Custer and Indian Wars, an antiheroic genocide?

Even if one were to accept that about Pope Pius XII (which is heavily debated), it still doesn't claim he's a Nazi. All the arguments there are that he didn't do enough to speak out against Hitler (possibly for selfish motivations). Considering Hitler had a plan to kidnap and murder the Pope, my personal view is that his range of options were quite limited, but, either way, he's not a Nazi.
 
Certainly not in the sense of being a card-carrying Nazi, that's right, he wasn't, I agree.

Still, as I say, it's controversial.
 
In fairness, Hitler had a plan to kidnap and murder pretty much everybody, probably including Hitler. (He actually pulled that one off in the end, too, although the way he went about it feels pretty slapdash, so it's hard to know if he was sticking to a plan.)
 
You can't blame him for being slapdash at the end, though. Everyone let him down. Including himself.

And he may have had Parkinsons. Shooting yourself in the head isn't easy with a shaking hand.
 
What would you accept as proof? Are we talking a couple of wikipedia links or a doctoral thesis?
 
Explicit National Policy.

A Bill in Congress, a Presidential Executive Order, a Supreme Court decision or a Federal Bureau Directive explicitly ordering the genocide of Indians.
 
Explicit National Policy.

A Bill in Congress, a Presidential Executive Order, a Supreme Court decision or a Federal Bureau Directive explicitly ordering the genocide of Indians.
Ah, okay. Leading examples would be the Civilization Fund Act of 1819, Indian Removal Act of 1830, and the Indian Appropriations Acts of 1851, 1871, 1885 and 1889. Between they outline a policy by which Indians should be dispossessed of their land and either expelled, assimilated, or exterminated, and as you eventually run out of land to expel them, that in practice means assimilated or exterminated, both of which constitute genocide as recognised under modern international law.
 
Removal Acts

Yes, sorry. I was referring to the most well-known one, concerning the Five Civilized Tribes.

Those Five Civilized Tribes were already to a large extent assimilated (peacefully, not forcibly) and lived in a similar way as European colonists, yet despite this fact they were removed from their lands. They were expelled from large and fertile territories to a much smaller and infertile reservation in Oklahoma, so food shortages in their new homeland were going to be inevitable (unless large part of them died before getting there, which indeed was the case).
 
Ah, okay. Leading examples would be the Civilization Fund Act of 1819, Indian Removal Act of 1830, and the Indian Appropriations Acts of 1851, 1871, 1885 and 1889. Between they outline a policy by which Indians should be dispossessed of their land and either expelled, assimilated, or exterminated, and as you eventually run out of land to expel them, that in practice means assimilated or exterminated, both of which constitute genocide as recognised under modern international law.

Civilization Fund Act of March 3, 1819.

"The Act encouraged activities of benevolent societies in providing education for Native Americans and authorized an annuity to stimulate the "civilization process".

Indian Removal Act of 1830.

"The Indian Removal Act was a law passed by Congress on May 28, 1830, during the presidency of Andrew Jackson. It authorized the president to negotiate with Indian tribes in the Southern United States for their removal to federal territory west of the Mississippi River in exchange for their homelands."

Indian Appropriations Acts

"The 1851 Indian Appropriations Act allocated funds to move western tribes onto reservations. Reservations were protected and enclosed by the US government."

None of these acts explicitly call for the extermination of the Indians. "...that in practice means assimilated or exterminated" - is your inference, possibly implicit policy. You do know what the word explicit means, right?
 
I didn't claim that the Acts were each and every one an explicit declarations of genocidal intent, only that they were amount to an explicit policy of genocide.
 
I didn't claim that the Acts were each and every one an explicit declarations of genocidal intent, only that they were amount to an explicit policy of genocide.

Then we are agreed there was no explicit national policy of genocide. There were indeed policies that, ex post facto, might be interpreted as implicit policy.
 
It's evening over here, but I shall cherish your intentions none the less.
 
Top Bottom