There was no Native American genocide...

DiAnna said:

But WE deliberately introduced that disease! Infected blankets. Duh.

Click to expand...

Hence the statement genocidal acrs.

RabidAlpaca said:

So to recap your position, it definitely wasn't genocide to murder and displace native Americans to take their land for ourselves, but the one thing that was far worse than genocide was giving them a little bit of sovereign land afterwards. Christ on a stick that's bad, but pretty much the filth we've come to expect from you.

Click to expand...

If you are going to 'recap' a position, you should do it honestly. At least then you wouldnt assassinate your own personal integrity.

What I said was The greatest form of 'genocide' has been the reservation system. That did not deny nor make irrelevant the previous conflict. No...it addressed the massive DOCUMENTED destruction that life on the reservations has caused for multiple generations with no end in sight. If you actually gave the first **** about the American Indians, you would see that already and would know that. But you dont give the first **** about them. To you, they are a conveeeeeenient whipping boy to drag out and flog any time the issue of mascots and sports teams come up. Beyond that...meh.

'Living' on the land we 'give' them.

You probably arent cognizant enough to realize just how devastating that sentence is. But that you actually IGNORE the circumstances on those 'sovereign lands'? THATS what truly indicts you.

VanceMack said:

If you are going to 'recap' a position, you should do it honestly. At least then you wouldnt assassinate your own personal integrity.

What I said was The greatest form of 'genocide' has been the reservation system. That did not deny nor make irrelevant the previous conflict. No...it addressed the massive DOCUMENTED destruction that life on the reservations has caused for multiple generations with no end in sight. If you actually gave the first **** about the American Indians, you would see that already and would know that. But you dont give the first **** about them. To you, they are a conveeeeeenient whipping boy to drag out and flog any time the issue of mascots and sports teams come up. Beyond that...meh.

'Living' on the land we 'give' them.

You probably arent cognizant enough to realize just how devastating that sentence is. But that you actually IGNORE the circumstances on those 'sovereign lands'? THATS what truly indicts you.

Click to expand...

Anyone that thinks giving them sovereign land was far worse than mass murdering them and taking their land, is a really, really terrible person.

RabidAlpaca said:

If you think giving them sovereign land was far worse than murdering them and taking their land, you're a really terrible person.

Click to expand...

You know...I understand where you are coming from as a leftist. To you, we should ignore the impact. We should ignore the gnerational destruction. We should ignore the loss of life, the violence, the addiction rates, the sexual assaults.

No...you know what we really need? We need a really good leftist rebranding. Its all about the marketing approach. In fact...I think if we just rename the 'reservations' it will solve all the problems. And we can use an existing leftist creation that has already so effectively accomplished the leftist goals and we dont even have to come up with a new name...we can just relabel them....

"the projects"

Come on...admit it...it has a nice ring...right?

EMNofSeattle said:

Letters describe the possibility of it being used, there was a smallpox outbreak, this was never policy of the United States as it didn't yet exist and there's some dispute as to whether it even occurred

Click to expand...

I did not say the US did that, that was the despicable British soldiers who did that. They even said an invoice existed from the blankets they provided the Indians.

To my mind, the NA were purposefully decimated for the motive of acquiring their territorial homelands by any means necessary.

The eastern-American concept of Manifest Destiny excluded the indigenous NA peoples and the Mexican nationals inhabiting the southwest.

Rogue Valley said:

To my mind, the NA were purposefully decimated for the motive of acquiring their territorial homelands by any means necessary.

The eastern-American concept of Manifest Destiny excluded the indigenous NA peoples and the Mexican nationals inhabiting the southwest.

Click to expand...

So you are saying the people in the newly formed country acted as every other conquering and expanding society throughout history...including the indigenous tribes? Yeah...I can see that.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Bodhisattva said:

Some argue that there was.... but there wasn't. There was war... killing...

Click to expand...

The Jewish Holocaust took place during a war. It was still genocide.

Bodhisattva said:

That said, it is estimated that 90% of the pre Colombian Native population was wiped out by disease.

Click to expand...

Diseases brought over by conquistadors, and in some cases intentionally released upon the natives.

Bodhisattva said:

IT is estimated that there were 30 million Mexican Natives and 50 years after Cortes there were less than 5 million.

What are your thoughts... genocide that wasn't a genocide or not a genocide?

Click to expand...

The Europeans had guns, cannons, and significantly more expertise when it comes to war. The natives had no idea what was comming most of the time. They often greeted the assholes as friends only to be slaughtered.

This so called war had no justification other than a belief that natives were savages. They were viewed as pests. Mesquitoes to be wiped out so that real people could enjoy the benefits of the land.

Stop making excuses for the horrible crimes of your ancestors. Just because they were evil doesn't mean you have to be.

MrWonka said:

The Jewish Holocaust took place during a war. It was still genocide.



Diseases brought over by conquistadors, and in some cases intentionally released upon the natives.



The Europeans had guns, cannons, and significantly more expertise when it comes to war. The natives had no idea what was comming most of the time. They often greeted the assholes as friends only to be slaughtered.

This so called war had no justification other than a belief that natives were savages. They were viewed as pests. Mesquitoes to be wiped out so that real people could enjoy the benefits of the land.

Stop making excuses for the horrible crimes of your ancestors. Just because they were evil doesn't mean you have to be.

Click to expand...

My ancestors came to this country in 1887 and had nothing to do with the plight of the American Indians. However, they did more than their fair share of damage in the old world. Cuz that's who the **** people were back then. And if you think your ancestors **** didn't stink, you know nothing of human beings and history.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

VanceMack said:

So you are saying the people in the newly formed country acted as every other conquering and expanding society throughout history...including the indigenous tribes? Yeah...I can see that.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Click to expand...

Only they didn't see themselves as being like every other society throughout history. Manifest destiny was armed with lawyers, and politicians believing in the right of one group of people to rule over those they came into contact with. Name your empire and there is simply nothing like this before because there had been no nation states like this before. Throughout history, might made right and a sword was the way in which empires imposed themselves. Manifest destiny came with American law first, and subjugated those who wouldn't submit secondly and through a series of access denials. It was a concept armed with both lawyers and law enforcers in the form of a military.

Before that, people essentially wiped themselves out or assimilated. Muslims largely slept their way into South East Asia using trade. Other Muslims went into wars lasting decades to expand the reach of Islam. Are these people parts of the same societies? Sure. Are they the same as manifest destiny? Hardly. Modern day people in Singapur aren't living under the laws which were created by Muslims coming to the place in the 1500s. People in Iran aren't living under some Babylonian system. Italians today aren't living under Roman laws. Nobody in Paris is dealing with the effects of Gaul rule or even Napoleonic rule.

That's basically the problem with your post. That nobody lives under the social entities of every empire ever today. However, we still very much live with the same government, beliefs, structures, rules, etc. which game form to manifest destiny. For example, the lack of consultation with Native Americans when it comes to building projects on their lands is classic manifest destiny. It fulfills the economic aspects of it (making the country supposedly better) under premise that we can only do this through projects which grow our economy and set an example of productivity for the rest of the world. Obviously, in order to do this, native groups are regularly excluded from decision making processes. So we have situations in which they face law enforcement like we have seen in both the US and Canada over the past 50 or so years. So they really haven't progressed that much since the 1800s when it comes to fighting the government. They are still fighting either lawyers or law enforcers backed by the same bodies of governance as 150-200 years ago.

Hatuey said:

Only they didn't see themselves as being like every other society throughout history. Manifest destiny was armed with lawyers, and politicians believing in the right of one group of people to rule over those they came into contact with. Name your empire and there is simply nothing like this before because there had been no nation states like this before. Throughout history, might made right and a sword was the way in which empires imposed themselves. Manifest destiny came with American law first, and subjugated those who wouldn't submit secondly and through a series of access denials. It was a concept armed with both lawyers and law enforcers in the form of a military.

Before that, people essentially wiped themselves out or assimilated. Muslims largely slept their way into South East Asia using trade. Other Muslims went into wars lasting decades to expand the reach of Islam. Are these people parts of the same societies? Sure. Are they the same as manifest destiny? Hardly. Modern day people in Singapur aren't living under the laws which were created by Muslims coming to the place in the 1500s. People in Iran aren't living under some Babylonian system. Italians today aren't living under Roman laws.

That's basically the problem with your post. That nobody lives under the laws and rules of every empire ever today. However, we still very much live with the same government, beliefs, structures, rules, etc. which game form to manifest destiny. For example, the lack of consultation with Native Americans when it comes to building projects on their lands is classic manifest destiny. It fulfills the economic aspects of it (making the country supposedly better) under premise that we can only do this through projects which grow our economy and set an example of productivity for the rest of the world. Obviously, in order to do this, native groups are regularly excluded from decision making processes. So they really haven't progressed that much since the 1800s when it comes to fighting the government. They are still fighting either lawyers or law enforcers.

Click to expand...

Sure. They saw themselves as an emerging badass country that defeated the crown, won their independence, and figured God was on their side. And in the process they created a prosperous nation that has been at times ruthless in its treatment of others. Again...those are 'reasons' but no different than one small tribe attacking a smaller tribe and stealing their **** and killing off their men and taking their women and children in the name of survival. It's simply a matter of scope.

I think it's stupid beyond words that people judge or feel the need to defend history. That phrase 'we stand on the shoulders of Giants' simply means we learned from both the successes and failings of yesterday. Learn and grow, or wilt in a corner and ****ing die because your ancestors were oppressed. Either way.........


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

VanceMack said:

Sure. They saw themselves as an emerging badass country that defeated the crown, won their independence, and figured God was on their side.

Click to expand...

Cool story bro, and they created a system under which Native Americans still live. Italians don't live under Roman rule, Germans don't live in Nazi Germany. Jews don't live like they did under the Babylonians. That's why nobody is taking any of the oppressive forces in those countries to task for the country's history. Manifest destiny very much exists today just like it did 150 years ago. Again, you list the themes in manifest destiny and tell me you can't find them in our economic sectors.

And in the process they created a prosperous nation that has been at times ruthless in its treatment of others. Again...those are 'reasons' but no different than one small tribe attacking a smaller tribe and stealing their **** and killing off their men and taking their women and children in the name of survival. It's simply a matter of scope.

I think it's stupid beyond words that people judge or feel the need to defend history. That phrase 'we stand on the shoulders of Giants' simply means we learned from both the successes and failings of yesterday. Learn and grow, or wilt in a corner and ****ing die because your ancestors were oppressed. Either way.........


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Click to expand...

We judge history literally ALL the time. We judge history literally as it happens. There was literally a massive media drive to have what happened in Sudan called a genocide. Politicians, celebrities, memes, etc. all regularly call the actions of many African dictators 'genocides'. The Armenian people have literally argued for decades that a genocide that happened to them is not recognized. Nobody living in Cuba today thinks that what happened to the Taino population was anything short of a genocide given how few Tainos actually even exist today. There seems to be a general aversion in the US to calling what we has happened on our soil a genocide or even racist.

Manifest destiny was both, it was the drive to remove a people standing in the way of a group's search for economic growth. It used religious and political means to propel one group of people while subjugating a second group. Please stop romanticizing it just because you think we've all profited from it.

What's funny is that you romanticize manifest destiny, complain about similar processes happening all over the world and nobody criticizing those. Who is going around preaching about how amazeballs it was that the Aztecs were decapitating people on hills and how we should all learn to grow from those event? Who in the world is telling the world that the Muslim expansions were kickass and like totally a wonderful time for the countries they conquered? These people simply don't exist. There is a section of our society which study these events and are generally pretty sober in describing them as genocides, conquests, expansions, etc. There is another part which follows a trend, but the premise that we shouldn't be judging history is absolutely bat**** funny.

We regularly do.

Bodhisattva said:

Some argue that there was.... but there wasn't. There was war... killing... and some isolated cases of individual tribal genocide. But over all there was not policy or plan or idea to wipe the Natives off the planet. In fact, many in control of policy wanted to remove Natives so that they were NOT wiped out by war.

That said, it is estimated that 90% of the pre Colombian Native population was wiped out by disease. IT is estimated that there were 30 million Mexican Natives and 50 years after Cortes there were less than 5 million.

What are your thoughts... genocide that wasn't a genocide or not a genocide?

Click to expand...

Sir Jeffrey Amherst, commander-in-chief of British forces in North America, writing to Colonel Henry Bouquet at Fort Pitt:

California Governor Peter H. Burnett, 1851

Hatuey said:

Cool story bro, and they created a system under which Native Americans still live. Italians don't live under Roman rule, Germans don't live in Nazi Germany. Jews don't live like they did under the Babylonians. That's why nobody is taking any of the oppressive forces in those countries to task for the country's history. Manifest destiny very much exists today just like it did 150 years ago. Again, you list the themes in manifest destiny and tell me you can't find them in our economic sectors.



We judge history literally ALL the time. We judge history literally as it happens. There was literally a massive media drive to have what happened in Sudan called a genocide. Politicians, celebrities, memes, etc. all regularly call the actions of many African dictators 'genocides'. The Armenian people have literally argued for decades that a genocide that happened to them is not recognized. Nobody living in Cuba today thinks that what happened to the Taino population was anything short of a genocide given how few Tainos actually even exist today. There seems to be a general aversion in the US to calling what we has happened on our soil a genocide or even racist.

Manifest destiny was both, it was the drive to remove a people standing in the way of a group's search for economic growth. It used religious and political means to propel one group of people while subjugating a second group. Please stop romanticizing it just because you think we've all profited from it.

What's funny is that you romanticize manifest destiny, complain about similar processes happening all over the world and nobody criticizing those. Who is going around preaching about how amazeballs it was that the Aztecs were decapitating people on hills and how we should all learn to grow from those event? Who in the world is telling the world that the Muslim expansions were kickass and like totally a wonderful time for the countries they conquered? These people simply don't exist. There is a section of our society which study these events and are generally pretty sober in describing them as genocides, conquests, expansions, etc. There is another part which follows a trend, but the premise that we shouldn't be judging history is absolutely bat**** funny.

We regularly do.

Click to expand...

I take it you oppose the reservation system?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Hatuey said:

Cool story bro, and they created a system under which Native Americans still live. Italians don't live under Roman rule, Germans don't live in Nazi Germany. Jews don't live like they did under the Babylonians. That's why nobody is taking any of the oppressive forces in those countries to task for the country's history. Manifest destiny very much exists today just like it did 150 years ago. Again, you list the themes in manifest destiny and tell me you can't find them in our economic sectors.



We judge history literally ALL the time. We judge history literally as it happens. There was literally a massive media drive to have what happened in Sudan called a genocide. Politicians, celebrities, memes, etc. all regularly call the actions of many African dictators 'genocides'. The Armenian people have literally argued for decades that a genocide that happened to them is not recognized. Nobody living in Cuba today thinks that what happened to the Taino population was anything short of a genocide given how few Tainos actually even exist today. There seems to be a general aversion in the US to calling what we has happened on our soil a genocide or even racist.

Manifest destiny was both, it was the drive to remove a people standing in the way of a group's search for economic growth. It used religious and political means to propel one group of people while subjugating a second group. Please stop romanticizing it just because you think we've all profited from it.

What's funny is that you romanticize manifest destiny, complain about similar processes happening all over the world and nobody criticizing those. Who is going around preaching about how amazeballs it was that the Aztecs were decapitating people on hills and how we should all learn to grow from those event? Who in the world is telling the world that the Muslim expansions were kickass and like totally a wonderful time for the countries they conquered? These people simply don't exist. There is a section of our society which study these events and are generally pretty sober in describing them as genocides, conquests, expansions, etc. There is another part which follows a trend, but the premise that we shouldn't be judging history is absolutely bat**** funny.

We regularly do.

Click to expand...

In fairness...I didn't actually read all of your ridiculous comments. Suffice it to say that it is beyond moronic to judge a society of yesterday with the learned standards of today. But I understand that you will.

Perhaps the only thing more pathetic than judging history is using it as an excuse for modern day failures.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

slick said:

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.

Click to expand...

I mean, the Indian tribes did do a lot of uniting, most of the Indian tribes we know of did not exist before the Europeans came and instead were created in response; they understood the concept.

But yes, Where was a fight to determine who was going to be in control of the law of the land, and the natives lost. And those that did not want to assimilate, had to leave(there was a big effort to assimilate the native population by the American government at the time).

VanceMack said:

I take it you oppose the reservation system?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Click to expand...

I generally oppose keeping key components of the colonization process alive, yes.

Medusa said:

View attachment 67222709

Click to expand...

No American should be lectured about Genocide and slavery by a Turk.

VanceMack said:

In fairness...I didn't actually read all of your ridiculous comments. Suffice it to say that it is beyond moronic to judge a society of yesterday with the learned standards of today.

Click to expand...

You can find it moronic, and yet - it seems that people with PhDs in history don't. People just watching TV don't. Why do you think everyone who doesn't flinch at the thought of calling something like the Holocaust (now in the past) a genocide 'moronic'? Most of us don't live in those societies yet, there is nothing moronic about saying the 'Armenian genocide happened and the Turks were behind it'.

How is that moronic? It's the same situation as the Native Americans. We didn't live it, I bet the majority of people in the US don't have an Armenian relative involved in it. Yet, nobody would think you were being moronic if you were to call the Leopold's adventures in the Congo a 'genocide'. What about the purging of native tribes in Argentina and Chile? Not a genocide, but certainly an attempt though various forms of concentration camps.

Again, I don't get why you think judging these societies - BECAUSE OF HOW MUCH WE KNOW ABOUT THEM - to be moronic. We are pretty clear on why the Irish famine was tinged with ethnic cleansing. You can literally get a degree in studying these subjects and arguing their nuances to the point where you can argue that they are genocides or not. There is lively academic discussion in some cases others are settled law. We literally judge history all of the time and don't find it moronic. You just did, you claimed it had spread itself just like every other society. Only to make that claim, you have to compare and judge how alike societies. You came to one conclusion being that they shouldn't be judged, while judging them to be the same as every other society.

Don't you see the irony? Not even a little bit?

Hatuey said:

I generally oppose keeping key components of the colonization process alive, yes.

Click to expand...

Common ground.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Hatuey said:

You can find it moronic, and yet - it seems that people with PhDs in history don't. People just watching TV don't. Why do you think everyone who doesn't flinch at the thought of calling something like the Holocaust (now in the past) a genocide 'moronic'? Most of us don't live in those societies yet, there is nothing moronic about saying the 'Armenian genocide happened and the Turks were behind it'.

How is that moronic? It's the same situation as the Native Americans. We didn't live it, I bet the majority of people in the US don't have an Armenian relative involved in it. Yet, nobody would think you were being moronic if you were to call the Leopold's adventures in the Congo a 'genocide'. What about the purging of native tribes in Argentina and Chile? Not a genocide, but certainly an attempt though various forms of concentration camps.

Again, I don't get why you think judging these societies - BECAUSE OF HOW MUCH WE KNOW ABOUT THEM - to be moronic. We are pretty clear on why the Irish famine was tinged with ethnic cleansing. You can literally get a degree in studying these subjects and arguing their nuances to the point where you can argue that they are genocides or not. There is lively academic discussion in some cases others are settled law. We literally judge history all of the time and don't find it moronic. You just did, you claimed it had spread itself just like every other society. Only to make that claim, you have to compare and judge how alike societies. You came to one conclusion being that they shouldn't be judged, while judging them to be the same as every other society.

Don't you see the irony? Not even a little bit?

Click to expand...

Historians don't judge history. They study history. They learn from history. They can even explain history. Only hysterians are stupid enough to judge history.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

VanceMack said:

Historians don't judge history. They study history. They learn from history. They can even explain history. Only hysterians are stupid enough to judge history.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Click to expand...

Lmao, historians lead the way in judging history by studying it. Good grief, historians have been judging history since Ibn Kaldun(sic). Even that supposedly historically accurate bible generally has no problem with people judging the conditions of Jews under a number of groups as mind numbingly terrible with the Egyptians.

Think about that for one second. Even fundamental Christians biblical historians have no problem arguing that the Egyptians were generally oppressive towards Jews. Just look at depictions of the Moses story. How do you show Jewish suffering without judging the Egyptians to be oppressive? You can't.

So what do we have? Vance Mack essentially arguing that historians of all sorts shouldn't judge this one process. You kept pointing at other civilizations but didn't notice that we already discuss these situations and judge and depict them in all spheres.

Why do you believe native Americans should see manifest destiny positively when things like reservations still exist?


This was sent from Putin's computer using Donald's credentials.

Hatuey said:

Lmao, historians lead the way in judging history by studying it. Good grief, historians have been judging history since Ibn Kaldun(sic). Even that supposedly historically accurate bible generally has no problem with people judging the conditions of Jews under a number of groups as mind numbingly terrible with the Egyptians.

Think about that for one second. Even fundamental Christians biblical historians have no problem arguing that the Egyptians were generally oppressive towards Jews. Just look at depictions of the Moses story. How do you show Jewish suffering without judging the Egyptians to be oppressive? You can't.

So what do we have? Vance Mack essentially arguing that historians of all sorts shouldn't judge this one process. You kept pointing at other civilizations but didn't notice that we already discuss these situations and judge and depict them in all spheres.

Why do you believe native Americans should see manifest destiny positively when things like reservations still exist?


This was sent from Putin's computer using Donald's credentials.

Click to expand...

I think your bias clouds your vision radically. There is a difference between learning from history and judging history.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

VanceMack said:

In fairness...I didn't actually read all of your ridiculous comments. Suffice it to say that it is beyond moronic to judge a society of yesterday with the learned standards of today. But I understand that you will.

Perhaps the only thing more pathetic than judging history is using it as an excuse for modern day failures.

Click to expand...

"Hey, man, look at you, you can't run, how pathetic"

"Uh, well, you chopped off my legs yesterday, that's why I can't run today."

"Perhaps the only thing more pathetic than judging history is using it as an excuse for modern day failures."

"Riiiiiight...."