By the time the industrial revolution started the Native population had already been devastated by disease. The Native Americans whose land we took were post-apocalyptic survivors--their civilizations were a shadow of what they were before the old world diseases wiped them out.
>And the civil war which was bloodier than all the other wars we participated in combined.
Only because the causalities from both sides count as American casualties, and because we developed better medical treatment and sanitation technology.
Far more civil war soldiers died of disease than combat, which was mitigated in later wars through advanced technology. The number of US combat deaths was higher in WWII.
> By the time the industrial revolution started the Native population had already been devastated by disease. The Native Americans whose land we took were post-apocalyptic survivors--their civilizations were a shadow of what they were before the old world diseases wiped them out.
This is an oft-repeated genocide denial. Yes, disease killed many natives but that's not what committed genocide against the natives and stole their land. This is the same genocidal denial peddled by some who want to excuse nazis by claiming the jews died of disease in the holocaust.
> Only because the causalities from both sides count as American casualties, and because we developed better medical treatment and sanitation technology.
What's your point? Dead is dead. Should they not be counted?
> Far more civil war soldiers died of disease than combat
This is the case in most wars. Not just the civil war. Most of the deaths in ww2 were due to disease/starvation/etc rather than combat. Should we not count those?
>This is an oft-repeated genocide denial. Yes, disease killed many natives but that's not what committed genocide against the natives and stole their land.
The current consensus is that disease was the primary cause of depopulation. Perhaps you should read some of the current work in the field.
That doesn't change the fact that European colonists conquered and subjugated the remaining Native population.
>This is the same genocidal denial peddled by some who want to excuse nazis by claiming the jews died of disease in the holocaust.
Nonsense. You're going against the scholarly consensus here--just like holocaust deniers.
>This is the case in most wars. Not just the civil war. Most of the deaths in ww2 were due to disease/starvation/etc rather than combat. Should we not count those?
You held up the Civil War as an exemplar of terrible wars, saying that it was "bloodier than all the other wars we participated in combined". The implication is that it was somehow worse than other wars.
The point is that this is a useless comparison to make and taken out of context you can draw conclusions that don't fit the facts. Previous wars were less bloody because they involved fewer combatants. Later wars were less bloody because we developed new sanitation techniques. And ww2 was much worse in terms of civilian casualties. You can't really draw conclusions about the time period or the social upheaval caused by the industrial revolution based on civil war casualty numbers.
>The current consensus is that disease was the primary cause of depopulation. Perhaps you should read some of the current work in the field.
As I said, that's just genocidal denier's distracting tactic. Also, the consensus is that most victims of the holocaust died of disease/starvation. That doesn't change the fact that the genocide took place. You keep harping on it as if the disease caused the genocide. It didn't. It was european colonization. If europeans didn't come to america and steal native lands, americas would be full of natives - disease or not.
> That doesn't change the fact that European colonists conquered and subjugated the remaining Native population.
And the genocide. Keep denying it all you want, it doesn't change reality.
> Nonsense. You're going against the scholarly consensus here--just like holocaust deniers.
The only one denying genocide is you.
> You held up the Civil War as an exemplar of terrible wars
No. I said it was the worse was america experienced. I didn't say it was an "exemplar of terrible wars".
> saying that it was "bloodier than all the other wars we participated in combined".
Because it's true.
> The implication is that it was somehow worse than other wars.
Yes. It was the worst war america fought in. It was the bloodiest. It caused the most damage. It resulted in the most casualties in absolute terms and as a percentage of the US population. If you can find a war that was worse for america, please let me know.
> Previous wars were less bloody because they involved fewer combatants.
No kidding.
> You can't really draw conclusions about the time period or the social upheaval caused by the industrial revolution based on civil war casualty numbers.
Sure you can. Especially in terms of the civil war and its place in american political and military history.
Listen, you are a genocide denier. And now you are arguing against the civil war facts. I'm finished here. You are free to believe what you want.
>You keep harping on it as if the disease caused the genocide. It didn't. It was european colonization.
European colonization brought disease, but disease spread west faster than settlers, or even explorers.
Disease is the cause of the Native American population decline. Without disease the settlers wouldn't have been able to push the remaining Native peoples off of their lands. In the vast majority of cases disease was a byproduct--the settlers didn't intend for hundreds of thousands of people thousands of miles from them to die.
There were many cases where Europeans intentionally killed Native Americans, in some cases intentionally spreading disease.
You seem to have a very difficult time with nuance. Yes European colonizers caused millions of deaths, but the vast majority were caused indirectly without the knowledge of the colonizers. Yes the Civil War caused the highest death toll in US history, but only because both sides were considered American (despite the fact that they weren't American during the war).
>Listen, you are a genocide denier.
Please try to be a little more civil. This is hacker news not reddit.
>And now you are arguing against the civil war facts. I'm finished here.
I never argued against any facts you presented. My argument is that these facts are useless without context.
> I'm finished here.
I doubt it. I'm fairly certain you're going to reply to this.
>And the civil war which was bloodier than all the other wars we participated in combined.
Only because the causalities from both sides count as American casualties, and because we developed better medical treatment and sanitation technology.
Far more civil war soldiers died of disease than combat, which was mitigated in later wars through advanced technology. The number of US combat deaths was higher in WWII.