Black lives matter, but the genocide of Native Americans. no problem

[Ringel05]

Nanu, nanu!!

No All ~ 300 years have been on this continent. Parts of my family got here only shortly after the Pilgrims.

Part of my family were here before the interlopers....... Of course the other part are from the interlopers.......

 

[daws101]

Life is to live, something you've never done.

Life us to be lived PROPERLY. I will never live life as you suggest. I'd eat a bullet first.

Properly is subjective.
As to the other, you'd be doing the world a favor.

 

[daws101]

There has to be an existing per-frontal lobe for that to be effective.......

My mind is almost 300 years old. It's been passed down from one generation to the next for centuries.

That's the Antipsychotics talking.

 

[daws101]

Nanu, nanu!!

No All ~ 300 years have been on this continent. Parts of my family got here only shortly after the Pilgrims.

The oldest like in the white trash book.

 

[hangover]

I asked the question that Trump asked the blacks......"What have you got to lose?" The right wing fascists that run this board know the answer is the same as what they did to the Native Americans, which is everything...their land, their freedom and their families. So they try to hide this thread in the racism section, because they think they can hide the truth. Cons lose in November, because there's never going to be enough stupid American voters to get Trump elected.

 

[martybegan]

I can see martyr running around reservations and other scenes of genocide screaming it was an accident we didn't mean to kill all of you ,just some of you!

Why would I do that?

Its obvious that there was exploitation and rank criminality done during the time, but its still not genocide.

sure it wasn't .

Moron.

 

[martybegan]

Genocide is the deliberate killing off of a race or group. What European settlers did was exploit the living shit out of them, but mass killings for the sake of killing wasn't part of the program.

To be genocide, in my opinion, one has to want to deliberately exterminate a given group.

The argument revolves around not only definitions but specific acts by the US Government and settlers to define genocide in this issue.

Genocide and American Indian History - American History: Oxford Research Encyclopedias

This essay begins with the premise that the issue of genocide in American Indian history is far too complex to yield a simple yes-or-no answer. The relevant history, after all, is a long one (more than five hundred years) involving hundreds of indigenous nations and several European and neo-European empires and imperial nation-states. While it would be absurd to reduce this history to any single category, genocide included, it would be reasonable to predict that genocide was a part of this history. With this in mind, the essay invites readers to resist a tendency toward a quick or easy resolution of the question of genocide in American Indian history and to engage in an open-ended exploration. The object is not a definitive answer but a clarification of the issues.

So even the article can't make up its mind. To me there is no "kinda sorta" genocide. There is genocide, and then there is massive exploitation that results in lots of deaths.

So Holocaust, Genocide, Turks against the Armenians, Genocide. Native Americans i colonial times? massive exploitation, The Potato Famine? Not genocide, but just the Brits not giving a Rats ass about the Irish.

I believe it was a combination of exploitation and then instances of genocide, its really hard to escape some of those facts, although I know at times they did coexist ( without the bumpersticker) and at times it was the Indians as aggressor. The reality is they really did get the short end of the deal and probably a great deal of it was because of apathy on the part of government officials

The Great California Genocide

To me one can't argue about actual genocide. Hitler wanted to get rid of the Jews, the Turks wanted to get rid of the Armenians.

The US then didn't want to get rid of the Natives, they just wanted them either out of the way or assimilated. The English didn't want to get rid of the Irish, they just didn't care about them starving.

Look up Andrew Jackson and Teddy Roosevelt among just a few. No, it wasn't a systematic genocide but there were those who wanted it to be.
The Indians were in the way of expansion, land grabbing, resources and often a danger to settlers and miners. Yes, most just wanted them out of the way but could care less how it was done.
Heck even the Tejanos who fought alongside the Texicans against Santa Anna mostly were screwed over later down the road. The details of our history are generally not very pretty all around, of course there are good events, there always are, but overall our history is one of conquest and depredations not only against the Indians and others but also against ourselves.

History is full of one group wanting to take over the land of another group, and not really caring what happens afterwards. Even the Native Americans were guilty of that. It's still not genocide.

 

[Ringel05]

The argument revolves around not only definitions but specific acts by the US Government and settlers to define genocide in this issue.

Genocide and American Indian History - American History: Oxford Research Encyclopedias

So even the article can't make up its mind. To me there is no "kinda sorta" genocide. There is genocide, and then there is massive exploitation that results in lots of deaths.

So Holocaust, Genocide, Turks against the Armenians, Genocide. Native Americans i colonial times? massive exploitation, The Potato Famine? Not genocide, but just the Brits not giving a Rats ass about the Irish.

I believe it was a combination of exploitation and then instances of genocide, its really hard to escape some of those facts, although I know at times they did coexist ( without the bumpersticker) and at times it was the Indians as aggressor. The reality is they really did get the short end of the deal and probably a great deal of it was because of apathy on the part of government officials

The Great California Genocide

To me one can't argue about actual genocide. Hitler wanted to get rid of the Jews, the Turks wanted to get rid of the Armenians.

The US then didn't want to get rid of the Natives, they just wanted them either out of the way or assimilated. The English didn't want to get rid of the Irish, they just didn't care about them starving.

Look up Andrew Jackson and Teddy Roosevelt among just a few. No, it wasn't a systematic genocide but there were those who wanted it to be.
The Indians were in the way of expansion, land grabbing, resources and often a danger to settlers and miners. Yes, most just wanted them out of the way but could care less how it was done.
Heck even the Tejanos who fought alongside the Texicans against Santa Anna mostly were screwed over later down the road. The details of our history are generally not very pretty all around, of course there are good events, there always are, but overall our history is one of conquest and depredations not only against the Indians and others but also against ourselves.

History is full of one group wanting to take over the land of another group, and not really caring what happens afterwards. Even the Native Americans were guilty of that. It's still not genocide.

Marty, there were limited attempts by a few at different times to commit genocide, most perpetrators happened to be in the government. Now I'm not claiming there was a continuous, concerted, overarching attempt by the government to commit genocide but again there were isolated incidents where genocide against individual tribes was the goal.
Just because it didn't include all tribes at all times doesn't make it any less genocidal which means we've been arguing semantics.
As for the so call Noble Savage...... Yeah right, that was about as correct as using the term civilized White Man, neither are complete lies, neither are fully true.

 

[martybegan]

So even the article can't make up its mind. To me there is no "kinda sorta" genocide. There is genocide, and then there is massive exploitation that results in lots of deaths.

So Holocaust, Genocide, Turks against the Armenians, Genocide. Native Americans i colonial times? massive exploitation, The Potato Famine? Not genocide, but just the Brits not giving a Rats ass about the Irish.

I believe it was a combination of exploitation and then instances of genocide, its really hard to escape some of those facts, although I know at times they did coexist ( without the bumpersticker) and at times it was the Indians as aggressor. The reality is they really did get the short end of the deal and probably a great deal of it was because of apathy on the part of government officials

The Great California Genocide

To me one can't argue about actual genocide. Hitler wanted to get rid of the Jews, the Turks wanted to get rid of the Armenians.

The US then didn't want to get rid of the Natives, they just wanted them either out of the way or assimilated. The English didn't want to get rid of the Irish, they just didn't care about them starving.

Look up Andrew Jackson and Teddy Roosevelt among just a few. No, it wasn't a systematic genocide but there were those who wanted it to be.
The Indians were in the way of expansion, land grabbing, resources and often a danger to settlers and miners. Yes, most just wanted them out of the way but could care less how it was done.
Heck even the Tejanos who fought alongside the Texicans against Santa Anna mostly were screwed over later down the road. The details of our history are generally not very pretty all around, of course there are good events, there always are, but overall our history is one of conquest and depredations not only against the Indians and others but also against ourselves.

History is full of one group wanting to take over the land of another group, and not really caring what happens afterwards. Even the Native Americans were guilty of that. It's still not genocide.

Marty, there were limited attempts by a few at different times to commit genocide, most perpetrators happened to be in the government. Now I'm not claiming there was a continuous, concerted, overarching attempt by the government to commit genocide but again there were isolated incidents where genocide against individual tribes was the goal.
Just because it didn't include all tribes at all times doesn't make it any less genocidal which means we've been arguing semantics.
As for the so call Noble Savage...... Yeah right, that was about as correct as using the term civilized White Man, neither are complete lies, neither are fully true.

Genocide isn't small, or isolated, or local. It is the concerted attempt to wipe out a race or group.

Those are massacres, not genocide.

 

[hangover]

I can see martyr running around reservations and other scenes of genocide screaming it was an accident we didn't mean to kill all of you ,just some of you!

Why would I do that?

Its obvious that there was exploitation and rank criminality done during the time, but its still not genocide.

sure it wasn't .

Moron.

80 million unexploded American cluster bombs still in Laos, from the Vietnam war. The U.S is the only country in the world that has used nuclear bombs on a quarter million civilians in Japan. So what you are saying, is targeting civilians, like 9/11 is fair in war. U.S. intervention in the Muslim world caused 9/11. Someday you will learn Karma.

 

[hangover]

I believe it was a combination of exploitation and then instances of genocide, its really hard to escape some of those facts, although I know at times they did coexist ( without the bumpersticker) and at times it was the Indians as aggressor. The reality is they really did get the short end of the deal and probably a great deal of it was because of apathy on the part of government officials

The Great California Genocide

To me one can't argue about actual genocide. Hitler wanted to get rid of the Jews, the Turks wanted to get rid of the Armenians.

The US then didn't want to get rid of the Natives, they just wanted them either out of the way or assimilated. The English didn't want to get rid of the Irish, they just didn't care about them starving.

Look up Andrew Jackson and Teddy Roosevelt among just a few. No, it wasn't a systematic genocide but there were those who wanted it to be.
The Indians were in the way of expansion, land grabbing, resources and often a danger to settlers and miners. Yes, most just wanted them out of the way but could care less how it was done.
Heck even the Tejanos who fought alongside the Texicans against Santa Anna mostly were screwed over later down the road. The details of our history are generally not very pretty all around, of course there are good events, there always are, but overall our history is one of conquest and depredations not only against the Indians and others but also against ourselves.

History is full of one group wanting to take over the land of another group, and not really caring what happens afterwards. Even the Native Americans were guilty of that. It's still not genocide.

Marty, there were limited attempts by a few at different times to commit genocide, most perpetrators happened to be in the government. Now I'm not claiming there was a continuous, concerted, overarching attempt by the government to commit genocide but again there were isolated incidents where genocide against individual tribes was the goal.
Just because it didn't include all tribes at all times doesn't make it any less genocidal which means we've been arguing semantics.
As for the so call Noble Savage...... Yeah right, that was about as correct as using the term civilized White Man, neither are complete lies, neither are fully true.

Genocide isn't small, or isolated, or local. It is the concerted attempt to wipe out a race or group.

Those are massacres, not genocide.

11 million Native Americans were murdered, and their land stolen. Some tribes are now totally extinct.

 

[martybegan]

I can see martyr running around reservations and other scenes of genocide screaming it was an accident we didn't mean to kill all of you ,just some of you!

Why would I do that?

Its obvious that there was exploitation and rank criminality done during the time, but its still not genocide.

sure it wasn't .

Moron.

80 million unexploded American cluster bombs still in Laos, from the Vietnam war. The U.S is the only country in the world that has used nuclear bombs on a quarter million civilians in Japan. So what you are saying, is targeting civilians, like 9/11 is fair in war. U.S. intervention in the Muslim world caused 9/11. Someday you will learn Karma.

What a load of lefty tribble, and completely off point.

Go back on your meds.

 

[martybegan]

To me one can't argue about actual genocide. Hitler wanted to get rid of the Jews, the Turks wanted to get rid of the Armenians.

The US then didn't want to get rid of the Natives, they just wanted them either out of the way or assimilated. The English didn't want to get rid of the Irish, they just didn't care about them starving.

Look up Andrew Jackson and Teddy Roosevelt among just a few. No, it wasn't a systematic genocide but there were those who wanted it to be.
The Indians were in the way of expansion, land grabbing, resources and often a danger to settlers and miners. Yes, most just wanted them out of the way but could care less how it was done.
Heck even the Tejanos who fought alongside the Texicans against Santa Anna mostly were screwed over later down the road. The details of our history are generally not very pretty all around, of course there are good events, there always are, but overall our history is one of conquest and depredations not only against the Indians and others but also against ourselves.

History is full of one group wanting to take over the land of another group, and not really caring what happens afterwards. Even the Native Americans were guilty of that. It's still not genocide.

Marty, there were limited attempts by a few at different times to commit genocide, most perpetrators happened to be in the government. Now I'm not claiming there was a continuous, concerted, overarching attempt by the government to commit genocide but again there were isolated incidents where genocide against individual tribes was the goal.
Just because it didn't include all tribes at all times doesn't make it any less genocidal which means we've been arguing semantics.
As for the so call Noble Savage...... Yeah right, that was about as correct as using the term civilized White Man, neither are complete lies, neither are fully true.

Genocide isn't small, or isolated, or local. It is the concerted attempt to wipe out a race or group.

Those are massacres, not genocide.

11 million Native Americans were murdered, and their land stolen. Some tribes are now totally extinct.

Got any links to back that up?

And I'm sure the natives back then respected each other's property and didn't make war on other tribes at all.

 

[Ringel05]

I believe it was a combination of exploitation and then instances of genocide, its really hard to escape some of those facts, although I know at times they did coexist ( without the bumpersticker) and at times it was the Indians as aggressor. The reality is they really did get the short end of the deal and probably a great deal of it was because of apathy on the part of government officials

The Great California Genocide

To me one can't argue about actual genocide. Hitler wanted to get rid of the Jews, the Turks wanted to get rid of the Armenians.

The US then didn't want to get rid of the Natives, they just wanted them either out of the way or assimilated. The English didn't want to get rid of the Irish, they just didn't care about them starving.

Look up Andrew Jackson and Teddy Roosevelt among just a few. No, it wasn't a systematic genocide but there were those who wanted it to be.
The Indians were in the way of expansion, land grabbing, resources and often a danger to settlers and miners. Yes, most just wanted them out of the way but could care less how it was done.
Heck even the Tejanos who fought alongside the Texicans against Santa Anna mostly were screwed over later down the road. The details of our history are generally not very pretty all around, of course there are good events, there always are, but overall our history is one of conquest and depredations not only against the Indians and others but also against ourselves.

History is full of one group wanting to take over the land of another group, and not really caring what happens afterwards. Even the Native Americans were guilty of that. It's still not genocide.

Marty, there were limited attempts by a few at different times to commit genocide, most perpetrators happened to be in the government. Now I'm not claiming there was a continuous, concerted, overarching attempt by the government to commit genocide but again there were isolated incidents where genocide against individual tribes was the goal.
Just because it didn't include all tribes at all times doesn't make it any less genocidal which means we've been arguing semantics.
As for the so call Noble Savage...... Yeah right, that was about as correct as using the term civilized White Man, neither are complete lies, neither are fully true.

Genocide isn't small, or isolated, or local. It is the concerted attempt to wipe out a race or group.

Those are massacres, not genocide.

You're looking at the Indians as a whole, we're looking at them as individual groupings and if you look it up the application of the term genocide can be debated as applicable in either case so again we're arguing semantics.

 

[martybegan]

To me one can't argue about actual genocide. Hitler wanted to get rid of the Jews, the Turks wanted to get rid of the Armenians.

The US then didn't want to get rid of the Natives, they just wanted them either out of the way or assimilated. The English didn't want to get rid of the Irish, they just didn't care about them starving.

Look up Andrew Jackson and Teddy Roosevelt among just a few. No, it wasn't a systematic genocide but there were those who wanted it to be.
The Indians were in the way of expansion, land grabbing, resources and often a danger to settlers and miners. Yes, most just wanted them out of the way but could care less how it was done.
Heck even the Tejanos who fought alongside the Texicans against Santa Anna mostly were screwed over later down the road. The details of our history are generally not very pretty all around, of course there are good events, there always are, but overall our history is one of conquest and depredations not only against the Indians and others but also against ourselves.

History is full of one group wanting to take over the land of another group, and not really caring what happens afterwards. Even the Native Americans were guilty of that. It's still not genocide.

Marty, there were limited attempts by a few at different times to commit genocide, most perpetrators happened to be in the government. Now I'm not claiming there was a continuous, concerted, overarching attempt by the government to commit genocide but again there were isolated incidents where genocide against individual tribes was the goal.
Just because it didn't include all tribes at all times doesn't make it any less genocidal which means we've been arguing semantics.
As for the so call Noble Savage...... Yeah right, that was about as correct as using the term civilized White Man, neither are complete lies, neither are fully true.

Genocide isn't small, or isolated, or local. It is the concerted attempt to wipe out a race or group.

Those are massacres, not genocide.

You're looking at the Indians as a whole, we're looking at them as individual groupings and if you look it up the application of the term genocide it can be debated as applicable in either case so again we're arguing semantics.

I am arguing against the over-use of a term that removes the meaning of said term. Genocide is beyond fights over land and exploitation. It is the high level determination that an entire race or group needs to be wiped off the face of the earth.

 

[daws101]

I can see martyr running around reservations and other scenes of genocide screaming it was an accident we didn't mean to kill all of you ,just some of you!

Why would I do that?

Its obvious that there was exploitation and rank criminality done during the time, but its still not genocide.

sure it wasn't .

Moron.

80 million unexploded American cluster bombs still in Laos, from the Vietnam war. The U.S is the only country in the world that has used nuclear bombs on a quarter million civilians in Japan. So what you are saying, is targeting civilians, like 9/11 is fair in war. U.S. intervention in the Muslim world caused 9/11. Someday you will learn Karma.

What a load of lefty tribble, and completely off point.

Go back on your meds.

Translation : those facts are far more than I can handle.

 

[JustAnotherNut]

Look up Andrew Jackson and Teddy Roosevelt among just a few. No, it wasn't a systematic genocide but there were those who wanted it to be.
The Indians were in the way of expansion, land grabbing, resources and often a danger to settlers and miners. Yes, most just wanted them out of the way but could care less how it was done.
Heck even the Tejanos who fought alongside the Texicans against Santa Anna mostly were screwed over later down the road. The details of our history are generally not very pretty all around, of course there are good events, there always are, but overall our history is one of conquest and depredations not only against the Indians and others but also against ourselves.

History is full of one group wanting to take over the land of another group, and not really caring what happens afterwards. Even the Native Americans were guilty of that. It's still not genocide.

Marty, there were limited attempts by a few at different times to commit genocide, most perpetrators happened to be in the government. Now I'm not claiming there was a continuous, concerted, overarching attempt by the government to commit genocide but again there were isolated incidents where genocide against individual tribes was the goal.
Just because it didn't include all tribes at all times doesn't make it any less genocidal which means we've been arguing semantics.
As for the so call Noble Savage...... Yeah right, that was about as correct as using the term civilized White Man, neither are complete lies, neither are fully true.

Genocide isn't small, or isolated, or local. It is the concerted attempt to wipe out a race or group.

Those are massacres, not genocide.

You're looking at the Indians as a whole, we're looking at them as individual groupings and if you look it up the application of the term genocide it can be debated as applicable in either case so again we're arguing semantics.

I am arguing against the over-use of a term that removes the meaning of said term. Genocide is beyond fights over land and exploitation. It is the high level determination that an entire race or group needs to be wiped off the face of the earth.

A couple hundred years ago, that was the white mentality. That was Custer's and others mission, to wipe out the Indians so the white could have a safe journey west.
Of course the Natives were getting hostile, because the white man was taking away their homeland. To the NA's everything is sacred and to the white's nothing is.

 

[daws101]

Look up Andrew Jackson and Teddy Roosevelt among just a few. No, it wasn't a systematic genocide but there were those who wanted it to be.
The Indians were in the way of expansion, land grabbing, resources and often a danger to settlers and miners. Yes, most just wanted them out of the way but could care less how it was done.
Heck even the Tejanos who fought alongside the Texicans against Santa Anna mostly were screwed over later down the road. The details of our history are generally not very pretty all around, of course there are good events, there always are, but overall our history is one of conquest and depredations not only against the Indians and others but also against ourselves.

History is full of one group wanting to take over the land of another group, and not really caring what happens afterwards. Even the Native Americans were guilty of that. It's still not genocide.

Marty, there were limited attempts by a few at different times to commit genocide, most perpetrators happened to be in the government. Now I'm not claiming there was a continuous, concerted, overarching attempt by the government to commit genocide but again there were isolated incidents where genocide against individual tribes was the goal.
Just because it didn't include all tribes at all times doesn't make it any less genocidal which means we've been arguing semantics.
As for the so call Noble Savage...... Yeah right, that was about as correct as using the term civilized White Man, neither are complete lies, neither are fully true.

Genocide isn't small, or isolated, or local. It is the concerted attempt to wipe out a race or group.

Those are massacres, not genocide.

You're looking at the Indians as a whole, we're looking at them as individual groupings and if you look it up the application of the term genocide it can be debated as applicable in either case so again we're arguing semantics.

I am arguing against the over-use of a term that removes the meaning of said term. Genocide is beyond fights over land and exploitation. It is the high level determination that an entire race or group needs to be wiped off the face of the earth.

Bahahahaha!

 

[Ringel05]

I can see martyr running around reservations and other scenes of genocide screaming it was an accident we didn't mean to kill all of you ,just some of you!

Why would I do that?

Its obvious that there was exploitation and rank criminality done during the time, but its still not genocide.

sure it wasn't .

Moron.

80 million unexploded American cluster bombs still in Laos, from the Vietnam war. The U.S is the only country in the world that has used nuclear bombs on a quarter million civilians in Japan. So what you are saying, is targeting civilians, like 9/11 is fair in war. U.S. intervention in the Muslim world caused 9/11. Someday you will learn Karma.

If you want to win a war the first thing you do is try to destroy infrastructure and lines of communication (communication and supply lines), this removes the enemy's ability to wage war. In most instances infrastructure is in the hands of civilians not only that but in WWII it was designed to demoralize the enemy's population, force them to quit. WWII was all about that as well as destroying the enemy's armies, Vietnam was no different.

 

[Ringel05]

Look up Andrew Jackson and Teddy Roosevelt among just a few. No, it wasn't a systematic genocide but there were those who wanted it to be.
The Indians were in the way of expansion, land grabbing, resources and often a danger to settlers and miners. Yes, most just wanted them out of the way but could care less how it was done.
Heck even the Tejanos who fought alongside the Texicans against Santa Anna mostly were screwed over later down the road. The details of our history are generally not very pretty all around, of course there are good events, there always are, but overall our history is one of conquest and depredations not only against the Indians and others but also against ourselves.

History is full of one group wanting to take over the land of another group, and not really caring what happens afterwards. Even the Native Americans were guilty of that. It's still not genocide.

Marty, there were limited attempts by a few at different times to commit genocide, most perpetrators happened to be in the government. Now I'm not claiming there was a continuous, concerted, overarching attempt by the government to commit genocide but again there were isolated incidents where genocide against individual tribes was the goal.
Just because it didn't include all tribes at all times doesn't make it any less genocidal which means we've been arguing semantics.
As for the so call Noble Savage...... Yeah right, that was about as correct as using the term civilized White Man, neither are complete lies, neither are fully true.

Genocide isn't small, or isolated, or local. It is the concerted attempt to wipe out a race or group.

Those are massacres, not genocide.

You're looking at the Indians as a whole, we're looking at them as individual groupings and if you look it up the application of the term genocide it can be debated as applicable in either case so again we're arguing semantics.

I am arguing against the over-use of a term that removes the meaning of said term. Genocide is beyond fights over land and exploitation. It is the high level determination that an entire race or group needs to be wiped off the face of the earth.

Yeah, I know you are and we disagree, such is life.