The American Holocaust(?)

[Rhodmhire]

I thank Tsa-la-gi Nation for making me think of this on this thread, although I have before, I never thought of discussing it.

The Native American population in the United States is approximately < 2% from the last time I checked. But a majority of Native Americans killed were killed from diseases the European settlers brought over from the Eastern World--diseases like smallpox that the Natives had never encountered before.

So was the decline in the Native American population in North and South America from the 1500s onward considerably "genocide?"

[Hydesland]

Depends how many of the deaths were intended, and of the deaths that WERE intended, how many of them were killed simply because they were native Americans, rather than a dispute over something else (which I don't think can technically be called genocide).

[New Kereptica]

Depends how many of the deaths were intended, and of the deaths that WERE intended, how many of them were killed simply because they were native Americans, rather than a dispute over something else (which I don't think can technically be called genocide).

Coincidental genocide, then?

[Maurepas]

I dont think so, the intent to eradicate wasnt there...

[Rhodmhire]

I dont think so, the intent to eradicate wasnt there...

For the most part.

[Phenia]

"The intent to eradicate wasn't there" so it's not genocide? What definition of genocide are you people using?

How about the one found in Article 2 of the United Nations Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (CPPCG):

"any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such: killing members of the group; causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group; deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life, calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part; imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group; [and] forcibly transferring children of the group to another group."

So it was genocide.

[Call to power]

do I see a dog carrying sack in the bottom left?

those savage monsters

[Barzan]

Perhaps "ethnic cleansing" then?

[OMGeverynameistaken]

By my understanding, the native population was already in a serious decline before the large groups of Europeans started arriving. Even early European explorers reported large numbers of abandoned villages and deserted towns, and reported lots of sick natives.

The INITIAL European invasions couldn't really be called genocide. I don't think Cortez was planning to wipe out the entire Aztec population. It'd be much better to have a nice supply of cheap labor for their new colony, you know? SOMEBODY has to mine that gold.

The later stages, especially in the US, might be classed as genocide. I don't know that it was really a concentrated effort to wipe the natives out so much as to get them out of the way of settlers by any means possible.

[Maurepas]

"The intent to eradicate wasn't there" so it's not genocide? What definition of genocide are you people using?

How about the one found in Article 2 of the United Nations Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (CPPCG):

"any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such: killing members of the group; causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group; deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life, calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part; imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group; [and] forcibly transferring children of the group to another group."

So it was genocide.

By your own definition it was not genocide, dont get me wrong, its not any better than genocide, just from a semantics standpoint, calling it that would be incorrect...

[Deltuva]

Depends how many of the deaths were intended, and of the deaths that WERE intended, how many of them were killed simply because they were native Americans, rather than a dispute over something else (which I don't think can technically be called genocide).

Genocide its not only killing. Lemkin simplified Genocide term in UN convencion ( for practical uses ). By original definition genocide is sistem of actions with purpose to eliminate the ethnical/racial etc. group but not eliminate all persons belonging to that group. In fact, genocide gan be commited with no murder involting.

[Gauthier]

American Holocaust? No.

American Ethnic Cleansing? Yes.

[Phenia]

"The intent to eradicate wasn't there" so it's not genocide? What definition of genocide are you people using?

How about the one found in Article 2 of the United Nations Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (CPPCG):

"any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such: killing members of the group; causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group; deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life, calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part; imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group; [and] forcibly transferring children of the group to another group."

So it was genocide.

By your own definition it was not genocide, dont get me wrong, its not any better than genocide, just from a semantics standpoint, calling it that would be incorrect...

Um, by that definition it WAS genocide. You bolded the phrase you like so you could ignore the relevant part: IN WHOLE OR IN PART. The definition then goes on to cite specific examples of genocide -- every single one happened.

It was genocide. The only argument you have is literally one based in ignorance - ignoring the definition.

[Maurepas]

American Holocaust? No.

American Ethnic Cleansing? Yes.

Pretty much

[Barzan]

I don't know that it was really a concentrated effort to wipe the natives out so much as to get them out of the way of settlers by any means possible.

I believe this is the more generally accepted view among historians. Genocide requires intent. What happened to the natives was horrible -- Americans should be ashamed of that part of their history -- but I don't know if genocide would be an appropriate label. I'm unconvinced either way as of yet. Morally I'd like to call it genocide, but my historical training and my appreciation of objectivity tell me to be careful about making emotional judgements.

[New Kereptica]

"The intent to eradicate wasn't there" so it's not genocide? What definition of genocide are you people using?

How about the one found in Article 2 of the United Nations Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (CPPCG):

"any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such: killing members of the group; causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group; deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life, calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part; imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group; [and] forcibly transferring children of the group to another group."

So it was genocide.

By your own definition it was not genocide, dont get me wrong, its not any better than genocide, just from a semantics standpoint, calling it that would be incorrect...

Um, by that definition it WAS genocide. You bolded the phrase you like so you could ignore the relevant part: IN WHOLE OR IN PART. The definition then goes on to cite specific examples of genocide -- every single one happened.

It was genocide. The only argument you have is literally one based in ignorance - ignoring the definition.

Genocide, according to that definition, requires intent. That is what he was arguing against.

[Druidville]

It's one of those nice things to argue to kill time. Honestly, however, you'd have to prove intent to everyone's satisfaction, which would be next to impossible. I know ya'll spend another six-ten pages trying, but in the end there's no solid proof the settlers wanted everyone else dead.

[Phenia]

"The intent to eradicate wasn't there" so it's not genocide? What definition of genocide are you people using?

How about the one found in Article 2 of the United Nations Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (CPPCG):

"any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such: killing members of the group; causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group; deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life, calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part; imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group; [and] forcibly transferring children of the group to another group."

So it was genocide.

By your own definition it was not genocide, dont get me wrong, its not any better than genocide, just from a semantics standpoint, calling it that would be incorrect...

Um, by that definition it WAS genocide. You bolded the phrase you like so you could ignore the relevant part: IN WHOLE OR IN PART. The definition then goes on to cite specific examples of genocide -- every single one happened.

It was genocide. The only argument you have is literally one based in ignorance - ignoring the definition.

Genocide, according to that definition, requires intent. That is what he was arguing against.

For fuck's sake. "Intent to destroy in whole or in part." What PART of that phrase is just not registering with you two?

[Maurepas]

"The intent to eradicate wasn't there" so it's not genocide? What definition of genocide are you people using?

How about the one found in Article 2 of the United Nations Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (CPPCG):

"any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such: killing members of the group; causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group; deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life, calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part; imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group; [and] forcibly transferring children of the group to another group."

So it was genocide.

By your own definition it was not genocide, dont get me wrong, its not any better than genocide, just from a semantics standpoint, calling it that would be incorrect...

Um, by that definition it WAS genocide. You bolded the phrase you like so you could ignore the relevant part: IN WHOLE OR IN PART. The definition then goes on to cite specific examples of genocide -- every single one happened.

It was genocide. The only argument you have is literally one based in ignorance - ignoring the definition.

But, you see, it does not fit the entire definition, as I pointed out, you simply wish to ignore that...

But, whatever, like I said, its just semantics, Ignorance has nothing to do with it,

[Tsa-la-gi Nation]

I thank Tsa-la-gi Nation for making me think of this on this thread, although I have before, I never thought of discussing it.

The Native American population in the United States is approximately < 2% from the last time I checked. But a majority of Native Americans killed were killed from diseases the European settlers brought over from the Eastern World--diseases like smallpox that the Natives had never encountered before.

So was the decline in the Native American population in North and South America from the 1500s onward considerably "genocide?"

I'm honored to be mentioned, thank you. I did just got done typing my argument for 'yes" on the did the holocaust exist thread. However, as US leadership changed from pres. to pres., the only real thought (towards Natives) was how deal with getting native land & opposing US control upon them. In they case of the Cherokee, as your picture depicts, they did everything right & in the end it didn't matter.

[New Kereptica]

"The intent to eradicate wasn't there" so it's not genocide? What definition of genocide are you people using?

How about the one found in Article 2 of the United Nations Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (CPPCG):

"any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such: killing members of the group; causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group; deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life, calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part; imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group; [and] forcibly transferring children of the group to another group."

So it was genocide.

By your own definition it was not genocide, dont get me wrong, its not any better than genocide, just from a semantics standpoint, calling it that would be incorrect...

Um, by that definition it WAS genocide. You bolded the phrase you like so you could ignore the relevant part: IN WHOLE OR IN PART. The definition then goes on to cite specific examples of genocide -- every single one happened.

It was genocide. The only argument you have is literally one based in ignorance - ignoring the definition.

Genocide, according to that definition, requires intent. That is what he was arguing against.

For fuck's sake. "Intent to destroy in whole or in part." What PART of that phrase is just not registering with you two?

"Intent". Whether the Europeans actually intended to destroy the aboriginal population, in whole or in part, is disputed.

[Ashmoria]

i think that genocide implies that an actual effort was made to kill off a people. most native americans died by illnesses brought by europeans. or from means with non-genocidal intent. for example, haiti was heavily populated when columbus "discovered" it and set up mines manned with local slave labor. within 50 years most of the native population of haiti was either dead or had fled to other islands. is it genocide when most people die from brutal treatment that wasnt designed to exterminate them?

.

[Evir Bruck Saulsbury]

Using most modern definitions, there was definitely and attempt at genocide by colonial and American governments against the indigenous populations. If you want to be more picky about your definition on genocide, it still was at the least ethnic cleansing, and a campaign of which didn't fully end until the 1970's.

[Rhodmhire]

*snip Trail of Tearz*
I thank Tsa-la-gi Nation for making me think of this on this thread, although I have before, I never thought of discussing it.

The Native American population in the United States is approximately < 2% from the last time I checked. But a majority of Native Americans killed were killed from diseases the European settlers brought over from the Eastern World--diseases like smallpox that the Natives had never encountered before.

So was the decline in the Native American population in North and South America from the 1500s onward considerably "genocide?"

I'm honored to be mentioned, thank you. I did just got done typing my argument for 'yes" on the did the holocaust exist thread. However, as US leadership changed from pres. to pres., the only real thought (towards Natives) was how deal with getting native land & opposing US control upon them. In they case of the Cherokee, as your picture depicts, they did everything right & in the end it didn't matter.

Just wondering, are you yourself Cherokee? Your flag seems to make me assume you are.

[Hydesland]

Depends how many of the deaths were intended, and of the deaths that WERE intended, how many of them were killed simply because they were native Americans, rather than a dispute over something else (which I don't think can technically be called genocide).

Genocide its not only killing. Lemkin simplified Genocide term in UN convencion ( for practical uses ). By original definition genocide is sistem of actions with purpose to eliminate the ethnical/racial etc. group but not eliminate all persons belonging to that group. In fact, genocide gan be commited with no murder involting.

I just think it's disingenuous to describe it as genocide, I don't think there was ever a specific policy to eliminate the ethnic/racial group of the American natives. Most of the deaths were not intentional (disease) and so couldn't really be described as genocide, as for the others, I don't think you can count natives dying in conflict as genocide either unless you want to call world war 1 and pretty much any other war genocide also. There may have been instances of massacres, but I don't think the term genocide is appropriate.