[geeks] 4th Amendment Gone

[Charles Shannon Hendrix]

Tue, 06 Apr 2004 @ 23:22 +0100, Mike Meredith said:

> > Bad choice of words maybe... but they certainly were willing and
> > sometimes able to decimate the populations of those whose territory or
> > resources they wanted.
> 
> Stealing someone's land is one thing. Decimating them is another. You
> usually want the original population to help make you richer.

Not if you can get what you want without them.

> > Of course, many times the "genocide" was limited to just the males.
> 
> That's called war.

No, I'm talking about no declared war, and slaughtering all able-bodied
males.  Not unique to England of course, but they were one of the later
empires to continue the practice.

> Neither of these things are good nor pleasant, but neither come
> anywhere near the deliberate policy of killing off a whole 'race' of
> people.

Right, a poor choice of words.  England was more into killing off entire
cities or areas of an enemy nation.  

The only thing that usually stopped them was a lack of manpower.

Again, they were not alone.  The Crusades did regular purges, even
against their own people.  For example, the Franks killed off entire
cities, every living thing: "Kill them all.  God will know his own."

> If you're going to slag off the British, at least stick to stuff we've
> really done (there's plenty to choose from).

Britain has come pretty close to genocide IMHO.  I'd say it was
logistics that stopped them more than anything else.

America shares the same guilt for that matter.

-- 
shannon "AT" widomaker.com -- ["It's a damn poor mind that can only think
of one way to spell a word." -- Andrew Jackson]