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.

Assuming that was the case, the war resulted in a genocide anyway.

Though the massacres of non-combatants (women and children), the mass deportations of entire Native American nations, the systematical violations of previous agreements by the US government, the enormous technological gap, combined with the expansion of the US colonists into the former Native territories, and the utter despise most of the US society at the time had for the Natives, well, these reek of "annihilation war against the Untermenschen for new Lebensraum".

this is a slightly intresting take on the subject

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gew_V-f8IHk

the systematical

I believe the word you're looking for is "systemic", as in, within the system.

Systematic would be indicative of a system or method to break treaties. From what I can tell, the Anglo governments didn't have an organized process or policy for violating treaties. It was done rather at whim, whenever they wanted something.

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

There was deliberate slaughter of thousands of ethnic groups because they weren't white Anglo-Saxon Protestants. Catholics, blacks, the Chinese, the Japanese, the Mexicans, and even Eastern Europeans took a lot of hell for the same reason (not being WASPs) if they wound up in America, yet, for some reason that mystifies me, it never progressed to an all-out free-for-all shoot-'em-up-'n'-scalp-'em situation with anyone else but the native peoples.

...

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

What does this say about German beer?

No. It was not just the Anglos who were racists. It was the spanish and the Mexicans too....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.

Um, what colour were the non-native Mexicans and Spaniards?

What does this say about German beer?



Um, what colour were the non-native Mexicans and Spaniards?

Cholo, joo know dey were awwways brown essay!

this is a slightly intresting take on the subject

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gew_V-f8IHk

...custerwest?

A good deal of Native Americans tribes were peaceful (the Apache, for example) before the Europeans arrived. A few Indian wars conducted by the more aggressive tribes does not excuse genocide.

What does this say about German beer?



Um, what colour were the non-native Mexicans and Spaniards?
If you are referring to skin color, the Mexicans were brown skinned.
The spaniards. It depends on which part of spain they were from. Those from the coastal and southern regions would have been brown while those farther north were whiter. The Spaniards who immigrated to the new world were likely to be the ones from the Mediteranean areas of Spain.
Note that Columbus was Italian. What is the natural color of Italians? It isn't white.

White is an adaptation for northern cold climates. The genes that cause white skin enable white people to better withstand the cold of their home environments while the genes that cause brown or darker skin allow their owners to block more UV radiation naturally. Though both groups are still susceptible to cancer.

The differences in skin color are evolutionary adaptations. I find it interesting you can put a white and a brown together and they can have a reproducible kid even though the parents are adapted to completely different environments.

I wonder if that enables the child to be able to live in both environments?
If so, does that make him/her superior to both of his/her parents?

This gives an example of genocide committed by the Sioux.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dwgaqlmzDJ0&feature=related

If you are referring to skin color, the Mexicans were brown skinned.
The spaniards. It depends on which part of spain they were from. Those from the coastal and southern regions would have been brown while those farther north were whiter. The Spaniards who immigrated to the new world were likely to be the ones from the Mediteranean areas of Spain.
Note that Columbus was Italian. What is the natural color of Italians? It isn't white.

White is an adaptation for northern cold climates. The genes that cause white skin enable white people to better withstand the cold of their home environments while the genes that cause brown or darker skin allow their owners to block more UV radiation naturally. Though both groups are still susceptible to cancer.

The differences in skin color are evolutionary adaptations. I find it interesting you can put a white and a brown together and they can have a reproducible kid even though the parents are adapted to completely different environments.

I wonder if that enables the child to be able to live in both environments?
If so, does that make him/her superior to both of his/her parents?
Spanish people and Italian people are white, though there are some people in Spain who probably could be, more of north african blood and some people in Southern Italy and Sicily who are definitely of a certain kind of mixture with African blood.

Spanish people and Italian people are white, though there are some people in Spain who probably could be, more of north african blood and some people in Southern Italy and Sicily who are definitely of a certain kind of mixture with African blood.
Do you have percentages handy, among your ethno-racial references? /sarcasm.

Do you have percentages handy, among your ethno-racial references? /sarcasm.
Are you doubting what I've stated? . . . because studying the different groups and people's of Europe is actually a hobby of mine.

Or are you just worrying because I know something about race and ethnicity and that makes you nervous? Be honest.

Are you doubting what I've stated? . . . because studying the different groups and people's of Europe is actually a hobby of mine.

Or are you just worrying because I know something about race and ethnicity and that makes you nervous? Be honest.
If I were to answer your question directly, it would be a hijack making you the subject of the thread, which I do not want to do. If you think back to our past arguments in NSG, it should remind you enough of my opinion of you that you do not need to be told it again.

I will just say this, and I mean this honestly -- I believe you injected an inappropriate and off-topic direction into this thread with your post about the various colors/racial mixes of Spanish and other Europeans, and I was hoping that my sarcastic response to it would clue you to that before you fanned it into an unpleasant threadjack.

Spanish people and Italian people are white, though there are some people in Spain who probably could be, more of north african blood and some people in Southern Italy and Sicily who are definitely of a certain kind of mixture with African blood.

If by African you mean the Arabs of Northern Africa I agree. If you mean the blacks of western, southern, and central Africa I can't agree.

The Arabs are brown because look where they live. In the Mediteranean zone. Many Italians and Spaniards do not have white skin. They actually have light brown skin. Same with the Portuguese, southern French, and the Greeks.
The brown skin is an adaptation to life in a warmer climate where the sun is more plentiful.

FYI:

http://www.sawnet.org/health/sunscreen.html

"Melanin is the pigment that makes skin brown. People with more melanin have darker skin. Melanin absorbs UV and is thus a natural sunscreen, and is probably the reason that dark skinned people have a tenth of the skin cancer rate of fairer folks. When fairskinned people are exposed to the sun, this stimulates melanin production in their skin, thus giving them a 'tan', but along the way causes lots of skin damage. The two most common forms of skin cancer, basal cell carcinoma and squamous cell carcinoma, are found largely in fairskinned people. (Ref 4.)
Some Indians, Pakistanis and Afghans have very light skin and eyes, which may indicate that their risk factors are similar to those of Southern Europeans (Italians, Spanish, Greeks). This is a lower risk level than that of Europeans with Celtic ancestry. "


http://www.annoticoreport.com/2008/06/are-italians-white-or-caucasian.html

"The idea was picked up from Italy, where northern, lighter-skinned Italians, were asking the same questions about the southern, darker-skinned Italians, he says. "

"the definition of white keeps shifting."

"The deepest racial divide, between blacks and nonblacks, endures. But there also are identity shifts among African-Americans"

"In 1922, the Supreme Court decided that a Japanese man had white skin but wasn't ethnically Caucasian, and it denied him citizenship. A year later, it decided a South Asian was ethnically Caucasian but not white, and it denied him citizenship, too."

"Until 1943, only blacks of African heritage and whites could become naturalized citizens. "

"After the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, there was "some sentiment" among non-Arabs for counting Arab-Americans as nonwhite, says David Roediger, a University of Illinois race historian."

"Some minorities or multiracial Americans who were once counted as white are opting out of the category"

"Mexicans were long counted in the Census as whites because of an 1848 U.S.-Mexico treaty that allowed them citizenship; only whites and blacks could naturalize, so by that logic, Mexicans were white. But since 1980, Hispanics have had a separate Census category"

"Identity groups that once lobbied to be accepted as whites now see advantages in being nonwhite, including college-admission and hiring preferences. Some African-Americans who fear losing political power to the fast-growing Hispanic population have quietly urged Caribbeans and those of mixed race to identify themselves simply as black."

"the definition of who is white may change again -- and again. A century ago, Americans faced the same predictions about the loss of the white majority that they do today. Then, with Eastern and Southern Europeans flooding in, it was predicted that Caucasians would fall into the minority by 1950, says the University of Illinois's Dr. Roediger.

Those Italians, Slavs and other immigrants eventually were redefined as white as they assimilated and moved up the economic ladder. "That same thing could happen again," Dr. Roediger says -- this time, with minorities and immigrants changing their racial identities themselves. "Race is malleable in that sense," he says."

So the white race is ever changing and malleable. If you are in the majority, that makes you white. So I was right about those brown skinned latinos in California being whities. They are, after all, in the majority.

The Italians and Spanish were not white until they assimilated and joined the majority. Now they are assimilated they count as white. Same with Hispanic Americans. They are counted as white. It's only the last 20 years that they've been able to count themselves as seperate from white.

Spanish people and Italian people are white, though there are some people in Spain who probably could be, more of north african blood and some people in Southern Italy and Sicily who are definitely of a certain kind of mixture with African blood.

I seem to have misread your post. Seems there is no brown. You are either black or white. According to blacks, if you are not black then you are white.
According to the whites, if you are not fully white, then you are black.

That racial attitude makes no sense.

Are you doubting what I've stated? . . . because studying the different groups and people's of Europe is actually a hobby of mine.

Or are you just worrying because I know something about race and ethnicity and that makes you nervous? Be honest.

My search of google supports you. But it also says that the definition of who is white is always changing. For example, the Spanish and Italians were not always considered white whereas the Mexicans and other Latin Americans were considered white until about 1980.
(Does that mean Hispanics were disenfranchised?)

If I were to answer your question directly, it would be a hijack making you the subject of the thread, which I do not want to do. If you think back to our past arguments in NSG, it should remind you enough of my opinion of you that you do not need to be told it again.

I will just say this, and I mean this honestly -- I believe you injected an inappropriate and off-topic direction into this thread with your post about the various colors/racial mixes of Spanish and other Europeans, and I was hoping that my sarcastic response to it would clue you to that before you fanned it into an unpleasant threadjack.

He was responding to a misinformed post I had made about Spaniards and Italians not being white.

Seems the definition of race is always changing.

Spanish people and Italian people are white, though there are some people in Spain who probably could be, more of north african blood and some people in Southern Italy and Sicily who are definitely of a certain kind of mixture with African blood.

You are right. I have too studied the differences of the people in Southern Europe and North Africa. What I found is the people of Sicily/South Italy and those of Morocco/North Algeria for example are of the same mixtures however they only differ by one ethnic component. This is why they look so alike. Now if you were in Morocco or any Mahgreb nation you would see mostly white to olive skin tones. There are the Saharwi which are mostly black Africans. Spain is heavily influenced by the Moors which is why you could take a group of Spaniards or Portuguese and Moroccans and have a hard time telling them apart if they were dressed the same and didn't open their mouths to speak. While in the Middle East they were mostly White to olive skinned too. Which going as a young man I didn't expect.

If you are referring to skin color, the Mexicans were brown skinned.
The spaniards....blablabla
If so, does that make him/her superior to both of his/her parents?

Cholo, joo know dey were awwways brown essay!

You called it, beloved.

Hey, UnitedStatesOfAmerica-, do you have any evidence that these Mexicans were brown skinned?

You called it, beloved.

Hey, UnitedStatesOfAmerica-, do you have any evidence that these Mexicans were brown skinned?

The majority of Mexicans have brown skin. The fact that they were classified as part of the "white race" says nothing about their skin color. Even the Arabs are classed as white on the census. Look at their skin color. It's not white. Yet they are classed as whites.

also, I would note, there are a great many Native Americans, on reservations, whose skin is white, but these people are not classed as whites. They are classed as nonwhite.

This leads to the conclusion that racial classification is not based on anything empirical.

Question: Hey, UnitedStatesOfAmerica-, do you have any evidence that these Mexicans were brown skinned?

Answer: The majority of Mexicans have brown skin.

I think we have a communication problem.

The majority of Mexicans have brown skin. The fact that they were classified as part of the "white race" says nothing about their skin color. Even the Arabs are classed as white on the census. Look at their skin color. It's not white. Yet they are classed as whites.

also, I would note, there are a great many Native Americans, on reservations, whose skin is white, but these people are not classed as whites. They are classed as nonwhite.

This leads to the conclusion that racial classification is not based on anything empirical.

....

He asked you what colour the non-native Mexicans were.

You really know nothing of the history of Mexico if your answer is 'brown'.

And you are conflating ethnicity/colour to such a ridiculous extent, it's honestly fodder for a whole retarded thread on the subject.

Most Native Americans died of disease and in combat, just like most of the prisoners in the concentration camps and the battlefields of the Eastern Front. Doesn't mean there wasn't a genocidal intent to many of the policies the European and American governments implemented against native populations.

....

He asked you what colour the non-native Mexicans were.

You really know nothing of the history of Mexico if your answer is 'brown'.

And you are conflating ethnicity/colour to such a ridiculous extent, it's honestly fodder for a whole retarded thread on the subject.

Yes, I know.

Apparently the two are not related after all. It's all based on popular politics of the moment.

How much you want to be bet that Arabs are not classed as white but have their own category on the 2010 census?

Um, what colour were the non-native Mexicans and Spaniards?

I think its this color:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/5a/Cortes.jpg

That's a spaniard. (Mexico was not a country and there was no such thing as Mexican until at least the 1820's)

This is one of the first Mexicans:

http://www.istockphoto.com/file_thumbview_approve/6356654/2/istockphoto_6356654-benito-ju-rez-on-mexican-currency.jpg

So was this guy, have to say, he seems to be the same color as Cortez, buddy, not like it matters anyway however...
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/c2/Santaanna1.JPG

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antonio_L%C3%B3pez_de_Santa_Anna

The majority of Mexicans have brown skin. The fact that they were classified as part of the "white race" says nothing about their skin color. Even the Arabs are classed as white on the census. Look at their skin color. It's not white. Yet they are classed as whites.

also, I would note, there are a great many Native Americans, on reservations, whose skin is white, but these people are not classed as whites. They are classed as nonwhite.

This leads to the conclusion that racial classification is not based on anything empirical.

I was thrown out of my tribe, not for failing the blood quantum, but because my skin fails to reflect 97% of the colors between 400 nm and 720 nm wavelength.

So now I'm the default: genericoid.