Traitorfish
The Tighnahulish Kid
White people are a pretty rebellious set of ethnic groups, what with all their not-recognising-the-Son-of-Heaven and whatnot. Shall we get the cattle-cars ready?
That man is wrong. Many Native nations were not nomads but settled farmers. The Iroquois, Cherokee, Chickasaw, Creek, Seminoles, Choctaw, Pueblo, and others were settled. The Cherokee had American style houses, their own written script, a newspaper, and towns. They were also American allies, and the Supreme Court actually ordered the government to honor the Cherokees' right to their land, which President Andrew Jackassson blatantly and explicitly disregarded. You cannot possibly make the argument that they were "nomads" who "stood in the way".
Nope, that's incorrect again. The competent state could presumably include Armenia, which was also the site of massacres etc. The same could be said of Greece and its Turkish issues.DemonicAppleGuY said:Anyway, @Masada, so then is the recognition of genocide individual to states then? Since the Turks don't recognize the genocide I guess it wasn't a genocide.
I work funny hours.
He probably could have stated it more eloquently. We wanted to push our enemies off their land. It just so happened they were another ethnic group from us.Fair enough then. You just want to round up ethnic groups and stick them in camps. Nothing wrong with that.
Hmm, I wasn't aware. I'd wager it would be remembered far less negatively now had they won though anyway. I'm stating the obvious here though.Heydrich was setting up a "Museum of a Dead Race" in Prague, so that seems doubtful.
Since Charles Manson has never accepted guilt for the Manson Family murders, I guess they weren't murders then.
Traitorfish said:White people are a pretty rebellious set of ethnic groups, what with all their not-recognising-the-Son-of-Heaven and whatnot. Shall we get the cattle-cars ready?
So then what state exists that was involved in the supposed genocide of the natives to the US that recognizes it as a genocide?Nope, that's incorrect again. The competent state could presumably include Armenia, which was also the site of massacres etc. The same could be said of Greece and its Turkish issues.
So then what state exists that was involved in the supposed genocide of the natives to the US that recognizes it as a genocide?
The US does not recognize it. And the US is the only remaining state that was involved.
So then what state exists that was involved in the supposed genocide of the natives to the US that recognizes it as a genocide?
DemonicAppleGuY said:So then what state exists that was involved in the supposed genocide of the natives to the US that recognizes it as a genocide?
The US does not recognize it. And the US is the only remaining state that was involved.
Article 1 said:The Contracting Parties confirm that genocide, whether committed in time of peace or in time of war, is a crime under international law which they undertake to prevent and to punish.
Article 8 said:Any Contracting Party may call upon the competent organs of the United Nations to take such action under the Charter of the United Nations as they consider appropriate for the prevention and suppression of acts of genocide or any of the other acts enumerated in Article 3.
When you read views about Manifest Destiny, it really seems that people thought they were living in an entirely empty world that could simply be expanded into. There was no conscious plan to kill off Native Americans so they could expand. Instead, it seemed that Native Americans were generally dealt with on an ad-hock basis with the goal of simply having them moved somewhere else. I don't think, at least before the Indian Appropriations Act of 1871 and the Dawes Act, that any conscious plan to remove Indian identity could be seen.
Don't get me wrong, forcing people out of an area so as to destroy their ethnic presence is ethnic cleansing, same as in Bosnia and Kosovo. I'm just saying that, if a conscious plan and intent matter, Lebansraum and certainly the Holocaust were far worse.
DemonicAppleGuY said:I'm not arguing we weren't attempting to destroy them. I'm arguing we weren't doing it because of who they were.
DemonicAppleGuY said:ex. Settling the New World. The natives and the colonials were not super enthusiastic about working together. So the colonials did what any sensible people would do. Slaughter the natives and take the land.
DemonicAppleGuY said:In the world we live in today I think it is hard to make the argument that we would have been better off had we not slaughtered them. Sure we feel bad now, but would we do it all over again if given the reason? Certainly I think.
DemonicAppleGuY said:Us [White people] taking them [Native Americans] in as our own and attempting to assimilate them rather than slaughter them attests to the fact that we did not have the intent of wiping them out as a group, just wiping out their ability to have stuff. It was simply too late to assimilate the older ones. They were set in their ways. As were we.
DemonicAppleGuY said:If they have nice land are you not destroying a "geographic" group rather than simply an ethnic group?
That's irrelevant. Having an overarching plan is not a requirement for genocide. It does help the prosecutors, certainly. But ad-hoc death camps are still, well, death camps.Louis XXIV said:There was no conscious plan to kill off Native Americans so they could expand.
Louis XXIV said:I'm just saying that, if a conscious plan and intent matter, Lebansraum and certainly the Holocaust were far worse.
I think at a certain point it ceases to be profitable to hair-split over which ethnic cleansing or genocide was worse when the simple answer is they're all abhorrent in the extreme. Really, once you hit a certain point its all statistical and sort of meaningless.tokala said:I did not suggest that the Holocaust and the American Indian ethnic cleansing/Genocide were anywhere close on the scale of abhorrence/evilness whatever you like to call it.
That's not actually true. The Nazis full-well intended to exterminate most of the Slavs. They just never had the time to do it. We have pretty good evidence of what they intended to do too.tokala said:The extermination of a large fraction of the people that happened to live there was a means to an end, not a goal by itself.
nope, that's incorrect again. The competent state could presumably include armenia, which was also the site of massacres etc. The same could be said of greece and its turkish issues.