Log in

View Full Version : Was there a genocide of the indigenous peoples of the Americas


ShyGuyInChicago
December 9th, 2010, 12:45 PM
This is a controversial question and few answers. The causes of depopulation has been explained as introduction of European diseases that Native Americans could not resist, massacres, war, and slavery. As a matter of fact "Hitler claimed that concentration camps as well as the practicality of genocide owed much to his studies of English and United States history."

What do you think? Is there any similarity to the Holocaust and other genocides such as Darfur, Rwanda, Armenian, etc.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Population_history_of_American_indigenous_peoples#Unites_States_of_America

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genocides_in_history#Americas

I think that any harm towards Native Americans was the for the purpose of gaining resources rather than exterminating them.

Tristin.
December 9th, 2010, 01:16 PM
i would hardly compare the mindless slaughter of millions due to their religion to the western expanison in america, the natives fought back and won some victories, numbers and technolagy is what beat them in the end.

Azunite
December 9th, 2010, 01:27 PM
What is an American anyway?
American is Native American. Todays Americans are only mere descendants of French, German, British and other European citizens.

Well, they came in. They saw resources. They were greedy and they killed them all.
Not to mention a Spaniard who simply killed whole South American population for some corn and chocolate.

Tristin.
December 9th, 2010, 01:28 PM
What is an American anyway?
American is Native American. Todays Americans are only mere descendants of French, German, British and other European citizens.

Well, they came in. They saw resources. They were greedy and they killed them all.
Not to mention a Spaniard who simply killed whole South American population for some corn and chocolate.

dont forget the gold in the south, i suppose though it was a different time when imperialism was at its height, the arrogance of britain and france was huge then, they saw the world as their toy

Azunite
December 9th, 2010, 01:44 PM
dont forget the gold in the south, i suppose though it was a different time when imperialism was at its height, the arrogance of britain and france was huge then, they saw the world as their toy

I made irony there, my corn I meant gold :)

And a question... Well everyone talks about genocides in Middle East and Eastern Europe.

Correct me if I am wrong, there haven't been any trials about how "Americans" killed Natives right?

Magus
December 9th, 2010, 01:52 PM
Correct me if I am wrong, there haven't been any trials about how "Americans" killed Natives right?
Because it happened 300 years ago. But don't worry, the aboriginals have cursed those white people.

Azunite
December 9th, 2010, 02:00 PM
Because it happened 300 years ago. But don't worry, the aboriginals have cursed those white people.

Allah will show them a thing or two in Afterlife :P

Magus
December 9th, 2010, 02:24 PM
Allah will show them a thing or two in Afterlife :P
I believe that the Native Americans believed in spirits, not oh all might ALLAH!

Azunite
December 9th, 2010, 03:11 PM
Yeah but come on we know that Allah is the sole creator.

If I believed in Divine Turtles would that mean that I would get punished by some 100 feet high turtles?

Magus
December 9th, 2010, 03:16 PM
Yeah but come on we know that Allah is the sole creator.

There is Zeus, Izanagi, Ahura Mazdah, Shrisivastum and etc. Allah is just the much more elaborate one.

Azunite
December 9th, 2010, 03:19 PM
There is Zeus, Izanagi, Ahura Mazdah, Shrisivastum and etc. Allah is just the much more elaborate one.

I have never heard of those, surely because Allah is the mightiest
(We might get warned Faris for talking the truth in an infidel topic )

Magus
December 9th, 2010, 03:25 PM
I have never heard of those, surely because Allah is the mightiest
(We might get warned Faris for talking the truth in an infidel topic )

Maybe. Anyways, let us get back to our friends:
http://www.lordnelsons.com/gallery/frontier/wright/images/Cherokee.jpg

Azunite
December 9th, 2010, 03:31 PM
Yeah, what they did you Jumping Bull. Wait, Flipping Bull... Standin Bull.. Damn Sitting Bull is it ?

Perseus
December 9th, 2010, 04:11 PM
Yeah... I mean, this is a terribly one sided debate. Of course it was genocide. Americans killed countless Native Americans in the name of God, land, and gold. The Europeans tried to bring the word of God to them my ass.

Amnesiac
December 9th, 2010, 05:01 PM
Considering the definition of "genocide":

the deliberate and systematic extermination of a national, racial, political, or cultural group.

I believe that technically there was a genocide perpetrated against the Native Americans. However, it took place over a long period of time and was nowhere near as violent and deliberate as, let's say, the Holocaust. Actually, I have problems with the use of the word "extermination" — one could argue that the settlers weren't trying to exterminate the Natives, they were just trying to relocate them.

trooneh
December 10th, 2010, 08:43 PM
I believe that technically there was a genocide perpetrated against the Native Americans. However, it took place over a long period of time and was nowhere near as violent and deliberate as, let's say, the Holocaust. Actually, I have problems with the use of the word "extermination" — one could argue that the settlers weren't trying to exterminate the Natives, they were just trying to relocate them.

By sending them on long marches through wilderness with little to no water? How isn't that trying to exterminate or at the least some of them?


Also, per my International Affairs 101 class, genocide is defined 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.
That's the definition that is given by the United Nations Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide. Under that definition, then yes, there was a genocide of the Native Americans.

Peace God
December 10th, 2010, 08:52 PM
Todays Americans are only mere descendants of French, German, British and other European citizens.

...and people from every other continent in the world (except Antarctica).

Sith Lord 13
December 10th, 2010, 10:58 PM
Also, per my International Affairs 101 class, genocide is defined 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.

That's the definition that is given by the United Nations Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide. Under that definition, then yes, there was a genocide of the Native Americans.

The bolded part is debatable. I hold the intent was to take the land and, as such was not genocide.

trooneh
December 10th, 2010, 11:08 PM
The bolded part is debatable. I hold the intent was to take the land and, as such was not genocide.

But did they do so with the intent to eventually take all the land, and therefore, leave none for the indigenous population? Because if so, then it included an intent to destroy, perhaps not in the short term but in the long term certainly.

Jean Poutine
December 10th, 2010, 11:19 PM
What is an American anyway?
American is Native American. Todays Americans are only mere descendants of French, German, British and other European citizens.

Well, they came in. They saw resources. They were greedy and they killed them all.
Not to mention a Spaniard who simply killed whole South American population for some corn and chocolate.

i'll put it as mildly as i can but i fear even my good intentions and the high from the painkillers i pop for my crippled collarbone are not going to be enough.

you sir are a humongous, gigantic retard.

you think i, or any other white north american can call anywhere but america (the continent) home? you think we can call europe home? you think we are not north american? we are "mere" (as if this was a bad thing!) descendants of countries we had nothing to do with for over 2-3 centuries?

my ancestors, our ancestors, spilled their blood in defense of their adopted homeland, to safeguard a future for them, their children, and eventually us. they deserve as much respect as the natives defending themselves against hostiles, perceived or not.

95% of white colonists settled america not to make money, but to distance themselves from the very regimes you tie us to, or for adventure, the spirit of discovery. way to spit on a whole fucking continent in one single sentance. if you think i'm reacting strongly, call a south african boer a kitchen dutch.

restrain yourself from commenting on shit you know nothing about.

was there a genocide? one group of people wanted something another group had, and took it by force. if this consists in genocide, every single war in the history of mankind is a genocide. yet...

Sith Lord 13
December 10th, 2010, 11:37 PM
But did they do so with the intent to eventually take all the land, and therefore, leave none for the indigenous population? Because if so, then it included an intent to destroy, perhaps not in the short term but in the long term certainly.

At no point was all their land taken from them. The still have reservations to this very day.

trooneh
December 11th, 2010, 12:20 AM
At no point was all their land taken from them. The still have reservations to this very day.


However, at the time, was the intention to remove all their land in the end or to let them keep some?

Sith Lord 13
December 11th, 2010, 07:06 AM
However, at the time, was the intention to remove all their land in the end or to let them keep some?

The intent was always localized land grabs.

Continuum
December 11th, 2010, 07:34 AM
At no point was all their land taken from them. The still have reservations to this very day.

Really unprosperous and tiny compared to the time before Europeans were just blatant traders. They took most of the good stuff away from the rightful people.

Because it happened 300 years ago. But don't worry, the aboriginals have cursed those white people.

Oh damn. I have Spanish heritage.

Sith Lord 13
December 11th, 2010, 08:20 AM
Really unprosperous and tiny compared to the time before Europeans were just blatant traders. They took most of the good stuff away from the rightful people.

Rightful? Rule of conquest. Were the Native Americans to have developed faster and sailed across the ocean, they would have conquered Europe, or at least parts of it. All's fair in love and war.

Perseus
December 11th, 2010, 10:08 AM
Rightful? Rule of conquest. Were the Native Americans to have developed faster and sailed across the ocean, they would have conquered Europe, or at least parts of it. All's fair in love and war.

That's only speculation, and do you honestly justify what the Americans did to the Native Americans, or are you just doing devil's advocate?

Sith Lord 13
December 11th, 2010, 10:12 AM
That's only speculation, and do you honestly justify what the Americans did to the Native Americans, or are you just doing devil's advocate?

A little bit of both. I don't think those acts are appropriate today, but at the time, it seemed right.

Perseus
December 11th, 2010, 11:55 AM
A little bit of both. I don't think those acts are appropriate today, but at the time, it seemed right.

You think it was "right" for Europeans to come in and start moving Native Americans from their land, and proceed to kill them because they would not comply?

Sith Lord 13
December 11th, 2010, 10:47 PM
You think it was "right" for Europeans to come in and start moving Native Americans from their land, and proceed to kill them because they would not comply?

I think the right of conquest was largely accepted back then. You must judge historical people by the standards of their time.

Perseus
December 12th, 2010, 12:24 AM
I think the right of conquest was largely accepted back then. You must judge historical people by the standards of their time.

So. It doesn't mean we can't deem it horrendous. Just because it was normal doesn't make it any less wrong.

Fruit_Tart.
December 12th, 2010, 02:56 AM
As a Native I think that genocide was a part of the English intentions. I'm not mad about it because it made up the people we are today, but why would they want to get rid of the original race of "America". I know that my ancestors came from elsewhere, but they were the ones that remained to stay in "America" and raised people to continue to live. Many of the other foreign places started coming and Natives we're starting to die out because of diseases, slavery, and other violence. If people weren't naturally greedy I'm sure the Native race would prosper, but eh, now we're probably the least percentage of people on Earth. I'm afraid we might disappear and I don't want that to happen to our race, but we can't help what happened/happens.

Sith Lord 13
December 12th, 2010, 08:30 AM
So. It doesn't mean we can't deem it horrendous. Just because it was normal doesn't make it any less wrong.

By our morality yes, by their morality no. Morality is determined by the people of the time.

Sogeking
December 12th, 2010, 12:44 PM
Was there a genocide of the native americans? I dont know. Would it suprise me if there was one(or a couple)? Not really? When one has strength, they will try to subdue others, and get rid of competition. In the case of the europeans at the time, the europeans saw the native americans as uneducated savages that were inferior to them and were begging to get conquered. Which is pretty ironic because the native americans helped the first colonists to survive the wilderness. They could've easily killed them if they wanted to. The indian removal act of 1830 and the period after it was a harsh time for the native americans and I wouldn't neccesarily call it a proud moment in american history.