Happy Columbus Day!

[ESay]

Oh, it was an”policy”? Why didn’t you say so? Just show me the policy and clear this right up.

Of course, there was no “policy”. Whose policy would it have been anyway? The British monarchy’s? The colony’s? The US government? A secret conspiracy between all three?

The Indians duked-it-out with the Europeans and got their asses handed to them. They were decimated by disease and lost their territory to a more powerful competitor, European expansion. If there had been a policy to exterminate the Indians, they would all be dead.

“Cleanse the land” doesn’t mean give them land and recognize their legal sovereignty ffs.



“Placate” them? So, the Indians weren’t peaceful hippys living in harmony with nature? Did it ever occur to you that maybe if the Indians weren’t pissed off violent savages towards the settlers that maybe it would have worked out better for them?

In fact a lot of the cooperation between the Indians and Europeans was based on the Indians wanting the Europeans to help them defeat other Indians. It turns out that Indians often wanted to exterminate other Indians and would happily have if given the chance.

I would agree to the Europeans being no more noble than the Indians in their pursuit of land and their ability to use violence and wage war. However, not only do I remain unconvinced of some imaginary “policy” of extermination but I also fail to see where the Indians are any more virtuous in the conflict or conquest than the people you accuse of “genocide”.

The Indians were conquered by Europeans, just like they would conquer each other before the Europeans showed up, just like they continued to try to conquer each other after the Europeans showed up. The Europeans didn’t bring any brutality or conquest to the Americans that didn’t already exist here.

What policy you ask? I thought that I was talking with a grown-up person. What will you claim next? That those tribes gave up their land voluntarily?

I never said that the Indians were something like 'hippies'. I already told you that when answering your questions about Aztecs. What was the point of your questions if you didn't read the answers?

It was genocide. And it is no matter how you people try to spin the facts. Historical justice is inevitable. Actually it is already underway.

 

[el midgetron]

What policy you ask? I thought that I was talking with a grown-up person. What will you claim next? That those tribes gave up their land voluntarily?

Sorry but words have meaning. A grown-up person would use words in the correct context. Obviously, there is a reason you feel the need to use inflated language.

Since you want to talk about “policy”, if you look at the actual policies dealing with the Indian problem there is NO policy of extermination or “cleansing the land”. There are however several policies aim at the accusation of land, Indian relocation and the assimilation of Indians into Western society.

I never said that the Indians were something like 'hippies'. I already told you that when answering your questions about Aztecs. What was the point of your questions if you didn't read the answers?

You have not acknowledged that given the chance the Indians would have done the same or even worse to the Europeans. You are trying to maintain a moral high ground that is non-existent and disingenuous.

It was genocide. And it is no matter how you people try to spin the facts. Historical justice is inevitable. Actually it is already underway.

It wasn’t a genocide and no matter how much you cry about and try to weave a narrative, it will never be true. What happened to the Indians is far more complex than the “cleanse the land policy” you want dumb it down to.

 

[ESay]

It wasn’t a genocide and no matter how much you cry about and try to weave a narrative, it will never be true. What happened to the Indians is far more complex than the “cleanse the land policy” you want dumb it down to

I don't cry about anything. I will tell you even more - basically, I don't care. I don't have a dog in this fight. I just say what happened years ago in reality; without spin, distorting facts, propaganda narratives, playing with definitions etc.

That policy may not have had a goal of physically eliminating the Indians in the form of ethnic cleansing as it was seen in Europe toward some nations. But this policy led to the events that caused death of 90% of 'targeted' people. It was genocide. Even 'direct' genocides didn't have such death toll.

You have not acknowledged that given the chance the Indians would have done the same or even worse to the Europeans. You are trying to maintain a moral high ground that is non-existent and disingenuous

I haven't? Strange, I thought I did. But anyway, of course, the Indians would have wiped out the European colonists had they had a chance. But here, the Europeans were invaders. That is the main difference.

 

[el midgetron]

That policy may not have had a goal of physically eliminating the Indians in the form of ethnic cleansing as it was seen in Europe toward some nations. But this policy led to the events that caused death of 90% of 'targeted' people. It was genocide. Even 'direct' genocides didn't have such death toll.

Again, you can’t cite an actual policy. Because there isn’t one. There was no policy to “target 90%” or “cleanse the land”. You choose this language because you want to rewrite history.

I haven't? Strange, I thought I did. But anyway, of course, the Indians would have wiped out the European colonists had they had a chance. But here, the Europeans were invaders. That is the main difference.

Then you have no ground to cry on. No position of moral superiority. The Indians were no more virtuous or innocent than the Europeans.

Whose land did they “invade”? The Indians constantly “invaded” each others “land”. There was constant conflict between Indian civilizations before the arrival of the Europeans (and after). “Invading” your rivals land was the status quo in pre-Columbian America. The only thing the arrival of the Europeans changed was a balance of power.

The Indians were a stone-age people who lost out in a clash of civilization to a more advanced rival. There was no “policy” to exterminate the Indians.

The Indians went through a multifaceted clash-of-civilization meat-grinder for nearly 400 years. There is no mystery to what happened to them, it’s all documented. What’s not there is an agenda of genocide.

 

[ESay]

Again, you can’t cite an actual policy. Because there isn’t one. There was no policy to “target 90%” or “cleanse the land”. You choose this language because you want to rewrite history

There was a policy to push them out by any means. To grab their land they lived on or used for their needs. Do you want me to cite legal acts that laid ground on that? Really? You should get more serious or get basic knowledge on that.

Whose land did they “invade”? The Indians constantly “invaded” each others “land”. There was constant conflict between Indian civilizations before the arrival of the Europeans (and after). “Invading” your rivals land was the status quo in pre-Columbian America. The only thing the arrival of the Europeans changed was a balance of power

That was true for the entire world. There were always wars, land grabs, genocides etc over all human history. The American history is no better or worse in that respect. The European settlers just grabbed an opportunity to expand on another continent, get better land and improve their lives. Again, nothing unique. Similar things happened all around the world.

State borders, land ownership is somewhat relative things. Now, the US sees an opposite process when the descendants of the Native people arrive in great numbers. And that is a natural process too.

 

[el midgetron]

There was a policy to push them out by any means.

oh, it was a policy for land acquisition? Believe I have already mentioned that, see #202. That is not a policy of “genocide”.

Keep in mind, the same justification for land acquisition, pitted the European powers against each other. Do you also believe there was a “policy of genocide” against France? Or Spain?

I think you are using the word “genocide” in a loose context that maybe fits what happened nicely in hindsight but doesn’t really reflect the intent of the Europeans or the complexity of the historical reality.

That was true for the entire world. There were always wars, land grabs, genocides etc over all human history. The American history is no better or worse in that respect. The European settlers just grabbed an opportunity to expand on another continent, get better land and improve their lives. Again, nothing unique. Similar things happened all around the world.

I am glad you are starting to come around. The conflict between Europe and the Indians was very much a common truth throughout history. However, never before had a Stone Age civilization(s) clashed with a civilization as advanced and as powerful as the European powers. I think we have a tendency to discount just how different those culture were, and ultimately how incompatible they were.

 

[ESay]

oh, it was a policy for land acquisition? Believe I have already mentioned that, see #202. That is not a policy of “genocide”.

Keep in mind, the same justification for land acquisition, pitted the European powers against each other. Do you also believe there was a “policy of genocide” against France? Or Spain?

I think you are using the word “genocide” in a loose context that maybe fits what happened nicely in hindsight but doesn’t really reflect the intent of the Europeans or the complexity of the historical reality

European powers fought to expand their authority on their neighbors and get more recourses out of that. Their goal was to exploit the 'natives', not to push them out to nowhere.

The more parallel example is genocide of the Celts that happened on the European continent when the German tribes began their push westward. But that happened quite long ago and no one cares about that. Unfortunately for you, the American history (especially concerning the European settlers) is 'recent' and hollow and all that things happened virtually yesterday.

I am glad you are starting to come around. The conflict between Europe and the Indians was very much a common truth throughout history. However, never before had a Stone Age civilization(s) clashed with a civilization as advanced and as powerful as the European powers. I think we have a tendency to discount just how different those culture were, and ultimately how incompatible they were

I am glad you are starting to get what I am trying to tell you. I understand that it will take some number of repeating from my part, but anyway.

 

[el midgetron]

Unfortunately for you, the American history (especially concerning the European settlers) is 'recent' and hollow and all that things happened virtually yesterday.

If that’s the case, you should have no problem proving that there was a policy of genocide……

 

[ESay]

If that’s the case, you should have no problem proving that there was a policy of genocide……

I already told you and repeat once again - there was a policy of seizing the land and pushing the Natives out. This policy resulted in de facto, I didn't use this word before, but I want to underline it, genocide.

 

[DigitalDrifter]

Everyone loves a parade!!

 

[DigitalDrifter]

 

[DigitalDrifter]

 

[DigitalDrifter]

 

[DigitalDrifter]

 

[DigitalDrifter]

 

[DigitalDrifter]

 

[DigitalDrifter]

 

[DigitalDrifter]

 

[DigitalDrifter]

 

[el midgetron]

I already told you and repeat once again - there was a policy of seizing the land and pushing the Natives out.

That is not a “genocide”.

This policy resulted in de facto, I didn't use this word before, but I want to underline it, genocide.

Oh now it’s a “de facto genocide”? Well that makes sense because it doesn’t qualify as an actual genocide.

There was no policy to exterminate the Indians. There was no intent to exterminate the Indians beyond the conflict and warfare you yourself concede was the status quo in history.