American Indians and Genocide

[Agnapostate]

Do you believe that American Indians (referring to the Americas, not just the U.S.) were the victims of genocide, or as is more likely for a rightist forum, did they just "lose the war" because they were primitive forest dwellers facing guns?

[pete311]

Without a doubt. From 1500 to 1900 the native american's population went from an estimated 12 million to 250k. Manifest destiny is one of the most awful policies ever enacted by America.

[DragonStryk72]

Do you believe that American Indians (referring to the Americas, not just the U.S.) were the victims of genocide, or as is more likely for a rightist forum, did they just "lose the war" because they were primitive forest dwellers facing guns?

Actually, it wasn't genocide, as we were not systematically exterminating them. We just kept kicking them off their land cause they kept picking all the goods spots. It's like in Maverick, "Next time I'll find a piece of swamp land so god awful, maybe then you people'll leave us the hell alone."

Just so we're clear:


gen·o·cide
   /ˈdʒɛnəˌsaɪd/ Show Spelled[jen-uh-sahyd] Show IPA
–noun
the deliberate and systematic extermination of a national, racial, political, or cultural group.

no one was wiping them off the map. The numbers quoted are not just murdered Native Americans, because it was mainly diseases we brought over from Europe and Asia that did that one, and that would have been true if it had been they had started populating Europe. Colds and flus that were normal to us, and non-lethal save in the most extreme circumstance were horribly deadly. At the time, in honesty, there was nothing we could have done about that, given the medical breakthroughs of the time.

Another culprit in the decline was the inter-tribal warfare that went on during all this, along with the numerous wars such as the revolutionary war, and French and Indian wars that cost even more lives.

Now, were we anal-retentive megalomaniacs who were being complete twats? Yes, hells yes, and our repeated breaking of treaties with them was unconscionable, as was our hubris in believing our way of life superior to all others.

I've been on dance team with the Calico Dancers out of Glens Falls NY in high school, had a scout leader, Mr. Carroll who was Native American. As well, I've done service projects on reservations a number of times. Yes, the Europeans of the 1500s-1900s who did these things were wrong, but I'm not the one who did it, just as no one here took part in it. Trying to push white guilt on us, however, is just cowardly. Grow up.

[Sweetchuck]

And how many deaths was Stalin responsible for?

[bullypulpit]

Actually, it wasn't genocide, as we were not systematically exterminating them. We just kept kicking them off their land cause they kept picking all the goods spots. It's like in Maverick, "Next time I'll find a piece of swamp land so god awful, maybe then you people'll leave us the hell alone."

Just so we're clear:


gen·o·cide
   /ˈdʒɛnəˌsaɪd/ Show Spelled[jen-uh-sahyd] Show IPA
–noun
the deliberate and systematic extermination of a national, racial, political, or cultural group.

no one was wiping them off the map. The numbers quoted are not just murdered Native Americans, because it was mainly diseases we brought over from Europe and Asia that did that one, and that would have been true if it had been they had started populating Europe. Colds and flus that were normal to us, and non-lethal save in the most extreme circumstance were horribly deadly. At the time, in honesty, there was nothing we could have done about that, given the medical breakthroughs of the time.

Another culprit in the decline was the inter-tribal warfare that went on during all this, along with the numerous wars such as the revolutionary war, and French and Indian wars that cost even more lives.

Now, were we anal-retentive megalomaniacs who were being complete twats? Yes, hells yes, and our repeated breaking of treaties with them was unconscionable, as was our hubris in believing our way of life superior to all others.

I've been on dance team with the Calico Dancers out of Glens Falls NY in high school, had a scout leader, Mr. Carroll who was Native American. As well, I've done service projects on reservations a number of times. Yes, the Europeans of the 1500s-1900s who did these things were wrong, but I'm not the one who did it, just as no one here took part in it. Trying to push white guilt on us, however, is just cowardly. Grow up.

Displacing populations, disrupting their habitat and sourcing for food and shelter...It's genocide.

[SpidermanTUba]

Actually, it wasn't genocide, as we were not systematically exterminating them. We just kept kicking them off their land cause they kept picking all the goods spots.

We "kicked them off their land" in many cases by marching them to death - but hey, that's not genocide.

no one was wiping them off the map. The numbers quoted are not just murdered Native Americans, because it was mainly diseases we brought over from Europe and Asia that did that one, and that would have been true if it had been they had started populating Europe.

Yeah I'm sure their removal to all that good farmland out in western deserts (its really good when it isn't irrigated) had nothing to do with their decline in numbers. Its not like people need food.

[Agnapostate]

I don't care about the ban and have no comment on it. I'm close to throwing in the towel here; I don't make a habit of posting on boards that are characterized by arbitrary censorship as an established practice. I will post a few comments during this visit.

1. As expounded by Noel Ignatiev in his book How the Irish Became White, the Irish ethnic group assimilated by replicating many of the external behavioral patterns of their Anglo-Protestant superiors, including their racism against "non-whites." It was the same process that the "Five Civilized Tribes" underwent in adopting Anglo-Protestant culture, language, apparel, and habits (such as black slave ownership), even though they were eventually subject to ethnic cleansing in the end.

2. While you may excitedly listen to Glenn Beck and Rush Limbaugh's pronouncements of victim-blaming, that the poor are poor because of their unwillingness to work hard and pull themselves up by their bootstraps, you have a weighty record to deal with in that the patterns in continental Europe flatly contradict this. The social democracies of Scandinavia in particular are characterized by more expansive welfare states, but have higher employment and social mobility levels coupled with reduced poverty levels. I've posted considerable evidence that corroborates this; it is rejected because it does not mesh with your naive, ideologically biased view of the world.

3. This is not the topic, regardless. The topic is whether American Indians were victims of genocide, and I believe that I have effectively defended the conclusion that they were. If anyone is interested in contributing to that subject, please post your thoughts.

[jimnyc]

I don't care about the ban and have no comment on it. I'm close to throwing in the towel here; I don't make a habit of posting on boards that are characterized by arbitrary censorship as an established practice.

Don't care and won't comment, then you comment in the very next sentence. We don't practice arbitrary censorship here as you put it, more like you practice arbitrary skirting the rules and trolling. I will be nice for this last time and only lock this thread but your shenanigans will be kept on a very short leash. And threatening to leave isn't exactly going to tug on anyone's heart here.

[Trigg]

Do you believe that American Indians (referring to the Americas, not just the U.S.) were the victims of genocide, or as is more likely for a rightist forum, did they just "lose the war" because they were primitive forest dwellers facing guns?

The Indian population in South and Central America is thriving, so no genocide.

As far as American Indians, yes, toward the end I think the American Gov. wanted them simply to disappear. Disease had decimated their numbers. Buffalo hunters were destroying the plains Indians way of life and the Comanche and Apache (and others) refused to give up until they had almost disappeared.

They lost the war because they had fewer numbers and inferior weapons. They were unable to defeat the US gov. which is what would have had to happen in order for them to keep their land.

[Agnapostate]

Without a doubt. From 1500 to 1900 the native american's population went from an estimated 12 million to 250k. Manifest destiny is one of the most awful policies ever enacted by America.

The Native American population in the entire Western Hemisphere has been projected to be in excess of 100 million, actually, through extrapolation of the mortality rate of infectious disease epidemics to the observed post-epidemic population. It's important to keep in mind that 75% to 95% of deaths were caused by the importation of plague. But from 1492 to the present (since recent governmental campaigns such as that of General Rios Montt might be considered acts of genocide or attempted genocide against the selected Indian population), there were still millions upon millions of living natives that could be and were violently exterminated.

Actually, it wasn't genocide, as we were not systematically exterminating them. We just kept kicking them off their land cause they kept picking all the goods spots. It's like in Maverick, "Next time I'll find a piece of swamp land so god awful, maybe then you people'll leave us the hell alone."

"We"? You didn't do anything, so there's no need to use a possessive pronoun. And actually, the forcible removal policies you mention are under the purview of a modern term called "ethnic cleansing." Ethnic cleansing conducted with extreme indifference to the living conditions of a group, as well as systematic campaigns of enslavement and violence that cause multitudes of deaths constitute genocide.

Just so we're clear:

gen·o·cide
   /ˈdʒɛnəˌsaɪd/ Show Spelled[jen-uh-sahyd] Show IPA
–noun
the deliberate and systematic extermination of a national, racial, political, or cultural group.

no one was wiping them off the map.

Just so we're clear:

Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide

"Article II: In the present Convention, genocide means any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such:

(a) Killing members of the group;

This process began with Christopher Columbus's governorship of the island of Hispaniola (site of the modern countries of Haiti and the Dominican Republic),







Many thanks to my Comrade PrairieFire for providing many of these links that I was able to use, and giving me the idea for others.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mystic_Massacre
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bear_River_Massacre
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Keyesville_Massacre
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sand_Creek_Massacre
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Washita_River
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marias_Massacre
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Camp_Grant_Massacre
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fort_Robinson_tragedy
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wounded_Knee_Massacre




http://www.danielnpaul.com/BritishScalpBounties.html
http://xroads.virginia.edu/~HYPER/HNS/Scalpin/oldfolks.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trail_of_tears

(b) Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group;

http://www.bcmj.org/traumatic-pasts-...ceptualization

(c) Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part;

http://www.nativeweb.org/pages/legal...lord_jeff.html

http://www.associatedcontent.com/art...lo.html?cat=37





(d) Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group;

http://www.ratical.org/ratville/sterilize.html

Hmmm...that's a little recent. Maybe it could be argued that the practice of chopping womens' breasts off prevented them from nursing children, therefore preventing them from surviving early infancy? You tell me.

(e) Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/America...arding_schools



This successful fulfillment of every single criterion established in the UN General Assembly convention on genocide is not a promising sign for deniers of the American Holocaust.

The numbers quoted are not just murdered Native Americans, because it was mainly diseases we brought over from Europe and Asia that did that one, and that would have been true if it had been they had started populating Europe. Colds and flus that were normal to us, and non-lethal save in the most extreme circumstance were horribly deadly. At the time, in honesty, there was nothing we could have done about that, given the medical breakthroughs of the time.

Scholarly consensus does support the idea that the large majority of the death toll was caused by disease epidemics, though popular opinion still fallaciously attributes it to "superior technology." While it may be appropriate to exclude disease-related deaths from the genocide count in many cases, it is appropriate to incorporate them if they were understood by the invaders themselves to be caused by their aggressive encroachment, as a divine plague that illustrated the judgment of Providence, since they understood the cause and effect pattern, even if not the specific biology of the matter. It is also appropriate to include them in cases where the rapid spread of communicable disease was facilitated by squalid and cramped living conditions. In the death toll of the Jewish Holocaust, there are included numerous people who were not gassed or shot or burned or otherwise directly murdered, but died as a result of malnutrition or infection with communicable disease. Anne Frank is among them, for example.

Another culprit in the decline was the inter-tribal warfare that went on during all this, along with the numerous wars such as the revolutionary war, and French and Indian wars that cost even more lives.

And colonial ravagements of non-combatant communities in an attempt to destroy local and regional ethnic groups were genocidal actions. I'm not convinced that unprovoked invasion shouldn't be incorporated, frankly.

Yes, the Europeans of the 1500s-1900s who did these things were wrong, but I'm not the one who did it, just as no one here took part in it.

All the more reason to discontinue the inaccurate use of the possessive pronouns "we" and "us" that you have peppered your diatribe with.

Trying to push white guilt on us, however, is just cowardly. Grow up.

What "white guilt"? As a mixed-blood with European admixture and a Castilian/Basque surname, it's more likely that I have ancestors that participated in this legacy than you.

And how many deaths was Stalin responsible for?

I'd estimate that Stalin was personally responsible for about fifty to a hundred deaths in his days as an armed robber and heist orchestrator. What of it?

The Indian population in South and Central America is thriving, so no genocide.

Before any factual dispute of this point, I'd like to first indicate its fallacious nature by remaking on the "thriving" Ashkenazi Jewish, Armenian, and Romani (gypsy) communities, and inquiring whether the quoted poster takes this to mean that these populations were not the victims of genocide. I'd next care to point out that this numerical abundance is in portions of Central and South America, the regions correspondent to the Mesoamerican and Andean Indian cultural areas.

According to the CIA World Factbook, Costa Rica is overwhelmingly "white," and there are significant black populations in Belize and Panama. As for the rest of South America, it is dominated by Asian Indians in the Northeast, as their ancestors were enslaved and imported by the British to grow sugarcane, and whites in Argentina, Uruguay, Chile, etc.

As far as American Indians,

America is a pair of continents, as signified by the names North America and South America, and the fact that the word is derived from the name of a Florentine explorer who reached Brazil. Therefore, all Indians at hand are "American" Indians.

yes, toward the end I think the American Gov. wanted them simply to disappear. Disease had decimated their numbers. Buffalo hunters were destroying the plains Indians way of life and the Comanche and Apache (and others) refused to give up until they had almost disappeared.

And that is called genocide.

They lost the war because they had fewer numbers and inferior weapons. They were unable to defeat the US gov. which is what would have had to happen in order for them to keep their land.

A common misconception, but an inaccurate one. American Indians as a whole were decimated by outbreaks of communicable disease that they had no previous contact with, and therefore possessed no acquired immunity to; "inferior weapons" generally played little role, and even less after initial encounters since technology transfer occurred. In this specific case, Southwestern resisters generally had the same weapons that the military forces pursuing them did. Or have you never heard of Geronimo?





And directly contrary to the idea of a loss due to "fewer numbers," the Chiricahua Apache renegages that are most famous inflicted disproportionate losses on their enemies, and were only captured because there were other Apaches that assisted General Crook and Miles's military expeditions that pursued and eventually caught them. But in terms of the Apachean peoples, genocide can be spoken of, yes, particularly in the internment of the Navajo and Mescalero Apache at Bosque Redondo in squalid living conditions that resulted in numerous deaths.

[Trigg]

Originally Posted by Trigg
The Indian population in South and Central America is thriving, so no genocide.

Before any factual dispute of this point, I'd like to first indicate its fallacious nature by remaking on the "thriving" Ashkenazi Jewish, Armenian, and Romani (gypsy) communities, and inquiring whether the quoted poster takes this to mean that these populations were not the victims of genocide. I'd next care to point out that this numerical abundance is in portions of Central and South America, the regions correspondent to the Mesoamerican and Andean Indian cultural areas.

According to the CIA World Factbook, Costa Rica is overwhelmingly "white," and there are significant black populations in Belize and Panama. As for the rest of South America, it is dominated by Asian Indians in the Northeast, as their ancestors were enslaved and imported by the British to grow sugarcane, and whites in Argentina, Uruguay, Chile, etc.

I am not commenting on any other populations. Costa Rica is is 94% white and mestizo, it isn't broken down farther than that. Even with the black population the Mestizo population is over 50% in Panama. So yes I'd say they are thriving.

I'm sure your going to bitch about the word mestizo being used since it means a mixture of European and Indian ancestry. I've seen your family pictures posted though, I hope you're not going to claim racial purity.

Originally Posted by Trigg
As far as American Indians,

America is a pair of continents, as signified by the names North America and South America, and the fact that the word is derived from the name of a Florentine explorer who reached Brazil. Therefore, all Indians at hand are "American" Indians.

You are the only one who doesn't seem to know what Americans are and I don't feel like explaining once again why you are an idiot.

Originally Posted by Trigg
yes, toward the end I think the American Gov. wanted them simply to disappear. Disease had decimated their numbers. Buffalo hunters were destroying the plains Indians way of life and the Comanche and Apache (and others) refused to give up until they had almost disappeared.

And that is called genocide.

That's what I said, try reading slower

Originally Posted by Trigg
They lost the war because they had fewer numbers and inferior weapons. They were unable to defeat the US gov. which is what would have had to happen in order for them to keep their land.

[/QUOTE]A common misconception, but an inaccurate one. American Indians as a whole were decimated by outbreaks of communicable disease that they had no previous contact with, and therefore possessed no acquired immunity to; "inferior weapons" generally played little role, and even less after initial encounters since technology transfer occurred. In this specific case, Southwestern resisters generally had the same weapons that the military forces pursuing them did. Or have you never heard of Geronimo?

I believe I already mentioned diseases and the fact that it decimated their numbers.

I've read many books on the subject thank you, and you're right up to a point. Military advancements led to better weapons. The military simply had them outgunned and outmanned.

[Agnapostate]

Get your shit together. I can't wade through all this retarded formatting and misplaced BB code.

[Trigg]

Unlike you, I have an actual job. I can't be on the computer all day making my posts look cute while collecting welfare.

Come one smart ass, respond to the post

[SpidermanTUba]

Do you believe that American Indians (referring to the Americas, not just the U.S.) were the victims of genocide, or as is more likely for a rightist forum, did they just "lose the war" because they were primitive forest dwellers facing guns?

What we did to the natives was the worst crime this nation has ever perpetuated - and that includes slavery. (the sin of slavery being partially atoned for by the spilling of the blood of half a million Americans)