NationStates Jolt Archive

With all this talk about holocaust and genocides, I was reminded of a conversation I had with a very ignorant person, who read a very ignorant book. The book, which i forget the title, was basically stating that there was no Native American genocide, and instead, the deaths of the Native Americans were in result to an on going war with the United States. I find the whole premise to be ignorant at best. So I have my obvious bias about how to answer the question I pose to you:

Was there a Native American genocide, or was it simply an exaggerated account of the war between the US and Native Americans?

Of course there was. How many d'you see wandering about nowadays?

Not an outright genocide, but a long-running series of ethnic cleansings that were higlighted by the Trail of Tears amongst other things.

Not an outright genocide, but a long-running series of ethnic cleansings that were higlighted by the Trail of Tears amongst other things.

Yeah, pretty much this. Ethnic cleansing is a far more accurate term IMO.

I think disease had more to do with the massive loss of life than anything, frankly.

It's why I never accept blankets from white people.

I think disease had more to do with the massive loss of life than anything, frankly.

It's why I never accept blankets from white people.

But IIRC, weren't quite a lot of those diseases spread by white people deliberately?

"Genocide" is quite accurate.

Was there a Native American genocide, or was it simply an exaggerated account of the war between the US and Native Americans?

Genocides can happen in war too you know.

Of course there was. How many d'you see wandering about nowadays?

Lots if you go to a casino.

It's why I never accept blankets from white people.

i'd suggest expanding that out a bit. whitey cannot be trusted even in offering you his jacket "because you look cold".

I think disease had more to do with the massive loss of life than anything, frankly.

It's why I never accept blankets from white people.

I don't accept anything from whites.;)

Lots if you go to a casino.

This!

I've indirectly paid much in reparations for what my ancestors may or may not have done to the natives back in the day. :p

bah disorganized colonials can't pull off a decent genocide the first account of a proper kind began during the Boar war with British concentration camps*

*once again proving that everything German is originally British just made more efficient and with a lick of Grey paint

i'd suggest expanding that out a bit. whitey cannot be trusted even in offering you his jacket "because you look cold".

here hold this gun for me *cue LAPD bursting through the window*

I think disease had more to do with the massive loss of life than anything, frankly.

It's why I never accept blankets from white people.

But IIRC, weren't quite a lot of those diseases spread by white people deliberately?

I've heard that and I've heard a rebuttal of it, in the case of the supposed deliberate infection of the Mandans in the 1830s. The rebuttal goes, there was not the kind of medical knowledge then to enable the US government or the territorial government or the American Fur Company or whomever you care to blame to understand that disease germs could survive in blankets or clothing and infect other people. Had you asked a doctor at the time about the causes of smallpox or measles or the common cold, he would have talked about miasmas and humors and offered to bleed you. Pasteur didn't do his work on the germ theory of disease until the 1860s and it took decades for it to become the accepted explanation.

Along with that, consider the logistics of the task in an age when it might take a letter three months to go from Washington to St. Louis and then who knows how long from there to whatever frontier post you might care to stage your biological attack from.

Was the smallpox that decimated the Mandans brought by whites? Probably but not deliberately. Were there whites who thought the destruction of a tribe wasn't all that bad a thing? I wouldn't be surprised. Was it a huge trans-continental conspiracy? I sincerely doubt it.

bah disorganized colonials can't pull of a decent genocide the first account of a proper kind began during the Boar war with British concentration camps*

*once again proving that everything German is originally British just made more efficient and with a lick of Grey paint

Actually, the Spanish were the first to use them a couple of years before us.

Yeah, pretty much this. Ethnic cleansing is a far more accurate term IMO.

I'm pretty sure "ethnic cleansing" is just another way of saying genocide without the same amount of effect. Genocide is after all the deliberate extermination of people based on race, religion, etc. It reminds me of the EU refusing intervention in Darfur claiming the situation is "tantamount to genocide," which really means "equivalent to genocide."

. The book, which i forget the title, was basically stating that there was no Native American genocide, and instead, the deaths of the Native Americans were in result to an on going war with the United States.


...doesn't really sound much better, if you think about it. However, by the definition currently used, it would actually still qualify as genocide due systematic removal of populations, seizing of land and repression of culture.

Euh, I'd consider it genocide, but it was actually a lot more complicated. If you look at colonization patterns in general, the Protestant Anglophone world behaved much differently than their Spanish, French, and Portuguese counterparts.

A few case-studies:

Anglophone:
Native Americans in the United States
Aboriginals in Australia
British in India
South Africa
African-Americans in the United States

French/Spanish/Portuguese:
New France
Mexico
Brazil
Portuguese in India (Goa)
Louisiana Creoles

All groups attempted to "civilize" the so-called primitives, but the Anglophones did so in an explicitly racist, segregationist context that insisted the cultures remain separated. In contrast, the French, Spanish, and Portuguese extensively interbred with the local peoples, and new folk cultures were formed combining various influences. So it is that most Brazilians and Mexicans are mestizos, and the second-largest First Nation in Canada is the Métis.

Euh, I'd consider it genocide, but it was actually a lot more complicated. If you look at colonization patterns in general, the Protestant Anglophone world behaved much differently than their Spanish, French, and Portuguese counterparts.

A few case-studies:

Anglophone:
Native Americans in the United States
Aboriginals in Australia
British in India
South Africa
African-Americans in the United States

French/Spanish/Portuguese:
New France
Mexico
Brazil
Portuguese in India (Goa)
Louisiana Creoles

All groups attempted to "civilize" the so-called primitives, but the Anglophones did so in an explicitly racist, segregationist context that insisted the cultures remain separated. In contrast, the French, Spanish, and Portuguese extensively interbred with the local peoples, and new folk cultures were formed combining various influences. So it is that most Brazilians and Mexicans are mestizos, and the second-largest First Nation in Canada is the Métis.

Actually, most Brazilians are white or pardo (mulatto).

I'm pretty sure "ethnic cleansing" is just another way of saying genocide without the same amount of effect. Genocide is after all the deliberate extermination of people based on race, religion, etc. It reminds me of the EU refusing intervention in Darfur claiming the situation is "tantamount to genocide," which really means "equivalent to genocide."

ethnic cleansing = cleansing an area of a specific ethnicity much like deep cleansing pores and such

Genocide = deliberate eradication of a genus

Euh, I'd consider it genocide, but it was actually a lot more complicated. If you look at colonization patterns in general, the Protestant Anglophone world behaved much differently than their Spanish, French, and Portuguese counterparts.

A few case-studies:

Anglophone:
Native Americans in the United States
Aboriginals in Australia
British in India
South Africa
African-Americans in the United States

French/Spanish/Portuguese:
New France
Mexico
Brazil
Portuguese in India (Goa)
Louisiana Creoles

All groups attempted to "civilize" the so-called primitives, but the Anglophones did so in an explicitly racist, segregationist context that insisted the cultures remain separated. In contrast, the French, Spanish, and Portuguese extensively interbred with the local peoples, and new folk cultures were formed combining various influences. So it is that most Brazilians and Mexicans are mestizos, and the second-largest First Nation in Canada is the Métis.

oh dear you was doing so well

Mandatory:

White man came across the sea
He brought us pain and misery
He killed our tribes killed our creed
He took our game for his own need

We fought him hard we fought him well
Out on the plains we gave him hell
But many came too much for Cree
Oh will we ever be set free?

Riding through dust clouds and barren wastes
Galloping hard on the plains
Chasing the redskins back to their holes
Fighting them at their own game
Murder for freedom the stab in the back
Women and children are cowards attack

Run to the hills, run for your lives
Run to the hills, run for your lives

Soldier blue in the barren wastes
Hunting and killing their game
Raping the women and wasting the men
The only good Indians are tame
Selling them whiskey and taking their gold
Enslaving the young and destroying the old

Run to the hills, run for your lives

Euh, I'd consider it genocide, but it was actually a lot more complicated. If you look at colonization patterns in general, the Protestant Anglophone world behaved much differently than their Spanish, French, and Portuguese counterparts.

A few case-studies:

Anglophone:
Native Americans in the United States
Aboriginals in Australia
British in India
South Africa
African-Americans in the United States

French/Spanish/Portuguese:
New France
Mexico
Brazil
Portuguese in India (Goa)
Louisiana Creoles

All groups attempted to "civilize" the so-called primitives, but the Anglophones did so in an explicitly racist, segregationist context that insisted the cultures remain separated. In contrast, the French, Spanish, and Portuguese extensively interbred with the local peoples, and new folk cultures were formed combining various influences. So it is that most Brazilians and Mexicans are mestizos, and the second-largest First Nation in Canada is the Métis.

Gee, let's see ... if my country is colonized by people speaking Romance languages they'll rape the women but not kill everyone, but if we come under Anglophone domination we're all gonna die. So difficult to choose.

It was Genocide. Anyone who can show me proof otherwise, I'd be more than happy to hear it.

somewhere between 75-90% were killed by disease.
the reports the disease was intentionally spread are laughable. Not because, white people didn't try to spread disease , but rather the means they tried to spread disease would not work. (it was impossible to spread small pox with blankets).

Once you get past the disease however most of the deaths incurred by native Americans were not in battle, but instead the result of being moved to land that was insufficient to support everyone. That clearly makes a case for genocide, as it was the treaty of civilians after a war that lead to most of the deaths.

somewhere between 75-90% were killed by disease.
the reports the disease was intentionally spread are laughable. Not because, white people didn't try to spread disease , but rather the means they tried to spread disease would not work. (it was impossible to spread small pox with blankets).

Im sure you have a source for this.

It was both the Americans and the Mexicans who wiped out the Native Americans. In my family, the main culprits were the Americans but in California it was mostly the Mexicans who ran around killing Native Americans. Hence the reason California's Native tribes allied with the US during the war against the Mexicans, only to be stabbed in the back.

Why does it seem that the Mexican's crimes against the Native American race always get swept under the rug and the "evil whities" are always blamed for the world's evils? As if no one else had anything to do with it.

Yeah, pretty much this. Ethnic cleansing is a far more accurate term IMO.

ethnic cleansing, genocide. Is there really a difference? My people and our brother peoples have been unjustifiably made to suffer either way. On top of all that we have been through, there are people today who want to take away what little soverignty we have left.

It was both the Americans and the Mexicans who wiped out the Native Americans. In my family, the main culprits were the Americans but in California it was mostly the Mexicans who ran around killing Native Americans. Hence the reason California's Native tribes allied with the US during the war against the Mexicans, only to be stabbed in the back.

Why does it seem that the Mexican's crimes against the Native American race always get swept under the rug and the "evil whities" are always blamed for the world's evils? As if no one else had anything to do with it.

I don't know, but evil is evil regardless of the color of its perpetrator.

Yeah, pretty much this. Ethnic cleansing is a far more accurate term IMO.

Right, and don't forget the diseases the helped wipe out mass numbers of American Indians. I would say, that unless the diseases could count as intent, the word 'genocide' is a bit too far on the whole.

Im sure you have a source for this.

The Wiki article "Population History of American Indigenous Peoples" does talk about it, in some detail, but real figures are hard to come by. I skimmed it, read for yourself.

Of course there was. How many d'you see wandering about nowadays?

More than 0. Which suggests that outright genocide was not the attempt, nor the result.

More than 0. Which suggests that outright genocide was not the attempt

Right, because that adds up.


Hitler also wasnt trying to kill all the jews, because I still see jews.



:rolleyes:

Euh, I'd consider it genocide, but it was actually a lot more complicated. If you look at colonization patterns in general, the Protestant Anglophone world behaved much differently than their Spanish, French, and Portuguese counterparts.

A few case-studies:

Anglophone:
Native Americans in the United States
Aboriginals in Australia
British in India
South Africa
African-Americans in the United States

French/Spanish/Portuguese:
New France
Mexico
Brazil
Portuguese in India (Goa)
Louisiana Creoles

All groups attempted to "civilize" the so-called primitives, but the Anglophones did so in an explicitly racist, segregationist context that insisted the cultures remain separated. In contrast, the French, Spanish, and Portuguese extensively interbred with the local peoples, and new folk cultures were formed combining various influences. So it is that most Brazilians and Mexicans are mestizos, and the second-largest First Nation in Canada is the Métis.

No. It was not just the Anglos who were racists. It was the spanish and the Mexicans too. The only ones who could be said to have anything close to true friendship with the Natives were the French who didn't go around occupying land and killing people on the basis of race. For example: nearly every tribe in California that was wiped out, was wiped out by the spaniards and the Mexicans, not the whites. In the southwest, most of the wars between Native Americans and settlers, were between Native Americans and Mexicans because the Mexicans sought to wipe out the Native Americans to claim their lands. Just like the Whites were doing back east.

Im sure you have a source for this.

fabric though certainly capable of carrying germs is not something that can reliably deliver man killers, for that you need the likes of lice and fleas

*cue video tape of bedbugs eating you in your sleep*

It was both the Americans and the Mexicans who wiped out the Native Americans.

typical American attitude to ignore the forces that helped you and did a large amount of the killing :tongue:

there are people today who want to take away what little soverignty we have left.

the sovereignty to gamble, sniff glue and live in a trailer?

fabric though certainly capable of carrying germs is not something that can reliably deliver man killers, for that you need the likes of lice and fleas
No, but open sores (small poxs) can get fluids on said blankets that transfer said disease.

It was Genocide. Anyone who can show me proof otherwise, I'd be more than happy to hear it.

This suggests that you can show very convincing evidence to actually found your own belief. Let's have it.

Right, and don't forget the diseases the helped wipe out mass numbers of American Indians. I would say, that unless the diseases could count as intent, the word 'genocide' is a bit too far on the whole.

Many of my people would not have died from disease if they had not been forced to march barefooted through snow from their ancestral lands in Georgia across the mountains to Oklahoma with nothing to eat. Forced to keep going regardless because if you stopped, you were either beaten or shot dead by the white soldiers who did not care if you were a small child or a frail senior citizen. Many of those soldiers did not care if you were on the verge of death, they just shot you if you stopped for any reason.

No, but open sores (small poxs) can get fluids on said blankets that transfer said disease.

Which we now know can spread the disease but they did not know in the early and mid-19th century, or earlier. You're projecting modern knowledge back to people who simply did not have it. And anyway, that's too subtle for most of those people. If they wanted the Indians dead, they were quite capable of just killing them.

Right, because that adds up.


Hitler also wasnt trying to kill all the jews, because I still see jews.



:rolleyes:

Yep, and the two situations are entirely the same. :rolleyes:

I'm sure, had outright genocide been attempting, it probably could have succeeded. The situation is not very similar on the whole to the situation with the Nazi genocide.

fabric though certainly capable of carrying germs is not something that can reliably deliver man killers, for that you need the likes of lice and fleas

*cue video tape of bedbugs eating you in your sleep*



typical American attitude to ignore the forces that helped you and did a large amount of the killing :tongue:



the sovereignty to gamble, sniff glue and live in a trailer?

I meant the soviergnty to have our own laws without interference from state governments. Supposedly our Native American nations are supposed to be on the level of autonomy as state governments but some states, such as California, have been deliberately undermining that soverignty.

This suggests that you can show very convincing evidence to actually found your own belief. Let's have it.

Depends. Do you count things like the trail of tears, or is that just 'collateral damage'?

Hitler also wasnt trying to kill all the jews, because I still see jews.

actually it was more push the Jews out of Germany but that become a bit of a cake and arse party when he started expanding

...Godwin

The only ones who could be said to have anything close to true friendship with the Natives were the French who didn't go around occupying land and killing people on the basis of race.

I'd be very careful with that French-native relations worked well because France never had the same explosion of emigration that the other European powers had along with a position on the continent that was sketchy at best

also yes we understand the evil Spaniards and later the Mexican government were beyond not very cricket to the locals you don't need to bring it up hell it was pretty much Spanish imperial policy to loot and burn

Many of my people would not have died from disease if they had not been forced to march barefooted through snow from their ancestral lands in Georgia across the mountains to Oklahoma with nothing to eat. Forced to keep going regardless because if you stopped, you were either beaten or shot dead by the white soldiers who did not care if you were a small child or a frail senior citizen. Many of those soldiers did not care if you were on the verge of death, they just shot you if you stopped for any reason.

I didn't say what they did was ok by any means.

Which we now know can spread the disease but they did not know in the early and mid-19th century, or earlier. You're projecting modern knowledge back to people who simply did not have it. And anyway, that's too subtle for most of those people. If they wanted the Indians dead, they were quite capable of just killing them.

That may be but there was no excuse for forcing people off their land at gunpoint and then marching them into territory where they had almost no chance of survival. There is no excuse for the mass killings committed by settlers, missionaries, and soldiers.

I meant the soviergnty to have our own laws without interference from state governments. Supposedly our Native American nations are supposed to be on the level of autonomy as state governments but some states, such as California, have been deliberately undermining that soverignty.

The Native American nations should be granted full independence if they want it, IMO.

Long live the Republic of Lakotah!

I think disease had more to do with the massive loss of life than anything, frankly.

It's why I never accept blankets from white people.

Better safe than sorry. ;)

Yep, and the two situations are entirely the same. :rolleyes:

I'm sure, had outright genocide been attempting, it probably could have succeeded. The situation is not very similar on the whole to the situation with the Nazi genocide.

How are they different? In both situations they wanted to remove a group and did so through violance.

Depends. Do you count things like the trail of tears, or is that just 'collateral damage'?

Is that all you have to suggest that there was a systematic attempt to kill every American Indian in the world?

If so, why is there even a 'trail' why weren't the Americanc Indians just killed outright, rather than displaced?

That may be but there was no excuse for forcing people off their land at gunpoint and then marching them into territory where they had almost no chance of survival. There is no excuse for the mass killings committed by settlers, missionaries, and soldiers.

I never said it was. The US government treated Native Americans abominably, as did the British and the French and the Spanish and the Portuguese. The treatment of those peoples should also be remembered along with the Holocaust of the 20th Century. And the massacre of my ancestors in 1915. And every other genocide or ethnic cleansing or what have you.

Native Americans helped wipe out their own brethren, especially in the early years. Plus, disease was the primary cause of the removal of the Native Americans.

Now I'm not saying that whites were innocent, but comparison with genocide is a bit extreme.

How are they different? In both situations they wanted to remove a group and did so through violance.

Ok, fair enough, in the broadest of terms they are similar. Hitler's attempt came in a much different world, where there was public outcry against his machinations. There was much less of this relating to American Indians in the early American government. What I'm saying is that it is much more possible for the American 'genocide' to have succeeded, had it been attempted in earnest. Part of that is not having fought a several-front international war, part of it is the global political climate.

That may be but there was no excuse for forcing people off their land at gunpoint and then marching them into territory where they had almost no chance of survival. There is no excuse for the mass killings committed by settlers, missionaries, and soldiers.

I must have missed the post where someone said that this behavior was ok?

As far as I'm aware, the real debate is whether genocide was honestly attempted or not, not whether or not whitey was right in what he did.

I never said it was. The US government treated Native Americans abominably, as did the British and the French and the Spanish and the Portuguese. The treatment of those peoples should also be remembered along with the Holocaust of the 20th Century. And the massacre of my ancestors in 1915. And every other genocide or ethnic cleansing or what have you.

In a few cases especially along the east coast, colonists 'bought' land from native tribes who had no concept of land ownership. It would be like someone coming up to me and offering me $100 for my silliness. I'd be like, 'Sure, sucker!' and take the $100. Then offer him some wackiness for an extra $50. A lot of natives had no idea you could own land. :tongue:

Im sure you have a source for this.

which assertion?

Is that all you have to suggest that there was a systematic attempt to kill every American Indian in the world?

If so, why is there even a 'trail' why weren't the Americanc Indians just killed outright, rather than displaced?

Why did Hitler put the Jews in concentration camps at first?

And who said every American Indian? Just the ones these innocent, God-fearing white men found in their way. Nothing wrong with that, right?

Many of my people would not have died from disease if they had not been forced to march barefooted through snow from their ancestral lands in Georgia across the mountains to Oklahoma with nothing to eat. Forced to keep going regardless because if you stopped, you were either beaten or shot dead by the white soldiers who did not care if you were a small child or a frail senior citizen. Many of those soldiers did not care if you were on the verge of death, they just shot you if you stopped for any reason.

which is forced relocation not Genocide as the planning phase was less "lets get those savages mwahahaha" and more "lets get those savages off that real estate"

I meant the soviergnty to have our own laws without interference from state governments. Supposedly our Native American nations are supposed to be on the level of autonomy as state governments but some states, such as California, have been deliberately undermining that soverignty.

ah yes the famous case of the states that can forcefully remove people who are not of their tribe no?

Not an outright genocide, but a long-running series of ethnic cleansings that were higlighted by the Trail of Tears amongst other things.

I agree with them, it was close to a genocide but it was a result of war. I do, however, believe that how the Europeans [later on Americans] treated the Native Americans was disgusting.

And who said every American Indian? Just the ones these innocent, God-fearing white men found in their way. Nothing wrong with that, right?

Umm, everyone who has suggested genocide so far? Otherwise it really does fall into the lesser (though still atrocious) title "Ethnic cleansing".

And naturally, no, that's no ok, there certainly is something wrong with it, but you can't change the past.

Umm, everyone who has suggested genocide so far? Otherwise it really does fall into the lesser (though still atrocious) title "Ethnic cleansing".

Same thing, different word. Ethnic cleansing is a more 'friendly' term for Genocide. Genocide, whether slow or quick, is still Genocide. Whether by firing squad, by gas chamber, by biological warfare, or slow starvation, Genocide is Genocide. And Ethnic Cleansing is a pitiful attempt on trying to lessen the fault of 'The Good Guys'. Hitler committed Genocide, African Ethnic Groups commit Genocide, but when it comes to them good ol' American boys, or the Brits, or even the Spanish, it's suddenly 'Ethnic cleansing' and 'not as bad'.

And I have four words. Fuck. Your. Apologist. History.

Same thing, different word. Ethnic cleansing is a more 'friendly' term for Genocide. Genocide, whether slow or quick, is still Genocide. Whether by firing squad, by gas chamber, by biological warfare, or slow starvation, Genocide is Genocide. And Ethnic Cleansing is a pitiful attempt on trying to lessen the fault of 'The Good Guys'. Hitler committed Genocide, African Ethnic Groups commit Genocide, but when it comes to them good ol' American boys, or the Brits, or even the Spanish, it's suddenly 'Ethnic cleansing' and 'not as bad'.

And I have four words. Fuck. Your. Apologist. History.

Wow, fly off the handle a little?

EDIT:
Also, you have an etymological source to suggest that Ethnic Cleansing is merely a term coined so that people don't have to feel as bad for the atrocities committed against American Indians, so as to avoid calling it a genocide? Because such a ridiculously specific, and no doubt non-existent source would sure help your claim in that very thing.

I didn't say us "good ol' boys" weren't to blame, or that it wasn't that bad... maybe you can cite where I said that? Oh, you can't? Because I didn't, how convenient. I have called the actions atrocious here, and elsewhere, nor am I trying to make the actions of my forbearers acceptable, indeed, I'm mostly Germanic, which even a touch of American Indian, so my forbearer's aren't that relevant to the "genocide" except on the recieving end.

The Native American nations should be granted full independence if they want it, IMO.

Long live the Republic of Lakotah!

I agree.

did you know the Osage are descendants of the Sioux?

Wow, fly off the handle a little?

Always.:D

I never said it was. The US government treated Native Americans abominably, as did the British and the French and the Spanish and the Portuguese. The treatment of those peoples should also be remembered along with the Holocaust of the 20th Century. And the massacre of my ancestors in 1915. And every other genocide or ethnic cleansing or what have you.

Armenian?

somewhere between 75-90% were killed by disease.
the reports the disease was intentionally spread are laughable. Not because, white people didn't try to spread disease , but rather the means they tried to spread disease would not work. (it was impossible to spread small pox with blankets).

Further, the vast bulk of the inhabitants of North and South America died from secondhand infection from the initial Mexican contact with smallpox--a coincidental contact, I might add. It was a genuinely apocalyptic series of events that occurred outside of the control of any human being.

Native Americans helped wipe out their own brethren, especially in the early years. Plus, disease was the primary cause of the removal of the Native Americans.
Regretfully my people had a role in that and we paid for it dearly.

Same thing, different word.
No, not at all. They're distinct concepts from one another, and should remain so.

One can 'ethnically cleanse' an area without killing a single person -- forced deportation, for example -- and though genocide will involve ethnic cleansing, not all ethnic cleansing will be genocide.

I agree, however, that it is a rather distasteful euphemism.

I must have missed the post where someone said that this behavior was ok?

As far as I'm aware, the real debate is whether genocide was honestly attempted or not, not whether or not whitey was right in what he did.

I was not implying anyone here was. I get into these discussions a lot off line and where I live, I get a lot of "there were no Native Americans in California when the Mexicans arrived" and "it was only white people killing indians" and that "Native Americans deserved it because they're inferior" and other under educated crap from Hispanic people in my neighborhood. I inadvertently carried my thoughts from those conversations into the thread. Sorry about that.

Just so you know, I don't think all Hispanics think that way.

How are they different? In both situations they wanted to remove a group and did so through violance.

One was a highly organized, tightly concentrated and efficient campaign whose explicit goal was extermination, which occurred over the period of a decade and was orchestrated by a small group of people within a single government.

The other was a protracted, disorganized, inefficient, occasionally interstate occurrence that lasted for centuries and whose goals had more to do with economic growth, physical expansion and high-level thievery. Further, it can hardly be regarded as orchestrated by anybody, and dozens of governments were involved in all sorts of morally sketchy actions.

They're different, that's for sure. Both are morally repugnant, but can hardly be equated.

ah yes the famous case of the states that can forcefully remove people who are not of their tribe no?
you lost me on that one. Tribes can remove people who are not members. I think only a tribe has the right to decide who is a member. The state has nothing to do with it. But I am not sure I read your statement right.

I've heard that and I've heard a rebuttal of it, in the case of the supposed deliberate infection of the Mandans in the 1830s. The rebuttal goes, there was not the kind of medical knowledge then to enable the US government or the territorial government or the American Fur Company or whomever you care to blame to understand that disease germs could survive in blankets or clothing and infect other people. Had you asked a doctor at the time about the causes of smallpox or measles or the common cold, he would have talked about miasmas and humors and offered to bleed you. Pasteur didn't do his work on the germ theory of disease until the 1860s and it took decades for it to become the accepted explanation.

That doesn't seem like a very good rebuttal. For one thing using disease as a weapon of war had been used for centuries at least despite fairly similar medical theories. For another, there's at least one documented case where blankets were planned to be used for the explicit purpose of infecting the natives with small pox. Source (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biological_warfare#Medieval_biological_warfare).

Further, the vast bulk of the inhabitants of North and South America died from secondhand infection from the initial Mexican contact with smallpox--a coincidental contact, I might add. It was a genuinely apocalyptic series of events that occurred outside of the control of any human being.

When the pilgrims landed they were wonder why their were a bunch of empty fields. Likely the tribes that existed on that land had been wiped out and fled inland to join other tribes.

you lost me on that one. Tribes can remove people who are not members. I think only a tribe has the right to decide who is a member. The state has nothing to do with it. But I am not sure I read your statement right.

yes thats what I mean its a ridicules state of affairs to have a low level village-esque government in control of such affairs and I'm surprised you would want such a thing to be expanded

I agree with them, it was close to a genocide but it was a result of war. I do, however, believe that how the Europeans [later on Americans] treated the Native Americans was disgusting.

the trail of tears was not the result of a war. If we had wanted to, we could have resisted. It is a little known cavy that the Cherokee at one point did go to war with the early US government and we did force treaty terms on the US. As far as I know, we were the only people to successfully force white America into a surrender. Of course it only lasted a couple of years. But that was before the TOT in which my ancestors chose not to resist. They chose not to fight. I am not sure they would have made that decision if they had known what would happen on the forced march.

(by forcing a surrender, I mean by wiping out their military units and virtually dictating terms. For a couple of years, this made the US recognize Cherokee soveriegnty over parts of Georgia, South Carolina and the Allegheny. Too bad it didn't last for long.)

Same thing, different word. Ethnic cleansing is a more 'friendly' term for Genocide. Genocide, whether slow or quick, is still Genocide. Whether by firing squad, by gas chamber, by biological warfare, or slow starvation, Genocide is Genocide. And Ethnic Cleansing is a pitiful attempt on trying to lessen the fault of 'The Good Guys'. Hitler committed Genocide, African Ethnic Groups commit Genocide, but when it comes to them good ol' American boys, or the Brits, or even the Spanish, it's suddenly 'Ethnic cleansing' and 'not as bad'.

And I have four words. Fuck. Your. Apologist. History.

A-fucking-men.

That doesn't seem like a very good rebuttal. For one thing using disease as a weapon of war had been used for centuries at least despite fairly similar medical theories. For another, there's at least one documented case where blankets were planned to be used for the explicit purpose of infecting the natives with small pox. Source (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biological_warfare#Medieval_biological_warfare).

your talking of Henry Bouquet right ?
While small pox can in theory be spread from contaminated clothing. It dies very quickly out side of the body. Henry Bouquet distributed the blankets months after small pox epidemic on Fort Pitt ended. you would be about as likely to get small pox from those blankets as you would from a blanket an HIV positive person made a mess on.

A-fucking-men.

gaaaah its spreading:

Ethnic cleansing is a euphemism referring to the persecution through imprisonment, expulsion, or killing of members of an ethnic minority by a majority to achieve ethnic homogeneity in majority-controlled territory.[1] It is sometimes used interchangeably with the more connotatively severe term genocide. The term entered English and international media usage in the early 1990s to describe war events in the former Yugoslavia. Examples range from ancient history to modern day situations.

Synonyms include ethnic purification .[2]

wiki1 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethnic_Cleansing)

Genocide is the deliberate and systematic destruction, in whole or in part, of an ethnic, racial, religious, or national group.
Buchenwald concentration camp

While precise definition varies among genocide scholars, a legal definition is found in the 1948 United Nations Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (CPPCG). Article 2, of this convention defines genocide as "any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such: killing members of the group; causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group; deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life, calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part; imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group; [and] forcibly transferring children of the group to another group."[1]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genocide

yes thats what I mean its a ridicules state of affairs to have a low level village-esque government in control of such affairs and I'm surprised you would want such a thing to be expanded

a tribe is much more than just a village. But its not a multiethnic state. It's more akin to a monoethnic state.

I am among those who believe that if you want to be a tribal member, you have to have tribal DNA running through your blood. There is no civil right to be a Tsagali just as there is no civil right to be an Apache. Tsagali, Apache, Irish, German, Cree, Black, these are things you are born as. You have no control over your ethnicity.

If you are born 100% white German. Then there you don't a have a civil right to join the Apache tribe. Because tribal membership is based on ethnicity as verified by the method chosen by the tribe.

your talking of Henry Bouquet right ?
While small pox can in theory be spread from contaminated clothing. It dies very quickly out side of the body. Henry Bouquet distributed the blankets months after small pox epidemic on Fort Pitt ended. you would be about as likely to get small pox from those blankets as you would from a blanket an HIV positive person made a mess on.

Yes, I was talking about him. I didn't say his tactics were effective or even actually implemented, but saying germ theory wasn't invented yet or widely accepted is not much of a rebuttal since obviously Henry intended to cause a small pox epidemic.

gaaaah its spreading:


wiki1 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethnic_Cleansing)



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genocide

...

Ethnic cleansing is a euphemism referring to the persecution through imprisonment, expulsion, or killing of members of an ethnic minority by a majority to achieve ethnic homogeneity in majority-controlled territory.[1] It is sometimes used interchangeably with the more connotatively severe term genocide.


Genocide is the deliberate and systematic destruction, in whole or in part, of an ethnic, racial, religious, or national group.

While precise definition varies among genocide scholars, a legal definition is found in the 1948 United Nations Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (CPPCG). Article 2, of this convention defines genocide as "any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such: killing members of the group; causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group; deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life, calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part; imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group; [and] forcibly transferring children of the group to another group."[1]

Yes, I was talking about him. I didn't say his tactics were effective or even actually implemented, but saying germ theory wasn't invented yet or widely accepted is not much of a rebuttal since obviously Henry intended to cause a small pox epidemic.

I can agree it wasn't for lack of trying just lack of know how.
I do call the things outside of disease Genocide. Most importantly the force removals/relocation.

When the pilgrims landed they were wonder why their were a bunch of empty fields. Likely the tribes that existed on that land had been wiped out and fled inland to join other tribes.

Fairly accurate description. Likely the Plains tribes were far more sedentary before the initial Mexican contact, but as a result of the spread of the delightful old smallpox their civilization--one with complex trading interrelationships across the bulk of the continent--was destroyed, and they were forced into a hunter-gatherer society.

Yes, I was talking about him. I didn't say his tactics were effective or even actually implemented, but saying germ theory wasn't invented yet or widely accepted is not much of a rebuttal since obviously Henry intended to cause a small pox epidemic.

To make the picture a little more complex, though, the blankets were given to a military force in order to lift the siege of Fort Pitt during Pontiac's Rebellion.

Fairly accurate description. Likely the Plains tribes were far more sedentary before the initial Mexican contact, but as a result of the spread of the delightful old smallpox their civilization--one with complex trading interrelationships across the bulk of the continent--was destroyed, and they were forced into a hunter-gatherer society.

Also the spread of the horse. The Comanche weren't even originally plains Indians. then they got the horse and said it was a great way to live and broke away from the Shoshone.

I am among those who believe that if you want to be a tribal member, you have to have tribal DNA running through your blood. There is no civil right to be a Tsagali just as there is no civil right to be an Apache. Tsagali, Apache, Irish, German, Cree, Black, these are things you are born as. You have no control over your ethnicity.

actually you can be Kraut or (though everyones Irish duh) Paddy rather easily which in the traditional sense means gaining citizenship however what we are talking about is forcefully ejecting people you consider undesirable off your land which stinks up your argument a tad to the extreme

...

headache tiem!

ethic cleaning and genocide can go hand in hand and they often do however they are not the same word with the same meaning in much the same way that emptying my bowels is not the same as pooping even though I can do both

now how does this tie in well: you can force people off of land in a system of deportation without it being genocide as was done in a large amount of cases but not all in the USSR the same can be applied to the native American situation during the US expansionist age

however if you also do so in a naughty fashion then you can have ethnic cleansing and genocide

Can't be arsed to read the whole thread, so maybe this point has already been made: call it "genocide," call it "ethnic cleansing," it's just semantics. The tribes of North America suffered greatly.
Another tragedy: the decimation of the buffalo herds. The scene in Dances With Wolves, with what, maybe 200 head? I cried. There used to be millions, literally carpeting the plains.

actually you can be Kraut or (though everyones Irish duh) Paddy rather easily which in the traditional sense means gaining citizenship however what we are talking about is forcefully ejecting people you consider undesirable off your land which stinks up your argument a tad to the extreme


If your soveriengty is equal to that of the state, then you could limit access to your land, subject to restrictions set by the federal government, not the state government.
We are not talking citizenship btw, we are talking about ethnic membership. There is a sense that whites and blacks are only trying to claim Native American citizenship because they think it will get them free money.

Like Curious Inquiry, I didn't read the whole thread, so I don't know if this was already mentioned.
According to a History book I had at school, General William Tecumseh Sherman of the United States Military once stated "The only good Indian is a dead Indian," which sounds alot like Adolf Hitlers policies.

If your soveriengty is equal to that of the state, then you could limit access to your land, subject to restrictions set by the federal government, not the state government.

and I'm sure the federal government long ago turned a thrown on the concept of me chucking out anyone who isn't a God fearing Englishmen or in more technical terms limiting access to anyone who can't prove their pedigree

funny how that works innit?

we are talking about ethnic membership.

you'd think you would be the last people to advocate a good old fashion race war view

If your soveriengty is equal to that of the state, then you could limit access to your land, subject to restrictions set by the federal government, not the state government.
We are not talking citizenship btw, we are talking about ethnic membership. There is a sense that whites and blacks are only trying to claim Native American citizenship because they think it will get them free money.

Are you suggesting a state that only allows citizenship to a certain race?

Are you suggesting a state that only allows citizenship to a certain race?

In the US you cannot become a member of most tribes unless you prove through paperwork birthright. You can also be booted from a tribe or most of them by a vote. If you can't prove your blood line you cannot collect any revenues from tribal gaming or industry. You can't also claim benefits from the Fed's and still have to pay your income tax like the rest of the dopes. So in a sense they are a government that restricts citizenship/membership.

Skimmed the thread...

...I don't care how you want to label it, it was an atrocity and a crime.

I agree.

did you know the Osage are descendants of the Sioux?

No, I did not. I have a bit of Native American ancestry myself (granted, it's a very small percentage). Dakota, I believe.

I think disease had more to do with the massive loss of life than anything, frankly.

It's why I never accept blankets from white people.

Ah, but do you accept cock from white people?

It'll kill you, you know.

I'm going to take a more mid-line view and say no. There were parts of it, the Trail of Tears for example or the forced removal of Native children to the Indian schools, that could be called attempted genocide under the modern understanding, but overall... It doesn't get there. There were no on-going systimatic attempts to wipe out the population. There were lots of greed and stupid decisions made to move tribes to reservations that couldn't even remotely support their way of life, but from what I have studied very rarely was this done with the intent that it would kill the Native Americans and wipe them out. Instead it was thought that the Natives would and could develop those lands the same way White settlers would and prosper. The fact that they couldn't (Because the lands weren't capable of that and because their cultures were SO not European) didn't really seem to occure to said idiots making these kinds of decisions.

Genocide requires intent and malice. I have yet to see such intent and malice. Greed, stupidity, and racism, yes, but not intent to actually kill the whole of a people and the malice to do so.

The tragic part is that greed, stupidity, and racism is just as capable of killing and destroying hundreds of thousands as malice.

Ah, but do you accept cock from white people?

It'll kill you, you know.

which is why all the cock Ryadn accepts is, at minimum, tan *nods*

hey what did i have to do with it. Stop naming me with those two other guys Mr. S and Mr. R.

which is why all the cock Ryadn accepts is, at minimum, tan *nods*

It leaves a few good cocks out in the cold, but a girl's got to stick to her principles.

It leaves a few good cocks out in the cold, but a girl's got to stick to her principles.

and you know what happens to cocks in the cold....

and you know what happens to cocks in the cold....

Which certainly doesn't improve their chances.

Which certainly doesn't improve their chances.

truly a vicious cycle that. Don't you have any room in your heart for those poor rejected ones, alone in the cold?

Your heart or, you know..other places

*cough*

Ah, but do you accept cock from white people?

It'll kill you, you know.

As a general rule, no. Of course, I get to define who is white, and who is not.

As a general rule, no. Of course, I get to define who is white, and who is not.

you know, I heard jews are honorary blacks.

you know, I heard jews are honorary blacks.

And the Irish are the blacks of Europe.

you know, I heard jews are honorary blacks.

Don't worry, Jews are firmly on the 'not white' side of the list of Cocks Sinuhue Might Accept.

Don't worry, Jews are firmly on the 'not white' side of the list of Cocks Sinuhue Might Accept.

40 years in the desert was worth something after all!

40 years in the desert was worth something after all!
Yup, I'm all about historically oppressed cock.

any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such: killing members of the group; causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group; deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life, calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part; imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group; [and] forcibly transferring children of the group to another group."

It was genocide. It's only not genocide if you deliberately ignore and dismiss every single village butchered, every forced relocation, every Indian murdered, every war fought to conquer and subdue, every atrocity.

Right up in the 20th century, US Federal boarding schools would beat the children if they spoke their native language. Talk about systematic destruction of a culture.

Is anyone seriously saying the whole native American thing is not genocide/ethnic cleansing ?
I mean even I have a hard time claiming that, and I love to make crazy arguments.

40 years in the desert was worth something after all!

I'll thank you not to refer to Yale that way.

That may be but there was no excuse for forcing people off their land at gunpoint and then marching them into territory where they had almost no chance of survival. There is no excuse for the mass killings committed by settlers, missionaries, and soldiers.

Sure there is, we wanted the land and they were in the way...
okay, its not a good excuse and doesn't make it right, but it is an excuse.

I'll thank you not to refer to Yale that way.I thought it was Harvard? Ah, same shit anyway.

I thought it was Harvard? Ah, same shit anyway.

The man went to both, if you can believe that shit.

He doesn't have pubes, he has ivy crawling up his junk.

he has ivy crawling up his junk.

aww, you're sweet. Thanks for noticing.

The man went to both, if you can believe that shit.

He doesn't have pubes, he has ivy crawling up his junk.

I knew there was something going on between you two! NA, what have I told you about sharing your green, leafy crotch with everyone you meet?!

There's an excellent (if poorly named) comic out right now called "Scalped" about a Native American res, its power mad corrupt chief, the poverty, alcholism, and a self-hating native undercover agent caught in the middle.

I don't know how accurate it is, but its pretty good.

It was genocide. It's only not genocide if you deliberately ignore and dismiss every single village butchered, every forced relocation, every Indian murdered, every war fought to conquer and subdue, every atrocity.

Right up in the 20th century, US Federal boarding schools would beat the children if they spoke their native language. Talk about systematic destruction of a culture.
If you read your own source, it is with intent to destroy. Show me the intent.

The problem with geocide as a term is that everyone just loves to sling it around when the body count starts rising. The problem is that if you want to show it, you have to show actual intent to destroy in whole or in part. Most atrocities lack such intents. It doesn't make it any less horrific or wrong, but it doesn't make it genocide either.

If you read your own source, it is with intent to destroy. Show me the intent.


Intent to destroy, in whole or in part. Are you going to suggest that no one wanted to destroy even part of the Nations? Oh, let's just exterminate that tribe there. Aaaand... that one there. Oh you know, and let's move those ones there.

Genocide is like government spending. A million here, a million there... pretty soon it adds up.

The problem with geocide as a term is that everyone just loves to sling it around when the body count starts rising. The problem is that if you want to show it, you have to show actual intent to destroy in whole or in part. Most atrocities lack such intents. It doesn't make it any less horrific or wrong, but it doesn't make it genocide either.

You base this on... what?

It might be an oddly comforting notion - accidental genocide.

Kind of like accidentally raping someone. Oops! It was the heat of the moment, Your Honor!

That doesn't seem like a very good rebuttal. For one thing using disease as a weapon of war had been used for centuries at least despite fairly similar medical theories. For another, there's at least one documented case where blankets were planned to be used for the explicit purpose of infecting the natives with small pox. Source (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biological_warfare#Medieval_biological_warfare).

Yes, but that very source includes this: "Historians have been unable to establish whether or not this plan was implemented, particularly in light of the fact that smallpox was already present in the region."

So I think it remains a perfectly valid rebuttal.

Poisoning wells with corpses or carcasses or dung, or flinging the same over the walls of a beseiged city is not in the same category as saying, "Okay, let's concentrate now, we need to wipe out those damned Indians, right? So, I was reading in the latest issue of Scientific Colonial that if you infect blankets with smallpox ..."

"Excuse me, General, how do you infect blankets with smallpox?"

"Uhmm ... You get some miasmas, I think, and ... and ... put them on the blankets and ... Don't ask irrelevant questions, Smithers. Now then, moving on ..."

Whereas dumping dead rotting things in water was a tried and true method. I mean, that's why you let the dog smell things you're dubious about, right?

Armenian?

Yeah. Half.

I do not believe there was no intent to wipe out the Native peoples. Not among the European colonists, but later, during the US Indian Wars. I think there definitely was what today would be called a policy of genocide against the Native people. If they were not to be slaughtered outright, they were to be driven into wastelands and left to die off slowly. But a future without Native Americans was definitely in the minds of the pols in Washington during the 19th century.

Intent to destroy, in whole or in part. Are you going to suggest that no one wanted to destroy even part of the Nations? Oh, let's just exterminate that tribe there. Aaaand... that one there. Oh you know, and let's move those ones there.

Genocide is like government spending. A million here, a million there... pretty soon it adds up.
Wonderful way to miss the point compleatly. Nazi Germany commited genocide, we have documented proof that the leadership of Nazi Germany delberately set out to destroy the Jews. The intent was shown. Now, prove the same for the leadership of the US. Can you show it to me? Do we have orders? Do we have writings? Do we have proof that the intent was to destroy in whole or in part? No? Then we have no intent.

Otherwise ANY act becomes genocide.

The bombing of Hiroshima was genocide. The Bataan Death March was genocide. Columbine was genocide. See how easy you cheapen the word?

You base this on... what?

It might be an oddly comforting notion - accidental genocide.

Kind of like accidentally raping someone. Oops! It was the heat of the moment, Your Honor!
Want a little straw for your scarecrow there?

Intent, there is a very specfic deffinition for it. Trench warfare in WWI was an atrocity, wouldn't you say? Was THAT genocide? The bombing of Dresden and the Blitz were atrocities by any streach of the imagination, were they also genocides?

Yes, you can have atrocities occure without the intent needed for genocide, you can EVEN have atrocities without intent at all! Hurricanes and earthquakes can produce massive human casulaties and they obviously were not aimed at destruction.

I do not believe there was no intent to wipe out the Native peoples. Not among the European colonists, but later, during the US Indian Wars. I think there definitely was what today would be called a policy of genocide against the Native people. If they were not to be slaughtered outright, they were to be driven into wastelands and left to die off slowly. But a future without Native Americans was definitely in the minds of the pols in Washington during the 19th century.
Alright, prove it.

I do not believe there was no intent to wipe out the Native peoples. Not among the European colonists, but later, during the US Indian Wars. I think there definitely was what today would be called a policy of genocide against the Native people. If they were not to be slaughtered outright, they were to be driven into wastelands and left to die off slowly. But a future without Native Americans was definitely in the minds of the pols in Washington during the 19th century.

That's clear from their writings they left behind. things like "If the red man wants to survive he must become white" or how about, "this land belongs to the whites, the indians have no more place here, any who are found are to be arrested". ETC.


Today's gay rights movement thinks they have civil rights issues. I bet its nothing compared to what the either the indians or the blacks went through. IF someone beats up a gay the world condemns it. Back then you massacre a group of indians or lynch a black, the world applauded it.

That's clear from their writings they left behind. things like "If the red man wants to survive he must become white" or how about, "this land belongs to the whites, the indians have no more place here, any who are found are to be arrested". ETC.
Who said it? Did that person have power? Were they able to put those into policy? Were the policies put into action?

Today's gay rights movement thinks they have civil rights issues. I bet its nothing compared to what the either the indians or the blacks went through. IF someone beats up a gay the world condemns it. Back then you massacre a group of indians or lynch a black, the world applauded it.
Not EVEN going to touch this one.

The Army knew what it was doing when it hunted/allowed others to hunt the buffalo to near-extinction. There may never have been a textbook genocide, but intentionally causing a famine comes close, whether it was in the context of an ongoing war or not.

Alright, prove it.
See USofA's post, above. Also, before I set aside time to research it, I would be interested to know why it is so important to you that it not be true? Because it seems like you are very eager for it not to be true.

I was just mentioning something that I remembered learning in high school and phrasing it in the language of opinion. I was hoping, frankly, to bait out some history nerds who might have already done the research recently who could either support or correct me.

But even so, I am confident that I am right. I will research it if you insist, but I'm really busy right now and I don't offhand know all the important dates and names, so it could take me a long time to find what I want.

So before I go to that trouble, I wish to know whether you have good reason to think that there was no such intent in the 19th century, or whether you are just trying to limit the use of the word "genocide."

Because if it's the former, then I would very much like to know your reasons, as I would like to be better informed. But if it's the latter, you can shove it. I'm not going to take up my lunch hours looking up the Indian Wars only to be countered with a semantics argument.

Poisoning wells with corpses or carcasses or dung, or flinging the same over the walls of a beseiged city is not in the same category as saying, "Okay, let's concentrate now, we need to wipe out those damned Indians, right? So, I was reading in the latest issue of Scientific Colonial that if you infect blankets with smallpox ..."

"Excuse me, General, how do you infect blankets with smallpox?"

"Uhmm ... You get some miasmas, I think, and ... and ... put them on the blankets and ... Don't ask irrelevant questions, Smithers. Now then, moving on ..."

How smallpox spread was known in America by the early 1700s. By the 1800s inoculation to build up resistance to smallpox was commonplace, at least among the wealthy. Hell, they were already using vaccinations in the 1800s. People didn't know what caused smallpox, but they sure as hell knew how it spread.

How smallpox spread was known in America by the early 1700s. By the 1800s inoculation to build up resistance to smallpox was commonplace, at least among the wealthy. Hell, they were already using vaccinations in the 1800s. People didn't know what caused smallpox, but they sure as hell knew how it spread.

Face to face contact with an infected person normally within 6 feet ??

Face to face contact with an infected person normally within 6 feet ??

They knew smallpox scabs could transmit the disease, I'm not sure if they knew whether or not it could be spread through the air.

They knew smallpox scabs could transmit the disease, I'm not sure if they knew whether or not it could be spread through the air.
And even if they did not know the facts, they knew it was contagious, and there was a widespread fear of touching anything that had been touched by a person who died of a contagious disease. Even without knowing, scientifically, that the blankets were infected, they would have considered them poisoned.

And even if they did not know the facts, they knew it was contagious, and there was a widespread fear of touching anything that had been touched by a person who died of a contagious disease. Even without knowing, scientifically, that the blankets were infected, they would have considered them poisoned.

The blanket thing would prove intent. Even if it it was incapable of spreading the disease.

Are you suggesting a state that only allows citizenship to a certain race?

Far from it. While native americans have the soverignty level of states, they are not states. What we are talking about are ethnic groups with their own traditions, and who have their own culture and belief systems.
The reason it's an issue because when whites and blacks found out the federal government was giving indians a few pennies for reparations, they decided they wanted the pennies for themselves. It wasn't enough they already stole the land and resources.
There was a big deal over this a couple of years when a black woman got upset because the Cherokee said the only way blacks could be members of the tribe is if they were genetically descended from the Cherokee, the woman and a California Congresswoman tried to pass a law to disband the tribe. It didn't work out that way though because the Cherokee are still here and, as far as I know, blacks and whites who are not descended from actual Cherokee, cannot join the tribe.

Tribes are equal to states, but they are not states.

No, I did not. I have a bit of Native American ancestry myself (granted, it's a very small percentage). Dakota, I believe.

I found it when I was doing research. The Osage language group apparently descends from the Sioux languages. Just as the Cherokee are descendents of the Iroquois. I have both but the Osage have been difficult to find anything on on the web. Though, they were the only ones to respond to my request to participate in a Native American Day event in my community. I'm still waiting to hear from the rest.

Far from it. While native americans have the soverignty level of states, they are not states. What we are talking about are ethnic groups with their own traditions, and who have their own culture and belief systems.
The reason it's an issue because when whites and blacks found out the federal government was giving indians a few pennies for reparations, they decided they wanted the pennies for themselves. It wasn't enough they already stole the land and resources.
There was a big deal over this a couple of years when a black woman got upset because the Cherokee said the only way blacks could be members of the tribe is if they were genetically descended from the Cherokee, the woman and a California Congresswoman tried to pass a law to disband the tribe. It didn't work out that way though because the Cherokee are still here and, as far as I know, blacks and whites who are not descended from actual Cherokee, cannot join the tribe.

Tribes are equal to states, but they are not states.

So you believe someone who is genetically related to someone who was wronged should be paid?

See USofA's post, above. Also, before I set aside time to research it, I would be interested to know why it is so important to you that it not be true? Because it seems like you are very eager for it not to be true.

I was just mentioning something that I remembered learning in high school and phrasing it in the language of opinion. I was hoping, frankly, to bait out some history nerds who might have already done the research recently who could either support or correct me.

But even so, I am confident that I am right. I will research it if you insist, but I'm really busy right now and I don't offhand know all the important dates and names, so it could take me a long time to find what I want.

So before I go to that trouble, I wish to know whether you have good reason to think that there was no such intent in the 19th century, or whether you are just trying to limit the use of the word "genocide."

Because if it's the former, then I would very much like to know your reasons, as I would like to be better informed. But if it's the latter, you can shove it. I'm not going to take up my lunch hours looking up the Indian Wars only to be countered with a semantics argument.
A bit of both. The former because while when I have read the writtings of the people who were in place to provide policy and see it carried through I find discusting examples of racism and greed (As well as the usual mix of American exceptionalism and Manafest Destiny), but very little intent to go out and destroy Native Americans. It's a matter of compairing idiot remarks about how the Red man and the White man cannot live together and the Red man would be happier in his own area vs how the stain of the Jews needs to be cleansed from Europe.

Now, as I noted, that's not to say that actions within the period known as the Indian Wars didn't reach the level of intent for genocide (Again, the Trail of Tears does seem to fall well within the intent, at least for the Cherokee, to kill them all, as well as the Indian schools were a deliberate atempt to destroy Native cultures), but taken as a whole... I just do not see a deliberate attempt at destruction within the stated policies and writtings of the various presidents, Congress, and others. At least not on a wide scale (One army officer does not offical policy make).

As for the latter, genocide is NOT a term to be cheapened by tossing it at everything. It has a very specific meaning and should be reserved for the most henious of events, the deliberate attempt to remove a people (Ethic group, religious group, or other) from the face of the planet. As Stafford Poole said, "There are other terms to describe what happened in the Western Hemisphere, but genocide is not one of them. It is a good propaganda term in an age where slogans and shouting have replaced reflection and learning, but to use it in this context is to cheapen both the word itself and the appalling experiences of the Jews and Armenians, to mention but two of the major victims of this century."

To turn it around, would you be comfortable saying that a woman who was beaten, raped, and then killed by someone she had just met that night a victim of domestic violence? What happened to that woman is horrible, sickening, and saddening, but is it DV? Wouldn't the use of the term start to cheapen it and start to lessen its impact and the suffering of those who indeed are dealing with DV?

At what point is genocide then just tossed out whenever you have a body count?

There are enough words to descibe what happened to the Native Americans. Genocide just isn't one of them and not using it does not lessen what happened or the responcibility Americans have to learn what we DID do and how to address it AND the problems that we have (and still are) caused.

The blanket thing would prove intent. Even if it it was incapable of spreading the disease.
Not necessarily, because among the Europeans, smallpox had been endemic for hundreds, maybe thousands of years. Many people had had enough exposure to it and to related diseases (like cow pox) to have some immunity to it. That was enhanced by early innoculation against it. In Europe, the death rate from smallpox was manageable.

But among the North Americans who had never been exposed to it before, it was brutally lethal. There is no reason to think the colonists would have anticipated that the native people would have no ability to resist the disease. It is more likely that they were just engaging in the nearly as heinous practice of biological warfare, seeking to cripple their enemy with sickness, but not necessarily anticipating that so many would die of it.

Now, in the 19th century, the program of exterminating the buffalo in order to deny food to the plains tribes in order to break their control of the territories and their ability to resist white intrusion was well established. The fact that no provision was made to feed those people in any other way, that they were often denied access to food, shelter, etc, controlled by whites and the US government, is a stronger indicator of intent to have them all die, in my opinion.

To me it is more analagous, though less effective, to Stalin's starving of the Ukrainians.

Official actions?
Andrew Jackson's Indian Removal Act of 1830 (http://www.civics-online.org/library/formatted/texts/indian_act.html) allowed the wholesale removal of aboriginal people from their lands, and I'm sorry, but the Trail of Tears was no joke. Except, look at how gentle they intended (http://georgiainfo.galileo.usg.edu/scottord.htm) the removal to be. Who knows what went wrong there. There isn't an accurate count of those who died along the way, perhaps 3000, some say 4000...and no count at all was attempted once they arrived at their destination.


Richard Henrey Pratt (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Henry_Pratt). While he did not support the massacre of aboriginal peoples, he did wholeheartedly embrace their cultural genocide (http://historymatters.gmu.edu/d/4929/).

A great general has said that the only good Indian is a dead one, and that high sanction of his destruction has been an enormous factor in promoting Indian massacres. In a sense, I agree with the sentiment, but only in this: that all the Indian there is in the race should be dead. Kill the Indian in him, and save the man.

Pratt founded some of the first Residential Schools. He was, of course, well meaning.

General Philip Sheridan (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philip_Sheridan). "The only good Indians I ever saw were dead." Given the mandate to pacify the Plain. He was key in the decimation of the buffalo, with the specific intent to destroy the basic resource relied upon by the tribes.

He was of course, just doing his duty.




Some of you want to claim that the term genocide does not apply. Well, let's see. The term (http://www.preventgenocide.org/lemkin/americanscholar1946.htm) itself was coined by Raphael Lemkin (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Raphael_Lemkin) in 1943.

Genocide is the crime of destroying national, racial or religious groups.


Would mass murder be an adequate name for such a phenomenon? We think not, since it does not connote the motivation of the crime, especially when the motivation is based upon racial, national or religious considerations. An attempt to destroy a nation and obliterate its cultural personality was hitherto called denationalization. This term seems to be inadequate, since it does not connote biological destruction.

Deliberate, legislated acts on the part of the US government absolutely intended to accomplish the cultural annihilation of native americans, coupled with military (legitimised) massacres, forced removal, starvation, and so forth seem to fit quite well into the definition of genocide. That it wasn't accomplished as effeciently as in Nazi Germany should not be the determining factor. The intent, and the result, should be enough.

The enormous loss of life and profound impact all of these policies, taken together, had on aboriginal people in the US, is not in any way, shape, or form something that 'cheapens' the term 'genocide'. The deliberate destructive attempt on the part of the US government through a myriad of policies, death-by-a-thousand-cuts, should not absolve the entirety of the term 'genocide' even if some of those policies were 'well-meaning'.

Who said it? Did that person have power? Were they able to put those into policy? Were the policies put into action?


Not EVEN going to touch this one.

Is this a good start?

http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/27610/andrew_jackson_and_the_indian_removal.html

"The native tribes of the Southern states and the west became a detriment to the development plan of the American government,"

"Andrew Jackson was not known as a friend of the Native American, having been a famous Indian fighter "

"Jackson’s cabinet determined four possible courses of action: allowing whites to infringe upon Indian lands (which would create massive violence), letting the federal government to step in and enforce existing treaties, force the Indians to assimilate by removing government protections, or remove Indians from their treaty guaranteed lands to Western lands that were unsettled at that point."

"Jackson and Democratic politicians promoted the 1830 Indian Removal Act, which would renegotiate treaties and fund removal of Indians to the West, which was called a “voluntary” policy. However, the Western lands of places like Oklahoma and Kansas were not to the quality of Southern farming lands and was possibly an unfair trade with the Indians. As well, while the Indians were not citizens of the United States, they were subject to American bigotry, violence,"

"The Supreme Court, however, ruled several times in the early 1830s to favor native rights. Jackson, firing back at the judiciary, said that the Court could have its way when it could enforce its rulings (a shot at the strength of the judiciary and a promotion of his strong executive powers). Jackson’s way became law and the exodus of Indians from southern lands began.

The Indian removal of the mid-1830s was an unmitigated disaster, with thousands of natives dying and the few who were able to settle in the west unable to make a living. Jackson, however, stuck to his guns by justifying the exodus as working for the best interests of Indians. It is difficult historically to follow this argument, considering that the same argument has been made to subject African Americans, women, and Asian Americans, among others, to strict legal standards."

http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/20785/us_policy_towards_native_americans.html?cat=37

"The U.S. government instituted a new policy towards the Native Americans in 1851, at Fort Laramie. The treaty essentially created a buffer zone between where whites would be working on the railroad and traveling and where the natives lived. This policy was called concentration. The idea was to concentrate the natives to “one big reservation” and keep them from disturbing white travelers and railroad workers."
Ever heard of the term "concentration camp"?

"U.S. policymakers began to realize that the root of Native American power and unification was the tribe. Thus, new policy towards the Great Plains Native Americans should deal with destruction of the tribe. The Dawes-Severalty Act of 1887 did exactly this. The warrior class was turned into farmers and reservations were divided into 160 acre plots. The natives were given no tools, and even worse, the land was not suitable for effective farming. Christian missionaries began to set up churches on the reservations, breaking down the culture of the tribe. Schools were set up which taught native children to be white."
You know the drill. Destroy the tribe, destroy the culture, ban the language, and force everyone to be white.

"Their children were being forcibly taught to be white."

"The natives were psychologically exhausted, as the U.S. government had virtually destroyed their culture and everything that they had ever known"

"At Wounded Knee in 1890, after turning over all of their weapons to a group of army soldiers, a gathering of natives began to perform the Ghost Dance. The soldiers were unsure of what the natives were doing, so they opened fire, "

People were shot dead for dancing.

So you believe someone who is genetically related to someone who was wronged should be paid?

Yes. I believe in reparations. Reparations for Native Americans and reparations for African Americans who are descendants of American slaves.
It's the only way to lift many of those communities out of poverty and give them an equal chance to compete in life. Especially the Native Americans.

Yes. I believe in reparations. Reparations for Native Americans and reparations for African Americans who are descendants of American slaves.
It's the only way to lift many of those communities out of poverty and give them an equal chance to compete in life. Especially the Native Americans.

Paid for by whom? I never owned a slave. I never committed a single act of injustice against a Native American. Why should I be be punished for something I never did?

A bit of both. The former because while when I have read the writtings of the people who were in place to provide policy and see it carried through I find discusting examples of racism and greed (As well as the usual mix of American exceptionalism and Manafest Destiny), but very little intent to go out and destroy Native Americans. It's a matter of compairing idiot remarks about how the Red man and the White man cannot live together and the Red man would be happier in his own area vs how the stain of the Jews needs to be cleansed from Europe.

Now, as I noted, that's not to say that actions within the period known as the Indian Wars didn't reach the level of intent for genocide (Again, the Trail of Tears does seem to fall well within the intent, at least for the Cherokee, to kill them all, as well as the Indian schools were a deliberate atempt to destroy Native cultures), but taken as a whole... I just do not see a deliberate attempt at destruction within the stated policies and writtings of the various presidents, Congress, and others. At least not on a wide scale (One army officer does not offical policy make).
You hint at the flaw in your own argument even as you make it:

You mention racists talking about how the "red man" would be happier in his own place.

Now account for the fact there was no place that was considered the "red man's" own.

Until the US government decided to change the way it was dealing with the Native people, there was no land that was "given" to them that they were not soon driven off of. Never. If the policies had not been abandoned, they would have literally been left with nothing to stand on. So where was this "place" that the few racists thought they should be segregated to? Where was "Red Man's Land"? Where was their Liberia?

And what few places they were driven into before being driven out of them again were useless for either farming or hunting. They had almost no water. They had almost no shelter. So explain to me how you are not trying to wipe out a people if you engineer things so they cannot even feed themselves or avoid freezing to death in the winter? And if you even hinder their ability to buy what they need to survive from you?

It is my opinion that the fact that there was no provision made for displaced Native people to continue to live -- no food, no land, no shelter, no medicine, no place to be -- is a strong indicator of a desire for them not to be alive. And when you declare war on anyone who resists this "system," what do you call that but merely making them choose between being killed by you quickly or being killed by you slowly?

As for the latter, genocide is NOT a term to be cheapened by [/b]playing silly word games with it.[/b]
I'm just going to ignore the whole second half of your argument because it's nonsense based on strawman arguments that no one else has been making, and I have zero interest in arguing how high you have to pile the corpses to earn the "genocide" t-shirt.

And just to add fuel to the fire:

Were American Indians Victims of Genocide? By Guenter Lewy (http://hnn.us/articles/7302.html)

I'm not entirely sure what purpose is served on either side. Genocide, or not genocide. Not genocide? A lessening? Not at fault? Less at fault? Just bad decisions, old-fashioned ideas? Genocide...fault? You were meaner to us than you admit?

The whole semantic debate seems rife with lies. It disgusts me.

Wonderful way to miss the point compleatly. Nazi Germany commited genocide, we have documented proof that the leadership of Nazi Germany delberately set out to destroy the Jews. The intent was shown. Now, prove the same for the leadership of the US. Can you show it to me? Do we have orders? Do we have writings? Do we have proof that the intent was to destroy in whole or in part? No? Then we have no intent.

Yes, we fuckin-A well do. You're adding this "or in part" business now, but before you were acting on the definition of it being only "in whole." I think your argument is slowly changing. Now change it a bit more to accompany the definition of genocide that, I believe, we are accepting here.

Otherwise ANY act becomes genocide.

Shit, can't even commit genocide without it becoming called genocide. What is the world coming to!?

The bombing of Hiroshima was genocide. The Bataan Death March was genocide. Columbine was genocide. See how easy you cheapen the word?

I am not calling Columbine a genocide, and I am not cheapening the word. Nor am I dismissing centuries of systematic attempts to destroy native peoples as somehow equivalent to two homicides.

There are some who argue that Hiroshima was, in fact, genocide. I'm not personally persuaded by the argument that Hiroshima and Nagasaki needed to be annihilated in a nuclear holocaust because it was the only choice, or because it was a choice between that and a bloody invasion. But that's sort of another topic.

Want a little straw for your scarecrow there?

Intent, there is a very specfic deffinition for it. Trench warfare in WWI was an atrocity, wouldn't you say? Was THAT genocide?

There might be some who argue that it is, but I'm not one of them.

The bombing of Dresden and the Blitz were atrocities by any streach of the imagination, were they also genocides?

Again, some might well argue that they were, but I'm slightly less persuaded by such arguments and I believe that's yet another topic. "Dresden genocide?" would be a great title.

Yes, you can have atrocities occure without the intent needed for genocide, you can EVEN have atrocities without intent at all! Hurricanes and earthquakes can produce massive human casulaties and they obviously were not aimed at destruction.

So, things such as the Trail of Tears (only one famous example) - no more intent than a hurricane? A force of nature, in other words; not a crime, no one to blame, and certainly not part of a genocide since genocide is something that is comfortingly rare?

Fact is, it's a lot more common, ugly intentions and all, than anyone sane really is comfortable with. So is rape. That's reality.

Yes. I believe in reparations. Reparations for Native Americans and reparations for African Americans who are descendants of American slaves.
It's the only way to lift many of those communities out of poverty and give them an equal chance to compete in life. Especially the Native Americans.

So, supposing I come from an abusive, poor family, and you come from an upstanding, educated family: you get money and I do not because your heritage supposedly impinges on your chances? When should such payments stop? How much reparation is satisfactory?

A bit of both. The former because while when I have read the writtings of the people who were in place to provide policy and see it carried through I find discusting examples of racism and greed (As well as the usual mix of American exceptionalism and Manafest Destiny), but very little intent to go out and destroy Native Americans. It's a matter of compairing idiot remarks about how the Red man and the White man cannot live together and the Red man would be happier in his own area vs how the stain of the Jews needs to be cleansed from Europe.

Now, as I noted, that's not to say that actions within the period known as the Indian Wars didn't reach the level of intent for genocide (Again, the Trail of Tears does seem to fall well within the intent, at least for the Cherokee, to kill them all, as well as the Indian schools were a deliberate atempt to destroy Native cultures), but taken as a whole... I just do not see a deliberate attempt at destruction within the stated policies and writtings of the various presidents, Congress, and others. At least not on a wide scale (One army officer does not offical policy make).

As for the latter, genocide is NOT a term to be cheapened by tossing it at everything. It has a very specific meaning and should be reserved for the most henious of events, the deliberate attempt to remove a people (Ethic group, religious group, or other) from the face of the planet. As Stafford Poole said, "There are other terms to describe what happened in the Western Hemisphere, but genocide is not one of them. It is a good propaganda term in an age where slogans and shouting have replaced reflection and learning, but to use it in this context is to cheapen both the word itself and the appalling experiences of the Jews and Armenians, to mention but two of the major victims of this century."

To turn it around, would you be comfortable saying that a woman who was beaten, raped, and then killed by someone she had just met that night a victim of domestic violence? What happened to that woman is horrible, sickening, and saddening, but is it DV? Wouldn't the use of the term start to cheapen it and start to lessen its impact and the suffering of those who indeed are dealing with DV?

At what point is genocide then just tossed out whenever you have a body count?

There are enough words to descibe what happened to the Native Americans. Genocide just isn't one of them and not using it does not lessen what happened or the responcibility Americans have to learn what we DID do and how to address it AND the problems that we have (and still are) caused.
There is certainly a modern term that describes what happened to the Native Americans: Ethnic Cleansing. The same type that occured during the Balkan Wars of the 90's.
The same type that occured in central africa and is currently occuring in Darfur.

And just to add fuel to the fire:

Were American Indians Victims of Genocide? By Guenter Lewy (http://hnn.us/articles/7302.html)

I'm not entirely sure what purpose is served on either side. Genocide, or not genocide. Not genocide? A lessening? Not at fault? Less at fault? Just bad decisions, old-fashioned ideas? Genocide...fault? You were meaner to us than you admit?

The whole semantic debate seems rife with lies. It disgusts me.

Mass-murder is simple enough for me.

Well, I wouldnt call it Genocide, because we were out for the Land, not out to destroy their people outright...

However, thats really just semantics more than anything else, and in practice it ended up being a Genocide...

Mass-murder is simple enough for me.
But it wasn't just a mass murder. It wasn't just about killing indians. It was about stripping their culture from them, their livelihood, their land, their way of life. Getting them out of the way by any means necessary.

Yes, but that very source includes this: "Historians have been unable to establish whether or not this plan was implemented, particularly in light of the fact that smallpox was already present in the region."

So I think it remains a perfectly valid rebuttal.

How so? It was obviously the intent of Henry to spread disease even if he never actually implemented this policy or whether or not it was effective, since as the source said small pox could have been spread through other means.

Paid for by whom? I never owned a slave. I never committed a single act of injustice against a Native American. Why should I be be punished for something I never did?

the actions against Native americans were committed by the US government on the behalf of the taxpayers. If you currently pay taxes then the US government was acting on your behalf when it went around seeking to destroy the Native Americans. As a taxpayer you are responsible via the taxes you pay.

As for slave reparations, it should be the taxpayers of the states that condoned slavery that pay those reps.

the actions against Native americans were committed by the US government on the behalf of the taxpayers. If you currently pay taxes then the US government was acting on your behalf when it went around seeking to destroy the Native Americans. As a taxpayer you are responsible via the taxes you pay.

As for slave reparations, it should be the taxpayers of the states that condoned slavery that pay those reps.

Acting on my behalf? I wasn't even alive when it happened.

the actions against Native americans were committed by the US government on the behalf of the taxpayers. If you currently pay taxes then the US government was acting on your behalf when it went around seeking to destroy the Native Americans. As a taxpayer you are responsible via the taxes you pay.

As for slave reparations, it should be the taxpayers of the states that condoned slavery that pay those reps.

Thats a load of bull, not a single one of the leaders in Government did the things that you state, not the 111th Congress, and certainly not President Obama...

This Government, nor the governments of any State did those things, nor any of the taxpayers involved...

In fact the supposed victims of these crimes currently pay taxes into this system, should they pay for it as well?

So, supposing I come from an abusive, poor family, and you come from an upstanding, educated family: you get money and I do not because your heritage supposedly impinges on your chances? When should such payments stop? How much reparation is satisfactory?

You wouldn't have to pay anything extra. It would come out of the federal government's general funds from taxes you already pay. After all, while the feds were acting on your behalf, it was still the federal government that did it and therefore the federal government that should pay. It just means cutting a couple programs here and there until it gets paid off.

Acting on my behalf? I wasn't even alive when it happened.

The federal government needs to pay for its past misdeeds. That means it has to use your tax dollars to pay the reparations.

You wouldn't have to pay anything extra. It would come out of the federal government's general funds from taxes you already pay. After all, while the feds were acting on your behalf, it was still the federal government that did it and therefore the federal government that should pay. It just means cutting a couple programs here and there until it gets paid off.

But the federal government does not act on anyone's behalf but its own. So should only members of the federal government pay reparations?

But it wasn't just a mass murder. It wasn't just about killing indians. It was about stripping their culture from them, their livelihood, their land, their way of life. Getting them out of the way by any means necessary.

An atrocity is not better or worse due its aims. I would say genocide is a fairly accurate term here, but I would like to stop all the dick-measuring: A lot of innocents were killed by the United States Government, and by European settlers; the murder was knowing, ruthless, and prolonged, and it is impossible to justify.

Thats a load of bull, not a single one of the leaders in Government did the things that you state, not the 111th Congress, and certainly not President Obama...

This Government, nor the governments of any State did those things, nor any of the taxpayers involved...

In fact the supposed victims of these crimes currently pay taxes into this system, should they pay for it as well?

Yes. Well.. You are aware that President Obama is responsible for all crimes committed by President Bush? j/k.

Native Americans who are registered with their tribes normally don't have to pay taxes. We can do the same with the descendents of slaves. Give them a period of time where they don't have pay any taxes.

I, on the other hand, because I am not registered with my tribes, would have to pay the tax which does not bother me.

People were shot dead for dancing.

Those were conservative times back then. Dancing was punished by shooting on sight for everyone.

You wouldn't have to pay anything extra. It would come out of the federal government's general funds from taxes you already pay. After all, while the feds were acting on your behalf, it was still the federal government that did it and therefore the federal government that should pay. It just means cutting a couple programs here and there until it gets paid off.

I am asking this: Why should a well brought-up Native American need Government reparation? He has not been wronged.

And the Government is not paying; when taxes are collected, or programs are cut, it is the people who suffer.

But the federal government does not act on anyone's behalf but its own. So should only members of the federal government pay reparations?

Everything the federal government is on the behalf of the American people. On behalf of the American taxpayer. When those soldiers at Abu Graib were torturing those Iraqis, they were doing it in your name.

the actions against Native americans were committed by the US government on the behalf of the taxpayers. If you currently pay taxes then the US government was acting on your behalf when it went around seeking to destroy the Native Americans. As a taxpayer you are responsible via the taxes you pay.

As for slave reparations, it should be the taxpayers of the states that condoned slavery that pay those reps.

It is history and so is everyone that was involved in that. You cannot force reparations on a group of people that did not have any involvement for a group of people that had no involvement. It makes no logical sense.

I am asking this: Why should a well brought-up Native American need Government reparation? He has not been wronged.

And the Government is not paying; when taxes are collected, or programs are cut, it is the people who suffer.

The government is currently paying what amounts to a penny on the dollar to the Native Americans. Plus, I think one of the courts ruled that Native American tribes had to the right to sue the federal government for reparations because of what happened to their people.

Everything the federal government is on the behalf of the American people. On behalf of the American taxpayer. When those soldiers at Abu Graib were torturing those Iraqis, they were doing it in your name.

The federal government does not represent me, never has, and never will. It may claim it's doing things on my behalf, but it really isn't, because:

A) I never consented to the federal government
and
B) The federal government never does anything on anyone's behalf but its own, contrary rhetoric notwithstanding

Yes. Well.. You are aware that President Obama is responsible for all crimes committed by President Bush? j/k.

Native Americans who are registered with their tribes normally don't have to pay taxes. We can do the same with the descendents of slaves. Give them a period of time where they don't have pay any taxes.

I, on the other hand, because I am not registered with my tribes, would have to pay the tax which does not bother me.
Im all for not having Corpses pay taxes, but those people have had no more hardships than myself or anyone else, They should pay taxes just like everyone else...

Im a descendant of the Celts and Britons, used as Slaves by the Romans, you dont see me demanding reparations from Italy...

The government is currently paying what amounts to a penny on the dollar to the Native Americans. Plus, I think one of the courts ruled that Native American tribes had to the right to sue the federal government for reparations because of what happened to their people.

Actully they don't have the right to reparations, they have the right to sue for the value of their land(or sometimes their land). Most notable is the Sioux sueing for the Black Hills back. The federal court ordered a multimillion dollar payment for the Sioux. Which the Sioux have refused as they want the black hills back. so current the government holds the payment in an interest bearing account. Hopefully it has survived the current banking crisis.

The government is currently paying what amounts to a penny on the dollar to the Native Americans. Plus, I think one of the courts ruled that Native American tribes had to the right to sue the federal government for reparations because of what happened to their people.

But nothing happened to you, just persons you are descended from, and most died before you were even born.

How much due we own you? When do the payments stop? The money the Government pays you comes from the pockets of those who never wronged you.

I admit that the mistreatment of Native Americans may cause some to be economically handicapped; I am talking about reparations paid to those who have obviously recovered from the tragedy.

Whenever this conversation pops up, I always enjoy how people pretend that nothing bad happened in 'recent' history. The focus is always about two centuries back.

What about Residential Schools? There are living survivors of these legitimised, inherently abusive institutions. In Canada, we have admitted fault, we have taken steps to entering into the public record an admission and understanding of what wrongs were done, and what impact they had. Lump sum payments were opposed by some, but in the anglo system, when you are wronged, you are given compensation. More important than these payments, however, is the way there has been a real change in perception in regards to the policies that allowed Residential Schools to last for so long.

There are many outstanding land claims, and issues with shady dealings over Reservation lands or resources. These are ongoing injustices rooted in historical wrongs. Attempts to deal with these issues are constantly stymied, both in your country and in mine. Reparations? No. We need justice.

The federal government does not represent me, never has, and never will. It may claim it's doing things on my behalf, but it really isn't, because:

A) I never consented to the federal government
and
B) The federal government never does anything on anyone's behalf but its own, contrary rhetoric notwithstanding

Murder being what it is best at. The trouble is, it taxes to pay for murder, then it taxes to pay for reparations.

Stupid.

Whenever this conversation pops up, I always enjoy how people pretend that nothing bad happened in 'recent' history. The focus is always about two centuries back.

What about Residential Schools? There are living survivors of these legitimised, inherently abusive institutions. In Canada, we have admitted fault, we have taken steps to entering into the public record an admission and understanding of what wrongs were done, and what impact they had. Lump sum payments were opposed by some, but in the anglo system, when you are wronged, you are given compensation. More important than these payments, however, is the way there has been a real change in perception in regards to the policies that allowed Residential Schools to last for so long.

There are many outstanding land claims, and issues with shady dealings over Reservation lands or resources. These are ongoing injustices rooted in historical wrongs. Attempts to deal with these issues are constantly stymied, both in your country and in mine. Reparations? No. We need justice.

I completely support trying to fix racial problems, and repairing any damage we have done.

I still fail to see why any educated, successful Native American would need a financial break.

It doesn't help the bureau of Indian Affairs is the most corrupt government department within the US.

I completely support trying to fix racial problems, and repairing any damage we have done.

I still fail to see why any educated, successful Native American would need a financial break.

I fail to see what the fuck you're talking about.

I fail to see what the fuck you're talking about.

He wants to give you a pat on the back without giving you any lump sum payments.

*pats you on the back* there there.

We need justice.

Agreed.

Whenever this conversation pops up, I always enjoy how people pretend that nothing bad happened in 'recent' history. The focus is always about two centuries back.

What about Residential Schools? There are living survivors of these legitimised, inherently abusive institutions. In Canada, we have admitted fault, we have taken steps to entering into the public record an admission and understanding of what wrongs were done, and what impact they had. Lump sum payments were opposed by some, but in the anglo system, when you are wronged, you are given compensation. More important than these payments, however, is the way there has been a real change in perception in regards to the policies that allowed Residential Schools to last for so long.

There are many outstanding land claims, and issues with shady dealings over Reservation lands or resources. These are ongoing injustices rooted in historical wrongs. Attempts to deal with these issues are constantly stymied, both in your country and in mine. Reparations? No. We need justice.

We have a court system in the US. They can access it just as every other American citizen. If someone or group of people feel wronged then I suggest a lawsuit. Nothing like getting something out in the open like a high profile lawsuit. As for the land deals and such I know in my area a lot of things have been settled over the past 30 years or so. Things seem calm here in Washington state with our Native tribes. Most are making a decent profit off of the casino's. As for the rest of the nation I am not completely sure.

Whenever this conversation pops up, I always enjoy how people pretend that nothing bad happened in 'recent' history. The focus is always about two centuries back.

What about Residential Schools? There are living survivors of these legitimised, inherently abusive institutions. In Canada, we have admitted fault, we have taken steps to entering into the public record an admission and understanding of what wrongs were done, and what impact they had. Lump sum payments were opposed by some, but in the anglo system, when you are wronged, you are given compensation. More important than these payments, however, is the way there has been a real change in perception in regards to the policies that allowed Residential Schools to last for so long.

There are many outstanding land claims, and issues with shady dealings over Reservation lands or resources. These are ongoing injustices rooted in historical wrongs. Attempts to deal with these issues are constantly stymied, both in your country and in mine. Reparations? No. We need justice.

Well, Im all for making sure that this is entered into the historical record, and taught exactly as it happened, with no rose colored glasses...

We already have several places even here in Mississippi where Native tribes can call the land their own...

However, you cant make ME pay for reparations, or anything of the sort, I never committed those crimes, even the stuff that went on in the Sixties here I cant be held responsible for, because I had no part in it, If these things were happening today, I would fight it with everything I could...


but, I digress, the point is, there is a difference in changing the perceptions and making sure that people know what happened and even letting tribes get their own land, and actually forcing people who had no part in these things to pay for the supposed justice, or even allowing someone who has not experienced these crimes to get a free ride because of it...

We have a court system in the US. They can access it just as every other American citizen. If someone or group of people feel wronged then I suggest a lawsuit. Nothing like getting something out in the open like a high profile lawsuit. As for the land deals and such I know in my area a lot of things have been settled over the past 30 years or so. Things seem calm here in Washington state with our Native tribes. Most are making a decent profit off of the casino's. As for the rest of the nation I am not completely sure.

Interesting thing I learned from history of the west about Washington state native Americans. by treaty they are allowed to harvest Shell fish from all coastal areas including private property.

I fail to see what the fuck you're talking about.

Simple: I do not support tax-breaks for successful Native Americans, though I support financial aid to ones in difficult straights, and a Government program to insure they get a proportionate amount of jobs with other races.

Interesting thing I learned from history of the west about Washington state native Americans. by treaty they are allowed to harvest Shell fish from all coastal areas including private property.

Yes they can. It's a load of crap however they can legally do it.

He wants to give you a pat on the back without giving you any lump sum payments.

*pats you on the back* there there.

Are "lump sum payments" required for those already successful?

Simple: I do not support tax-breaks for successful Native Americans, though I support financial aid to ones in difficult straights, and a Government program to insure they get a proportionate amount of jobs with other races.

See, I would support that for anyone in difficult straights, regardless of Race...

See, I would support that for anyone in difficult straights, regardless of Race...

So do I, but I feel many Native Americans deserve priority, since our Government is responsible for the actions that led to many of the problems they face today.

We have a court system in the US. They can access it just as every other American citizen. If someone or group of people feel wronged then I suggest a lawsuit. Nothing like getting something out in the open like a high profile lawsuit. As for the land deals and such I know in my area a lot of things have been settled over the past 30 years or so. Things seem calm here in Washington state with our Native tribes. Most are making a decent profit off of the casino's. As for the rest of the nation I am not completely sure.

One thing I've learned over the past three years in law school is just how insane land claims/fiduciary duty claims and so forth are. They drag on for literally decades, draining the financial resources of the band, roadblocks thrown up at every turn while witnesses die, and valuable land is stripped. Yes, we have lawyers now. We have access. But we do not have justice. Things in the real world don't happen like on tv. You don't launch a massive lawsuit, and see it through in a year, two years, even five years. Nor are these cases particularly spectacular or high profile. Especially not on these issues.

Bands who have been engaged in these processes since the 70s are no further ahead than they were then. There has been some slight shift since the late 90s here in Canada, but even the processes coming out of the (landclaim processes for all of British Columbia for example) are marred by corruption, double-dealing, and constant backtracking.

Fuck the money. How about the governments, right now, dealing with us right now, do so honestly, and with integrity? That would be worth more than any amount of money.

So do I, but I feel many Native Americans deserve priority, since our Government is responsible for the actions that led to many of the problems they face today.

I could see it, but I would say it needs to be on an individual basis, you would need to prove that your heritage has caused your problem...

Fuck the money. How about the governments, right now, dealing with us right now, do so honestly, and with integrity? That would be worth more than any amount of money.

does the government deal with anybody with honestly and integrity?

does the government deal with anybody with honestly and integrity?

Of course not.

Simple: I do not support tax-breaks for successful Native Americans, though I support financial aid to ones in difficult straights, and a Government program to insure they get a proportionate amount of jobs with other races.

Pardon me? Tax breaks? Do you have even the slightest understanding of how this works?

"Native Americans" employed on reserve do not pay income taxes. Native American businesses, operating on reserve, do not pay income taxes. In Canada, some reserves have opted for First Nations taxes which replace provincial sales taxes, so the money spend on reserve goes into general revenue for reserve. In return, the reserve takes on certain responsibilities, such as funding health care, or social services.

In the US, your average 'native american' pays all the hidden taxes you do. If he or she works off reserve, she pays the same income taxes you do. He or she may receive funding from his or her band. That is the band's money to allocate, 'well off' Indian or not.

I would like you to show me exactly what tax breaks all these 'successful native americans' you speak of are receiving.

Fuck the money. How about the governments, right now, dealing with us right now, do so honestly, and with integrity? That would be worth more than any amount of money.

What do you suggest?

One thing I've learned over the past three years in law school is just how insane land claims/fiduciary duty claims and so forth are. They drag on for literally decades, draining the financial resources of the band, roadblocks thrown up at every turn while witnesses die, and valuable land is stripped. Yes, we have lawyers now. We have access. But we do not have justice. Things in the real world don't happen like on tv. You don't launch a massive lawsuit, and see it through in a year, two years, even five years. Nor are these cases particularly spectacular or high profile. Especially not on these issues.

Bands who have been engaged in these processes since the 70s are no further ahead than they were then. There has been some slight shift since the late 90s here in Canada, but even the processes coming out of the (landclaim processes for all of British Columbia for example) are marred by corruption, double-dealing, and constant backtracking.

Fuck the money. How about the governments, right now, dealing with us right now, do so honestly, and with integrity? That would be worth more than any amount of money.

I know what you are talking about. I have been around a long time and try and live in a realistic world. Yeah this kind of lawsuit takes a long time. You as a people or any other citizen group that has a claim against the government or large corps are going to be screwed over like this.
The way our system is in the US and I suspect in Canada is whomever can outlast the other in this type of case wins. You are the law student so you know all to well how this works. You me and the rest of us want the government to be straightforward and fess up to mistakes however they usually cover. That's what it boils down to. Not only is it Native issues it is a crap load of other issues all across the board. So how do we as a people get satisfaction from a system that is to be honest fucked up? Outside of a revolution in our respective nations I'm not sure how. Hell even an overthrow may not even begin to solve problems. So that leaves us with just the courts to hash it out. Probably not the best situation however I don't see another way.

Well, Im all for making sure that this is entered into the historical record, and taught exactly as it happened, with no rose colored glasses...

We already have several places even here in Mississippi where Native tribes can call the land their own...

However, you cant make ME pay for reparations, or anything of the sort, I never committed those crimes, even the stuff that went on in the Sixties here I cant be held responsible for, because I had no part in it, If these things were happening today, I would fight it with everything I could...


but, I digress, the point is, there is a difference in changing the perceptions and making sure that people know what happened and even letting tribes get their own land, and actually forcing people who had no part in these things to pay for the supposed justice, or even allowing someone who has not experienced these crimes to get a free ride because of it...

What the blathering fuck are you on about?

When your government, which you voted for or not, fucks up, and they have to pay out for said fuck up, your tax dollars absolutely will fund that payout. That is true whether or not the claimaint is a foreign corporation under some WTO treaty, or an Indian band somewhere in your southwest. You WILL pay for it. You don't get to choose. I'm sorry that upsets you. I would suggest convicing your government not to engage, in the future, in activities that will cause them to have judgments entered against them.

The federal government does not represent me, never has, and never will. It may claim it's doing things on my behalf, but it really isn't, because:

A) I never consented to the federal government
and
B) The federal government never does anything on anyone's behalf but its own, contrary rhetoric notwithstanding

de facto consent. Just by choosing to live in the USA and be a US citizen, you have consented.

What the blathering fuck are you on about?

When your government, which you voted for or not, fucks up, and they have to pay out for said fuck up, your tax dollars absolutely will fund that payout. That is true whether or not the claimaint is a foreign corporation under some WTO treaty, or an Indian band somewhere in your southwest. You WILL pay for it. You don't get to choose. I'm sorry that upsets you. I would suggest convicing your government not to engage, in the future, in activities that will cause them to have judgments entered against them.

True, you know let's just say fuck it and pay reparations to every citizen. So whatever injustice that anyone has felt will be paid out. Agree on an amount and the government just needs to print the money. They did it for the bank bailout why not for everyone else. I am saying this sarcastically however there is a serious tone to it. Money don't mean anything so let's just throw it around.

Pardon me? Tax breaks? Do you have even the slightest understanding of how this works?

"Native Americans" employed on reserve do not pay income taxes. Native American businesses, operating on reserve, do not pay income taxes..

Precisely.

Maybe my understanding of reserves is incorrect, but I was under the impression that their roads are maintained by state taxes.

What the blathering fuck are you on about?

When your government, which you voted for or not, fucks up, and they have to pay out for said fuck up, your tax dollars absolutely will fund that payout. That is true whether or not the claimaint is a foreign corporation under some WTO treaty, or an Indian band somewhere in your southwest. You WILL pay for it. You don't get to choose. I'm sorry that upsets you. I would suggest convicing your government not to engage, in the future, in activities that will cause them to have judgments entered against them.

Actually, as far as I know, no reparations have been paid, and they shouldnt, unless corpses can spend money...

Nobody alive has committed these supposed crimes, and nobody alive should have to pay for it, or receive payment for it...

Now, if a Native American Tribe wants to get their own land, healthcare, etc., have at it, but I should not have to pay for it...

And believe me, in the present, past, as well as the future I have not supported people who do these things...

Precisely.

Maybe my understanding of reserves is incorrect, but I was under the impression that their roads are maintained by state taxes.

Yes they do have roads paid with taxes and most have healthcare paid with taxes. So your job is to figure out who's taxes that would be.;)

But nothing happened to you, just persons you are descended from, and most died before you were even born.

How much due we own you? When do the payments stop? The money the Government pays you comes from the pockets of those who never wronged you.

I admit that the mistreatment of Native Americans may cause some to be economically handicapped; I am talking about reparations paid to those who have obviously recovered from the tragedy.

I would get nothing. I prefer that all reparations go directly to the people living on the reservations. Preferably not just in cash, but in the form of job and skill development so they can support themselves. Just giving out hundred dollar bills doesn't work. It's also about how the money from the reparations is used.
Of course, some of the money would go to restoring languages and reviving cultural identities.

Yes they do have roads paid with taxes and most have healthcare paid with taxes. So your job is to figure out who's taxes that would be.;)

their own, if they want to build their own roads, have at it, but my taxes shouldnt go towards it...

their own, if they want to build their own roads, have at it, but my taxes shouldnt go towards it...

Ahhh but guess what. You don't have that choice. Sorry to say.

Are "lump sum payments" required for those already successful?

Excuse me?

If you are wronged and someone has legal culpability, should they escape it because you are 'successful'?

What lump sum payments are you even talking about?

Former Residential School students are entitled to damages, regardless of whether or not they managed to 'make it' after the fact or not. If you were sexually abused and you became 'successful' nonetheless, are you no longer entitled to damages? Seriously? What kind of fucked up double standard are you working with?

Whenever this conversation pops up, I always enjoy how people pretend that nothing bad happened in 'recent' history. The focus is always about two centuries back.

What about Residential Schools? There are living survivors of these legitimised, inherently abusive institutions. In Canada, we have admitted fault, we have taken steps to entering into the public record an admission and understanding of what wrongs were done, and what impact they had. Lump sum payments were opposed by some, but in the anglo system, when you are wronged, you are given compensation. More important than these payments, however, is the way there has been a real change in perception in regards to the policies that allowed Residential Schools to last for so long.

There are many outstanding land claims, and issues with shady dealings over Reservation lands or resources. These are ongoing injustices rooted in historical wrongs. Attempts to deal with these issues are constantly stymied, both in your country and in mine. Reparations? No. We need justice.

That would be preferable. But, in this context, what is justice?

I would get nothing. I prefer that all reparations go directly to the people living on the reservations. Preferably not just in cash, but in the form of job and skill development so they can support themselves. Just giving out hundred dollar bills doesn't work. It's also about how the money from the reparations is used.

I have no problem with money and/or tax exemptions going to reservations, provided it is used on those who actually need it.

Of course, some of the money would go to restoring languages and reviving cultural identities.

I fully support that.

Ahhh but guess what. You don't have that choice. Sorry to say.

I thought this was a discussion of what "should" be, no?


Just because I dont have the choice, doesnt mean I have to like not having it...

And doesnt mean I cant say so if I choose to...

Former Residential School students are entitled to damages, regardless of whether or not they managed to 'make it' after the fact or not. If you were sexually abused and you became 'successful' nonetheless, are you no longer entitled to damages? Seriously? What kind of fucked up double standard are you working with?

We had about 100 of these institutions running in the US at one time. If there were problems there should be restitution in the courts. Many of these people are still alive today. I can't disagree with them looking for restitution in this particular case if they were abused in a government school.

What do you suggest?

Transparent negotiations for one. The hundreds upon hundreds of recommendations made by Federal and Royal Commissions actually implemented. Real political will, and real processes. Legal experts have filled volumes with suggestions and outlines for how these issues could be resolved. What I suggest? Governments live up to their constitutional responsibilities. I know. It's a lot to ask.

We had about 100 of these institutions running in the US at one time. If there were problems there should be restitution in the courts. Many of these people are still alive today. I can't disagree with them looking for restitution in this particular case if they were abused in a government school.

I agree, If you were abused in the school system, etc., you should get restitution, your children, etc., however, is a different matter...

Yes they can. It's a load of crap however they can legally do it.

those properties are on land that belongs to them, or that should belong to them.

Excuse me?

If you are wronged and someone has legal culpability, should they escape it because you are 'successful'?

Many Native Americans are affected to this day by the Government's actions, but others are not.

Just being descended from the wronged does make one wronged.



What lump sum payments are you even talking about?

I dunno, it was greed and death who suggested it, and I was replying to him.

Former Residential School students are entitled to damages, regardless of whether or not they managed to 'make it' after the fact or not. If you were sexually abused and you became 'successful' nonetheless, are you no longer entitled to damages? Seriously? What kind of fucked up double standard are you working with?

Are the descendants of someone sexually abused entitled to damages?

I thought this was a discussion of what "should" be, no?


Just because I dont have the choice, doesnt mean I have to like not having it...

And doesnt mean I cant say so if I choose to...

Well the point I am trying to make really is that we pay taxes to the US treasury. After that it could end up for guns, bridges to nowhere, foreign aid to some third world nation or for roads on a reservation. In the grand scheme of things we cannot dictate where our dollars go. Yeah we can protest and write our congressman however it really doesn't work. Sorry to be a downer on Democracy.

Transparent negotiations for one. The hundreds upon hundreds of recommendations made by Federal and Royal Commissions actually implemented. Real political will, and real processes. Legal experts have filled volumes with suggestions and outlines for how these issues could be resolved. What I suggest? Governments live up to their constitutional responsibilities. I know. It's a lot to ask.

:tongue: Yes it is. Do you have any of the aforementioned legal books you could recommend me?

those properties are on land that belongs to them, or that should belong to them.

This particular post was on private property that was non tribal. The deal in the treaty was that they can harvest on coastal lands. That was written before there was large chunks of private land. That is in the treaty and the courts upheld it. That's just how it is however my opinion of others using private land that is not their own is bs. That is all I was saying.

Well the point I am trying to make really is that we pay taxes to the US treasury. After that it could end up for guns, bridges to nowhere, foreign aid to some third world nation or for roads on a reservation. In the grand scheme of things we cannot dictate where our dollars go. Yeah we can protest and write our congressman however it really doesn't work. Sorry to be a downer on Democracy.
Oh yeah, I know, but doesnt mean I cant bitch and rant when the discussion of one of the topics comes up, :p

I have no problem with money and/or tax exemptions going to reservations, provided it is used on those who actually need it.





That's actually how tribal economies work (not specifically Native Americans as well), goods and resources are distributed to those who need them. When executed perfectly it is really like a large family.

I know what you are talking about. I have been around a long time and try and live in a realistic world. Yeah this kind of lawsuit takes a long time. You as a people or any other citizen group that has a claim against the government or large corps are going to be screwed over like this.
The way our system is in the US and I suspect in Canada is whomever can outlast the other in this type of case wins. You are the law student so you know all to well how this works. You me and the rest of us want the government to be straightforward and fess up to mistakes however they usually cover. That's what it boils down to. Not only is it Native issues it is a crap load of other issues all across the board. So how do we as a people get satisfaction from a system that is to be honest fucked up? Outside of a revolution in our respective nations I'm not sure how. Hell even an overthrow may not even begin to solve problems. So that leaves us with just the courts to hash it out. Probably not the best situation however I don't see another way.


The problem is, we don't exercise enough of our political will. We buy into the idea that if we support the environment, we must do so at the expense of health care, or education, or aboriginal rights. So we turn on one another.

Aboriginal issues are particularly unpopular. Politicians know that they have the backing of constituents 'who matter' when it comes to not entering into real negotiations with us. Token payments, token gestures.

More and more of us are getting an education, and learning how to navigate through the maze, but it's a fact that we need wider support, or no amount of law school education is going to do us any good.

True, you know let's just say fuck it and pay reparations to every citizen. So whatever injustice that anyone has felt will be paid out. Agree on an amount and the government just needs to print the money. They did it for the bank bailout why not for everyone else. I am saying this sarcastically however there is a serious tone to it. Money don't mean anything so let's just throw it around.

Oh, well as long as we both understand you haven't addressed any of my points, and you're just babbling.

Oh, well as long as we both understand you haven't addressed any of my points, and you're just babbling.

Can't I be an ass every once in awhile? :tongue:

That's actually how tribal economies work (not specifically Native Americans as well), goods and resources are distributed to those who need them. When executed perfectly it is really like a large family.

It sounds like a system superior to our own.

It sounds like a system superior to our own.

Sounds like Communism to me, :p

It sounds like a system superior to our own.

Wait I know the word..... Communism.

I had to say it

Precisely.

Maybe my understanding of reserves is incorrect, but I was under the impression that their roads are maintained by state taxes.

Precisely? You really are grasping at straws.

How much have you paid in income taxes this year, by the way? GET OFF MY DARN ROADS!

It sounds like a system superior to our own.

It is in regards to income equality, just it is impossible to work once the tribe is too large.
In a tribal economic system you can spot and deal with the free loader, and shame him into work.
300 million people in a tribal economy, wouldn't work. the purveyor of resources becomes nameless and faceless so people have no qualms stealing form it, or abusing the system.

It is in regards to income equality, just it is impossible to work once the tribe is too large.
In a tribal economic system you can spot and deal with the free loader, and shame him into work.
300 million people in a tribal economy, wouldn't work. the purveyor of resources becomes nameless and faceless so people have no qualms stealing form it, or abusing the system.

Exactly why Communism fails. It's to difficult to work out in it's true form on a grand scale.

Wait I know the word..... Communism.

I had to say it

I suspect communism origins is a yearning to bring back tribal economic systems. Just what works on the small scale really doesn't work on the large scale.

the purveyor of resources becomes nameless and faceless so people have no qualms stealing form it, or abusing the system.
This is different from the current system, how exactly? :confused:

Can't I be an ass every once in awhile? :tongue:
Every...once....in a while?


*is waiting for the punchline* :P
Many Native Americans are affected to this day by the Government's actions, but others are not.

Just being descended from the wronged does make one wronged.
....

Again, what the fuck are you blathering on about? What claims are you describing as invalid? Or are you just making shit up?




I dunno, it was greed and death who suggested it, and I was replying to him.

Good. Burn that strawman now, thanks.

Are the descendants of someone sexually abused entitled to damages?
...

*facepalm*

Who the fuck is asking for damages for the descendants?

Keep in mind, if you die, your estate is STILL entitled to collect certain damages, and your 'descendants' may be entitled to that through the estate.

This is different from the current system, how exactly? :confused:

well uhh, hmmm...... :confused:

I know what you are talking about. I have been around a long time and try and live in a realistic world. Yeah this kind of lawsuit takes a long time. You as a people or any other citizen group that has a claim against the government or large corps are going to be screwed over like this.
The way our system is in the US and I suspect in Canada is whomever can outlast the other in this type of case wins. You are the law student so you know all to well how this works. You me and the rest of us want the government to be straightforward and fess up to mistakes however they usually cover. That's what it boils down to. Not only is it Native issues it is a crap load of other issues all across the board. So how do we as a people get satisfaction from a system that is to be honest fucked up? Outside of a revolution in our respective nations I'm not sure how. Hell even an overthrow may not even begin to solve problems. So that leaves us with just the courts to hash it out. Probably not the best situation however I don't see another way.
May I suggest that working to change public opinion and to better educate the general public about what has actually been happening would be a good start? I know of Mexicans who think California was totally devoid of Native Americans when Mexicans came to this state in 1820's and 30's. That's just an example. Not sure how it is in other places. There is a lot that most Americans don't even know. That lackage of information can be changed and it could lead to political pressure on the government to rectify it.

Who the fuck is asking for damages for the descendants?



You have no Idea how many people ask for that down here....

Precisely? You really are grasping at straws.

How so? Do you find my comments ignorant or misguided? I really do not see what the goddamn fuss is about.

How much have you paid in income taxes this year, by the way? GET OFF MY DARN ROADS!

My first check is not due until May, out of which I fully intend to pay my taxes.

This is different from the current system, how exactly? :confused:

The current economic system assumes this and minimizes the amount you can take. A tribal system will provide all your needs if you cant get work, the current system in Texas provides 250 dollars a week for 6 months.

Precisely.

Maybe my understanding of reserves is incorrect, but I was under the impression that their roads are maintained by state taxes.

federal and what funds the tribe has available for that purpose. I only see the states agreeing to do it if the tribes give up their soveringty.

Keep in mind, if you die, your estate is STILL entitled to collect certain damages, and your 'descendants' may be entitled to that through the estate.

We get to apply estate taxes, for each generation correct ?

federal and what funds the tribe has available for that purpose. I only see the states agreeing to do it if the tribes give up their soveringty.

It all depends upon how much money the Feds contribute; if it is minimal, then of course the inhabitants should not pay taxes.

Official actions?*Snip*
Already covered both the Trail of Tears and the Indian schools.

Deliberate, legislated acts on the part of the US government absolutely intended to accomplish the cultural annihilation of native americans, coupled with military (legitimised) massacres, forced removal, starvation, and so forth seem to fit quite well into the definition of genocide. That it wasn't accomplished as effeciently as in Nazi Germany should not be the determining factor. The intent, and the result, should be enough.
Addressed below

The enormous loss of life and profound impact all of these policies, taken together, had on aboriginal people in the US, is not in any way, shape, or form something that 'cheapens' the term 'genocide'. The deliberate destructive attempt on the part of the US government through a myriad of policies, death-by-a-thousand-cuts, should not absolve the entirety of the term 'genocide' even if some of those policies were 'well-meaning'.
Intent is the problem, as you well know. Intent means the world in terms of if you are charged with manslaughter or murder. Yes, they were well intentioned. They were stupid ideas that they should have known would not have worked, but they did mean well. They did not intend as a whole to destroy the Native Americans.

*snip*
Ok, ignoring the Wiki bit for a bit, 1. I already addressed the Trail of Tears and Indian schools.

2. Again, intent to destroy in whole or in part as such yadda yadda yadda. Your own sources noted that the whole idea was to relocate the Native Americans out of the area into one where they could continue their way of life. Of course such areas couldn't even begin to do so, but the intent there was obviously not to destroy in whole or in part as such.

You hint at the flaw in your own argument even as you make it:

You mention racists talking about how the "red man" would be happier in his own place.

Now account for the fact there was no place that was considered the "red man's" own.

Until the US government decided to change the way it was dealing with the Native people, there was no land that was "given" to them that they were not soon driven off of. Never. If the policies had not been abandoned, they would have literally been left with nothing to stand on. So where was this "place" that the few racists thought they should be segregated to? Where was "Red Man's Land"? Where was their Liberia?
Indian Territory, which lasted until the early 1900's. Yes, treaties were broken, reservations quickly lost their status, but... was it deliberate on the part of the US government? Given that Indian Affairs went after people who attempted to violate the reservations, it doesn't look like it.

And what few places they were driven into before being driven out of them again were useless for either farming or hunting. They had almost no water. They had almost no shelter. So explain to me how you are not trying to wipe out a people if you engineer things so they cannot even feed themselves or avoid freezing to death in the winter? And if you even hinder their ability to buy what they need to survive from you?
Did they engineer it though? Remember, the wonderful notion was one of civilization where plains Indians would suddenly settle down to become farmers ala white settlers. The decisions on which territory to put aside was made in Washington, far from the actual places and done by people who had little to no information about the cultures of those people.

It is my opinion that the fact that there was no provision made for displaced Native people to continue to live -- no food, no land, no shelter, no medicine, no place to be -- is a strong indicator of a desire for them not to be alive. And when you declare war on anyone who resists this "system," what do you call that but merely making them choose between being killed by you quickly or being killed by you slowly?
As for no food and shelter: "In 1849, Congress transferred the BIA from the War Department to the newly created Department of the Interior. With this transfer came a change in policy and responsibilities. The removal of tribes to reservations had brought about disease and starvation, which forced the government to begin providing tribes with food and other supplies. Administering the distribution of this aid became a responsibility of the BIA. By the 1860s, however, the agency was not discharging its duties responsibly. Unscrupulous Indian agents increased misery on reservations and generated hostility. In 1867, Congress appointed a Peace Commission to study the problems of the BIA's administration of reservations. The commission recommended many changes, including the appointment of honest, more effective agents and the establishment of a separate, independent agency for Indian affairs. Some improvements were forthcoming, but the recommendations to remove the BIA from the Interior Department and establish it as an independent agency was never followed."
http://www.americansc.org.uk/Online/indians.htm
Obviously the US government wanted all the Natives to starve to death. That's why it provided food and supplies... Er...

I'm just going to ignore the whole second half of your argument because it's nonsense based on strawman arguments that no one else has been making, and I have zero interest in arguing how high you have to pile the corpses to earn the "genocide" t-shirt.
On the contrary, I'd say that it is a very important argument. What constitues a genocide?

And just to add fuel to the fire:

Were American Indians Victims of Genocide? By Guenter Lewy (http://hnn.us/articles/7302.html)
Thank you, this is the argument I am making.

I'm not entirely sure what purpose is served on either side. Genocide, or not genocide. Not genocide? A lessening? Not at fault? Less at fault? Just bad decisions, old-fashioned ideas? Genocide...fault? You were meaner to us than you admit?

The whole semantic debate seems rife with lies. It disgusts me.
Exactly, Why do we need to call it genocide when we can already note that we (Meaning non-Native Americans) screwed up beyond belief. We, through our own idiocy, well meaning or not, caused the deaths of hundreds of thousands, if not millions, and almost destroyed whole cultures (And some we did) leading the massive problems that are going on right now that seriously need to be addressed and fixed if for no other reason than we caused it.

Yes, we fuckin-A well do. You're adding this "or in part" business now, but before you were acting on the definition of it being only "in whole." I think your argument is slowly changing. Now change it a bit more to accompany the definition of genocide that, I believe, we are accepting here.
I never was arguing in whole, I was using the definition as provided by Wiki. You still need to prove intent.

Shit, can't even commit genocide without it becoming called genocide. What is the world coming to!?
:rolleyes:

So, things such as the Trail of Tears (only one famous example) - no more intent than a hurricane? A force of nature, in other words; not a crime, no one to blame, and certainly not part of a genocide since genocide is something that is comfortingly rare?
Please go re-read what I wrote instead of going off on your own tangent.

Fact is, it's a lot more common, ugly intentions and all, than anyone sane really is comfortable with. So is rape. That's reality.
Prove it.

There is certainly a modern term that describes what happened to the Native Americans: Ethnic Cleansing. The same type that occured during the Balkan Wars of the 90's.
The same type that occured in central africa and is currently occuring in Darfur.
Given that ethinic cleansing means "rendering an area ethnically homogeneous by using force or intimidation to remove from a given area persons of another ethnic or religious group" I would agree whole-heartedly.

:tongue: Yes it is. Do you have any of the aforementioned legal books you could recommend me?

Here is the entire text of the Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples (http://www.collectionscanada.gc.ca/webarchives/20071115053257/http://www.ainc-inac.gc.ca/ch/rcap/sg/sgmm_e.html). Within this text you will find an appendix in each section laying out numerous recommendations. I suggest you take a gander.

The 2005-2006 annual report (http://www.oci-bec.gc.ca/rpt/annrpt/annrpt20052006-eng.aspx) of the Office of the Correctional Investigator lays out a number of recommendations (http://www.oci-bec.gc.ca/rpt/annrpt/annrpt20052006-eng.aspx#VI) to deal with systemic racism against aboriginal people within the justice system. The report also notes that similar recommendations have been made over the past 20 years with very little in the way of change on the part of the federal government.

I'm not going to dredge up all the articles on land claims processes, or start citing legal texts you probably won't be able to access anyway (though google Purich, and you'll find a whole series of legal books dedicated to aboriginal issues). The fact is, much has been said, much has been spent, much has been recommended...and very little has been done. All for show.

...

*facepalm*

Who the fuck is asking for damages for the descendants?


Sorry, I was under the impressing you were:

"Former Residential School students are entitled to damages, regardless of whether or not they managed to 'make it' after the fact or not. If you were sexually abused and you became 'successful' nonetheless, are you no longer entitled to damages? Seriously? What kind of fucked up double standard are you working with?"

I misinterpreted, and I apologize for the confusion.

Keep in mind, if you die, your estate is STILL entitled to collect certain damages, and your 'descendants' may be entitled to that through the estate.

Yes, but for how long?

You have no Idea how many people ask for that down here....

Prove it.

Prove it.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reparations_for_slavery

Reparations for slavery is a proposal by some in the United States that some type of compensation should be provided to the descendants of enslaved people,

Sorry, I was under the impressing you were:

"Former Residential School students are entitled to damages, regardless of whether or not they managed to 'make it' after the fact or not. If you were sexually abused and you became 'successful' nonetheless, are you no longer entitled to damages? Seriously? What kind of fucked up double standard are you working with?"

I misinterpreted, and I apologize for the confusion. You did. That was in response to you going on about how 'successful Native Americans' shouldn't get anything by virture of their success. I don't see 'descendants' anywhere in that. Don't confuse the arguments you are making up.



Yes, but for how long? Statute of Limitations deals with that. It depends on jurisdiction, and it depends on the claim.

May I suggest that working to change public opinion and to better educate the general public about what has actually been happening would be a good start? I know of Mexicans who think California was totally devoid of Native Americans when Mexicans came to this state in 1820's and 30's. That's just an example. Not sure how it is in other places. There is a lot that most Americans don't even know. That lackage of information can be changed and it could lead to political pressure on the government to rectify it.
It would be a nice start. I got lucky in that in high school my American history teacher was a fan of the Old West (As a time period) and made it his duty to tell us about the massacures and other realities. Also, my home town has one of the few remaining Indian schools, now converted to a museum, so learning first hand about the experiences of Natives there also helped.

Prove it.

http://www.ncobra.org/pdffiles/ViewBlackReparationsTimes.pdf
Ctrl F Mississippi

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reparations_for_slavery

I'm not seeing the numbers you alluded to. How many people are asking for reparations for descendants?

You did. That was in response to you going on about how 'successful Native Americans' shouldn't get anything by virture of their success. I don't see 'descendants' anywhere in that. Don't confuse the arguments you are making up.

I meant successful Native Americans should not be given reparations if they were not directly wronged. If they personally received a fuck-job from the Government, then they absolutely deserve reparations.

Statute of Limitations deals with that. It depends on jurisdiction, and it depends on the claim.

I see.

Statute of Limitations deals with that. It depends on jurisdiction, and it depends on the claim.

The estate Tax would like be a bigger determent to any non land based judgment.

We get to apply estate taxes, for each generation correct ?

estate taxes only kick in after a certain amount. Tribes would be exempt because, unlike estates, they are public entities, rather than private entities.

I meant successful Native Americans should not be given reparations if they were not directly wronged. If they personally received a fuck-job from the Government, then they absolutely deserve reparations.
Yes, and now maybe you can explain where this argument of yours is coming from. What successful Native Americans are getting, or claiming reparations for wrongs they did not directly experience?

Here is the entire text of the Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples (http://www.collectionscanada.gc.ca/webarchives/20071115053257/http://www.ainc-inac.gc.ca/ch/rcap/sg/sgmm_e.html). Within this text you will find an appendix in each section laying out numerous recommendations. I suggest you take a gander.

The 2005-2006 annual report (http://www.oci-bec.gc.ca/rpt/annrpt/annrpt20052006-eng.aspx) of the Office of the Correctional Investigator lays out a number of recommendations (http://www.oci-bec.gc.ca/rpt/annrpt/annrpt20052006-eng.aspx#VI) to deal with systemic racism against aboriginal people within the justice system. The report also notes that similar recommendations have been made over the past 20 years with very little in the way of change on the part of the federal government.

I'm not going to dredge up all the articles on land claims processes, or start citing legal texts you probably won't be able to access anyway (though google Purich, and you'll find a whole series of legal books dedicated to aboriginal issues). The fact is, much has been said, much has been spent, much has been recommended...and very little has been done. All for show.

Fuck, why does your (and my) Government(s) not listen to this?

Fuck, why does your (and my) Government not listen to this?
*blinks* When have you even known ANY government to listen to recomendations that would cost it money and not automatically lead to re-election and/or large campaign donations?

Yes, and now maybe you can explain where this argument of yours is coming from. What successful Native Americans are getting, or claiming reparations for wrongs they did not directly experience?

Like I said, it partially came from misunderstanding your words.

Previously I was talking about tax exemption businesses get on reserves, but I can see I will have to further investigate how much Federal money is used to maintain the reserves, so I can properly reevaluate my judgment.

I'm not seeing the numbers you alluded to. How many people are asking for reparations for descendants?
Just a Quick Search, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_National_Coalition_of_Blacks_for_Reparations_in_America
In 2001, N'COBRA supported H.R.40, entitled Commission to Study Reparation Proposals for African-Americans Act[4]. This bill was sponsored by Rep John Conyers Jr. and included the following co-sponsors
* Rep Bonior, David E. MI
* Rep Brady, Robert A. PA
* Rep Brown, Corrine FL
* Rep Carson, Julia IN
* Rep Cummings, Elijah E. MD
* Rep Davis, Danny K. IL
* Rep Dooley, Calvin M. CA
* Rep Fattah, Chaka PA
* Rep Hastings, Alcee L. FL
* Rep Hilliard, Earl F. AL
* Rep Jackson, Jesse L., Jr. IL
* Rep Jackson-Lee, Sheila TX
* Rep Jefferson, William J. LA
* Rep Johnson, Eddie Bernice TX
* Rep Jones, Stephanie Tubbs OH
* Rep Kilpatrick, Carolyn C. MI
* Rep Lee, Barbara CA
* Rep Maloney, James H. CT
* Rep McCarthy, Karen MO
* Rep McDermott, Jim WA
* Rep McKinney, Cynthia A. GA
* Rep Meek, Carrie P. FL
* Rep Meeks, Gregory W. NY
* Rep Millender-McDonald, Juanita CA
* Rep Norton, Eleanor Holmes DC
* Rep Olver, John W. MA
* Rep Owens, Major R. NY
* Rep Rangel, Charles B. NY
* Rep Rivers, Lynn N. MI
* Rep Rush, Bobby L. IL
* Rep Schakowsky, Janice D. IL
* Rep Tauscher, Ellen O. CA
* Rep Thompson, Bennie G. MS
* Rep Towns, Edolphus NY
* Rep Waters, Maxine CA
* Rep Watson, Diane E. CA
* Rep Wynn, Albert Russell MD

*blinks* When have you even known ANY government to listen to recomendations that would cost it money and not automatically lead to re-election and/or large campaign donations?

There were some, but they were few and far between.