Prev: «   |   Next: »
  • Roger

    You forget the native americans. The Trail of Tears and so many other genocides that were perpetrated on the native peoples of both North and South America.

  • dude

    Don’t forget the genocide in Latin American by the Spaniards with the support of the Catholic church. Likewise, Australian indigenous peoples suffered a similar situation.

  • Whaaat? No white men vs the “indians”?

    • joseph

      did you not read the beginning of the article? go back and read the very beginning of the article.

  • Cale Brehio

    ” However, the overwhelming majority of those deaths were due to smallpox being inadvertently introduced into a native population that lacked the biological means to resist it which, while devastating, was not a genocide as it was not done intentionally.”

    BULLCOOKIES! It’s been documented that the American Indians were given the smallpox infected blankets of the folk who died from it, as a deliberate effort to introduce the smallpox to the indigenous population, thereby infecting and killing them. This information has been accessible for decades- do you do your own research, or do you have an intern do it, then just “phone it in?!”

    Biological warfare involving smallpox[edit]

    “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”.[6]

    In one 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. 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,[7] 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”.[8][9]

    INVOICE for 1763 June

    Levy, Trent and Company: Account against the Crown, Aug. 13, 1763[7]

    “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.[7]

    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 7th 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 16th, 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.”[10]

    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.[10] 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”;[11] Barbara Mann deduced “it is important to note that the smallpox distribution worked”;[12] Howard Peckham noted the resulting fatal epidemic “certainly affected their vigorous prosecution of the war.”[8]

    Nineteenth century historian Francis Parkman, the first to research these events, described “the shameful plan of infecting the Indians” as “detestable.”[13] It is likely such incidents have occurred more frequently than scholars have acknowledged, but with such actions considered beyond the pale of civilized behavior, incriminating documentation would of course be scarce. Efforts have ever since been made to reduce the stigma associated with being the perpetrators of such acts.[14][7] Captain Ecuyer’s official report, written at the time of the incident and in great detail, notably did not mention the tainted gifts. According to biological warfare expert Mark Wheelis, Ecuyer considered concealing the event and acknowledged the deed in his ledgers only after learning that his superiors were ordering the same course of action.[15] The most widely cited expert on the subject, Elizabeth Fenn, has observed, “It is also possible that documents relating to such a plan were deliberately destroyed.”[7] Peckham noted that, “oddly enough”, the incriminating pages from Amherst and Bouquet were missing from the Canadian Archives transcripts as well as the collection published by the Pennsylvania Historical Commission.[8] Likewise, Mann has described documents which have gone missing after “later sanitation”, and has documented efforts by “Amherst apologists” and others who conjecture about, minimize and even dispute the instances of European perfidy. Dixon has suggested that the attempt to infect the Indians near Fort Pitt “may well have been a failure”,[6] and Ranlet has speculated that “either the smallpox virus was already dead on the unpleasant gifts or that the presents simply failed to fulfill Trent’s ardent desire to infect the Indians.”[16] Mann has called such assumptions “demonstrably false”, and Wheelis has concluded that while there may have been several simultaneous routes of transmission for the epidemic, and the effect of each attempt is impossible to determine, “the act of biological aggression at Fort Pitt is indisputable”.[15]

  • papricos

    haha i can t see Muslims anywhere so why r they the bad people in the world ?, and they forgot the 0-The extermination of the Indians in the new world (America)

    • Pantpurlais

      They also forgot the killing fields of Viet Nam where it is estimated that 3.8 million Vietnamese soldiers and civilians were killed by the USA. The fields keep killing some 500 a year because of illnesses and birth defects caused by US chemicals and unexploded bombs. The US dropped 270 million bombs on Viet Nam. .

    • joseph

      They did not forget the extermination of the Indians in the new world(America). if you had read the beginning of the article it explains that the majority of the American Indians were killed by the introduction of small pox which they didn’t have the biological means to resist. As this was not intentional then it’s technically not genocide. It explained that at the beginning of the article.

  • Izzul Islam

    oh the writer is from US, that’s why it’s missing…

  • ?????????

    GENOCIDE against Russians 1941-1945?

  • Elder Raymond