Overall, everybody knows for sure that the Europeans had the small pox and the Indians did not, initially. The only question is whether in this specific circumstance it was transmitted on purpose or negligent. The specific act by which the germs were contracted by the Indians is a very obscure or remote event for us. It is close to impossible for us to ascertain what the state of mind of the white person or persons who had the germs was in the acts by which those germs were transmitted to Indians. It is just as impossible to determine that the state of mind was unintentional or negligent as it is to determine that it was intentional or on purpose. Absent better evidence, since we are not on an "innocent until proven guilty" standard here the judgment does not default to "not guilty". The burden of proof is not on the Indians who claim that it was on purpose. The white settlers have no presumption of innocence in this general historical period. [CB]
But don't you see Charles that you and I are wrong? The default assumption is that white Americans are innocent until proven guilty beyond any doubt, not just a reasonable one. That is one of the spoils for the victor. {JT}
The circumstantial evidence includes the general state of mind of most Europeans in this period toward Indians as summarized in the infamous phrase "the only good Indian is a dead Indian" . This is noted by the U of Col investigative report.
In other words, in this standing circumstance in this period, any transmission of deadly epidemic from whites to Indians might have been on purpose. So, neither the U of Col nor you should be able to command that it is ok to say " this particular transmission of the small pox to the Indians was accidently not on purpose " without being accused of lacking enough evidence to prove what they say. Nor should you be able to say if someone says "the transmission of small pox was on purupose" they are "making up" facts or are to be brought up on charges. The evidence _as a whole_ discussed in the U of Col report does not support "accident" more than "on purpose".
There are people , scholars, etc saying that the transmission was accidental, yet no one is bringing them up on charges for making a statement without enough evidence to support it, despite that the evidence is _not_ stronger for their claim than for the opposite claim of "on purpose". [CB]
The thing is scholars are not generally stating it was accidental. Since it is just assumed, for no good reason, that white settlers are innocent there is no need for anyone to make such a claim. The system lets them off the hook in a sense. If you claim transmission is deliberate you need to prove it but if you can't do that we will just assume it was accidental without anyone actually making this claim since they cannot support with evidence either. It is a pretty sweet deal from the white perspective. People learn in school that it was all just a terrible accident from their history textbooks. The setlers were "just trying to better themselves and improve the land". That is was at someone else's expensive is generally not noteworthy. This becomes the water in which we all swim that goes unnoticed. Scholars don't have to claim it was an accident. Collective guilt is for Germans, not Americans who are by definition well intentioned but who have occasionally in the past handled things poorly.
This is why Jews that died of starvation and disease in concentration camps are rightly considered to have been murdered but NA's who die of starvation and disease after having been put onto a reservation that is under the command of someone who has openly stated that "the only good Indian is a dead one" are considered victims of a tragic accident.
John Thornton
This email was cleaned by emailStripper, available for free from http://www.papercut.biz/emailStripper.htm