusiast, and early critic of Bellesiles, later argued that the reason "why historians swallowed Arming America's preposterous claims so readily is that it fit into their political worldview so well... Arming America said things, and created a system of thought so comfortable for the vast majority of historians, that they didn’t even pause to consider the possibility that something wasn’t right." Cramer, Clayton E. (January 6, 2003). "What Clayton Cramer Saw and (Nearly) Everyone Else Missed". History News Network.

b. Bellesiles energized this professional consensus by attempting to play "the professors against the NRA in a high-wire act of arrogant bravado."[7] For instance, he replied to Heston’s criticism by telling the actor to earn a Ph.D. before criticizing the work of scholars….In the end, however, the politics of the issue mattered less to historians "than the possibility that Bellesiles might have engaged in faulty, fraudulent, and unethical research….As critics subjected the historical claims of the book to close scrutiny, they demonstrated that much of Bellesiles' research, particularly his handling of probate records, was inaccurate and possibly fraudulent. Arming America - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

2. As criticism grew and charges of scholarly misconduct were made, Emory University conducted an internal inquiry into Bellesiles's integrity, appointing an independent investigative committee composed of three leading academic historians from outside Emory.[18] Bellesiles failed to provide investigators with his research notes, claiming the notes were destroyed in a flood. ^ "Historian's Prizewinning Book on Guns is Embroiled in a Scandal", The New York Times, December 8, 2001



Now, see if this doesn't apply to you, as well:
"..."why historians swallowed Arming America's preposterous claims so readily is that it fit into their political worldview so well... Arming America said things, and created a system of thought so comfortable for the vast majority of historians,..."



Leftists.
You need no proof to buy the propaganda, nor offer apologies when you are exposed.

My point was that I could cut and paste from scholars and claim to be right.

 

[editec]

So was the African slaves brought to the Americas an exaggerated tale also??...........

No.

" the millions of black slaves brought to America to be slaves?"
Not so fast, millions of black slaves were not brought to America.... in fact only 388,000 came here directly.

The most comprehensive analysis of shipping records over the course of the slave trade is the Trans-Atlantic Slave Trade Database, edited by professors David Eltis and David Richardson. (While the editors are careful to say that all of their figures are estimates, I believe that they are the best estimates that we have, the proverbial "gold standard" in the field of the study of the slave trade.) Between 1525 and 1866, in the entire history of the slave trade to the New World, according to the Trans-Atlantic Slave Trade Database, 12.5 million Africans were shipped to the New World. 10.7 million survived the dreaded Middle Passage, disembarking in North America, the Caribbean and South America.

And how many of these 10.7 million Africans were shipped directly to North America? Only about 388,000. That's right: a tiny percentage.

Slaves that where then shipped from the Islands to the colonies.

About 645,000 were brought to what is now the United States.[2] By the 1860 United States Census, the slave population in the United States had grown to four million.[3] Of all 1,515,605 families in the 15 slave states, 393,967 held slaves (roughly one in four),[4] amounting to 8% of all American families.[5]