Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Rather like our reasons to invade Iraq, right and wrong did not come into the equation.
Unfortunately, I remember hearing years ago, that even if you accept some sort of 'moral code'...(for example, western Judeo-Christian ethics...or any other, of your choice), that, as it was stated then, "The ethics and morals involved in relationships and conflicts between nations is quite a different matter, and in some ways, quite unlike, the ethics and morals involved in relationships and conflicts between individuals".
Whether you accept this, or what even, exactly it MEANS, to me it's pretty obvious. You can be 'the nice guy', and 'go the extra mile', and should, when dealing with your fellow man.
But how, really, do you fight an 'ethical" war between nations? How do you do ANYTHING in the big wide world without either 'stepping on toes' or getting 'stepped on'? How do you go about your business around the globe, without dealing with, and sometimes even 'making nice' with, some very unsavory characters?
Frankly, I can't answer these questions. But it DOES make on wonder just where "right and wrong" come in (and WHOSE 'right and wrong' we go by)..
I asked a professor about this once - he was an enrolled member of the Cherokee tribe. His answer was a very clear "no," for a rather simple reason - there is a difference between conquest through warfare, and intentional genocide. For one thing, the "Indian that time. The Indian Wars were often quite nasty and brutal affairs. However, they typically ended with treaties of various sorts, rather than wholesale ethnic exterminations.
Whether it takes one bully or ten to beat the crap out of someone I don't think really matters to the victim.
Not only were many of them killed for no real reason other than land expanision, but also the whole of their culture was destroyed. Sure there are traces of it now but no where near what is was before.
It is not just America, it was the whole of Europe that participated in this starting with the first landing by Columbus.
It is not something to dwell on though, but it is a big stain in our history, but unfortuntly, it was quite acceptable in those times and not out of the norm.
But this has gone on around the world for many years. Countless cultures have been wiped out or forcibly assimilated into the conquering culture.
It is happening even now, though not near on the scale of violence as before.
What happened to the Indians in North America was the result of conquest and culture clash, human greed and callousness. It was NOT an organized genocide.
Josef Stalin, in the 1920's, was personally responsible for the deaths of approximately 20 million people, from outright slaughter, or by deliberate starvation..
Mao Tse-tung, by most acounts, personally oversaw the deaths of 14 to 20 million people, most of them Chinese, as a result of China's "Great Leap Forward"...again. most of them deliberately starved to death..
I know, these two "leaders" weren't Westerners, so we can't REALLY hold them accountable to our Western standards...that would be "racist"...But how about Adolf Hitler...HE was a Westerner...and he ordered the purges that succeeded in very methodically "exterminating" 6 to 7 million Jews and various 'undesirables'.
ALL of these situations, and many more, reflect events and "purges" that were FAR more single-minded, and FAR more 'focused', than what happened to the natives of North America (many of whom survived, and integrated, and married into the population at large, and have lost their unique identity, not their lives)...and ALL of these numbers reflect populations FAR greater than most reasonable estimates of the 'numbers' existing in North America before the invaders' arrived.
Organization is not a prerequisite for genocide. The mindless slaughter of Christians in Burma (Myanmar) is concidered genocide. They are trying to wipe out an entire group of people. When we invaded Iraq, there were some civilian casualties but that was not an attempt to completely erase a people. Just a government. I am not an advocate of the latest Gulf War but I can recognize at least the attempt at a civilized attack. What is happening in Burma, what happened in Europe during WWII, and what happened to the Indians are perfect examples of attempted genocide. I have read figures nearing 120 Million Indians killed by settlers during their nearly 400 year war. Yes, some certainly died from foreign diseases brought over by the white man. But if even up to half were killed by disease, that still leaves a possible 60 million slaughtered Indians. Now, of course there is probably no way to prove these numbers to be absolutely accurate. But think, if only 20% of the number above is accurate, that is still 24 million dead Indians. That number is staggering enough. And a lot of people don't realize that their were literally hundreds of different tribes ranged all across this nation. And sorry Senator P, but they were not all a bunch of nomadic cannibals. Most tribes were semi-nomadic, settling in places for periods of time until it was necessary to move on to where food was more plentiful, but they were all great peoples with intricate social rules and cultures. What happened to those people was atrocious and wrong. But I am not one to really expect the past to be paid for today. But I will admit the truths that stare me dead in the face, and accept the past mistakes of my ancestors. You have to take the good with the bad in most every situation. That includes our past.
If you define genocide as the deliberate extiction of an ethnicity or race then no, The United States didn't practice genocide.
What The United States did practice was conquest. But as long as Indians did as the American government required of them they were allowed to live. Of course what was required was often unjust but there's a difference between injustice and genocide.
Indian resistance and rebellion was often put down with great brutality but I don't think brutally crushing rebellion is genocide either. And no matter the reasons there is absolutely no way that The United States killed as many Indians as the Germans killed Jews. It's generally accepted that the Germans killed 6 million Jews.
There's no doubt that many millions of Indians died from Old World diseases but this die-off was not a matter of policy and so shouldn't be considered genocide. Indeed the Spaniards were sorely tried by this great dying as to the Spaniards the Indians of the New World were a great part of it's wealth. How many Indians there were when the Europeans showed up is a matter of controversy with low counters and high counters making their cases, it seems that currently the high counters have the better argument.
Some people define genocide more liberally than I do.
mAYBE NOT INTENTIONAL GENOCIDE, but for some tribes? They were almost driven to extinction. As far as being allowed to live should they follow orders? This is based on opinion. Some Native American tribes were lied too and promises were not fufilled as expected for their cooperation. What does cooperation mean? Giving up their religions, their names, their land, the land that they occupied for many years and did not strip or abuse. They gave up their children to strangers whom taught them to be a Native American was a dirty thing, forbid them to speak their native tongue and placed them in missions.
Missions? Stripped their children and themselves of any identity they had as well as integrity of being able to provide for themselves being the first true pioneers, the ability too live off the land and provide and reap the rewards of their labor.
Missions were built in whole by NA, they put it together and the Europeans reaped the profits of their sweat and labor! IMO? Too much of a high price to pay.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Reads2MUCH
Once again the patriotic American circle tries to paint a pretty picture of what really happened during the European settlement of America. Of course you don't want to consider what happened genocide, because no one wants to think that we, the chosen wise ones, would have ever committed such atrocities. But it happened and no amount of sugar-coating or word play will change that. And so what if the tribes warred amongst each other. White men have done nothing but war with each other in their respective territories since the beginning of recorded history. Does that make it alright for us to have come to this new world and slaughter innocent people in the name of imperial growth and wealth. You just don't want to entertain the thought of your good people committing such an unbelievably inhuman act. And just so everyone can know exactly what "genocide" really means, I have included the definition of genocide according to the UN Convention in Dec. 1948. Stop lying to yourselves about what happened right here in our own country in the not so distant past. You are not responsible for the sins of your forefathers. But it is your responsibility to accept past events and admit they were wrong.
Genocide by provision of the UN Convention, Dec. 1948 is defined as follows: any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial, or religious group. Also includes a list of 5 types of criminal actions. Killing members of the group, causing serious bodily or mental harm to members, deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about physical destruction in whole or part, imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group, forcibly transferring children of the group to another group
Hitler may have been more organized in his efforts to kill the Jews, Gypsies, etc. But what he did is no different than what we did to the Native Americans. We crossed their borders, we gave them our rules to follow, and when they would not obey, we slaughtered them.
omg! Excellent post!
To the latter of your post? Good point as well. There have been records from the Pueblo indians That states atrocoties ! Women were coupled with their babies and they were tied up and their breast were cut off and placed in their mouths and their infants were left to perish next to their mothers.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Senator Palpatein
What about the Indian Genocide against the settlers?
Read some history. Fort Parker Massacre is a good start.
It was common practice for them to drag captured white babies from a running horse so that the baby's body would shred up with arms, legs, and head detaching.
Bah! They did what they could based on what was occurring to their people at the time! Ask yourself what you would do in their position?
When you see a army killing, pillaging, raping and killing everybody in sight?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Senator Palpatein
The US indian population has dramatically increased in numbers by the way!
They're increasing and getting US money.
And they call the shots on their territories not the US Government.
It is finally as it should be!
It useto be that living on the res was a hard life but they made the choice based on the novel idea that they would become a sovereign nation free to practice their religion and govern their own and this was their choice. It has only been in the last decade or a little more that they have begun to get restition.
But alas...the US government has managed a way to gain revenue from the res....which are for the majority sovereign nations. It useto be that nobody wanted a part of assisting the conditions on the res for many years but now with casinos popping up everywhere Uncle Sam wants a piece? Paaaaaaallllllleeeeeaaaasssseee! Or let us not forget land which was awarded to NA and now found rich in natural resources? Pine Ridge (Lakota tribe comes to mind). Many NA's have perished due to the gov... wanting to mine the land for uranium....
Quote:
Originally Posted by One Thousand
Yeah right, the white devil is keeping them from yanking the liquor bottle from their mouths. I 'm quarter native and that segment of my family is the dirtiest scum I've ever seen outside of Detroit, MI.
The reality is that they can't run free hunting buffalo across the highway, so they might as well assimilate the best they can and do pseudo-Renaissance festivals on the weekends. That's how the world works. It's a tough place for those of us born into poverty, but you have two choices-- perpetuate it as they have or accept the world and start acting in a way to make it better for yourself. Sitting around balling that the white man isn't fair isn't going to help them one bit... unless a shipment of welfare cheese is supposed to improve life.
Regarding the question of genocide, who cares? The settlers declared war on them. They lost. Welcome to the real world.
Wow! You are in serious need of a reality check...
Quote:
Originally Posted by DontH8Me
"under the cloak of sovereign immunity" - it seems the native Americans are pretty good at dissing each other, and since they have this immunity, the disenrolled families have little if any recourse.
Interesting, that all they have to do to take the measly $15,000/month dividend each adult received and bump it to $40,000/month per adult, is to kick one of their families off the rolls.
You are generalizing way too much! Do you know the rules for enrollment? If not than please ****.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ozzie679
You would defend your land too.
Excellent!
Quote:
Originally Posted by Reads2MUCH
I don't have white guilt. I could care less about skin color. I care about real truth, not patriotic ramblings about how we were justified in what we did to these people. As far as shredding babies is concerned, of course I don't agree with that. I never said the Indians never did anything heinous or wrong. But they were fighting for their homes and land, not conquest. Both sides did their wrongs but at least the Indians were justified in their fight to save their people.
probably biggest death toll of native americans was in mexico brought to the new world from spain, smallpox, enormous, no resistance to this disease at all, millions died.
Last edited by Huckleberry3911948; 06-13-2008 at 10:24 PM..
probably biggest death toll of native americans was in mexico brought to the new world from spain, smallpox, enormous, no resistance to this disease at all, millions died.
A whole lot must have survived, too, because today Mexico has about 103 million people, and about 12% are pure Indian in race (up to 30% are classified as "predominantly Indian"). Additionally, the vast bulk of the general population (around 70%) are mestizos, at least partly Indian in ancestry.
Lots of brutality, lots of inhumanity...but if that was a "genocide", it was sure a sloppy one.....LOTS of survivors....
probably biggest death toll of native americans was in mexico brought to the new world from spain, smallpox, enormous, no resistance to this disease at all, millions died.
That is correct. This thread might better be titled "Were Native Americans the victims of Genocide caused by the microorganisms brought to America by Europeans?"
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
