Genocide of Indians in America

[Dovah]

And who said that all of themw ere killed?

Ans:

..........according to Ward Churchill, a professor of ethnic studies at the University of Colorado, the reduction of the North American Indian population from an estimated 12 million in 1500 to barely 237,000 in 1900 represents a"vast genocide . . . , the most sustained on record." By the end of the 19th century, writes David E. Stannard, a historian at the University of Hawaii, native Americans had undergone the"worst human holocaust the world had ever witnessed, roaring across two continents non-stop for four centuries and consuming the lives of countless tens of millions of people."

Were American Indians the Victims of Genocide?

Some tribes disappeared by being absorbed by other tribes or by white population through cross marriages, other tribes survived to these days

Umm....even by intermarriage they still won't lose their ethnicity. The number of deaths takes into account the number of natives killed not the number of tribes that ceased to be.

some tribes dies because were incapable to adapt to new situation, and there was not nececary any direct involvement of white colonits in this.

This is not 30000 BC anymore you know. Can you please share how can a group of people die off in such a small span of time without any natural disaster due to lack of adaptation?

his is just typical and false demonization of colonists, even despite many of them were honest, hard working people, while many natives, instead of choosing productive and hard work and trying to create some positive relationship with colonists, choose a path of war or worse, criminal path, because it was easier and didn't included a very hard work.

:sucide:

The fact that they were colonists is reason enough that they be demonized. And obviously the natives would choose war, who would want invaders in their own country. Them being hard working doesn't matter they were thieves and looters.

 

[civfanatic]

Shouldn't the title say "Native Americans" or at least "Amerindians"? It can get awkward and confusing talking about genocide of "Indians" when most of us are real "Indians" (from India).

 

[Damian]

Umm....even by intermarriage they still won't lose their ethnicity. The number of deaths takes into account the number of natives killed not the number of tribes that ceased to be.

There were many reasons. Do you know that also different native tribes were fighting against each other killing each other and colonists have nothing to do with these wars? Of course you ignore such possibilities, as they are contradicting myths you believe in.

This is not 30000 BC anymore you know. Can you please share how can a group of people die off in such a small span of time without any natural disaster due to lack of adaptation?

As above due to several different reasons, and this was not that they all the sudden died after colonists landed, this was process that takes a long time.

So yeah, lack of adaptation was one of reasons.

Not to mention, that not all tribes dies off, and many of them are still existing, keeping their own identity still very living.

And it is not fault of white people, that many natives went in to alcoholism for example, each person is responsible for it's own life, if one wanted to be alcoholic and waste his life, it is his problem, but if others despite all problems they had, invested in to their future through hard work, they are the ones who needs to be respected.

The fact that they were colonists is reason enough that they be demonized.

This is most stupid thing you could said. Hey so perhaps we start to demonize Indian imigrants in UK and USA? You see, this is your absurd logic.

And obviously the natives would choose war, who would want invaders in their own country.

Native Americans didn't know such things as land property or what is idea of state, so they didn't had country at all.

Them being hard working doesn't matter they were thieves and looters.

I start to wonder if I talk with sentient being at all you know?

With such arguments, for any educated person which is capable to think about something more than eating, this is not even argument, this is just a slogan that you use to for justification of hate, towards people you do not know and you will never know.

You do not know what was their mentality (also mentality of native Americans), you do not know their motivations, you do not know conditions of their life and many more variables.

This is a typical for simpletons, simplifing everything to a point of absolute absurdality and make one side absolutely good and second side absolutely evil.

How old are you? 5?

 

[civfanatic]

On another note, lots of modern U.S. states have Native American names.

Here is a map showing the the language of origin of the names of modern U.S. states:

 

[Dovah]

There were many reasons. Do you know that also different native tribes were fighting against each other killing each other and colonists have nothing to do with these wars? Of course you ignore such possibilities, as they are contradicting myths you believe in.

Sorry, I don't go on hunches and gut feelings when shitload of evidence is in front of me.

As above due to several different reasons, and this was not that they all the sudden died after colonists landed, this was process that takes a long time.
So yeah, lack of adaptation was one of reasons.

Are you avoiding the issue? Show me how was it lack of adaptation? And how can you adapt to an invasion short of capitulating?

Native Americans didn't know such things as land property or what is idea of state, so they didn't had country at all.

BS. They had their land. Just because they did not have Western concept of country and state doesn't mean it is a solid ground for mass murder. Again you are deviating from the issue that is genocide not invasion.

You do not know what was their mentality (also mentality of native Americans), you do not know their motivations, you do not know conditions of their life and many more variables.

Yes and none of the 'variables' justify the murder of existing population.

-----------------------------------------------------------------

For off topic comments.

This is most stupid thing you could said. Hey so perhaps we start to demonize Indian imigrants in UK and USA? You see, this is your absurd logic.

Yes. If the immigrants are there without the permission of the government, you can jail/deport them(oh wait! this is what happens, isn't it?). See the difference? Immigrants/Invaders?

How old are you? 5?

Yes. Problem?

 

[Damian]

Sorry, I don't go on hunches and gut feelings when shitload of evidence is in front of me.

And where is this "shitload" of evidence? And what guarantees you have these evidence are correct, especially due how much time separates us from discussed events, eh?

You are so sure about some things, but it is obvious that you didn't even get a basic historical education to know, that not everything is 100% truth.

Are you avoiding the issue? Show me how was it lack of adaptation? And how can you adapt to an invasion short of capitulating?

No, you are just incapable to comprehend a simple facts which contradicts slogans you believe in.

Lack of adaptation for example means inability to fight with new diseases, lack of technological advance, scientific advance etc. This is lack of adaptation to new conditions in terms of many native cultures, they simply progressed to slow, and when they stand face to face with other, more advanced culture, they loose.

And this is really nothing new in history of mankind.

Actually we live in a very comfortable times, when such competition between tribes/nations is non existing actually, and the funny situation is that most of currently living human population, to which you belongs, are not capable to comprehend that for people living in such a deep past, such competition was something completely normal.

Now we have all these retributionists that want to make one side absolutely good and innocent, and the second side, absolutely evil and corrupted.

Which is idiotic concept in itself.

There were so many people living in the past, some colonists were bad pricks, criminals even, murderes, but some where honest hard working people who even befirended with natives, made small communities, and vice versa, there were good natives, honest people, hard working, and where natives which were also criminals, murderers etc.

World is not black and white, unfortunetely there is more and more simpletons, trying to force on humanity, such thinking, which in the end creates more and more problems.

BS. They had their land. Just because they did not have Western concept of country and state doesn't mean it is a solid ground for mass murder. Again you are deviating from the issue that is genocide not invasion.

Their concept of land was very primitive, this is a fact, and many times their concept led them to sold their land in a fair way, through a fair deal, when customer (colonists) just bought land paying in rare goods desired by natives.

There was no genocide.

Again you believe in a myth, only because you use it to justify your rascism and hate towards other people.

Which is nothing surprising really, rascism is not exclusive thing for Europeans/whites only.

There is black rascism, there seems to be Indian rascism, there is even Chinese or Asian rascism towards others.

Even if a concept of human race is preaty much a failed concept. But hey, I seen enough evidence of rascism towards others from Indians on this forum as well.

But I know that after a moment I will be eaten by such rascist only because I do not follow political correctness.

Yes and none of the 'variables' justify the murder of existing population.

And who said anyone justify here something?

Your mind operates with such simplistic thinking, that I really don't know how to discuss with being like you.

People were dying allways through mankinds history, it is a fact, it is who we are as a humans, one group competes with other group or groups, sometimes they compete peacefully, sometimes not.

There is nothing wrong or good in this, this is just our nature.

Yes. If the immigrants are there without the permission of the government, you can jail/deport them(oh wait! this is what happens, isn't it?). See the difference? Immigrants/Invaders?

Oh, so can we kill them also? Because I doubt natives would just jail or deport colonists, mostly they were killing them, sometimes in a very brutal way.

But hey, I perfectly know, that if Indian citizen, who is illegally in UK or US, would be killed for this, there would be incredible outrage in India and on this forum.

You see, the world is not so simple, as you are, and deal with it.

Yes. Problem?

Sure it is a problem, because generally people with low IQ and low capabilities to comprehend our reality, should not speak about serious problems, they only making more problems, like you.

----------------

Oh and one more thing, it is completely understandable what is that whole fuss about.

It is not about morality, good and evil people, genocides, attrocities.

It is all about money, there is allways a chance that a nation accused about above attrocities, will pay money for retribution.

Why, because seriously, who gives a shit about what happened several centuries ago?

I understand a decades, but centuries? This is not stupid, this is just insane really, we talk here about situation where it is really difficult to say, how it all went in reality, what were reasons, motives of people living back then.

But hey, some people only need scapegoat to push their agenda forward.

 

[Dovah]

And what guarantees you have these evidence are correct, especially due how much time separates us from discussed events, eh?

With this argument all history can be falsified.

You are so sure about some things, but it is obvious that you didn't even get a basic historical education to know, that not everything is 100% truth.

I don't claim my arguments to be infallible and I have never claimed I am completely sure of all my claims. This statement is quite hypocritical coming from someone who goes on to say

There was no genocide.

People were dying allways through mankinds history, it is a fact, it is who we are as a humans, one group competes with other group or groups, sometimes they compete peacefully, sometimes not.
There is nothing wrong or good in this, this is just our nature.

Irrelevant.

Lack of adaptation for example means inability to fight with new diseases, lack of technological advance, scientific advance etc. This is lack of adaptation to new conditions in terms of many native cultures, they simply progressed to slow, and when they stand face to face with other, more advanced culture, they loose.

If you are referring to the smallpox outbreak. Then guess who brought the disease to the continent in the first place. Secondly, do read up on smallpox blankets.

Again you believe in a myth, only because you use it to justify your rascism and hate towards other people.Which is nothing surprising really, rascism is not exclusive thing for Europeans/whites only.There is black rascism, there seems to be Indian rascism, there is even Chinese or Asian rascism towards others.

I never said racism is exclusive to whites. It's funny how I never even brought up whites in the thread prior to this.

Oh, so can we kill them also? Because I doubt natives would just jail or deport colonists, mostly they were killing them, sometimes in a very brutal way.
But hey, I perfectly know, that if Indian citizen, who is illegally in UK or US, would be killed for this, there would be incredible outrage in India and on this forum.
You see, the world is not so simple, as you are, and deal with it.

I never condoned killing colonizers. Quit putting words in my mouth. Secondly, your post is pure speculation.

Again you believe in a myth, only because you use it to justify your rascism and hate towards other people.

How the hell is it racism? Can you even think beyond race?

It is not about morality, good and evil people, genocides, attrocities. It is all about money, there is allways a chance that a nation accused about above attrocities, will pay money for retribution.

Maybe.

I understand a decades, but centuries? This is not stupid, this is just insane really, we talk here about situation where it is really difficult to say, how it all went in reality, what were reasons, motives of people living back then.

I understand why you put the 'I understand decades' rider in your comment.

 

[Damian]

With this argument all history can be falsified.

Oh because history can be very well falsified.

I don't claim my arguments to be infallible and I have never claimed I am completely sure of all my claims. This statement is quite hypocritical coming from someone who goes on to say

Because there was no genocide.

Genocide needs to be made on purpose, which means they need to create death camps on purpose, like Nazis or Soviets did.

Did colonists made death camps? No, if someone was killed, it was in most cases a fair fight, many times this fair fight was provoked by natives. Period.

Irrelevant.

Oh, it is very relevant, only you can't accept simple truths, because it disturbs your simplisitc understanding of our world.

If you are referring to the smallpox outbreak. Then guess who brought the disease to the continent in the first place. Secondly, do read up on smallpox blankets.

Oh, you finally starts to understand.

And now sit and think a little more. How many people then knew and bothered about such problems hmmm? Back then advanced medical knowledge was rocketscience even for most doctors.

I never said racism is exclusive to whites. It's funny how I never even brought up whites in the thread prior to this.

But you are attacking whites, because whites were the first that started massive colonization.

It is preaty obvious you have rascist views.

I never condoned killing colonizers. Quit putting words in my mouth. Secondly, your post is pure speculation.

But this is very justified speculation, seeing your attitude.

You did not know colonists, but you call all of them thieves and looters, even if you do not know how they actually lived, what was situation.

How the hell is it racism? Can you even think beyond race?

It is rascism, as above, you know nothing about people living back then, but you allready decided that colonists were absolutely evil, natives were absolutely good. This is rascism.

And yeah, I think beyond a race, because I know there is no such thing as races in case of mankind, and I do not tread colonists as absolutely evil, and natives as absolutely good as you do.

You know why? Because I understand that world is grey, not white and black.

Maybe.

Not maybe, but more than possible.

At this point nobody gives a damn about native americans, agenda is different.

I understand why you put the 'I understand decades' rider in your comment.

Becuase people life is measured in decades not centuries. I don't give a damn why some centuries ago some people ----ed up and my country ended up under occupation, it is a very distant history, however I don't give a damn about several decades ago, when my nation among several others, were nearly oblitareted by some race fanatics and some socialism fanatics from both sides.

You know why? Because it is not so distant history, and it is far more directly impacting times when I live.

 

[Dovah]

Oh because history can be very well falsified.

Yet your version of how things unfolded is correct? Too arrogant on your part.

Because there was no genocide.Genocide needs to be made on purpose, which means they need to create death camps on purpose, like Nazis or Soviets did. Did colonists made death camps?

Only, they did. Trail of Tears

Oh, you finally starts to understand.
And now sit and think a little more. How many people then knew and bothered about such problems hmmm? Back then advanced medical knowledge was rocketscience even for most doctors.

Except the Britishers resorted to tactics like distributing blanket from smallpox clinics. Colonial Germ Warfare : The Colonial Williamsburg Official History & Citizenship Site

But you are attacking whites, because whites were the first that started massive colonization.It is preaty obvious you have rascist views.

Wow, great logic.
I am criticizing an act which happened to be carried out by people who were whites. I would be equally critical of it if it were South Asians who did it. And does it mean when you criticize the holocaust you are being racist towards all German people or when you criticize the Soviets, you are attacking all Russians? Again, I hold no grudge against modern day Europeans and neither do I judge a whole people by the actions of a few.

You did not know colonists, but you call all of them thieves and looters, even if you do not know how they actually lived, what was situation.

You are quoting me out of context again, when I say colonists I do not mean the settlers but the establishment that was out to clear the Americas of the 'barbarians'.

It is rascism, as above, you know nothing about people living back then, but you allready decided that colonists were absolutely evil, natives were absolutely good. This is rascism.

Didn't say Natives were all good, only that genocide was unwarranted(and it happened). Quote me when I say that Natives were angels incarnated.

Not maybe, but more than possible. At this point nobody gives a damn about native americans, agenda is different.

Yes, there might be people riding on this issue to make profit, but this doesn't make the accusation false.

I don't give a damn why some centuries ago some people ----ed up and my country ended up under occupation, it is a very distant history, however I don't give a damn about several decades ago, when my nation among several others, were nearly oblitareted by some race fanatics and some socialism fanatics from both sides.

This is not an emotional issue. It is about facts. Even though you don't care about your people there are many who do and you can't blame them for it. Just because people take history seriously does not make them foolish.

 

[Damian]

Yet your version of how things unfolded is correct? Too arrogant on your part.

Really, and how do you know what my vision is eh?

I you would carefully read, you would know that I just accept things how they are, what is the nature of humanity.

Only, they did. Trail of Tears

Trail of tears were forced movement of natives, it was not genocide on purpose, people just died do to bad conditions during movement.

Action was not meant to kill these people, just to move them.

You have problems with reading with understanding?

Except the Britishers resorted to tactics like distributing blanket from smallpox clinics. Colonial Germ Warfare : The Colonial Williamsburg Official History & Citizenship Site

And you base opinion about all colonists because some of them used such tactic?

Wow, great logic.
I am criticizing an act which happened to be carried out by people who were whites. I would be equally critical of it if it were South Asians who did it. And does it mean when you criticize the holocaust you are being racist towards all German people or when you criticize the Soviets, you are attacking all Russians? Again, I hold no grudge against modern day Europeans and neither do I judge a whole people by the actions of a few.

Oh really, I am 100% certain you would not criticize Indians, and Indians were not saints either.

And yes, like many, you hold grudge against Europeans and white Americans.

You are quoting me out of context again, when I say colonists I do not mean the settlers but the establishment that was out to clear the Americas of the 'barbarians'.

Oh, so now it is estabilishment, how convieniant. And what do you know about this estabilishment? Do you know that all estabilishments are made from many people, some of them might have consider natives as "barbarians", some considered them as equal. Different people, different approaches.

Didn't say Natives were all good, only that genocide was unwarranted(and it happened). Quote me when I say that Natives were angels incarnated.

It is visible in context of your posts.

You talk about genocide, when there was no genocide.

You know what was genocide? It was holocaust, this was genocide.

This is not an emotional issue. It is about facts. Even though you don't care about your people there are many who do and you can't blame them for it. Just because people take history seriously does not make them foolish.

First thing I care about my nation and country. The problem is that I think about future and near past that have impact on this future, not about century's old events, and try to spread mostly false informations and black propaganda on people I might not like.

And gues what, most people are foolish, stupid even, not worthy to consider them as inteligent either, so if they act follishly, then this is a fact.

 

[Dovah]

I you would carefully read, you would know that I just accept things how they are, what is the nature of humanity.

Of course you do.Us lesser mortals have to rely on historical documents and papers by 'real' historians. Sorry.

Trail of tears were forced movement of natives, it was not genocide on purpose, people just died do to bad conditions during movement.
Action was not meant to kill these people, just to move them. You have problems with reading with understanding?

It was just an example. A state sponsored policy to remove the natives from their own land. Sound familiar?

And you base opinion about all colonists because some of them used such tactic?

I don't have to. The people in power used these dirty tactics and hence they should be condemned.

Oh really, I am 100% certain you would not criticize Indians, and Indians were not saints either.

Obviously you are certain. Like everything else you have no idea about.

And yes, like many, you hold grudge against Europeans and white Americans.

No. I don't hold grudge against anyone. But I am critical of certain things they did, just as I am critical of certain things people of my own country did, does that make me an Indophobe? No.

Do you know that all estabilishments are made from many people, some of them might have consider natives as "barbarians", some considered them as equal. Different people, different approaches.

And obviously the people who favored elimination succeeded. I'd take the simpler explanation that they held more power in the establishment over any other. Occam's Razor.

You know what was genocide? It was holocaust, this was genocide.

I never disputed that, Nazis were scumbags no doubt. (Emboldened just in case you take what follows seriously)

Though if we start applying your logic to holocaust maybe you'll see how silly it is.

1) Race: Since Nazis were Germans(white) and you condemn the holocaust that makes you an automatic racist.
2) False History: History can be falsified. I know holocaust didn't happen. I am right and you are a simpleton. Also, you are a racist.
3) Generalization: Since there were some good Nazis (like him), you can't say Nazis were the bad guys.
4) Evil Victims: Since not all Jews were saints, you are wrong.

See how asinine this sounds?

 

[Damian]

Of course you do.Us lesser mortals have to rely on historical documents and papers by 'real' historians. Sorry.

But you do not rely on documents and what real historians write.

You said that "trail of tears" was genocide, when it was not, it was forced relocation of people, where some people died due to different reasons, but it was not genocide on purpose like holocaust was.

It was just an example. A state sponsored policy to remove the natives from their own land. Sound familiar?

So this is forced relocation.

Do you know what genocide is? For example holocaust was not to remove people from places where they live, it was forced extermination, this is genocide.

Obviously you are certain. Like everything else you have no idea about.

Oh I have a very good idea about what I am talking.

No. I don't hold grudge against anyone. But I am critical of certain things they did, just as I am critical of certain things people of my own country did, does that make me an Indophobe? No.

No, you are not critical, you are overcritical, not knowing all facts or confusing many things.

And obviously the people who favored elimination succeeded. I'd take the simpler explanation that they held more power in the establishment over any other. Occam's Razor.

Or maybe they failed? Native americans are still living in USA, in fewer numbers yes, but they are still there.

I never disputed that, Nazis were scumbags no doubt. (Emboldened just in case you take what follows seriously)

Though if we start applying your logic to holocaust maybe you'll see how silly it is.

1) Race: Since Nazis were Germans(white) and you condemn the holocaust that makes you an automatic racist.
2) False History: History can be falsified. I know holocaust didn't happen. I am right and you are a simpleton. Also, you are a racist.
3) Generalization: Since there were some good Nazis (like him), you can't say Nazis were the bad guys.
4) Evil Victims: Since not all Jews were saints, you are wrong.

See how asinine this sounds?

1) I condemn Nazis, a nationalist socialism movement it's ideology and actions, not Germany as a nation and country. You can condemn people which were making criminal actions during colonization, but condemn units, not all colonists who seek better life.
2) History can be falsified, it is hard to say holocaust didn't happen (I seen one of thouse camps on my own eyes, not a nice view), but same lie is that there was some sort of genoside on native americans, no there was no genocide on purpose there. Thats the whole point.
3) This is actually truth, there were Germans (not every German was a Nazi) which didn't hated other nations.
4) Of course not all Jews were saints.

 

[Tolaha]

And who said that all of themw ere killed? Some tribes disappeared by being absorbed by other tribes or by white population through cross marriages, other tribes survived to these days, and some tribes dies because were incapable to adapt to new situation, and there was not nececary any direct involvement of white colonits in this.

Yep, some tribes failed to adapt to the new situation. Not that I'm aware of any tribe being immune to bullets if not smallpox!
Cross marriages!? During the colonization? I hope you don't buy your books on tanks from the same place you buy your history books from!

This is just typical and false demonization of colonists, even despite many of them were honest, hard working people, while many natives, instead of choosing productive and hard work and trying to create some positive relationship with colonists, choose a path of war or worse, criminal path, because it was easier and didn't included a very hard work.

Europeans wanted land and they wanted the natives out of it. The natives just didnt get it that their lives no longer had any value. Is that it? You just mentioned that whites were smart and so they deserved to colonize most continents. And you have a problem with natives fighting back!

Not everything is so simple, and trying to show natives in a good light only is just unfair.

Everything isnt so simple, so dont take the simplest way of showing the victims in bad light. Can you point to the books that you have referred to on this subject, if at all?

Typical manipulation. What about Mongols, they were also Europeans, and they had a nasty habit to kill these who they conquered?

Do you hear neighbors of the Mongols say that all those rape and murder victims deserved it?

And what genocides on purpose Europeans made during colonisation period?

Just a few. Africa, North America, South America, Asia, Australia. Just leaves out Antartica, wonder why!

This is a typical myth, to demonize Europeans/Whites and show in only good light natives... you know how this is called? Propaganda.

There were times in history when those same "whites" wouldnt consider the Poles anything more than cannon fodder. That shouldnt stop you though!

Of course, some natives didn't survived, but their problems were not mostly created by Europeans on purpose, for example illnes and lack of adaptation to European illnesses, but who back then could know about such things eh?

It is easy to make judgement right now, but both scientific knowledge back then and mentality were different.

I agree with you. Science amongst Europeans was primitive enough during those times leading them to believe that anyone who didn't look like them were animals.

Today we might think some things were wrong, but back then people might have think otherwise.

And we are all talking about people of those times. Nobody's expecting you to pay for it now, dont worry!

 

[Tolaha]

There were many reasons. Do you know that also different native tribes were fighting against each other killing each other and colonists have nothing to do with these wars? Of course you ignore such possibilities, as they are contradicting myths you believe in.

So all acts of crimes, murders, rapes, genocides, terrorism should be treated in a similar way, in your opinion?

As above due to several different reasons, and this was not that they all the sudden died after colonists landed, this was process that takes a long time.

Nope, they all didnt die on the day Columbus landed. But most of the tribes were wiped off within a couple of centuries.

Not to mention, that not all tribes dies off, and many of them are still existing, keeping their own identity still very living.

And it is not fault of white people, that many natives went in to alcoholism for example, each person is responsible for it's own life, if one wanted to be alcoholic and waste his life, it is his problem, but if others despite all problems they had, invested in to their future through hard work, they are the ones who needs to be respected.

When a tribe, with an experience of thousands of generation, is cut off at their roots and their culture stolen, they become aliens in their own lands. Most often, the remaining few end up with sense of escapism! Alcohol and drug abuse are the outcomes.

This is most stupid thing you could said. Hey so perhaps we start to demonize Indian imigrants in UK and USA? You see, this is your absurd logic.

Agreed, your logic is absurd.

Native Americans didn't know such things as land property or what is idea of state, so they didn't had country at all.

I can't believe you are from Poland!

With such arguments, for any educated person which is capable to think about something more than eating, this is not even argument, this is just a slogan that you use to for justification of hate, towards people you do not know and you will never know.

Stop hating the native Americans and blaming them without understanding what happened to them. You know what you are? A victim of Propaganda.

You do not know what was their mentality (also mentality of native Americans), you do not know their motivations, you do not know conditions of their life and many more variables.

This is a typical for simpletons, simplifing everything to a point of absolute absurdality and make one side absolutely good and second side absolutely evil.

If someone isn't absolutely good, they do not deserve to be annihilated.

 

[Dovah]

You said that "trail of tears" was genocide, when it was not, it was forced relocation of people, where some people died due to different reasons, but it was not genocide on purpose like holocaust was.

Wrong. I said it was a step in massive extermination. Though not qualifying as genocide in itself, it was a part of the larger scheme nonetheless. Anyway, I mentioned it as an example when you said that no even on the lines of concentration camps had been there.

Do you know what genocide is?

Yes. This is how UN defines genocide.

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.

Killing members of the group: Check
Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group: Goes wthout saying
Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part: Check
Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group: There were instance where Native American children were deracinated and sent into boarding schools to be 'civilized', so Check.

So, unless you are relying on the googlechhaap definition of Genocide, you are pretty much wrong.

Oh I have a very good idea about what I am talking.

No you don't. You resort to ad hominem and race baiting when you run out of arguments to make.

No, you are not critical, you are overcritical, not knowing all facts or confusing many things.

Enlighten me.

Or maybe they failed? Native americans are still living in USA, in fewer numbers yes, but they are still there.

There are Tutsis alive, maybe nothing happened in Rwanda either.

1) I condemn Nazis, a nationalist socialism movement it's ideology and actions, not Germany as a nation and country. You can condemn people which were making criminal actions during colonization, but condemn units, not all colonists who seek better life.

Good for you.

2) History can be falsified, it is hard to say holocaust didn't happen (I seen one of thouse camps on my own eyes, not a nice view), but same lie is that there was some sort of genoside on native americans, no there was no genocide on purpose there. Thats the whole point.

Accidental genocide? That's a new one.

3) This is actually truth, there were Germans (not every German was a Nazi) which didn't hated other nations.

And does it mean that the Nazis were the good guys? No, you judge people by their collective action not by the action of a few that comprise them.

 

[Satanist]

These western scum thinking genocide on the native indian was innocent due to smallpox. What I dont understand is that if these whites were so advanced couldn't they see these smallpox is killing American indians? If they had decency they would stop migration to foreign land where there diseases were murdering millions of innocents!

 

[TrueSpirit]

@Dovah You have literally pummeled @Damian to the dust, forever. He seems quite propaganda-driven.

 

[Damian]

These western scum thinking genocide on the native indian was innocent due to smallpox. What I dont understand is that if these whites were so advanced couldn't they see these smallpox is killing American indians? If they had decency they would stop migration to foreign land where there diseases were murdering millions of innocents!

Hoho, big words from a small, Chinese communist scum.

So all acts of crimes, murders, rapes, genocides, terrorism should be treated in a similar way, in your opinion?

Yeah, it should be treated like our very nature, something we should fight with, but not condeming a larger groups of people or nations.

Tough I understand you people from developing countries, would most likely wipe us out of the face of earth, if you would have a possibility.

Yep, some tribes failed to adapt to the new situation. Not that I'm aware of any tribe being immune to bullets if not smallpox!
Cross marriages!? During the colonization? I hope you don't buy your books on tanks from the same place you buy your history books from!

And you think that native americans could not mate with colonists?

Obviously it might bot been widespread, and not nececary tolerated by most of population from both sides, but saying it is immposible, meh.

Europeans wanted land and they wanted the natives out of it. The natives just didnt get it that their lives no longer had any value. Is that it? You just mentioned that whites were smart and so they deserved to colonize most continents. And you have a problem with natives fighting back!

White colonists were had superior civilization development, so it is obvious that being stronger, they could achieve more. But I did not said that natives lives had no value at all, they were weaker, some adapted to the new situation, some not.

And I do not have any problem with natives fighting back, it was mostly inefficent.

When a tribe, with an experience of thousands of generation, is cut off at their roots and their culture stolen, they become aliens in their own lands. Most often, the remaining few end up with sense of escapism! Alcohol and drug abuse are the outcomes.

Uhuh, tell me about it, my nation lost their country for about more than 100 years, and hey, guess what, our culture did not disappeared, we adapted, we prevailed.

Natives could do exactly the same, by geting inside new structures, they could mostly preserve their culture.

I can't believe you are from Poland!

No, I will be honest with, I'm from Mars.

Christ people, you have such inadaptiv mentality.

Nobody was genociding native americans, there were fights, there were problems, but genocide on purpose is a typical anti-western myth, spread among developing countries to demonize west.

And we have good example that some idiots swallow that catch, like this Chinese moron.

Stop hating the native Americans and blaming them without understanding what happened to them. You know what you are? A victim of Propaganda.

I hate native Americans? This is the most funny thing I read here so far.

I start to wonder if I talk with humans, it is immposible that humans can have so low understanding of a written text and reality.

If someone isn't absolutely good, they do not deserve to be annihilated.

And nobody was anihilated, guess what, this might be surprise for you, native Americans still exist!

Wrong. I said it was a step in massive extermination. Though not qualifying as genocide in itself, it was a part of the larger scheme nonetheless. Anyway, I mentioned it as an example when you said that no even on the lines of concentration camps had been there.

Oh God, Yes Yes Yes, finally something is going through this brick around your head, you admitted, it was not a genocide.

So no, it was netiher genocide neither massive extermination.

Yes. This is how UN defines genocide.

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.

Killing members of the group: Check
Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group: Goes wthout saying
Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part: Check
Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group: There were instance where Native American children were deracinated and sent into boarding schools to be 'civilized', so Check.

So, unless you are relying on the googlechhaap definition of Genocide, you are pretty much wrong.

Killing members of a group, ok then, killing a group of criminals is a genocide, they are part of a "group".

Same goes for any other part.

Oh by the way, you want to say, that sending natives children to schools is wrong? A ha so education is also wrong?

It was not a problem with sending these kids to schools, it was problem with natives actually, that they were not willing to educate.

Actually if more of them would willingly educate, they would much easier adapt in much greater numbers to new reality. It is logical.

No you don't. You resort to ad hominem and race baiting when you run out of arguments to make.

Well if you do not understand written text, what I can do, it is your problem with education, not my.

Enlighten me.

I did, read this 10000 times more, untill somehow your brain will understand, although I doubt it is capable to do so.

There are Tutsis alive, maybe nothing happened in Rwanda either.

Obviously you do not understand a difference between a century's long process and a genocide on purpose within a very short time, do you?

Accidental genocide? That's a new one.

I didn't say anything about genocide, because no genocide in north America occured.

And does it mean that the Nazis were the good guys? No, you judge people by their collective action not by the action of a few that comprise them.

Yeah, you know what, let's just accept that poorly educated people from third wold countries sees us westerners as real devils. I'm fine with that. You want a conflict, you want to bash us in mud, I'm completely fine with that.

But you guess what, if you will push your agenda forward, do not accept any respect from ordinary people in Europe, USA or Canada, you know why? Because what all these left wing morons in media talk, about how we are sorry about past, that we will be ashamed, is not what general public thinks, and believe me, more and more young people in Europe or USA loose their patience about what people from developing countries say about us.

@Dovah You have literally pummeled @Damian to the dust, forever. He seems quite propaganda-driven.

No, I am logic driven, something not known to people from developing countries it seems.

But as I said, you want a conflict, you probably will have conflict some time.

 

[Damian]

Oh, and one more thing. You all talk how great you were, or natives were, etc. and how we Europeans or whites, are dumbass, how primitive we are, how barbaric, then if you all who were colonized, were so glorious, why the ---- you didn't wiped out whites landing on your land? Afterall we are a damn primitives and you all are glorious super old civilizations.

Why then all this bitching around that someone came and conquered all these nations?

 

[Dovah]

Oh God, Yes Yes Yes, finally something is going through this brick around your head, you admitted, it was not a genocide.So no, it was netiher genocide neither massive extermination.

I wrote the statement in a paragraph. You ignored the sentence preceding it, you ignored the sentence following it. Then you put your own spin to it and came to a completely illogical conclusion. Well done.

Oh by the way, you want to say, that sending natives children to schools is wrong? A ha so education is also wrong?

If education=indoctrination, then yes. Perhaps you misunderstand what education actually means. By the way most of their education syllabus included scripture, go figure.

It was not a problem with sending these kids to schools, it was problem with natives actually, that they were not willing to educate.

Of course. So the Natives refuse to send their children to schools set up by people who had invaded their land ,considered them subhumans and were on their way to exterminate them. Such evil.

Actually if more of them would willingly educate, they would much easier adapt in much greater numbers to new reality. It is logical.

This is a juicy bait for me to make a very offensive remark but I will ignore it considering I'm such a better person. :rich:

Obviously you do not understand a difference between a century's long process and a genocide on purpose within a very short time, do you?

I still don't understand what is an accidental genocide. Unless you are trying to say that invaders who wanted native people off their land, had bounties on them, resorted too early form of germ warfare accidentally killed off majority of a race then perhaps you are correct.

---------------------------------------------

Yeah, you know what, let's just accept that poorly educated people from third wold countries sees us westerners as real devils.

Exactly, too poorly educated. I mean what is education without just the right amount of propaganda right?

No, I am logic driven, something not known to people from developing countries it seems

Another juicy bait. But watch me take the high road. :rich:

how we Europeans or whites, are dumbass, how primitive we are, how barbaric, then if you all who were colonized, were so glorious, why the ---- you didn't wiped out whites landing on your land? Afterall we are a damn primitives and you all are glorious super old civilizations.

Actually

1) You called the Natives primitives several times in your post.
2) No one here called Europeans primitive.

Why then all this bitching around that someone came and conquered all these nations?

Too much nerdrage.