The American Holocaust(?)

[Ashmoria]

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.

why would armenians be a race but pequots not be?

[San Sarin]

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.

Wow. Just wow. I find your powers of reasoning to be absolutely flawless.
Would you care to chalk the general distaste for slaughtering of children as pedophilia while you are at it.

[Hiddenrun]

why would armenians be a race but pequots not be?

Because the Turks saw them as a separate race, and wanted them all dead.

We saw the Indians as a single race, and did not want them all dead.

Simple.

[Ashmoria]

why would armenians be a race but pequots not be?

Because the Turks saw them as a separate race, and wanted them all dead.

We saw the Indians as a single race, and did not want them all dead.

Simple.

so the armenians not being an actual race has nothing to do with it?

[Fartsniffage]

why would armenians be a race but pequots not be?

Because the Turks saw them as a separate race, and wanted them all dead.

We saw the Indians as a single race, and did not want them all dead.

Simple.

Bollocks. Were the treaties made between the American government and the Native Americans made with the Natives as a whole or with individual nations?

[Ashmoria]

why would armenians be a race but pequots not be?

Because the Turks saw them as a separate race, and wanted them all dead.

We saw the Indians as a single race, and did not want them all dead.

Simple.

and besides, when did genocide get limited to an entire race?

[Bitchkitten]

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.

The American Government broke every single treaty they made with the natives. Not most- all of them. Most Indian attacks on settlers were prompted by settlers invading Indian territory.

[Tsa-la-gi Nation]

Think about this, we celebrate Columbus Day. Columbus & his 50 men were responsible for the deaths of an estimated 1/4 million people. this was the population of 6 tribes destroyed by them alone. Now, granted, this number includes starvation & suicide from not submitting to slavery. (indians threw their babys off cliffs & hung themselves to prevent capture from Columbus's men) If you grew up in the US, you did not learn this history. There's much more, on the founding fathers. I'm sorry I got to get off the computer for a while, but I hope to continue this debate.

I'm back & no one caught on to this so I'll repost

[Tsa-la-gi Nation]

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.

The American Government broke every single treaty they made with the natives. Not most- all of them. Most Indian attacks on settlers were prompted by settlers invading Indian territory.

Aho brother! (or sister)

[Hiddenrun]

I think Guenter Lewy says it much more eloquently than I ever could.

That American Indians suffered horribly is indisputable. But whether their suffering amounted to a "holocaust," or to genocide, is another matter.

To address this issue properly we must begin with the most important reason for the Indians’ catastrophic decline—namely, the spread of highly contagious diseases to which they had no immunity.

Note, disease was the biggest reason for the Indian population decline. Disease is not genocide. Lewy also deals with the claim about smallpox blankets, pointing out there is only one recorded incident.

Still, even if up to 90 percent of the reduction in Indian population was the result of disease, that leaves a sizable death toll caused by mistreatment and violence. Should some or all of these deaths be considered instances of genocide?

Lewy points out that the war was merciless on BOTH sides.

Here, too, genocidal intent was far from evident; the practices were justified on grounds of self-preservation and revenge, and in reprisal for the extensive scalping carried out by Indians.

Lewy discusses the clashes during the western expansion:

Genocide? These actions were almost certainly in conformity with the laws of war accepted at the time. The principles of limited war and of noncombatant immunity had been codified in Francis Lieber's General Order No. 100, issued for the Union Army on April 24, 1863.

...

Wounded Knee has been called "perhaps the best-known genocide of North American Indians." But, as Robert Utley has concluded in a careful analysis, it is better described as "a regrettable, tragic accident of war," a bloodbath that neither side intended. In a situation where women and children were mixed with men, it was inevitable that some of the former would be killed. But several groups of women and children were in fact allowed out of the encampment, and wounded Indian warriors, too, were spared and taken to a hospital. There may have been a few deliberate killings of noncombatants, but on the whole, as a court of inquiry ordered by President Harrison established, the officers and soldiers of the unit made supreme efforts to avoid killing women and children.

He then goes on to explain how none of this fits into the UN Genocide COnvention.

The crucial role played by intentionality in the Genocide Convention means that under its terms the huge number of Indian deaths from epidemics cannot be considered genocide. The lethal diseases were introduced inadvertently, and the Europeans cannot be blamed for their ignorance of what medical science would discover only centuries later. Similarly, military engagements that led to the death of noncombatants, like the battle of the Washita, cannot be seen as genocidal acts, for the loss of innocent life was not intended and the soldiers did not aim at the destruction of the Indians as a defined group.

He does say that SOME Of the clashes might fit, but overall, no, no genocide, sorry.

But he says it best at the end:

In the end, the sad fate of America's Indians represents not a crime but a tragedy, involving an irreconcilable collision of cultures and values. Despite the efforts of well-meaning people in both camps, there existed no good solution to this clash. The Indians were not prepared to give up the nomadic life of the hunter for the sedentary life of the farmer. The new Americans, convinced of their cultural and racial superiority, were unwilling to grant the original inhabitants of the continent the vast preserve of land required by the Indians’ way of life. The consequence was a conflict in which there were few heroes, but which was far from a simple tale of hapless victims and merciless aggressors. To fling the charge of genocide at an entire society serves neither the interests of the Indians nor those of history.

[Rolling squid]

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.

Nope. The American Government kept none of its treaties, and besides, the land belonged to the tribes in the first place. The settlement of the new world should be considered nothing more than the violent conquest of a continent and the utter slaughter of its native people.

[Tsa-la-gi Nation]

I think Guenter Lewy says it much more eloquently than I ever could.

That American Indians suffered horribly is indisputable. But whether their suffering amounted to a "holocaust," or to genocide, is another matter.

To address this issue properly we must begin with the most important reason for the Indians’ catastrophic decline—namely, the spread of highly contagious diseases to which they had no immunity.

Note, disease was the biggest reason for the Indian population decline. Disease is not genocide. Lewy also deals with the claim about smallpox blankets, pointing out there is only one recorded incident.

Still, even if up to 90 percent of the reduction in Indian population was the result of disease, that leaves a sizable death toll caused by mistreatment and violence. Should some or all of these deaths be considered instances of genocide?

Lewy points out that the war was merciless on BOTH sides.

Here, too, genocidal intent was far from evident; the practices were justified on grounds of self-preservation and revenge, and in reprisal for the extensive scalping carried out by Indians.

Lewy discusses the clashes during the western expansion:

Genocide? These actions were almost certainly in conformity with the laws of war accepted at the time. The principles of limited war and of noncombatant immunity had been codified in Francis Lieber's General Order No. 100, issued for the Union Army on April 24, 1863.

...

Wounded Knee has been called "perhaps the best-known genocide of North American Indians." But, as Robert Utley has concluded in a careful analysis, it is better described as "a regrettable, tragic accident of war," a bloodbath that neither side intended. In a situation where women and children were mixed with men, it was inevitable that some of the former would be killed. But several groups of women and children were in fact allowed out of the encampment, and wounded Indian warriors, too, were spared and taken to a hospital. There may have been a few deliberate killings of noncombatants, but on the whole, as a court of inquiry ordered by President Harrison established, the officers and soldiers of the unit made supreme efforts to avoid killing women and children.

He then goes on to explain how none of this fits into the UN Genocide COnvention.

The crucial role played by intentionality in the Genocide Convention means that under its terms the huge number of Indian deaths from epidemics cannot be considered genocide. The lethal diseases were introduced inadvertently, and the Europeans cannot be blamed for their ignorance of what medical science would discover only centuries later. Similarly, military engagements that led to the death of noncombatants, like the battle of the Washita, cannot be seen as genocidal acts, for the loss of innocent life was not intended and the soldiers did not aim at the destruction of the Indians as a defined group.

He does say that SOME Of the clashes might fit, but overall, no, no genocide, sorry.

But he says it best at the end:

In the end, the sad fate of America's Indians represents not a crime but a tragedy, involving an irreconcilable collision of cultures and values. Despite the efforts of well-meaning people in both camps, there existed no good solution to this clash. The Indians were not prepared to give up the nomadic life of the hunter for the sedentary life of the farmer. The new Americans, convinced of their cultural and racial superiority, were unwilling to grant the original inhabitants of the continent the vast preserve of land required by the Indians’ way of life. The consequence was a conflict in which there were few heroes, but which was far from a simple tale of hapless victims and merciless aggressors. To fling the charge of genocide at an entire society serves neither the interests of the Indians nor those of history.

but the indian removal act alone caused 1/3 to 1/4 of population loss of the tribes effected just from the exodus.

[Bitchkitten]

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.

The American Government broke every single treaty they made with the natives. Not most- all of them. Most Indian attacks on settlers were prompted by settlers invading Indian territory.

Aho brother! (or sister)

Sister. Does Bitchkitten really sound like a guy?

[Rolling squid]

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.

The American Government broke every single treaty they made with the natives. Not most- all of them. Most Indian attacks on settlers were prompted by settlers invading Indian territory.

Aho brother! (or sister)

Sister. Does Bitchkitten really sound like a guy?

It's the Internet. you can never be too sure.

[Tsa-la-gi Nation]

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.

The American Government broke every single treaty they made with the natives. Not most- all of them. Most Indian attacks on settlers were prompted by settlers invading Indian territory.

Aho brother! (or sister)

Sister. Does Bitchkitten really sound like a guy?

Sorry...but on this game, you never can tell

[Rhodmhire]

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.

The American Government broke every single treaty they made with the natives. Not most- all of them. Most Indian attacks on settlers were prompted by settlers invading Indian territory.

Aho brother! (or sister)

Sister. Does Bitchkitten really sound like a guy?

It's the Internet. you can never be too sure.

I second that, I've assumed that so many NSGers who are male were females, and so many females were males.

[Ashmoria]

Think about this, we celebrate Columbus Day. Columbus & his 50 men were responsible for the deaths of an estimated 1/4 million people. this was the population of 6 tribes destroyed by them alone. Now, granted, this number includes starvation & suicide from not submitting to slavery. (indians threw their babys off cliffs & hung themselves to prevent capture from Columbus's men) If you grew up in the US, you did not learn this history. There's much more, on the founding fathers. I'm sorry I got to get off the computer for a while, but I hope to continue this debate.

I'm back & no one caught on to this so I'll repost

all of the european explorers and settlers were a mixed bag, eh? columbus wanted to get rich off his scheme and the accepted way to do it was to enslave locals and make them work for you. thats what he did. brutally.

[Tsa-la-gi Nation]

Think about this, we celebrate Columbus Day. Columbus & his 50 men were responsible for the deaths of an estimated 1/4 million people. this was the population of 6 tribes destroyed by them alone. Now, granted, this number includes starvation & suicide from not submitting to slavery. (indians threw their babys off cliffs & hung themselves to prevent capture from Columbus's men) If you grew up in the US, you did not learn this history. There's much more, on the founding fathers. I'm sorry I got to get off the computer for a while, but I hope to continue this debate.

I'm back & no one caught on to this so I'll repost

all of the european explorers and settlers were a mixed bag, eh? columbus wanted to get rich off his scheme and the accepted way to do it was to enslave locals and make them work for you. thats what he did. brutally.

The point that I'm trying to make here is that the United States has a national holiday in his name. What a slap in the face to the few Native Americans that are left. Furturemore, our public school omit this fact completely. Any kid brought up in US public schools has "1492, Columbus sailed the ocean blue" burned into their brain, but not hey this guy was as bad as Hitler. See my point?

[Takaram]

Think about this, we celebrate Columbus Day. Columbus & his 50 men were responsible for the deaths of an estimated 1/4 million people. this was the population of 6 tribes destroyed by them alone. Now, granted, this number includes starvation & suicide from not submitting to slavery. (indians threw their babys off cliffs & hung themselves to prevent capture from Columbus's men) If you grew up in the US, you did not learn this history. There's much more, on the founding fathers. I'm sorry I got to get off the computer for a while, but I hope to continue this debate.

I'm back & no one caught on to this so I'll repost

all of the european explorers and settlers were a mixed bag, eh? columbus wanted to get rich off his scheme and the accepted way to do it was to enslave locals and make them work for you. thats what he did. brutally.

The point that I'm trying to make here is that the United States has a national holiday in his name. What a slap in the face to the few Native Americans that are left. Furturemore, our public school omit this fact completely. Any kid brought up in US public schools has "1492, Columbus sailed the ocean blue" burned into their brain, but not hey this guy was as bad as Hitler. See my point?

Actually taking US history this year (admittedly, this is AP), and we covered Columbus' human right's abuses quite heavily.

[Tsa-la-gi Nation]

Think about this, we celebrate Columbus Day. Columbus & his 50 men were responsible for the deaths of an estimated 1/4 million people. this was the population of 6 tribes destroyed by them alone. Now, granted, this number includes starvation & suicide from not submitting to slavery. (indians threw their babys off cliffs & hung themselves to prevent capture from Columbus's men) If you grew up in the US, you did not learn this history. There's much more, on the founding fathers. I'm sorry I got to get off the computer for a while, but I hope to continue this debate.

I'm back & no one caught on to this so I'll repost

all of the european explorers and settlers were a mixed bag, eh? columbus wanted to get rich off his scheme and the accepted way to do it was to enslave locals and make them work for you. thats what he did. brutally.

The point that I'm trying to make here is that the United States has a national holiday in his name. What a slap in the face to the few Native Americans that are left. Furturemore, our public school omit this fact completely. Any kid brought up in US public schools has "1492, Columbus sailed the ocean blue" burned into their brain, but not hey this guy was as bad as Hitler. See my point?

Actually taking US history this year (admittedly, this is AP), and we covered Columbus' human right's abuses quite heavily.

That's great to hear! I graduated in 1991. In school Native American history was omitted & Columbus was just taught as "the founder of American", then we moved on to the revolution.

[Ashmoria]

Think about this, we celebrate Columbus Day. Columbus & his 50 men were responsible for the deaths of an estimated 1/4 million people. this was the population of 6 tribes destroyed by them alone. Now, granted, this number includes starvation & suicide from not submitting to slavery. (indians threw their babys off cliffs & hung themselves to prevent capture from Columbus's men) If you grew up in the US, you did not learn this history. There's much more, on the founding fathers. I'm sorry I got to get off the computer for a while, but I hope to continue this debate.

I'm back & no one caught on to this so I'll repost

all of the european explorers and settlers were a mixed bag, eh? columbus wanted to get rich off his scheme and the accepted way to do it was to enslave locals and make them work for you. thats what he did. brutally.

The point that I'm trying to make here is that the United States has a national holiday in his name. What a slap in the face to the few Native Americans that are left. Furturemore, our public school omit this fact completely. Any kid brought up in US public schools has "1492, Columbus sailed the ocean blue" burned into their brain, but not hey this guy was as bad as Hitler. See my point?

it would be better if we told the truth about ALL of our heros. columbus was not a particularly good man no matter what exploration he did and inspired in others.

i certainly do see your point. its not easy to balance out those who are heros to some when they are villains to others.

im not sure why we have a holiday devoted to columbus when he never came to what is now the united states, now that i think about it.

[Bitchkitten]

A good book on the portions of American history not usually covered is Howard Zinn's A Peoples History of the United States.

[Tsa-la-gi Nation]

A good book on the portions of American history not usually covered is Howard Zinn's A Peoples History of the United States.

Yes! There is also a companion book called "Voices" by Zinn, that came out maybe a year and a half ago. A must read for fans of "The people's history...".

[Drachmar]

That's great to hear! I graduated in 1991. In school Native American history was omitted & Columbus was just taught as "the founder of American", then we moved on to the revolution.

Dats beecause teh commehs dey wer coomin to get youz, an teh USA waz teh saviourz of teh frei cheezburgers.

Wait...

Dey wuz teh saviourz of the paid fer cheezburgers...not frei cheezburgers. Frei cheezburgers...dat's commeh talks n stuffs.

[Tekania]

Let me leave a few things:




The fact that Native American tribes opposed European colonization, was not default justification for attacking them... Manifest Destiny was crap... Therefore the reactions from all of this was not justified because the SOURCE of all this was not justified...

Claims by people otherwise are as absurd as thieves suing their victims because they got injured when the vitims fights back... So, might as well drop the argument...