The American Holocaust(?)

[Hiddenrun]

i am saying that "indians" dont exist. PEQUOTS exist; iroquois exist; cherokees exist; navajos exist, etc.

lumping them all together is like claiming that since the turks didnt try to kill all europeans then you cant call what happened in armenia a genocide.

Oh this is ridiculous. So there was no actual official policy about eradicating the Indians, nor one about eradicating one tribe of Indians, but you don't care because you're aren't just talking about the American government.

Way to be vague, avoid the burden of proof, and stretch the term out of all recognition. There. You got what you wanted. A meaningless word. Enjoy.

[Hiddenrun]

What about the Trail of Tears and the Sand Creek Massacre? I'd think the number of similiar instances would count as genocide.

And the Battle of Little Bighorn, were the Indians committing genocide that time?

no

Excuse me?

[Ashmoria]

What about the Trail of Tears and the Sand Creek Massacre? I'd think the number of similiar instances would count as genocide.

And the Battle of Little Bighorn, were the Indians committing genocide that time?

no

Excuse me?

what part of NO dont you understand?

[Bitchkitten]

What about the Trail of Tears and the Sand Creek Massacre? I'd think the number of similiar instances would count as genocide.

And the Battle of Little Bighorn, were the Indians committing genocide that time?

no

Excuse me?

They weren't trying to wipe out the entire white race, and the attack was in revenge for aaaan US army massacre of unarmed women and children. Custer was present at the Sandcreek Massacre.
I suppose you consider the Warsaw uprising by the Jews genocide.

[Phenia]

You might as well be arguing that it's not homicide if your intent is only to collect on life insurance... it has to be that your intent is just to kill.

Problem is, to my knowledge, Homicide doesnt take intent into account...Genocide does...Thems the breaks Im afraid, shoulda told them to make definitions that suit you,

Homicide was a bad analogy - how about murder?

Let's say that I don't have a particular intent to kill you. I just want to blow up the house I know you're living in. If you resist my attempts, I do kill you, and unless you leave, you die when I fire my tank gun at the thing. If you leave I don't pursue (unless of course I decide later to blow up the house you flee to!).

Does your death in this situation make me a murderer? Were you not murdered? If not, then what? Some lesser charge? Why?

[San Sarin]

I would say that the European settlers would be guilty of genocide. We drove the Native Americans onto reservations and systematically killed them with such weaponry as small pox infected blankets. The Battle of Little Big Horn was a battle, not a massacre. I really don't see what bearing this topic has though because all of that happened hundreds of years ago and I thought nationstates was more focused on modern politics.

[Rolling squid]

What about the Trail of Tears and the Sand Creek Massacre? I'd think the number of similiar instances would count as genocide.

And the Battle of Little Bighorn, were the Indians committing genocide that time?

no

Excuse me?

The Battle of Little Bighorn was an act of self defense on the part of the Sioux. A comparable analogy is if a robber breaks into your home and kills you, it is murder. If you kill that same robber, it is self defense.

[Fartsniffage]

Oh this is ridiculous. So there was no actual official policy about eradicating the Indians, nor one about eradicating one tribe of Indians, but you don't care because you're aren't just talking about the American government.

http://www.wicocomico-indian-nation.com ... ocide.html

Note JAMESTOWN LEGISLATION AGAINST THE INDIANS.

[Hiddenrun]

what part of NO dont you understand?

How was it not genocide under your definition? Because it was just Indians killing whites, that wasn't genocide?

And when Indians slaughtered entire communities, that wasn't genocide either? Oh, I see.

[Hiddenrun]

What about the Trail of Tears and the Sand Creek Massacre? I'd think the number of similiar instances would count as genocide.

And the Battle of Little Bighorn, were the Indians committing genocide that time?

no

Excuse me?

They weren't trying to wipe out the entire white race, and the attack was in revenge for aaaan US army massacre of unarmed women and children. Custer was present at the Sandcreek Massacre.
I suppose you consider the Warsaw uprising by the Jews genocide.

Oh well you see you don't have to be trying to wipe out an entire race according to Ashmoria (a nice change in the definition because he can't possibly prove that this was attempted or desired), just an entire group. So if killing off one group of Indians is genocide, then killing off one group of whites should be genocide too.

[Hiddenrun]

The Battle of Little Bighorn was an act of self defense on the part of the Sioux. A comparable analogy is if a robber breaks into your home and kills you, it is murder. If you kill that same robber, it is self defense.

So when settlers got together and killed Indians who had been attacking them guerrilla style, you'll agree this was not an act of genocide, but self-defense, right?

And when the Treaties were signed and Indians continued to be hostile, killing some of the agitators was not genocide, right?

I'm glad you disagree with this ridiculous expansion of the term genocide then.

[Ashmoria]

what part of NO dont you understand?

How was it not genocide under your definition? Because it was just Indians killing whites, that wasn't genocide?

And when Indians slaughtered entire communities, that wasn't genocide either? Oh, I see.

us army against souix warriors.

is there any attempt to kill every man woman and child? no.

a massacre isnt the same as genocide even if genocide tends to invovle massacres.

[San Sarin]

What about the Trail of Tears and the Sand Creek Massacre? I'd think the number of similiar instances would count as genocide.

And the Battle of Little Bighorn, were the Indians committing genocide that time?

no

Excuse me?

They weren't trying to wipe out the entire white race, and the attack was in revenge for aaaan US army massacre of unarmed women and children. Custer was present at the Sandcreek Massacre.
I suppose you consider the Warsaw uprising by the Jews genocide.

Oh well you see you don't have to be trying to wipe out an entire race according to Ashmoria (a nice change in the definition because he can't possibly prove that this was attempted or desired), just an entire group. So if killing off one group of Indians is genocide, then killing off one group of whites should be genocide too.

Only problem with your rebuttal here is that we were trying to wipe out an entire race. Read the link above on the Jamestown Legislation Against Indians.

[Fartsniffage]

Oh well you see you don't have to be trying to wipe out an entire race according to Ashmoria (a nice change in the definition because he can't possibly prove that this was attempted or desired), just an entire group. So if killing off one group of Indians is genocide, then killing off one group of whites should be genocide too.

...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;
(b) Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group;
(c) Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part;
(d) Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group;
(e) Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.

– Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide, Article II

Genvea convention definition, not Ashmoria's.

The settlers and then US government did 4 of those things that I know of and I haven't studied it in too much depth.

[Ashmoria]

What about the Trail of Tears and the Sand Creek Massacre? I'd think the number of similiar instances would count as genocide.

And the Battle of Little Bighorn, were the Indians committing genocide that time?

no

Excuse me?

They weren't trying to wipe out the entire white race, and the attack was in revenge for aaaan US army massacre of unarmed women and children. Custer was present at the Sandcreek Massacre.
I suppose you consider the Warsaw uprising by the Jews genocide.

Oh well you see you don't have to be trying to wipe out an entire race according to Ashmoria (a nice change in the definition because he can't possibly prove that this was attempted or desired), just an entire group. So if killing off one group of Indians is genocide, then killing off one group of whites should be genocide too.

why would it have to be an entire race?

was the genocide in armenia an entire race? was the genocide in rwanda an entire race? what the holocaust the genocide of an entire race?

[Hiddenrun]

Oh this is ridiculous. So there was no actual official policy about eradicating the Indians, nor one about eradicating one tribe of Indians, but you don't care because you're aren't just talking about the American government.

http://www.wicocomico-indian-nation.com ... ocide.html

Note JAMESTOWN LEGISLATION AGAINST THE INDIANS.

Yeah, note that Jamestown had been the victim of many attacks by Indians, and were training their citizens to protect themselves. You seem to think that we're talking about peaceful neighbors here. Indians scalping and murdering settlers is far from being a myth.

Were there brutalities? Massacres? Sure. Is this enough to suddenly call it a genocide? Hardly. There was NO concerted effort other than that taken by a few individuals. Comparing that to the real Holocaust in any way is absolutely ridiculous.

[San Sarin]

What about the Trail of Tears and the Sand Creek Massacre? I'd think the number of similiar instances would count as genocide.

And the Battle of Little Bighorn, were the Indians committing genocide that time?

no

Excuse me?

They weren't trying to wipe out the entire white race, and the attack was in revenge for aaaan US army massacre of unarmed women and children. Custer was present at the Sandcreek Massacre.
I suppose you consider the Warsaw uprising by the Jews genocide.

Oh well you see you don't have to be trying to wipe out an entire race according to Ashmoria (a nice change in the definition because he can't possibly prove that this was attempted or desired), just an entire group. So if killing off one group of Indians is genocide, then killing off one group of whites should be genocide too.

why would it have to be an entire race?

was the genocide in armenia an entire race? was the genocide in rwanda an entire race? what the holocaust the genocide of an entire race?

Actually the Holocaust was but you make a good point otherwise.

[Hiddenrun]

us army against souix warriors.

is there any attempt to kill every man woman and child? no.

a massacre isnt the same as genocide even if genocide tends to invovle massacres.

Oh so as long as it's just being men killed it's not genocide, just a massacre..

How feminist.

[Takaram]

Personally, I'm inclined to say that this was not Holocaust. The Europeans who brought over these diseases had no reason to believe that the Indians were so vulnerable to said diseases, and thus did not intentionally kill off so many. While I'm not justifying the actions of my European ancestors, who I will be the first to admit were very wrong in many of their actions, comparing this to the Holocaust is hardly accurate.

[Sitspot]

When I see a bird that walks like a duck and swims like a duck and quacks like a duck, I call that bird a duck.
Sophistry might let you argue that it could be a horse doing a duck impersonation, but we all know that in the real word horses don't impersonate ducks.

It was genocide pure and simple, no-one can look at the brutality of what happened, read about the prevailing attitudes of the time and look at the end result without realizing that genocide is the appropriate word.
Sophistry might allow you to argue that it was innocents doing an impersonation of genocide or that genocide can't really be that bad because lots of things might fit into the definition or even that 'they did it too'. But in the real world an entire ethnic group was robbed of its land and killed by the thousands, genocide is the appropriate word.

[Ashmoria]

us army against souix warriors.

is there any attempt to kill every man woman and child? no.

a massacre isnt the same as genocide even if genocide tends to invovle massacres.

Oh so as long as it's just being men killed it's not genocide, just a massacre..

How feminist.

oh dont be silly.

[Hiddenrun]

why would it have to be an entire race?

was the genocide in armenia an entire race? was the genocide in rwanda an entire race? what the holocaust the genocide of an entire race?

Yes, yes and yes?

Now you're going to say there's no such thing as race, or something equally pointless.

The turks wanted all Armenians dead. They could only reach the ones in Turkey. etc.

[Metz-Lorraine]

A tiny franction of Natives were actually killed, the vast majority died off early because of the diseases, which caused a severe decline in the population, one of which the early natives would never recover from. And if you want to be practical here, the natives weren't exactly lovy dovy to each other either, but their own warfare, competition with settlers, and the disease is what killed them off.

It wasn't an intent to wipe out native americans, otherwise they woulda just been shot on the spot and sent to concentration camps, not given teh entire territory of what is now Oklahoma to live as they want.

In the west it was more just warfare that killed them off and the superior technology of the settlers there just beat the shit outa em.

You gotta remmeber that the natives were tribal. This means SMALL communities and these communities did interact, but small communities grow at a small pace and because they weren't connected and often fought each other, .many were already declining.

[Fartsniffage]

Yeah, note that Jamestown had been the victim of many attacks by Indians, and were training their citizens to protect themselves. You seem to think that we're talking about peaceful neighbors here. Indians scalping and murdering settlers is far from being a myth.

I'd like some evidence of the bolded please.

Were there brutalities? Massacres? Sure. Is this enough to suddenly call it a genocide? Hardly. There was NO concerted effort other than that taken by a few individuals. Comparing that to the real Holocaust in any way is absolutely ridiculous.

No concerted effort? Review the definition of genocide from the Geneva convention I posted and then explain to me the Trail of Tears.

[Hiddenrun]

oh dont be silly.

I'm not the one claiming that it's perfectly alright to kill off men, and that a genocide can only happen if women are killed.