• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

There was no Native American genocide...

Did the Native Americans face genocide?

  • Total voters
    72
radcen said:
I'm closer to your point than I am LT's, but let's get real... that's not the type of thing that would be officially published, so it's unreasonable to ask such a question.
Click to expand...

Fair enough... what specific actions or words did Jackson take that indicated that genocide was a possible policy of his?
 
Bodhisattva said:
According to historian H. W. Brands, Jackson sincerely believed that his population transfer was a "wise and humane policy" that would save the Indians from "utter annihilation". Brands writes that, given the "racist realities of the time, Jackson was almost certainly correct in contending that for the Cherokees to remain in Georgia risked their extinction".

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indian_Removal_Act
Click to expand...

Hitler believed he was a good guy too
 
cuban smokes said:
The US Government & the private US citizen both **** all over the native Indian population & the black slaves; why would anyone need to ask about something so thoroughly documented?

Yep, there be some red man genocide ................ ya think????????
Click to expand...

So you don't have an actual case... just wanted to state an opinion?

Cool. You are wrong. You can start by looking at my evidence.
 
AGENT J said:
Did the Native Americans face genocide?

Yes of course they did

https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/genocide
Genocide
Noun
The deliberate killing of a large group of people, especially those of a particular nation or ethnic group.
Click to expand...
I will admit that I never looked up the word, but I always presumed something additional was necessary for it to be deemed 'genocide'... the goal of eliminating pretty much entirely said large group.
 
radcen said:
A term also loses its meaning when it's overused or used inappropriately on a continuous basis.
Click to expand...

Yes it does

For it to be genocide, it can not just involve killing. It has to include the desire for the destruction of the specific group be it ethnic, cultural religious. If the killing is just part of an invasion and after does not include continued policies to destroy the group it is not genocide

Certainly the holocaust was a genocide,
Rwanda, a genocide
Rohingya, based on Myanmar's policies of making them stateless and what looks to be ethnic cleansing, could turn into a genocide

Based on the UN definition of genocide Canada was committing genocide on Native Canadians, most notably through Residential schools, but also at times through creating very harmful environmental conditions. Such as transferring one group 1000 km away from their normal location where they hunted for food, to a remote area with very little food. Causing starvation. To allowing companies to pollute their drinking water. A couple communities in Ontario have severe mercury poisoning from chemicals dumped by the river they used for food and drinking water by a pulp mill

Just because hundreds of thousands or millions did not die in a short period of time, does mean it is not genocide

Intent and action are the determining aspects of what is or is not genocide. Not the period of time, or number killed.

The wiping out of a tribe of Indians in South America, numbering only 300 people, can be a genocide

In the present Convention, genocide means any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such:

(a) Killing members of the group;
(b) Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group;
(c) Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part;
(d) Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group;
(e) Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.
Click to expand...

Convention on Genocide
 
Fledermaus said:
Jackson was the bastard that went back on promises made to the tribes....

Criminal neglect from start to finish.
Click to expand...

I agree he was a bastard... but is being a bastard a form of genocide?

There WERE genocidal acts.... Spanish vs. the Mayans in southern Yucatan, etc.

But for the most part it was disease that did the native populations in...
Click to expand...

Absolutely agreed...
 
"The only good Indian I ever saw were dead." Gen. Philip Sheridan
 
Lord Tammerlain said:
Yes it does

For it to be genocide, it can not just involve killing. It has to include the desire for the destruction of the specific group be it ethnic, cultural religious. If the killing is just part of an invasion and after does not include continued policies to destroy the group it is not genocide

Certainly the holocaust was a genocide,
Rwanda, a genocide
Rohingya, based on Myanmar's policies of making them stateless and what looks to be ethnic cleansing, could turn into a genocide

Based on the UN definition of genocide Canada was committing genocide on Native Canadians, most notably through Residential schools, but also at times through creating very harmful environmental conditions. Such as transferring one group 1000 km away from their normal location where they hunted for food, to a remote area with very little food. Causing starvation. To allowing companies to pollute their drinking water. A couple communities in Ontario have severe mercury poisoning from chemicals dumped by the river they used for food and drinking water by a pulp mill

Just because hundreds of thousands or millions did not die in a short period of time, does mean it is not genocide

Intent and action are the determining aspects of what is or is not genocide. Not the period of time, or number killed.

The wiping out of a tribe of Indians in South America, numbering only 300 people, can be a genocide



Convention on Genocide
Click to expand...
Very good post. I'll concentrate on the part in red.

That goes both ways. Time is not necessarily a factor. I believe intent and goal is the defining factor. Intent to eliminate a particular group is genocide, regardless how "effective" (or not) they may be. On the other hand, one group may be very efficient at killing another group, but they're just trying to win a war or suppress a rebellion, not wipe out entirely.

You mention the Holocaust, for example. That will probably be the textbook definition for all time to come.
 
vegas giants said:
Pol Pot, stalin, Mao.....every villain is the hero in his own life story
Click to expand...

Yes. Jackson fits in with those guys... anything else to share or is this how you roll?
 
Bodhisattva said:
Yes. Jackson fits in with those guys... anything else to share or is this how you roll?
Click to expand...

Yeah....if your only argument is that Jackson thought he was a good guy then he fits right in with them. All bad guys think they are the good guys. DUH
 
radcen said:
Very good post. I'll concentrate on the part in red.

That goes both ways. Time is not necessarily a factor. I believe intent and goal is the defining factor. Intent to eliminate a particular group is genocide, regardless how "effective" (or not) they may be. On the other hand, one group may be very efficient at killing another group, but they're just trying to win a war or suppress a rebellion, not wipe out entirely.

You mention the Holocaust, for example. That will probably be the textbook definition for all time to come.
Click to expand...

Re Bold section

Agreed, but when the leaders of that countries military forces involved also are stating the only good _______ is a dead one and follows up on doing so, is not removed from the military or punished for it. It generally reflects that the goal is the destruction of the group, not just the defeat. Or when the government contracts out the contractually obligated supply requirements (ie food, ) which is done with rotted food, and or short in quantity and that supplier is not removed or punished, it appears the government policy is the destruction of the group

The mass starvation of Ukrainians in the 20-30s I would be reluctant to call a genocide, but more along a pacification policy.
In my opinion if the Ukrainian famine was to be called a genocide, I would feel the Irish Potato Famine would count as one as well
 
Lord Tammerlain said:
Re Bold section

Agreed, but when the leaders of that countries military forces involved also are stating the only good _______ is a dead one and follows up on doing so, is not removed from the military or punished for it. It generally reflects that the goal is the destruction of the group, not just the defeat. Or when the government contracts out the contractually obligated supply requirements (ie food, ) which is done with rotted food, and or short in quantity and that supplier is not removed or punished, it appears the government policy is the destruction of the group

The mass starvation of Ukrainians in the 20-30s I would be reluctant to call a genocide, but more along a pacification policy.
In my opinion if the Ukrainian famine was to be called a genocide, I would feel the Irish Potato Famine would count as one as well
Click to expand...

You bring up a couple good points

"The only good commie is a dead commie". Generally, I take that as just bravado by a person posturing and trying to impress others, but some really do believe that way. Take General Patton, for example. He said he wanted to keep going and fight the Soviet Union, and I believe his mindset was exactly that.

The Holodomor (Ukraine). I believe that was intended as genocide, albeit maybe not initially, and even though the Soviets did pull back and ease up after awhile.
 
Bodhisattva said:
I asked for a policy... that would be an official government position... not a commander abusing authority.
Click to expand...

The Indian Act of 1876-77 championed by the first Canadian Prime Minister (Sir John A. MacDonald) was an official government policy designed to end First Nations culture through concentration of indigenous peoples in non-viable reservations, disallowing them to intermarry with non-Indians without loosing the Indian status, forcing children into white/Christian-run residential skills for assimilation and denying them the means to support their families and communities on remote reserves. The programme was so successful that representatives of South Africa's Jan Smut's government came over to study the implementation of the Indian Act as a template for the Apartheid system introduced in 1908 IIRC.

The deliberate targeting of the North American bison herds by hunters hired or paid bounties by the railroad companies was in part aimed at denying troublesome prairie Indian nations their traditional food supply. No bison means no food which leads to privation, malnutrition, starvation, susceptibility to disease and ultimately to extinction.

Later the Canadian Government began using systematic forced sterilization of poor First Nations women when the eugenics movement swept the British Commonwealth.

Folks should read the book The Orenda by Joseph Boyden for a glimpse into the Canadian policies which amounted to genocide against First Nations in Canada.

So both ethnic cleansing and genocide were policies followed by the Canadian Government for about a century to remove the "Indian Problem" from Canada. The same processes unfolded in the USA, Mexico, Central America and South America. And it's still going on today. In Brazil just recently ten indigenous people from a newly contacted tribe were murdered by gold miners. They were shot and hacked to death and their mutilated bodies were left as a message to the rest of their tribe to clear off of lands claim-staked by the miners.

Cheers?
Evilroddy.
 
Last edited:
radcen said:
You bring up a couple good points

"The only good commie is a dead commie". Generally, I take that as just bravado by a person posturing and trying to impress others, but some really do believe that way. Take General Patton, for example. He said he wanted to keep going and fight the Soviet Union, and I believe his mindset was exactly that.

The Holodomor (Ukraine). I believe that was intended as genocide, albeit maybe not initially, and even though the Soviets did pull back and ease up after awhile.
Click to expand...

If the USSR was not extremely diverse as a nation I would tend to agree. The leader during that time, Stalin was Georgian.

Overall Russians, I expect of all the peoples within the USSR probably felt closer in identity to Ukrainians than any other group with the probable exception of Belarusians
 
Bodhisattva said:
According to historian H. W. Brands, Jackson sincerely believed that his population transfer was a "wise and humane policy" that would save the Indians from "utter annihilation". Brands writes that, given the "racist realities of the time, Jackson was almost certainly correct in contending that for the Cherokees to remain in Georgia risked their extinction".

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indian_Removal_Act
Click to expand...

You are of the opinion that criminals are honest about the reasons for their crimes. Incredible gullibility on your part or the usual making excuses for criminals.

Jackson was a purveyor of genocide, as was Jefferson, Washington, T Roosevelt, B Franklin, ... .

I thought that the USA was supposed to be a rule of law country. Transgressions against Native Americans would be/should be pursued as aggressively as those against any other person.

CALIFORNIA SLAUGHTER: THE STATE-SANCTIONED GENOCIDE OF NATIVE AMERICANS

California Slaughter: The State-Sanctioned Genocide of Native Americans

You can there watch the US Bureau of Indian Affairs September 2000 apology speech for the atrocities meted out by the US government.
 
Lord Tammerlain said:
If the USSR was not extremely diverse as a nation I would tend to agree. The leader during that time, Stalin was Georgian.

Overall Russians, I expect of all the peoples within the USSR probably felt closer in identity to Ukrainians than any other group with the probable exception of Belarusians
Click to expand...

I've always read the Russian/Ukrainian relationship as being one of animosity.
 
radcen said:
I've always read the Russian/Ukrainian relationship as being one of animosity.
Click to expand...
.



On the Ukrainian side after Holodomor probably and after WW2 on the Russian side. But the USSR on the whole was not genocidal, oppressive and not afraid to kill mass amounts of people. But they were not because of their ethnic group, but because they were a threat to the state
 
celticwar17 said:
The trail of tears is probably the best argument for "genocide", but in my opinion it wouldn't classify..... but I'm not sure it really matters in the end, it's just a word.

The unintentional exposure to disease is what did the Native Americans in. Mother nature committed "genocide".
Click to expand...

It wasn't genocide it was a systematic destruction of tribes one at a time who didn't understand the concept of uniting!

After Tecumseh failed to unite all the tribes in one final attempt to resist western expansion of European whites the die was cast
on the fate of all Native Americans. Thirty years before the 5 civilized tribes were sent on the 'Trail of Tears' was the last Indian War
where the Creek Indians really could fight toe to toe with the intruders.

Red Eagle or Lum-Chate better known as William Weatherford led the most significant victory against US forces ever since the
USA became a country. When his forces slaughtered combined 500 union militia and settlers at Fort MIMs, Andrew Jackson's
Tennesseean answered the call.

Red Eagle was eager for a war between the Creeks & the whites, but he realized the war would be between part of the Creeks on one hand
& the rest of the Creeks with the whites on the other, it became a very different and much less attractive affair,

Red Eagle commanded the Creeks & his genius for command alone made this war worth studying. Jackson defeated the Creek
Warriors at Horseshoe Bend, which led directly to the 5 tribes eventually being removed to Oklahoma & any Indian uprising after
the Horseshoe was doomed. The Creek leader fought them with credit to his own skill and daring with no little damage to his skilled enemies.
Jackson said of Weatherford "he is fit to lead armies." When he surrendered to Jackson the lower Creeks who fought with
Jackson tried to kill him. Jackson stating 'Any man who would kill as brave a man as this would rob the dead'

The fact that time after time a segment of the Indian peoples during the indian wars sided with the encroaching whites, led to
the eventual submission. Though their were other factors. William Weatherford was a half-breed who left a large family of children
who intermarried with whites, 'well-nigh extinguishing all traces of Indian blood in his descendants. My avatar on this site is a rendering
of Weatherford.
 
Last edited:
You can commit genocides on all kinds of levels. They were killed, beating, robbed of their land and their resources. Stuffed in patches of land the white people who robbed their lands allowed them to live, usually in squalor but that is a whole different issue.

But on top of that you killed their way of sustaining themselves. They murdered virtually the entire bison population which native Americans depended on for food.

Yes, the US committed cultural genocide and a lot of physical genocide, they killed the natives and killed their way of life and stuffed them in reservations and as such it can be called genocidal.

When I see racists shouting at Mexicans or immigrants that this is they are the natives of the United States I think to myself? Really? Any white person in the United States is a descendant of immigrants, each and every one. Even the people who first landed on the land that was later going to be called the USA were immigrants. And the greatness of the American spirit was in part made possible by the subjugation of the native Americans.

But it is not comparable to other genocides like what the Nazi's did to the Jews. But on a different plane it really is akin to genocide what happened to the native and proud inhabitants of America.
 
vegas giants said:
Yeah....if your only argument is that Jackson thought he was a good guy then he fits right in with them. All bad guys think they are the good guys. DUH
Click to expand...

Boring... see ya.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom