Al Nakba Denial vs Holocaust Denial, what's the Difference

[montelatici]

How can you compare the rights of the people inhabiting a territory with the rights of the people living on another continent planning to colonize the territory? Don't you realize it's an altogether crazy concept?

It might have been a crazy concept had it not happened over and over and over again throughout human history. As it is -- it is no where near a crazy concept. Rather banal, actually. Yawn inducing. Soporific. Chamomile tea. Are you suggesting that colonizers have NO rights? Ever? In all of space and time on our tiny little planet? Are you suggesting that we -- all people -- be restored to where we were originally living? As though you could measure such a thing? As though it was possible to measure such a thing, no matter how good we get at dissecting DNA.

If you are really so beholden to this idea that colonizers have no rights -- defend the idea. Defend not only the idea in principle -- but the idea that this lack of rights, in practice, requires not only prevention, but remedy. Defend it vis a vis the Americas. Africa. Australia. I rather think you can't, or won't. Because you really don't have a problem with colonization in the objective, universal sense. You reject it only with respect to Israel (read: the Jewish people), and I'm afraid, then, your anti-semitism slip is showing. You are, as always, free to prove me wrong. There are plenty of examples. The example of the Americas is, perhaps, most compelling, but you might discuss East Timor, Western Sahara, Cyprus or any other number of current examples.


No, the idea of colonizers, or of colonizers having rights, is not in the slightest an interesting idea. Far, far more intriguing is the entirely unique idea that migration of peoples back to their ancestral homeland is morally abhorrent and should be prevented and, failing that, undone. Now THAT is an entirely new concept. And, what is truly interesting about it is that it has no moral counter. One can not say that people have no right to return home and be taken seriously. That is unthinkable. That is morally ridiculous.

Colonizers have no rights at all when they intend to replace the native population with themselves. It is a criminal enterprise, whether it is successful or not in the long term. The European Jews were not returning home, they were Europeans.

Do you have a similar problem with the influx of other Arabs who migrated into the area during that same era? If you're going to bang on about "foreign Jews" then you're remarkably silent about "foreign Arabs".

The foreign Arabs did not go there to kick people out and take their place. That is immigration not colonization.

I don't think it's fair to say Jews came there to "kick people out". In fact, Jewish immigration did not displace Palestinians. War did, and subsequent expulsions.

Of course the Jews went to Palestine to remove the non-Jews. That is what colonization seeks to do.

 

[Shusha]

It might have been a crazy concept had it not happened over and over and over again throughout human history. As it is -- it is no where near a crazy concept. Rather banal, actually. Yawn inducing. Soporific. Chamomile tea. Are you suggesting that colonizers have NO rights? Ever? In all of space and time on our tiny little planet? Are you suggesting that we -- all people -- be restored to where we were originally living? As though you could measure such a thing? As though it was possible to measure such a thing, no matter how good we get at dissecting DNA.

If you are really so beholden to this idea that colonizers have no rights -- defend the idea. Defend not only the idea in principle -- but the idea that this lack of rights, in practice, requires not only prevention, but remedy. Defend it vis a vis the Americas. Africa. Australia. I rather think you can't, or won't. Because you really don't have a problem with colonization in the objective, universal sense. You reject it only with respect to Israel (read: the Jewish people), and I'm afraid, then, your anti-semitism slip is showing. You are, as always, free to prove me wrong. There are plenty of examples. The example of the Americas is, perhaps, most compelling, but you might discuss East Timor, Western Sahara, Cyprus or any other number of current examples.


No, the idea of colonizers, or of colonizers having rights, is not in the slightest an interesting idea. Far, far more intriguing is the entirely unique idea that migration of peoples back to their ancestral homeland is morally abhorrent and should be prevented and, failing that, undone. Now THAT is an entirely new concept. And, what is truly interesting about it is that it has no moral counter. One can not say that people have no right to return home and be taken seriously. That is unthinkable. That is morally ridiculous.

Colonizers have no rights at all when they intend to replace the native population with themselves. It is a criminal enterprise, whether it is successful or not in the long term. The European Jews were not returning home, they were Europeans.

Do you have a similar problem with the influx of other Arabs who migrated into the area during that same era? If you're going to bang on about "foreign Jews" then you're remarkably silent about "foreign Arabs".

The foreign Arabs did not go there to kick people out and take their place. That is immigration not colonization.

I don't think it's fair to say Jews came there to "kick people out". In fact, Jewish immigration did not displace Palestinians. War did, and subsequent expulsions.

The purpose of the war was to expel the Palestinians. The Zionist's goal was always all of Palestine without the Palestinians. It would be impossible to create a Jewish state where only 1/3 of the population was Jewish. The Palestinians had to go. It didn't just happen because of war. It was a necessity.

Yep. Sure. The Zionists tricked all those Arab countries into attacking so they would have an excuse to expel the Arabs.

 

[montelatici]

How can you compare the rights of the people inhabiting a territory with the rights of the people living on another continent planning to colonize the territory? Don't you realize it's an altogether crazy concept?

You mean like the rights of the Jews inhabiting that territory and desiring a Jewish homeland?

The Palestinian Jews were living in their homeland. They were opposed to forming a Jewish state. They said that a Jewish state would bring generations of death and destruction as it turned out to be.

Some were opposed, others desired it...there was a lot of ethnic nationalism and independence movements going on with the break up of empires. And a lot of blood shed. Seems a bit unfair to single out just the Jews in this.

Well, if the Zionist Jews did not set out to colonize the area, would there have been all the bloodshed?

One could also argue that if the Arab's had not set out to prevent a Jewish state, would there have been all the bloodshed?

It's a hard question to answer and illegal immigration from both Arabs and Jews might have contributed to it, but it's only one of many factors. The nationalistic aspirations of both Arabs and Jews collided.

Stop it. There was no Arab illegal immigration. The Christians and Muslims were living in Palestine. The Jews lived in Europe.



"59. The conclusion is that Arab illegal immigration for the purposes of permanent settlement is insignificant."

A Survey of Palestine Vol 1, page 212, para. 59



Conversely:

" It follows that the Jewish population may now include between 50,000 and 60,000 illegal immigrants who have
settled in Palestine at any time since 1920 when the first Immigration Ordinance was enacted. The number of Jewish illegal
immigrants recorded during 1945 is 370."

A Survey of Palestine Volume 1 | Berman Jewish Policy Archive @ Stanford University
A Survey of Palestine Vol 1, page 210, para. 54

A Survey of Palestine Volume 1 Berman Jewish Policy Archive NYU Wagner


Setting aside this strange construct which purports that giving back stolen property is somehow a sign of generosity, number 4. can be proven false indisputably:

"59. The conclusion is that Arab illegal immigration for the purposes of permanent settlement is insignificant."

A Survey of Palestine Vol 1, page 212, para. 59

A Survey of Palestine Volume 1 Berman Jewish Policy Archive NYU Wagner

Conversely:

" It follows that the Jewish population may now include between 50,000 and 60,000 illegal immigrants who have
settled in Palestine at any time since 1920 when the first Immigration Ordinance was enacted. The number of Jewish illegal
immigrants recorded during 1945 is 370."

A Survey of Palestine Vol 1, page 210, para. 54


A Survey of Palestine Volume 1 | Berman Jewish Policy Archive @ Stanford University

 

[P F Tinmore]

Colonizers have no rights at all when they intend to replace the native population with themselves. It is a criminal enterprise, whether it is successful or not in the long term. The European Jews were not returning home, they were Europeans.

Do you have a similar problem with the influx of other Arabs who migrated into the area during that same era? If you're going to bang on about "foreign Jews" then you're remarkably silent about "foreign Arabs".

The foreign Arabs did not go there to kick people out and take their place. That is immigration not colonization.

I don't think it's fair to say Jews came there to "kick people out". In fact, Jewish immigration did not displace Palestinians. War did, and subsequent expulsions.

The purpose of the war was to expel the Palestinians. The Zionist's goal was always all of Palestine without the Palestinians. It would be impossible to create a Jewish state where only 1/3 of the population was Jewish. The Palestinians had to go. It didn't just happen because of war. It was a necessity.

Yep. Sure. The Zionists tricked all those Arab countries into attacking so they would have an excuse to expel the Arabs.

Israeli propaganda. Over 300,000 Palestinians became refugees before the start of the 1948 war. The war with the surrounding countries was a side issue.

 

[Coyote]

...

You mean like the rights of the Jews inhabiting that territory and desiring a Jewish homeland?

The Palestinian Jews were living in their homeland. They were opposed to forming a Jewish state. They said that a Jewish state would bring generations of death and destruction as it turned out to be.

Some were opposed, others desired it...there was a lot of ethnic nationalism and independence movements going on with the break up of empires. And a lot of blood shed. Seems a bit unfair to single out just the Jews in this.

Well, if the Zionist Jews did not set out to colonize the area, would there have been all the bloodshed?

One could also argue that if the Arab's had not set out to prevent a Jewish state, would there have been all the bloodshed?

It's a hard question to answer and illegal immigration from both Arabs and Jews might have contributed to it, but it's only one of many factors. The nationalistic aspirations of both Arabs and Jews collided.

Stop it. There was no Arab illegal immigration. The Christians and Muslims were living in Palestine. The Jews lived in Europe.

It's funny to use this source in this argument because I usually use it against those who claim all the Palestinians are squatters. It's opening paragraph is spot on.

MidEast Web - Population of Palestine

The goal of the present is to examine the claims in the light of the best available statistical data, without supporting the contentions of either side, and without any intention either to denigrate from the tragedy of Palestinian refugees or to use the data to question Jewish claims to Palestine. The moral claims of the sides should not depend on percentages of population. In practice, I am aware that the data on this page have been used to support various partisan claims. That is precisely the sort of abuse that this material is intended to fight. The major conclusion is "The nature of the data do not permit precise conclusions about the Arab population of Palestine in Ottoman and British times" Anyone who pretends otherwise is deliberately misleading you. We can reach some general conclusions - Palestine was not empty when Zionists started arriving, there was some Arab immigration as well etc. But we cannot give a precise number in any case, and even if we could, it would not constitute evidence to back any moral claims.


​

 

[montelatici]

...

The Palestinian Jews were living in their homeland. They were opposed to forming a Jewish state. They said that a Jewish state would bring generations of death and destruction as it turned out to be.

Some were opposed, others desired it...there was a lot of ethnic nationalism and independence movements going on with the break up of empires. And a lot of blood shed. Seems a bit unfair to single out just the Jews in this.

Well, if the Zionist Jews did not set out to colonize the area, would there have been all the bloodshed?

One could also argue that if the Arab's had not set out to prevent a Jewish state, would there have been all the bloodshed?

It's a hard question to answer and illegal immigration from both Arabs and Jews might have contributed to it, but it's only one of many factors. The nationalistic aspirations of both Arabs and Jews collided.

Stop it. There was no Arab illegal immigration. The Christians and Muslims were living in Palestine. The Jews lived in Europe.

It's funny to use this source in this argument because I usually use it against those who claim all the Palestinians are squatters. It's opening paragraph is spot on.

MidEast Web - Population of Palestine

The goal of the present is to examine the claims in the light of the best available statistical data, without supporting the contentions of either side, and without any intention either to denigrate from the tragedy of Palestinian refugees or to use the data to question Jewish claims to Palestine. The moral claims of the sides should not depend on percentages of population. In practice, I am aware that the data on this page have been used to support various partisan claims. That is precisely the sort of abuse that this material is intended to fight. The major conclusion is "The nature of the data do not permit precise conclusions about the Arab population of Palestine in Ottoman and British times" Anyone who pretends otherwise is deliberately misleading you. We can reach some general conclusions - Palestine was not empty when Zionists started arriving, there was some Arab immigration as well etc. But we cannot give a precise number in any case, and even if we could, it would not constitute evidence to back any moral claims.


​

Well, if you want to disregard official and professional source data available from historical archives and rather believe a blog that wants everyone to be happy, it isn't really worth discussing.

 

[P F Tinmore]

...

The Palestinian Jews were living in their homeland. They were opposed to forming a Jewish state. They said that a Jewish state would bring generations of death and destruction as it turned out to be.

Some were opposed, others desired it...there was a lot of ethnic nationalism and independence movements going on with the break up of empires. And a lot of blood shed. Seems a bit unfair to single out just the Jews in this.

Well, if the Zionist Jews did not set out to colonize the area, would there have been all the bloodshed?

One could also argue that if the Arab's had not set out to prevent a Jewish state, would there have been all the bloodshed?

It's a hard question to answer and illegal immigration from both Arabs and Jews might have contributed to it, but it's only one of many factors. The nationalistic aspirations of both Arabs and Jews collided.

Stop it. There was no Arab illegal immigration. The Christians and Muslims were living in Palestine. The Jews lived in Europe.

It's funny to use this source in this argument because I usually use it against those who claim all the Palestinians are squatters. It's opening paragraph is spot on.

MidEast Web - Population of Palestine

The goal of the present is to examine the claims in the light of the best available statistical data, without supporting the contentions of either side, and without any intention either to denigrate from the tragedy of Palestinian refugees or to use the data to question Jewish claims to Palestine. The moral claims of the sides should not depend on percentages of population. In practice, I am aware that the data on this page have been used to support various partisan claims. That is precisely the sort of abuse that this material is intended to fight. The major conclusion is "The nature of the data do not permit precise conclusions about the Arab population of Palestine in Ottoman and British times" Anyone who pretends otherwise is deliberately misleading you. We can reach some general conclusions - Palestine was not empty when Zionists started arriving, there was some Arab immigration as well etc. But we cannot give a precise number in any case, and even if we could, it would not constitute evidence to back any moral claims.


​

There should not be a question about who is a Palestinian. The Palestinian Citizenship order of 1925 stated that all Turkish subjects who normally lived inside Palestine's international borders would automatically become Palestinian citizens. This reflected was was stated in Article 30 in the Treaty of Lausanne. That information is, or should be, in Turkish and British archives.

Palestinians who were not present at the time of the citizenship order (due to travel, education, employment, etc.) had 2 years (???) to return to Palestine to claim their citizenship. Citizenship was well recorded by Britain. This included Muslims, Christians, and Jews without exception.

 

[montelatici]

Colonizers have no rights at all when they intend to replace the native population with themselves. It is a criminal enterprise, whether it is successful or not in the long term. The European Jews were not returning home, they were Europeans.

Do you have a similar problem with the influx of other Arabs who migrated into the area during that same era? If you're going to bang on about "foreign Jews" then you're remarkably silent about "foreign Arabs".

The foreign Arabs did not go there to kick people out and take their place. That is immigration not colonization.

I don't think it's fair to say Jews came there to "kick people out". In fact, Jewish immigration did not displace Palestinians. War did, and subsequent expulsions.

The purpose of the war was to expel the Palestinians. The Zionist's goal was always all of Palestine without the Palestinians. It would be impossible to create a Jewish state where only 1/3 of the population was Jewish. The Palestinians had to go. It didn't just happen because of war. It was a necessity.

Yep. Sure. The Zionists tricked all those Arab countries into attacking so they would have an excuse to expel the Arabs.

The Arab League intervened to try to stop the Jews from ethnically cleansing the non-Jews. Jaffa had been put under siege by the Jews long before the Arab Leagues intervention. In fact, it surrendered to the Jews before the Arab League intervened. Plan Dalet, the plan to evict the non-Jews had been implemented long before the Arab League attempted to save the non-Jews.

 

[Indeependent]

Colonizers have no rights at all when they intend to replace the native population with themselves. It is a criminal enterprise, whether it is successful or not in the long term. The European Jews were not returning home, they were Europeans.

Do you have a similar problem with the influx of other Arabs who migrated into the area during that same era? If you're going to bang on about "foreign Jews" then you're remarkably silent about "foreign Arabs".

The foreign Arabs did not go there to kick people out and take their place. That is immigration not colonization.

I don't think it's fair to say Jews came there to "kick people out". In fact, Jewish immigration did not displace Palestinians. War did, and subsequent expulsions.

The purpose of the war was to expel the Palestinians. The Zionist's goal was always all of Palestine without the Palestinians. It would be impossible to create a Jewish state where only 1/3 of the population was Jewish. The Palestinians had to go. It didn't just happen because of war. It was a necessity.

Yep. Sure. The Zionists tricked all those Arab countries into attacking so they would have an excuse to expel the Arabs.

Why do you continue to engage with the mentally deranged Monty (Python)?

 

[Shusha]

...

Some were opposed, others desired it...there was a lot of ethnic nationalism and independence movements going on with the break up of empires. And a lot of blood shed. Seems a bit unfair to single out just the Jews in this.

Well, if the Zionist Jews did not set out to colonize the area, would there have been all the bloodshed?

One could also argue that if the Arab's had not set out to prevent a Jewish state, would there have been all the bloodshed?

It's a hard question to answer and illegal immigration from both Arabs and Jews might have contributed to it, but it's only one of many factors. The nationalistic aspirations of both Arabs and Jews collided.

Stop it. There was no Arab illegal immigration. The Christians and Muslims were living in Palestine. The Jews lived in Europe.

It's funny to use this source in this argument because I usually use it against those who claim all the Palestinians are squatters. It's opening paragraph is spot on.

MidEast Web - Population of Palestine

The goal of the present is to examine the claims in the light of the best available statistical data, without supporting the contentions of either side, and without any intention either to denigrate from the tragedy of Palestinian refugees or to use the data to question Jewish claims to Palestine. The moral claims of the sides should not depend on percentages of population. In practice, I am aware that the data on this page have been used to support various partisan claims. That is precisely the sort of abuse that this material is intended to fight. The major conclusion is "The nature of the data do not permit precise conclusions about the Arab population of Palestine in Ottoman and British times" Anyone who pretends otherwise is deliberately misleading you. We can reach some general conclusions - Palestine was not empty when Zionists started arriving, there was some Arab immigration as well etc. But we cannot give a precise number in any case, and even if we could, it would not constitute evidence to back any moral claims.


​

There should not be a question about who is a Palestinian. The Palestinian Citizenship order of 1925 stated that all Turkish subjects who normally lived inside Palestine's international borders would automatically become Palestinian citizens. This reflected was was stated in Article 30 in the Treaty of Lausanne. That information is, or should be, in Turkish and British archives.

Palestinians who were not present at the time of the citizenship order (due to travel, education, employment, etc.) had 2 years (???) to return to Palestine to claim their citizenship. Citizenship was well recorded by Britain. This included Muslims, Christians, and Jews without exception.

The Palestinian Citizenship Order also facilitated the right of the Jewish people to citizenship.

 

[P F Tinmore]

...

Well, if the Zionist Jews did not set out to colonize the area, would there have been all the bloodshed?

One could also argue that if the Arab's had not set out to prevent a Jewish state, would there have been all the bloodshed?

It's a hard question to answer and illegal immigration from both Arabs and Jews might have contributed to it, but it's only one of many factors. The nationalistic aspirations of both Arabs and Jews collided.

Stop it. There was no Arab illegal immigration. The Christians and Muslims were living in Palestine. The Jews lived in Europe.

It's funny to use this source in this argument because I usually use it against those who claim all the Palestinians are squatters. It's opening paragraph is spot on.

MidEast Web - Population of Palestine

The goal of the present is to examine the claims in the light of the best available statistical data, without supporting the contentions of either side, and without any intention either to denigrate from the tragedy of Palestinian refugees or to use the data to question Jewish claims to Palestine. The moral claims of the sides should not depend on percentages of population. In practice, I am aware that the data on this page have been used to support various partisan claims. That is precisely the sort of abuse that this material is intended to fight. The major conclusion is "The nature of the data do not permit precise conclusions about the Arab population of Palestine in Ottoman and British times" Anyone who pretends otherwise is deliberately misleading you. We can reach some general conclusions - Palestine was not empty when Zionists started arriving, there was some Arab immigration as well etc. But we cannot give a precise number in any case, and even if we could, it would not constitute evidence to back any moral claims.


​

There should not be a question about who is a Palestinian. The Palestinian Citizenship order of 1925 stated that all Turkish subjects who normally lived inside Palestine's international borders would automatically become Palestinian citizens. This reflected was was stated in Article 30 in the Treaty of Lausanne. That information is, or should be, in Turkish and British archives.

Palestinians who were not present at the time of the citizenship order (due to travel, education, employment, etc.) had 2 years (???) to return to Palestine to claim their citizenship. Citizenship was well recorded by Britain. This included Muslims, Christians, and Jews without exception.

The Palestinian Citizenship Order also facilitated the right of the Jewish people to citizenship.

Indeed, citizenship. Not a Jewish state.

 

[Shusha]

...

One could also argue that if the Arab's had not set out to prevent a Jewish state, would there have been all the bloodshed?

It's a hard question to answer and illegal immigration from both Arabs and Jews might have contributed to it, but it's only one of many factors. The nationalistic aspirations of both Arabs and Jews collided.

Stop it. There was no Arab illegal immigration. The Christians and Muslims were living in Palestine. The Jews lived in Europe.

It's funny to use this source in this argument because I usually use it against those who claim all the Palestinians are squatters. It's opening paragraph is spot on.

MidEast Web - Population of Palestine

The goal of the present is to examine the claims in the light of the best available statistical data, without supporting the contentions of either side, and without any intention either to denigrate from the tragedy of Palestinian refugees or to use the data to question Jewish claims to Palestine. The moral claims of the sides should not depend on percentages of population. In practice, I am aware that the data on this page have been used to support various partisan claims. That is precisely the sort of abuse that this material is intended to fight. The major conclusion is "The nature of the data do not permit precise conclusions about the Arab population of Palestine in Ottoman and British times" Anyone who pretends otherwise is deliberately misleading you. We can reach some general conclusions - Palestine was not empty when Zionists started arriving, there was some Arab immigration as well etc. But we cannot give a precise number in any case, and even if we could, it would not constitute evidence to back any moral claims.


​

There should not be a question about who is a Palestinian. The Palestinian Citizenship order of 1925 stated that all Turkish subjects who normally lived inside Palestine's international borders would automatically become Palestinian citizens. This reflected was was stated in Article 30 in the Treaty of Lausanne. That information is, or should be, in Turkish and British archives.

Palestinians who were not present at the time of the citizenship order (due to travel, education, employment, etc.) had 2 years (???) to return to Palestine to claim their citizenship. Citizenship was well recorded by Britain. This included Muslims, Christians, and Jews without exception.

The Palestinian Citizenship Order also facilitated the right of the Jewish people to citizenship.

Indeed, citizenship. Not a Jewish state.

Indeed. The right to a Jewish State had already been established. Hence the citizenship order including provisions for it.

 

[P F Tinmore]

...

Stop it. There was no Arab illegal immigration. The Christians and Muslims were living in Palestine. The Jews lived in Europe.

It's funny to use this source in this argument because I usually use it against those who claim all the Palestinians are squatters. It's opening paragraph is spot on.

MidEast Web - Population of Palestine

The goal of the present is to examine the claims in the light of the best available statistical data, without supporting the contentions of either side, and without any intention either to denigrate from the tragedy of Palestinian refugees or to use the data to question Jewish claims to Palestine. The moral claims of the sides should not depend on percentages of population. In practice, I am aware that the data on this page have been used to support various partisan claims. That is precisely the sort of abuse that this material is intended to fight. The major conclusion is "The nature of the data do not permit precise conclusions about the Arab population of Palestine in Ottoman and British times" Anyone who pretends otherwise is deliberately misleading you. We can reach some general conclusions - Palestine was not empty when Zionists started arriving, there was some Arab immigration as well etc. But we cannot give a precise number in any case, and even if we could, it would not constitute evidence to back any moral claims.


​

There should not be a question about who is a Palestinian. The Palestinian Citizenship order of 1925 stated that all Turkish subjects who normally lived inside Palestine's international borders would automatically become Palestinian citizens. This reflected was was stated in Article 30 in the Treaty of Lausanne. That information is, or should be, in Turkish and British archives.

Palestinians who were not present at the time of the citizenship order (due to travel, education, employment, etc.) had 2 years (???) to return to Palestine to claim their citizenship. Citizenship was well recorded by Britain. This included Muslims, Christians, and Jews without exception.

The Palestinian Citizenship Order also facilitated the right of the Jewish people to citizenship.

Indeed, citizenship. Not a Jewish state.

Indeed. The right to a Jewish State had already been established. Hence the citizenship order including provisions for it.

I think you are mistaken.

 

[Humanity]

In the USA native Americans were driven off 99% of their land and herded into so-called "reservations", where they were subjected to some of the worst poverty and horrible living conditions in the country.

That is NOT genocide!

 

[montelatici]

In the USA native Americans were driven off 99% of their land and herded into so-called "reservations", where they were subjected to some of the worst poverty and horrible living conditions in the country.

That is NOT genocide!

No, that is the ethnic cleansing, which also occurred. I suggest you have a look at the American Indian Genocide Museum website, the museum is based here in the U.S. It will open your eyes to the genocide.

American Indian Genocide Museum

 

[Humanity]

In the USA native Americans were driven off 99% of their land and herded into so-called "reservations", where they were subjected to some of the worst poverty and horrible living conditions in the country.

That is NOT genocide!

No, that is the ethnic cleansing, which also occurred. I suggest you have a look at the American Indian Genocide Museum website, the museum is based here in the U.S. It will open your eyes to the genocide.

American Indian Genocide Museum

Great title for a website... That RARELY mentions the word "genocide" that, on it's home page, could find not one mention!

" It is a memorial to the victims of ethnic cleansing." - Mission Statement

"Racism, discrimination and injustice will be addressed with the purpose of promoting public awareness that these elements of genocide which existed in the past, continue to exist today." - Mission Statement

Now, hang on... "elements of genocide" ??

 

[montelatici]

Are you seriously denying that the Native Americans were not victims of genocide? Do you understand the definition of genocide? How can you possibly deny it. You are like a Holocaust denier.


"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;
(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.

 

[Humanity]

Are you seriously denying that the Native Americans were not victims of genocide? Do you understand the definition of genocide? How can you possibly deny it. You are like a Holocaust denier.


"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;
(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.

Hahaha "You are like a Holocaust denier.".... Nice one...

I don't see anywhere in my post that I denied anything!

Simply looking at YOUR link and struggling to find any reference to "genocide" other than in the title of the website!

In their mission statement, as already mentioned, they say their website is " It is a memorial to the victims of ethnic cleansing." Why did they not use the term... 'victims of genocide'?

 

[Hollie]

Are you seriously denying that the Native Americans were not victims of genocide? Do you understand the definition of genocide? How can you possibly deny it. You are like a Holocaust denier.


"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;
(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.

The Avalon Project : Hamas Covenant 1988

Israel will exist and will continue to exist until Islam will obliterate it, just as it obliterated others before it" (The Martyr, Imam Hassan al-Banna, of blessed memory).

 

[P F Tinmore]

Are you seriously denying that the Native Americans were not victims of genocide? Do you understand the definition of genocide? How can you possibly deny it. You are like a Holocaust denier.


"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;
(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.

The Avalon Project : Hamas Covenant 1988

Israel will exist and will continue to exist until Islam will obliterate it, just as it obliterated others before it" (The Martyr, Imam Hassan al-Banna, of blessed memory).

When are you going to start posting the new one?