Biggest holocaust in all humanity being hidden from history

[infinite]

"The "final solution" of the North American Indian problem was the model for the subsequent Jewish holocaust and South African apartheid

Why is the biggest holocaust in all humanity being hidden from history? Is it because it lasted so long that it has become a habit? It's been well documented that the killing of Indigenous people in the Western Hemisphere since the beginning of colonization has been estimated at 120 million. Yet nobody wants to speak about it.

Today historians, anthropologists and archaeologists are revealing that information on this holocaust is being deliberately eliminated from the knowledge base and consciousness of North Americans and the world. A completely false picture is being painted of our people as suffering from social ills of our own making.

It could be argued that the loss of 120 million from 1500 to 1800 isn't the same as the loss of 6 million people during World War II. Can 6 million in 1945 be compared to 1 million in 1500?

School children are still being taught that large areas of North America are uninhabited as if this land belongs to no one and never did. The role of our ancestors as caretakers is constantly and habitually overlooked by colonial society.

Before the arrival of Europeans, cities and towns here were flourishing. Mexico City had a larger population than any city in Europe. The people were healthy and well-fed. The first Europeans were amazed. The agricultural products developed by the Indigenous people transformed human nutrition internationally.

The North American Indian holocaust was studied by South Africa for their apartheid program and by Hitler for his genocide of the Jews during World War II. Hitler commented that he admired the great job Americans had done in taking care of the Indian problem. The policies used to kill us off was so successful that people today generally assume that our population was low. Hitler told a past US President when he remarked about their maltreatment of the Jewish people, he mind your own business. You're the worst.

Where are the monuments? Where are the memorial ceremonies? Why is it being concealed? The survivors of the WWII holocaust have not yet died and already there is a movement afoot to forget what happened.

Unlike post-war Germany, North Americans refuse to acknowledge this genocide. Almost one and a quarter million Kanien'ke:haka (Mohawk) were killed off leaving us only a few thousand survivors.

North Americans do not want to reveal that there was and still is a systematic plan to destroy most of the native people by outright murder by bounty hunters and land grabbers, disease through distributing small pox infested blankets, relocation, theft of children who were placed in concentration camps called "residential schools" and assimilation.

As with the Jews, they could not have accomplished this without their collaborators who they trained to serve their genocidal system through their "re-education camps".

The policy changed from outright slaughter to killing the Indian inside. Governments, army, police, church, corporations, doctors, judges and common people were complicit in this killing machine. An elaborate campaign has covered up this genocide which was engineered at the highest levels of power in the United States and Canada. This cover up continues to this day. When they killed off all the Indians, they brought in Blacks to be their labourers.

In the residential schools many eye witnesses have recently come forward to describe the atrocities. They called these places "death camps" where, according to government records, nearly half of all these innocent Indigenous children died or disappeared as if they never existed. In the 1920's when Dr. Bryce was alarmed by the high death rate of children in residential schools, his report was suppressed.

The term "Final Solution" was not coined by the Nazis. It was Indian Affairs Superintendent, Duncan Campbell Scott, Canada's Adolph Eichmann, who in April 1910 plotted out the planned murder to take care of the "Indian problem".

"It is readily acknowledged that Indian children lose their natural resistance to illness by habitating so closely in these schools, and that they die at a much higher rate than in their villages. But this alone does not justify a change in the policy of this Department, which is geared towards the final solution of our Indian Problem". (DIA Archives, RG 10 series).

In the 1930's he brought German doctors over here to do medical experiments on our children. According to the study the majority of the lives of these children was extinguished. School children are taught his poetry with no mention of his role as the butcher of the Indian people.

Those who carried out this annihilation of our people were protected so they could declare full-scale war on us. North Americans as heirs of the fruits of this murderous system have blood on their hands. If people are sincere about preventing holocausts they must remember it. History must be told as it really happened in all its tragic details.

It's not good enough to just remember the holocaust that took place during the lifetime of some of the survivors. We have to remember the larger holocaust. Isn't it time to uncover the truth and make the perpetrators face up to this?

In the west there are a whole series of Eichmanns. General Amherst ordered the distribution of small pox infested blankets to kill of our people. But his name is shamelessly preserved in the names of towns and streets. George Washington is called the "village burner" in Mohawk because of all the villages he ordered burnt. Villages would be surrounded. As the people came running out, they would be shot, stabbed, women, children and elders alike. In one campaign alone "hundreds of thousand died, from New York across Pennsylvania, West Virgina and into Ohio". His name graces the capital of the United States.

The smell of death in their own backyard does not seem to bother North Americans. This is obscene."

http://www.nightslantern.ca/nativeholocaust.htm
http://hnn.us/articles/7302.html
http://www.unitednativeamerica.com/aiholocaust.html

[MaximusXXX]

I've knwon about this, my religion teacher told me about that and I did some research, seems many native groups were completely wiped out.

Most people sadly don't care because they're too ignorant to check the past.

[oldwolf]

So much has been done to so many
So much darkness

It becomes so apparent that those who Will need to shine the Light of Action

Words are so trite when our actions mean so little.

In the midst of the darkness let your light shine and the twighlight of a new Dawn arise as we Do and Act from our Self with reverence for All, Honoring all our relations (Connections)

Be the Being you Know you Are !

Be the Change - for if not - in your world it does not exist - how fucking sad.


Blessings along the Way - lessons Learned

Namaste (my spirit bows to your spirit)

[fistermister]

This didn't just happen in America. It also happened in Australia, all over the continent. The most shocking example occured in Tasmania (an Island off the Australian mainland, about the same size as Scotland). Every "full blooded" tasmanian aboriginal was murdered, and those "tasmainian aboriginals" that survive are mostly very very white.

Here are a few links:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tasmanian_Aborigines
http://www.olestig.dk/tasmania/index.html
http://www.yale.edu/gsp/colonial/

A quick search for "tasmania genocide" will yield plenty of results. Be sure to stay away from anything by Keith Windschuttle.

[Flight From Ashiya]

..........& not forgetting the Japanese genocidal policy enacted within it's occupation of Manchuria & mainland China from 1931 to 1945.
In particular Nanking in 1937.

[Flight From Ashiya]

"The "final solution" of the North American Indian problem was the model for the subsequent Jewish holocaust and South African apartheid

Why is the biggest holocaust in all humanity being hidden from history? Is it because it lasted so long that it has become a habit? It's been well documented that the killing of Indigenous people in the Western Hemisphere since the beginning of colonization has been estimated at 120 million. Yet nobody wants to speak about it.

Today historians, anthropologists and archaeologists are revealing that information on this holocaust is being deliberately eliminated from the knowledge base and consciousness of North Americans and the world. A completely false picture is being painted of our people as suffering from social ills of our own making.

It could be argued that the loss of 120 million from 1500 to 1800 isn't the same as the loss of 6 million people during World War II. Can 6 million in 1945 be compared to 1 million in 1500?

School children are still being taught that large areas of North America are uninhabited as if this land belongs to no one and never did. The role of our ancestors as caretakers is constantly and habitually overlooked by colonial society.

Before the arrival of Europeans, cities and towns here were flourishing. Mexico City had a larger population than any city in Europe. The people were healthy and well-fed. The first Europeans were amazed. The agricultural products developed by the Indigenous people transformed human nutrition internationally.

The North American Indian holocaust was studied by South Africa for their apartheid program and by Hitler for his genocide of the Jews during World War II. Hitler commented that he admired the great job Americans had done in taking care of the Indian problem. The policies used to kill us off was so successful that people today generally assume that our population was low. Hitler told a past US President when he remarked about their maltreatment of the Jewish people, he mind your own business. You're the worst.

Where are the monuments? Where are the memorial ceremonies? Why is it being concealed? The survivors of the WWII holocaust have not yet died and already there is a movement afoot to forget what happened.

Unlike post-war Germany, North Americans refuse to acknowledge this genocide. Almost one and a quarter million Kanien'ke:haka (Mohawk) were killed off leaving us only a few thousand survivors.

North Americans do not want to reveal that there was and still is a systematic plan to destroy most of the native people by outright murder by bounty hunters and land grabbers, disease through distributing small pox infested blankets, relocation, theft of children who were placed in concentration camps called "residential schools" and assimilation.

As with the Jews, they could not have accomplished this without their collaborators who they trained to serve their genocidal system through their "re-education camps".

The policy changed from outright slaughter to killing the Indian inside. Governments, army, police, church, corporations, doctors, judges and common people were complicit in this killing machine. An elaborate campaign has covered up this genocide which was engineered at the highest levels of power in the United States and Canada. This cover up continues to this day. When they killed off all the Indians, they brought in Blacks to be their labourers.

In the residential schools many eye witnesses have recently come forward to describe the atrocities. They called these places "death camps" where, according to government records, nearly half of all these innocent Indigenous children died or disappeared as if they never existed. In the 1920's when Dr. Bryce was alarmed by the high death rate of children in residential schools, his report was suppressed.

The term "Final Solution" was not coined by the Nazis. It was Indian Affairs Superintendent, Duncan Campbell Scott, Canada's Adolph Eichmann, who in April 1910 plotted out the planned murder to take care of the "Indian problem".

"It is readily acknowledged that Indian children lose their natural resistance to illness by habitating so closely in these schools, and that they die at a much higher rate than in their villages. But this alone does not justify a change in the policy of this Department, which is geared towards the final solution of our Indian Problem". (DIA Archives, RG 10 series).

In the 1930's he brought German doctors over here to do medical experiments on our children. According to the study the majority of the lives of these children was extinguished. School children are taught his poetry with no mention of his role as the butcher of the Indian people.

Those who carried out this annihilation of our people were protected so they could declare full-scale war on us. North Americans as heirs of the fruits of this murderous system have blood on their hands. If people are sincere about preventing holocausts they must remember it. History must be told as it really happened in all its tragic details.

It's not good enough to just remember the holocaust that took place during the lifetime of some of the survivors. We have to remember the larger holocaust. Isn't it time to uncover the truth and make the perpetrators face up to this?

In the west there are a whole series of Eichmanns. General Amherst ordered the distribution of small pox infested blankets to kill of our people. But his name is shamelessly preserved in the names of towns and streets. George Washington is called the "village burner" in Mohawk because of all the villages he ordered burnt. Villages would be surrounded. As the people came running out, they would be shot, stabbed, women, children and elders alike. In one campaign alone "hundreds of thousand died, from New York across Pennsylvania, West Virgina and into Ohio". His name graces the capital of the United States.

The smell of death in their own backyard does not seem to bother North Americans. This is obscene."

http://www.nightslantern.ca/nativeholocaust.htm
http://hnn.us/articles/7302.html
http://www.unitednativeamerica.com/aiholocaust.html

& am I right in saying the North American Buffalo was wiped-out deliberately so to deprive the North American Indians with their stable life-dependency resource?.

[jonny2mad]

hmm well apart from the fact the first post was a cut and paste from that webbsite you linked to Id be interested in seeing a breakdown of figures for this 120million dead .

I had a discussion a few years ago and someone who claimed that americans had commited the worst act of genocide in history, I dont think the facts back that up .
I think its likely that the islamic invasion of india alone could show higher numbers .

also if you look at the actions of the indian tribes to each other and to captives if you look at what the aztec ect ect used to do to each other , were they any better .

I think one of the great myths is of this peaceful native american who was just picked on by the nasty white man I think this smacks of racism , most people in history have been pretty nasty and have competed for resources

[The Deer Hunter]

America the red white and blue
the white slaughtered the red until their eyes turned blue
the white writes the rules
line em up, sign the troops
fill em with metal, give em medals when they die in their boots

America the red white and blue
the blue fights the red, the red fights the blue
the white hides the truth
the white blinds the youth
keeps their minds confused, so they won't find their roots

from Young Ravage-ColdWorld http://www.myspace.com/youngravage

[jonny2mad]

hmm again doesnt address the red killing the red or the red killing the white ...does it racist

[Langox510x]

I think one of the great myths is of this peaceful native american who was just picked on by the nasty white man I think this smacks of racism , most people in history have been pretty nasty and have competed for resources
Some Natives were peaceful and some were not, but it's all gotta be looked on an individual tribe case by case. Thats irrelavent though simpley do to the fact that this was their country and white Europeans came here and disrupted everything they were doing to ultamently kill just about everybody.

[YankNBurn]

Some Natives were peaceful and some were not, but it's all gotta be looked on an individual tribe case by case. Thats irrelavent though simpley do to the fact that this was their country and white Europeans came here and disrupted everything they were doing to ultamently kill just about everybody.

Seems you want a case by case basis for the "natives" but want to generalize all "whites". There were "whites" who lived very well among the "natives" as friend and some as family. Many "whites" were killed for defending the "natives" and thier ways.

[jonny2mad]

one minute your say that we have to look at things by a tribe by tribe basis, then you seem to say there was some sort of united country that somehow these nasty europeans took over

I understand you had lots of different tribes fighting over turf ,I see the europeans as just another tribe, native americans red indians or whatever you call them are human, europeans are human .

for whatever reason the europeans won this conflict, it could have been the crows or sioux but it wasnt, some tribes did badly in the new order some ended up owning casinos .

I dont see that america or the europeans are trying to kill off all the native americans they may disapear because of intermarriage but that doesnt mean they are all being killed off although that may have been what happened with certain tribes at certain tribes but thats not much different than could have happened with fighting between just red indian tribes

[Langox510x]

one minute your say that we have to look at things by a tribe by tribe basis, then you seem to say there was some sort of united country that somehow these nasty europeans took over



True, and I guess I forgot to acknowledge that, but what I said is that’s all irrelevant because whites weren't even from America, they sailed on their ships, and without co-existing, which could have been done, they forced Christianity on the Natives and took their land. Not all whites, but a good majority had some contribution.



I understand you had lots of different tribes fighting over turf ,I see the europeans as just another tribe, native americans red indians or whatever you call them are human, europeans are human.

Natives lived perfectly fine before Europe came over.



for whatever reason the europeans won this conflict, it could have been the crows or sioux but it wasnt, some tribes did badly in the new order some ended up owning casinos .



For what ever reason? Are you serious? Maybe it was their big guns. Anyways, the truth is that most casino owners are whites with 1/8 Native American in them who qualify to own casinos because their great great grandfather was Native and they probably don't even relate with other Native American's in any cultural way. Sad but true.



I dont see that america or the europeans are trying to kill off all the native americans they may disapear because of intermarriage but that doesnt mean they are all being killed off although that may have been what happened with certain tribes at certain tribes but thats not much different than could have happened with fighting between just red indian tribes



WTF?? It's already accepted by most historians that they were killed off by whites, and their European diseases.

[Komokwa]

one minute your say that we have to look at things by a tribe by tribe basis, then you seem to say there was some sort of united country that somehow these nasty europeans took over

You do have to look at each tribe as individuals because there was over one hundred different civilizations each one with its own form of language, government, religion and culture. After contact with Europeans and having their territories under occupation has united all the different tribes and in many ways we consider ourselves as one. Many tribes did not make it and when you kill all the people in one culture it is called genocide.



I understand you had lots of different tribes fighting over turf ,I see the europeans as just another tribe, native americans red indians or whatever you call them are human, europeans are human .

red Indians? First of all we are not red or from India. In Canada we are called First Nations and in USA we are called Native Americans.

Many tribes did fight over turf but ther was many differences between Europenian warfare and precontact North American warfare. Warfare in North America before contact did not have nearly as many deaths in a battle.

And it is very true that we are all humans, in fact there is no race biologically we are all the same. I believe this should mean that we all have the basic human right not to be harmed by others or have our homes taken from us by anyone.

for whatever reason the europeans won this conflict, it could have been the crows or sioux but it wasnt, some tribes did badly in the new order some ended up owning casinos .

Reasons why Europeans won was because of alcohol, germ warfare and they used tribes against each other. This was in no way a fair fight and even if it was it does not justify genocide. The person who wins the war is not always right.


I dont see that america or the europeans are trying to kill off all the native americans they may disapear because of intermarriage but that doesnt mean they are all being killed off although that may have been what happened with certain tribes at certain tribes but thats not much different than could have happened with fighting between just red indian tribes

No we will not die from intermarriage that only makes us grow and be stronger, since there is no such thing as race. As long as we keep our traditions and continue to sing our songs we will not go anywhere no matter what our skin colour.

America and the Europeans did try and kill all the natives off first with guns then with germ warfare, then with eugenics and residential schools. how the hell could you not see that? You really need to do some research on the things I just listed.

[tigerlily]

& am I right in saying the North American Buffalo was wiped-out deliberately so to deprive the North American Indians with their stable life-dependency resource?.

horses were also stolen and/or killed for this reason. (horses weren't used for the same reasons as buffalo though) custer's last stand anyone?

ppl don't want to feel guilt over anything, especially over something their ancestors did a long time ago, so they tend to make excuses, dehumanize the victims, rationalize what happened... etc etc. it's pretty terrible. think about all the iraqi civilians we're killing right now. is it genocide? maybe not... but does anybody really talk about it?

[Komokwa]

ppl don't want to feel guilt over anything, especially over something their ancestors did a long time ago, so they tend to make excuses, dehumanize the victims, rationalize what happened... etc etc. it's pretty terrible. think about all the iraqi civilians we're killing right now. is it genocide? maybe not... but does anybody really talk about it?this is very true and many do not look at history from different perspectives they only allow themselves to see a one dimensional point of view written by the winning side. Most of the people who say things like "it happened in the past" and "well the Europeons won the war" usually get to use their white privlages in society and have no idea what it is like to be native. Some people really need to do some more research before they start to discuss a matter.

and good point on the Iraq situation I would say it is not right out genocide over there because they are not killing everyone but it is modern colonialism and I am sure the american government has some form of cultural genocide in their agenda in the way they want to westernize the iraq government system. but the two different situations do share the way people ignore and justify the acts of mass violence.

[Pepik]

It was tragic, but it wasn't a deliberate genocide.

[Komokwa]

It was tragic, but it wasn't a deliberate genocide.
Yes it was

in many cases whole tribes where killed off by Europeans. The real explorers where not the happy ones you learn about in elementry school they where mass murders who used violence to control,enslave and wipe out civilizations all in the name of thier monarcy and god.

if you look at the more current cultural genocide which happened with residental schools it was very deliberate. These schools took first nations children from homes and relocated them to schools with the purpose of assimilating them into white culture. Many children where abused and they where not aloud to speak thier languages or have anything to do with thier culture.

please explain how these acts where not deliberate.

[Pepik]

Yes they were treated badly. They were murdered and persecuted. But they were not systematically exterminated as part of a government plan to wipe them out. That's what a genocide is.

[hotwater]

The African Slave Trade and Holocaust was much worse :mad:


If you take into account the number of slaves that were transported overland to coastal european forts (the survival rate was around 50%) then 54,000 trips across the atlantic (in which millions more perished) and the many that died through sheer brutality and being overworked...it was much worse...


Hotwater

[tigerlily]

Yes they were treated badly. They were murdered and persecuted. But they were not systematically exterminated as part of a government plan to wipe them out. That's what a genocide is.

they almost were.... read on further in your history books. the american government tried to kill them off, chase them into little corners, how many american indians are even living today and why? read about custer's last stand and the laws surrounding that. look up 1850-1900 united states laws on the american indian "problem"

[Pepik]

Sorry, don't think it qualifies. The United States killed a lot of Germans and Japanese - but they weren't wars of genocide against Japan and Germany. Genocide has a specific meaning, not "lots of people got killed".

[dash]

It could be argued that the loss of 120 million from 1500 to 1800 isn't the same as the loss of 6 million people during World War II. 120 million dying over a 300 year period can't compare with millions of people dying in a couple years, with whole families killed. More than 120 million people have died in the last 300 years, does that mean it compares to germany's applied eugenics program based on darwin's theory of evolution? No it doesn't.

Also, ya can't forget that there were alot of deaths due to diseases and virii that the euro's had defences to that the natives didn't. That wasn't a planned biological attack, that was just something that happened. Europeans didn't get those defences by miracle, lots of them died as diseases spread through europe.

[fistermister]

Maybe a working definition of genocide is needed:

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




See Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide, 1948, 'Article Two', http://www.unhchr.ch/html/menu3/b/p_genoci.htm.

[Langox510x]

^^^When I was doing my history homework I thought about linking something from wikipedia which described how colonial American's went out and killed Native American's who refused to give up/move off of their lands.

[Komokwa]

I never once said they killed alot of people so that means it is genocide. I was saying that they killed entire tribes off. You need to realize that these tribes where different from each other with thier own languages,cultures and religions. Many of these tribes where killed off on purpose to the hands of europeans.

Try researching about residential schools, the whole purpose of them was to assimilate natives into white culture. These schools took little kids and did not let them learn anything about thier own culture, this is called cultural genocide.

and dash there is some documentation on deliberate viral attacks on natives, these where letters telling soldiers to give blankets infected with smallpox to certain tribes they were at war with, it has been awhile since i read this but maybe after I get off work I can look it up for you.

and I should have said this on my first post. I think the origional poster used the wrong method to bring up this genocide, I think it is not a good idea to put a value on these genocides and compare them against each other. This was a mistake by the origional poster because people now are trying to bring up other genocides to try and argue their point that "this one wasnt so bad because not as many people died." It is a horrible offence to kill off an entire culture no matter how many people you kill.

[Komokwa]

here is some info on germ warfare documented from letters between some europeans generals.

it is called the The Amherst letters

http://academic.udayton.edu/health/syllabi/Bioterrorism/00intro02.htm

[Langox510x]

I never once said they killed alot of people so that means it is genocide. I was saying that they killed entire tribes off. You need to realize that these tribes where different from each other with thier own languages,cultures and religions. Many of these tribes where killed off on purpose to the hands of europeans.
Nuff said.

[Pepik]

The smallpox blanket story is a myth.

Cultural repression is reprehensible, but genocide? What is it, musical genocide if you teach native americans western music? Genocide is a deliberate attempt to completely kill off all members of a group. What happened to the native americans was not genocide. You don't need to call it genocide to make it sound bad, it is already bad enough.

[Komokwa]

Cultural repression is reprehensible, but genocide? What is it, musical genocide if you teach native americans western music? Genocide is a deliberate attempt to completely kill off all members of a group. What happened to the native americans was not genocide. You don't need to call it genocide to make it sound bad, it is already bad enough.



Maybe you did not read fisters post above:
Fister defined genocide as: Genocide is a term defined by Article 2 of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (CPPCG) as "any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnic, 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."

What happened to First Nations in North America fits into every single one of these catorgories.

By your definition with having deliberate in there still applies in many cases. You are still ignoring my point on individual tribes.

Here are a few examples of tribes who had deliberate plans of extermination on from the Europeans: Narragansett ,Pequot and Arawak.


The smallpox blanket story is a myth.

well what I have read shows his letters which is a primary source of information. If you have any evidence to support that this is a myth or made up please share it with us.

[Komokwa]

a few more things to add



Cultural repression is reprehensible, but genocide? What is it, musical genocide if you teach native americans western music?

also this is a bad example you forgot to add that the teacher believes that they are superior and not allow the student to continue thier traditional music and then beat, rape and kill the student if they disagree or try and sing traditional songs.


You don't need to call it genocide to make it sound bad, it is already bad enough.

if it is alredy bad enough then why are you so determine to not label it genocide? what is your motive? are you really obsessed with the english langauge and really hate to see people have grammer errors?

My motive in calling it genocide is because I want people to know the truth in what really happened in North America (as well as many other parts of the world) from colonization. What the Europeans did with colonization fits into every single definition of genocide.

[Pepik]

also this is a bad example you forgot to add that the teacher believes that they are superior and not allow the student to continue thier traditional music and then beat, rape and kill the student if they disagree or try and sing traditional songs. No, actually I didnt forget that. You keep going back to this logic whereby I deny something is genocide, and they you claim that means I don't think its bad. The definition of genocide is not "doing bad stuff". if it is alredy bad enough then why are you so determine to not label it genocide? what is your motive? are you really obsessed with the english langauge and really hate to see people have grammer errors?I don't want the word to lose all meaning because people use it to advance their political agenda. My motive in calling it genocide is because I want people to know the truth in what really happened in North America (as well as many other parts of the world) from colonization. What the Europeans did with colonization fits into every single definition of genocide.Genocide is the deliberate and systematic elimination of an entire group of people. This is not what happened. As I said before, the fact that lots of people get killed doesn't make it genocide. Otherwise there was a genocide against the Amish a few weeks ago.

Teaching people what colonization did is a good idea. Misrepresenting it as genocide is not. You don't educate people by distorting history.

[Komokwa]

Genocide is the deliberate and systematic elimination of an entire group of people.



try researching those tribes I listed there was a deliberate and systematic elimination plans on them.

[Pepik]

You listed the "smallpox blanket" myth so I don't have a lot of faith in your research.

[Komokwa]

You listed the "smallpox blanket" myth so I don't have a lot of faith in your research.

well it does not matter about your faith in my research because I said try researching those tribes YOURSELF.

besides I said it was years ago when I learned about the smallpox thing in a history class and there are actual letters. I will say it again if you have any proof or anything which makes it a myth please share it with us. are these letters fake?

I have no faith in your research abilities because you seem to think you know everything which has happened to First Nations people and you have no idea about any of the tribes I listed. For me to say there was genocide by your definition all I have to do is find one tribe which had a deliberate attempt of killing them off. I said you think you know everything which happened because you would have to in order to take the stance that no genocide happened.

Do you really think that there was no deliberate killing of entire tribes?

and how does saying there was genocide advance anyones political agenda if it "was already bad enough"?

and why did you say my definition of genocide is doing something bad?

I listed the definition I was using (which is the same one as fisters)

Maybe a working definition of genocide is needed:

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




See Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide, 1948, 'Article Two', http://www.unhchr.ch/html/menu3/b/p_genoci.htm.

[Pepik]

Was there genocide against the Amish a few weeks ago? No, it was murder and murder is bad enough. There is no reason to call it anything else.

Now the native american tribes has lots of wars. Were they waging genocidal wars against each other? If no, they why wouldn't these wars be classified as genocidal?

The smallpox blanket myth has been widely debunked. The fact that a quick google search could tell you that suggests that you have never made any effort to look. Its a myth you want to believe because it supports your ideological interpretation of history.

http://www.plagiary.org/smallpox-blankets.pdf

You probably think are views are farther apart than they are. All I'm saying is that genocide is the wrong word. It seems strange to me that unless it is called genocide you seem to think there can be no criticism of colonialism in the United States.

[Komokwa]

Was there genocide against the Amish a few weeks ago? No, it was murder and murder is bad enough. There is no reason to call it anything else.

Now the native american tribes has lots of wars. Were they waging genocidal wars against each other? If no, they why wouldn't these wars be classified as genocidal?

The smallpox blanket myth has been widely debunked. The fact that a quick google search could tell you that suggests that you have never made any effort to look. Its a myth you want to believe because it supports your ideological interpretation of history.

http://www.plagiary.org/smallpox-blankets.pdf

You probably think are views are farther apart than they are. All I'm saying is that genocide is the wrong word. It seems strange to me that unless it is called genocide you seem to think there can be no criticism of colonialism in the United States.

did you realize we are talking about two different smallpox cases.

yours is the made up one of W churchhill about the US army in 1837 against the mandan

My link talk about the Engilsh army in 1763 during the french and indian war and it was during Pontiac's Rebellion . it was from a general Jeffrey Amherst and as far as I can tell by looking at the sources of what I have read had nothing to do with Churchill's lies.

What churchill did was a very terrible thing but I do not think we should dismiss all evidence of "smallpox warfare" just because one guy lied about it.

[Pepik]

it would have helped if you told me exactly what you were talking about instead of making me guess.

[Komokwa]

here is some info on germ warfare documented from letters between some europeans generals.

it is called the The Amherst letters

http://academic.udayton.edu/health/syllabi/Bioterrorism/00intro02.htm

I did tell you exactly what I was talking about, I even gave a link.

Maybe you should try something more then "a quick google search" next time.

[Pepik]

http://hnn.us/articles/7302.html

If there was a biological warfare attempt at genocide, why was there a smallpox vaccination program?

And how were wars between native american tribes not genocidal?

[Komokwa]

http://hnn.us/articles/7302.html

If there was a biological warfare attempt at genocide, why was there a smallpox vaccination program?

And how were wars between native american tribes not genocidal?
Well first of all you are still ignoring my point at different tribes. I do not think that there was a large scale biological warfare attept at every single Native person, but i do think there was attacks on individual tribes. most of the small pox and other viruses where spread through trade and many people died even before they had any contact with Europeans. and besides you are getting your dates mixed up again the vaccination program was in 1801 and was set up by the US government the one attack I mentioned was in 1763 by the English.


In the research I did a few years ago the warfare between tribes was much different then European warfare, in some battles between certain tribes there was no deaths. I am not going to deny that there could have been some genocidal warfare because I will not make the assumption that I know everything which happened between all the different tribes. Even with all the warfare not every single tribe was at war with each other. So if tribe A trys to kill off tribe B that does not make it right for the English to kill tribe C who had nothing to do with any of the conflict. Many of the tribes even helped the Europeans on genocidal attepts of other tribes. I am not saying that this never happened before the Europeans came I am saying that it happened during colonization.

[Komokwa]

here is an example of a deliberate plan of extermination


The payment for Indian scalps, including the scalps of Indian children, was written in the laws of Massachusetts. "The Acts and Resolves of the Province of Massachusetts Bay," Vol. I, states the rate for Indian scalps began at 50 pounds. The price for the scalp of Indian children under 10 was 10 pounds of silver.

The scalp law read:

"That there shall be paid out of the publick treasury of this province unto any party or parties that shall voluntarily go forth at their own charge, by commission as aforesaid, in the discovery and pursuit of the said Indian enemy and rebels, for every man or woman of the said enemy that shall be by them slain, the sum of fifty pounds; and for every child of the said enemy under the age of ten years that shall be by them slain, the sum of ten pounds . . .."

[Michaela]

Man's inhumanity to man in general is an activity I find appalling. I am a caucasian, but just because my skin is white does not mean that I behave in the same manner as other caucasians. And I do not assume that just because someone's skin is black, that that individual will conduct him/herself in the same manner as every other human whose skin is black in color.

From what I have learned over the years about how the Native American people were treated by the first Europeans who came here; it certainly appears as though they really got screwed by them, and basically the Indians have never been treated fairly or with any sense of ethics by others. It is written that the white man actually scalped the Indian first, not the other way around. But even our history books in the American public educational system schools taught us as children that the Indian scalped the white man first. Our country 's current judicial system is riddled with corruption - hell,even if you're white, your matter will not be handled in a just, ethical and fair manner. The judicial system has been reduced to a system that does not utilize the "right-versus-wrong" edict; and in a criminal matter, they don't really care if they snared the right guilty party who's responsible for commiting the crime - the Powers That Be just want a conviction in their pursuit of greed for money and power - and what should be the most important imperative - that being, capturing the real guilty party and seeing that retribution is done - is no longer the imperative. The impetus for resolving a case is getting that conviction; not getting the man who is really guilty of commiting that crime. So, the misconduct of the system not only serves to convict and imprison innocent people - it also serves to allow the real criminal to continue roaming around on the street, looking for more people to victimize. So, what's going on here is that the system that was put in place to maintain law and order is actually perpetuating and encouraging the continuance of criminal activity. And, this is all done under the guise of 'justice'. From my observation in my area, I'd say a majoriy of the 'Powers That Be' are caucasian, so these particular caucasians really haven't changed much in the deceitful, selfish way in which they choose to cause others harm. Except now, some white men are not just doing the Indian, they're doing their fellow man of any ethnicity; including their own racial group. So much for the "Progress of Man".

Like I said earlier, I am a caucasian, but it would never occur to me in a million years to go and take someone's land from them just because I wanted it, and it would be particularly prohibitive if I had to take someone's life just to do so. For me, it all boils down to how I was raised. My parents taught me that the only acceptable way of behaving in this world was by following these basic rules:

First and Foremost: "Don't take anything that's not yours - if it belongs to someone else, you don't touch it." "But, if you see something that belongs to someone else, and you see that they're not using it, and you have need for it .... then, ask them if you can have it. They will usually say yes." (To this day, I abide by this law that my father laid down ... and you know, he was right? I'd say 99% of the time when I've needed to ask for something, they said, "yes"!)

Second Rule: "You can catch more bees with honey than with vinegar. So, be nice to other people; and spread kindness. Be especially kind to old people, and if you see that they need help, do so."

Rule #3: When you're doing a job , do it right. Even if you're just scrubbing a floor, do it right. And it is just as important to do a job right whether you're doing it for yourself or whether you're getting paid to do it for someone else."

Number 4: Do not be greedy - greed will kill you.

Number 5: Never betray your own kind, and do not shit in your own back yard. And, do not favor or dislike another just because of the color of their skin. To do so is called being "prejudiced", and it is not acceptable.

Number 6: Be honorable and loyal. Do the right thing for the right reason.
Be accountable for your own actions if you make a mistake. It's okay to make a mistake if you look for the learning. Because if you make one mistake, you have the opportunity to learn one new thing. If you make two mistakes, you can choose to learn two new things; and so on.

And last, but by no means least, Rule #7: Tell the truth. Do not lie. Do not ever compromise your own morals or values to make a buck or to get ahead. And do not compromise another human to do so either. It is necessary to be the kind of human who can be trusted, no matter what. If your word is not good, you have nothing.

These rules were ingrained into me during my formative years, so I abide by them today. I think it is important that we all realize that in all ethnic groups, there are the good ones and there are the bad ones. Prejudice is a very ugly thing, and it does serious damage. I'd love to encourage everyone to wipe the slate of the past clean and start anew from right now; and consider each new person we encounter as an individual as opposed to thinking of them as "one of the white people" or "one of the black people" or "one of the Native American people" or "one of the Mexican people": and so on and so on and so on. But I would be living in a dream world to believe that we, as a society, could pull that off; because I dare say we couldn't. I understand that I think this way because of the way I was raised and also because I have been fortunate enough to not have been victimized by another group of people; nor have I lost any of those that are dear to me just because they were white or pink or purple. I've had things stolen from me, but it wasn't my homeland, and it wasn't my life; so it's easy for me to be grateful and hopeful. I cannot fathom why and how some people can abuse other people so hatefully and cause them such harm - it is the furthest thing from my mind, and the way the Indians have been treated is appalling; just like the people in Hitler's concentration camps were treated is equally appalling. I just don't understand how things like that can continually happen, because I find it incomprehensible how any kind of motivation could possibly be worth it.

Sincere Regards, Michaela

________________________________________________

"They will never make a perfect heart until they make one that
can't be broken."...... The Wizard, "The Wizard of Oz"
________________________________________________

[palaeopeasant]

Genocide was not committed by the Europeans in N America, but wars between Native groups WERE genocidal? That is what Pepik is attempting to assert.

I am unaware of any history of any native nation in America wiping out another, enslaving them, making them a subservient caste, etc. Their warfare was quite a different thing. Being defeated by the Iroquois meant you got assimilated into their widespread social system which would probably in the end benefit you economically.

Being defeated by the "whites" meant you lost your land, most of your people, had your religion criminalized, and your descendants got to live as 4th-class citizens with virtually no rights.

There is a BIG difference between Euroimperialism (or Arab imperialism, or Chinese, or whichever) and what went on in America. The only example (endlessly repeated) of Native imperialism which is raised is that of the Aztecs. They were an anomaly. And they were headed for a fall with or without Cortés, since all their neighbors hated them.

Native Americans are humans and capable of all the crap all other humans are capable of. No "Noble Savage" myth here. But you simply cannot deny that they were victimized by genocide. No reasonable arguments against calling it genocide have been raised here. Some are still alive so therefore there was no genocide? Many Jews are still alive, so Hitler wasn't capable of genocide?

Get over it. Modern American nations were all founded on genocide and slavery. Rather than pointlessly deny this, work to make the future better than the past.

[scratcho]

www.pbs.org/weta/the west/peoples/s-z/sherman.htm

[Razorofoccam]

No reasonable arguments against calling it genocide have been raised here. Some are still alive so therefore there was no genocide? Many Jews are still alive, so Hitler wasn't capable of genocide?
Get over it. Modern American nations were all founded on genocide and slavery. Rather than pointlessly deny this, work to make the future better than the past. Peasant

Agree. Occams lower danube stock was slaughtered by the turks, By the
10's of thousands. Does he whine about it? Does he hunt down turks and make them pay..lol..how stupid. It was centuries ago.

All WE need to do .. is learn from our mistakes.

Occam

[dd3stp233]

"I am unaware of any history of any native nation in America wiping out another, enslaving them, making them a subservient caste, etc." - palaeopeasant

The Navajo tribes did capture and sell into slavery Hopi women and children. The Hopi word for the Navajo is "tesavu" which means head-pounder, meaning the favoured way the Navajo killed Hopi peoples. Navajo raiders stole Hopi crops, raped their women, stole their livestock and murdered their children. All of this against a peaceful tribe. This is only one example, there are probably many other horrible occurences between tribes but as there are few written histories, all there is to go on is myths and legends.

[Razorofoccam]

Michaela

Well said

Occam

[jonnydisaster5]

well we know he aint no navajoe. they only speak when there moms or wives are murderin em or vice versa.if they live in the city there shit outta werk. nortenos talk big but sortenos look out.southsiders sorta. like if tommy wasnt a fat cunt.so much fer culture kid. always sortenos puto.thats like boneheads arguin bout hitler bein a werkin class hero. sure kid find me sum families that dun well by his shiot.fags love the nazi uniform why do you?pretend yer locked up hmm?"they got boots i got boots. but they wanna suck the bhalls of sum weakhearted bitch as cuntsd. oh gee that hurts. scots mexicans yup thats it. give u sum werk n you be glad to get it. scots make shit food tho.chelsdea punks bah nevermind.you can always tell folks by whose got werk.

[palaeopeasant]

>>>The Navajo tribes did capture and sell into slavery Hopi
>>>women and children.

Yes. Slavery existed. But it was of captives and so forth, I know of no instance of any entire group being rounded up and enslaved because of a defeat in battle. This is what the Europeans (among others in the "Old World) did.

Homo sapiens is a nasty bastard. It must be genetic. However, whatever Native American asshole might have committed whatever crime does not bear on this issue of what was done politically, socially, culturally, economically to Native America by the conquering invaders.

The sad thing is that it continues. In the 1980's the Guatemalan govt with assistance from the USA (& Israeli) govts tortured and killed some 200,000 people, overwhelming Mayans, while the world sat silent. To think that this can not be put within the context of the centuries of genocide against Native Americans is naive. The racism and oppression of Mayans in Guatemala is overtly based on their Native identity. The war of terror against them was part of a pattern of smashing any rising of Native power...and in this case economic power, not military.

The genocide in the USA is now usually termed "cultural genocide". People forced off their little remaining land get a govt subsidy to rent a trailer in some town and soon are assimilated into the USA poor. This mainstreaming is considered to be positive social movement, by the powers that be. Separate, independent and DIFFERENT Native ways cannot be tolerated by the corporate Borg... Resistance is futile, you will be assimilated. A recent example of this behavior by the USA govt would be the well-known case of Big Mountain, an attempt to dislodge traditional sheep-farming populations and move them to Arizona towns.

I don't think it is extreme even to use the word "genocide" for this, since it is a part of a larger history and pattern of extermination, and simply represents "genocide lite"...whatever people of the original indigenous blood remain, must be culturally whitewashed (no pun intended). I would not use the word "genocide" for every form of cultural assimilation, but in this case it applies, since it follows so soon after the forcible cultural re-programming of the boarding schools, and that so soon after the more blatant genocide of the gun.

[Emo Bitch]

Thats just sad...
what makes a person to HATE a whole group of people to the point where they want to them ALL...
For my people, we were seen as nothing...
the army did test on them..now most those people are sick and dying because of it...
even sterilized the women...to control the population...
many groups of people came to my home land...
from all over the world...
all of them were kicked out from where they came from...
somehow they made to my little island...
did my people kill them because we didnt want them there...
no...
and we all know how small Puerto Rico is...
we learned to live together as outcast....
is it so hard to work together...
and not kill people just because you didnt like them for some reason...

[palaeopeasant]

Yes, there are many examples, unfortunately.

One not often mentioned is that which was visited on Europe. Europe in later centuries is the origin of a global imperialist system which ravaged most countries, but the people of Europe were in fact the first victims of that wave of madness. For Europeans it began mostly with the Romans.

Everything later done to the peoples of the "3rd world" was first done in Europe. Enough centuries have passed that it is forgotten that the identity of brutal conquerors has been imposed on the people of Tuscany, Guyenne and Cornwall, and their own identity suppressed. Language and culture have also been lost, much also by means of brutal suppression. This continued in blatant form into the post-Medieval period with the Inquisition and witchburnings.

Other waves of genocidal madness emerged from Arabia and Mongolia. The Mongols threw plague-infested bodies over city walls to infect the inhabitants and enable an easy conquest. The Muslim conquest of northern India is claimed by many to entail history's largest genocide. Other arguments are made for the same area, but at the time of the Aryan conquest around 1500 bce.

One cannot call every ethnicity-specific injustice a "genocide". "-cide" means "kill". Pesticide, herbicide. "Geno-" = "type", as in the biological category "genus". Killing based on ethnicity. "Race". Religion. Type. Even a murder committed for racist motive is genocidal, even if a fullblown genocide is not in place institutionally. The murder of Amy Biehls in Capetown was genocidal, but there is no genocide occurring of white Americans by South Africans. The mass graves in Bosnia were the result of genocide, because it was institutionalized and possessing the power to be implemented.

As there are global movements against various categories of injustice, there needs to be an increased consciousness of genocide, and a commitment by the military powers of the world (USA, France, etc.) to step in quickly and effectively to halt genocide when it first manifests. Remember the years we waited until Clinton finally acted to stop the madness in Bosnia, and then only after the Croats had achieved a major victory over Serbian forces.

Never again! This applies not only the Nazi Holocaust but to all of them!

[dirtydog]

You are ignoring the fact that there were many slaughters by natives of whites, beginning with Roanoke, Virginia, a white settlement which was exterminated (1585-1588).


The French and Indian war was generally a good time for the Mohawks, who enjoyed celebrating small skirmishes by burning their captives alive.The French allied with the Wyandot, because they were the most advanced trading nation at the time. The Iroquois tended to be allies of the English, who took advantage of their hatred of the Wyandot and their new French allies. The introduction of European weapons increased the severity of wars, and, by about 1650, the Iroquois had almost completely destroyed the Wyandot tribes. The Jesuit mission of Sainte-Marie among the Hurons, near modern Midland, Ontario, was one focus of Iroquois attacks, and many of the Jesuit missionaries were killed (see Canadian Martyrs); the mission was eventually dismantled by the settlers so as to prevent capture in 1648. ("Wyandot", in www.wikipedia.org (http://www.wikipedia.org/))




Another example is Forty Fort, Pennsylvania, wiped out in 1778 by Iroquois in the Wyoming Valley Massacre.The Wyoming Valley battle and massacre was an encounter during the American Revolutionary War between American Patriots and Loyalists accompanied by Iroquois raiders that took place in Wyoming Valley, Pennsylvania, on July 3, 1778. More than three hundred Patriots were killed in a battle followed by a massacre, in which the Iroquois raiders hunted and killed fleeing Patriots before torturing to death the thirty to forty who had surrendered. On November 11, 1778, Loyalist Captain Walter Butler (the son of John Butler) led two companies of Butler's Rangers along with about 320 Iroquois led by Cornplanter, including 30 Mohawks led by Brant, on an assault at Cherry Valley in New York. While the fort was surrounded, Indians began to massacre civilians in the village, killing and scalping about 33 people, including women and children. In vain, Brant tried to stop the rampage. The town was plundered and destroyed.(www.wikipedia.org (http://www.wikipedia.org/))
This led to a punitive war (Sullivan expedition of 1779) by the Americans against the Iroquois in New York, which was temporarily successful. About forty Iroquois villages were destroyed, by order of George Washington.
The practice of scalping, introduced by the British, was adopted by the Iroquois with relish, and used against whites when the British allied with natives during the War of 1812. War by natives of various tribes upon white settlers in the Ohio valley was a continuous fact of life up through the earlier nineteenth century.

So yes, there were many small wars, all throughout the colonies, of white against red. In fact the natives could be said to be in the right more often than not, since they objected to having their lands seized by foreigners. By the earlier nineteenth century, after two hundred years of up front, personal dirty little wars between natives and settlers, whites pretty well had their minds made up.

None of this excuses the broken treaties and slaughters of natives in the western U.S. throughout the nineteenth century.

As for 120,000,000 dead, I never heard a figure of more than 2,000,000 for the living population of natives in North America. So, you're off by at least a couple of zeros there, friend.

[palaeopeasant]

The violence you mention is all involved with Europeans. Anthropological analysis of Native remains has indicated that the level of violence BETWEEN Natives increased greatly upon contact with the whites. We know that the English and French both engaged in much encouragement of the Native allies to commit acts of violence against their enemies. An atrocious example of this you did not mention was the Iroquois slaughter of Huron at the instigation of the French.

The point about Native societies is that they were not behaving as imperialists when the Europeans arrived. In most cases they were shocked when the behavior of Europeans was displayed. The crimes committed under the Spanish, French, Portuguese, British, USA and other flags are of incomparable magnitude.

This habit by defenders of Western "expansion" of picking up on ANY sin committed by a Native that we can find as an excuse for whatever the whites did...it doesn't wash. That is like saying that since some French were murderers, rapists and collaborators, we cannot fault the Nazis for invading and brutalizing them. Doesn't work for France, doesn't work for Native America.

[dirtydog]

The violence you mention is all involved with Europeans. Anthropological analysis of Native remains has indicated that the level of violence BETWEEN Natives increased greatly upon contact with the whites. We know that the English and French both engaged in much encouragement of the Native allies to commit acts of violence against their enemies. An atrocious example of this you did not mention was the Iroquois slaughter of Huron at the instigation of the French.

The point about Native societies is that they were not behaving as imperialists when the Europeans arrived. In most cases they were shocked when the behavior of Europeans was displayed. The crimes committed under the Spanish, French, Portuguese, British, USA and other flags are of incomparable magnitude.

This habit by defenders of Western "expansion" of picking up on ANY sin committed by a Native that we can find as an excuse for whatever the whites did...it doesn't wash. That is like saying that since some French were murderers, rapists and collaborators, we cannot fault the Nazis for invading and brutalizing them. Doesn't work for France, doesn't work for Native America.'Huron' (French for 'peasant') was a name given the Wyandot by the French.
Before the French arrived, the Wyandot had already been in conflict with the Iroquois to the south. Once the European powers became involved, this conflict intensified significantly. The French allied with the Wyandot, because they were the most advanced trading nation at the time. The Iroquois tended to be allies of the English, who took advantage of their hatred of the Wyandot and their new French allies. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Huron_Indians)
I don't suppose that when you say 'any SIN committed by a native' you are including a little thing like organized warfare by hundreds of Indians. You don't wipe out a fort like Forty Fort with its high palisades by sending in a hunting party of five or six guys. In fact, the Iroquois under leaders like Brant must have been unusually organized and dedicated to create a force of hundreds of men, given that almost all North American Indians are hunters and gatherers, not given to working together in large groups the way whites do.

You might enjoy the movie 'Black Robe', available on video, detailing the life of a seventeenth century Jesuit among the Wyandots. The Wyandot/Mohawk conflict takes up roughly the second half of the film.

As for American generals Washington and Sullivan, their campaign to destroy Iroquois was deliberately genocidal.
The Sullivan Expedition, also known as the Sullivan-Clinton Expedition, was a campaign led by Major General John Sullivan and General James Clinton against Loyalists ("Tories") and the four nations of the Iroquois who had sided with the British in the American Revolutionary War. The expedition occurred during the summer of 1779 and only had one major battle, at Newtown along the Chemung River in western New York, in which the Tories and Iroquois were decisively defeated. Sullivan's army then carried out a scorched earth campaign, methodically destroying at least forty Iroquois villages throughout what is now upstate New York, in retaliation for Iroquois and Tory attacks against American settlements earlier in the war. The devastation created great hardships for the Iroquois that winter, and many starved or froze to death. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sullivan_Expedition)

Washington and Sullivan weren't in the mood to be politically correct. As leaders of threatened white settlers, they were in a life and death struggle, and they knew it. They meant to eliminate those who were out to scalp them, shoot them and burn them alive. They knew they were facing a foe who took no prisoners except as toys for torture and execution.

The situation was arguably different after the civil war, when white Americans were much more numerous, well armed and technically advanced than they were a century earlier. Quite possibly (though I don't have the facts here) the plains Indians were more vulnerable than the Iroquois because they didn't have large numbers and they didn't have forest cover for concealment, to the same extent.

I happen to be white. I see it as equally tragic when native kills white and when white kills native.

[KJeezy]

The difference between white killing natives and natives killing whites is simple: the whites had no care of age, gender, anything. The natives were more aiming towards white soldiers. By the way, 1997 had natives still being displaced from I believe the Colorado River area, to mine minerals. I just wrote a paper on it this very subject, and my main source was American Indian Holocaust and Survival: A Population History since 1492 by Russell Thorton.
Very helpful book, with census figures of the population decline. Surprisingly for the topic, it is not heavily biased. Kyle

[brainstew]

hmm well apart from the fact the first post was a cut and paste from that webbsite you linked to Id be interested in seeing a breakdown of figures for this 120million dead .

I had a discussion a few years ago and someone who claimed that americans had commited the worst act of genocide in history, I dont think the facts back that up .
I think its likely that the islamic invasion of india alone could show higher numbers .

also if you look at the actions of the indian tribes to each other and to captives if you look at what the aztec ect ect used to do to each other , were they any better .

I think one of the great myths is of this peaceful native american who was just picked on by the nasty white man I think this smacks of racism , most people in history have been pretty nasty and have competed for resources

What does it matter who had higher numbers? He's trying to say that a huge genocide took place and it is being erased by the very nation that committed it. Noone is innocent in history, but what happened to the Native Americans wasn't fair.

[brainstew]

The African Slave Trade and Holocaust was much worse :mad:


If you take into account the number of slaves that were transported overland to coastal european forts (the survival rate was around 50%) then 54,000 trips across the atlantic (in which millions more perished) and the many that died through sheer brutality and being overworked...it was much worse...


Hotwater
U cant said one was worse then another, at least the African slave trade is taught in schools and through many days celebrated at a month on the reflection og African history, this was suffocated under a pile of lies.