US Native American policy considered genocide?

[KC]

I don't think you can call it a "genocide" since the death of millions of Native Americans wasn't "deliberate".

[Whitten]

Originally posted by Zampanò@April 16, 2007 01:55 pm
I don't think you can call it a "genocide" since the death of millions of Native Americans wasn't "deliberate".
They deliberatly slashed their food source down to marginal levels in order to "eliminate the threat" thats deliberate genocide.

[KC]

They deliberatly slashed their food source down to marginal levels in order to "eliminate the threat" thats deliberate genocide.

They killed Native Americans for their land, not because they're Native American. If they were interested in eliminating Native Americans they wouldn't have traded with them, and they definitely wouldn't have allowed assimilation.

EDIT: The title of this topic should be changed, as this has nothing to do with genocide, and certainly has nothing to do with American-Indians.

[Martin Blank]

Originally posted by Zampanò@April 16, 2007 10:17 am

They deliberatly slashed their food source down to marginal levels in order to "eliminate the threat" thats deliberate genocide.

They killed Native Americans for their land, not because they're Native American. If they were interested in eliminating Native Americans they wouldn't have traded with them, and they definitely wouldn't have allowed assimilation.

EDIT: The title of this topic should be changed, as this has nothing to do with genocide, and certainly has nothing to do with American-Indians.
First, I think you're arguing semantics over the specific use of the term genocide -- the strict versus the broad definition. I would argue that the term fits, given that what happened to the Native American nations was a systematic and deliberate campaign of murder aimed at marginalizing or eliminating their presence in North America. Whether the "official" reasons were land acquisition or racial superiority matters little.

Second, while the wiping out of Native Americans because they were Native Americans was not always official government policy (there were times when it was expressly stated), there was always a social undercurrent to the actions of Europeans and white Americans that was guided by a white supremacist view of indigenous people as "inferior" and "savage".

Third, not all Native Americans were accepted into the assimilation program. Only those who were seen as able to "pass" -- like Robin's mother, comrade! -- were put into the assimilation program (which was a hell on earth). Hitler's Nazis had a similar program with elements of the German Jewish community early on; it was thought that, in a few generations, their "Jewishness" could be bred out of them. They learned this technique from the Americans (around Native Americans and, to a lesser extent, Africans) and British.

Miles

[KC]

First, I think you're arguing semantics over the specific use of the term genocide -- the strict versus the broad definition. I would argue that the term fits, given that what happened to the Native American nations was a systematic and deliberate campaign of murder aimed at marginalizing or eliminating their presence in North America. Whether the "official" reasons were land acquisition or racial superiority matters little.

The problem with this assertion is that this wasn't a systematic and deliberate campaign against Native Americans; it was a systematic and deliberate campaign against Native American culture and therefore also the Native American claim to land. This wasn't a targeted killing of Native Americans; it was a targeted destruction of Native American culture. If this was an attack on the people themselves, then assimilation would have never been tolerated.


Second, while the wiping out of Native Americans because they were Native Americans was not always official government policy (there were times when it was expressly stated), there was always a social undercurrent to the actions of Europeans and white Americans that was guided by a white supremacist view of indigenous people as "inferior" and "savage".

Of course there was, but this doesn't equate to a "systematic killing" of Native Americans.


Third, not all Native Americans were accepted into the assimilation program. Only those who were seen as able to "pass" -- like Robin's mother, comrade! -- were put into the assimilation program (which was a hell on earth). Hitler's Nazis had a similar program with elements of the German Jewish community early on; it was thought that, in a few generations, their "Jewishness" could be bred out of them. They learned this technique from the Americans (around Native Americans and, to a lesser extent, Africans) and British.

Yes but the fact that the assimilation program even existed is proof of tolerance of Native Americans to some extent. You could argue that after the assimilation program was put to a halt that genocide started, but I would disagree on the basis that there was no systematic and deliberate massacre of Native Americans. There was killing and fighting over land, yes, but this doesn't equate to "systematic and deliberate massacre".

[rouchambeau]

It was deliberate. Mass slaughter, smallpox in blankets distributed to natives, forced migration, splitting up of tribal lands...


Of course there was, but this doesn't equate to a "systematic killing" of Native Americans
Just like genocide doesn't mean that the only crime committed is mass murder.

[Jesus Christ!]

What definition of Genocide are you using that the American-Indians don't fit in? According to 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."

I'd say American Indians fit pretty well into that definition.

[Martin Blank]

Originally posted by Zampanò+April 16, 2007 06:53 pm--> (Zampanò @ April 16, 2007 06:53 pm)The problem with this assertion is that this wasn't a systematic and deliberate campaign against Native Americans; it was a systematic and deliberate campaign against Native American culture and therefore also the Native American claim to land. This wasn't a targeted killing of Native Americans; it was a targeted destruction of Native American culture. If this was an attack on the people themselves, then assimilation would have never been tolerated.[/b]
The destruction of Native American culture is, by the definition posted by JC! above (which is a pretty decent one), a form of genocide, as is forced assimilation.


Originally posted by Zampanò@April 16, 2007 06:53 pm
Of course there was, but this doesn't equate to a "systematic killing" of Native Americans.
The Native American population above the Rio Grande at the time when Columbus first landed here is estimated at upwards of 18 million. Today, only about 3.3 million exist in the U.S. and Canada. That screams systematic to me.


Zampanò@April 16, 2007 06:53 pm
Yes but the fact that the assimilation program even existed is proof of tolerance of Native Americans to some extent. You could argue that after the assimilation program was put to a halt that genocide started, but I would disagree on the basis that there was no systematic and deliberate massacre of Native Americans. There was killing and fighting over land, yes, but this doesn't equate to "systematic and deliberate massacre".
No, because the assimilation program was meant to eliminate Native Americans, not "mainstream" them into American society. It was meant to make them white.

Miles

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

Zampano, I've got to ask if you consider the Ethiopian court's recent ruling that Mengistu oversaw a "genocide" accurate.

[Black Dagger]

Originally posted by Zampanò@April 16, 2007 11:55 pm
I don't think you can call it a "genocide" since the death of millions of Native Americans wasn't "deliberate".
What would you 'call' it then? 'Mass killing'? 'Ethnic cleansing'? What are the differences between these terms and your understanding of 'genocide'?

[KC]

Nevermind. Forget about this whole thread. I was for a moment looking at this whole situation from a bad point of view for some reason, which I haven't done before, and which I probably won't do again. So forget it.

[rouchambeau]

Was this post split from another thread or something? I know how easy it is to get in a heated debate with someone and rather than pick their battles people will agrue any point possible.

[Martin Blank]

Originally posted by [email protected] 17, 2007 06:08 pm
Was this post split from another thread or something? I know how easy it is to get in a heated debate with someone and rather than pick their battles people will agrue any point possible.
It was split from a query thread about good books on Native American issues. That thread is now in another subforum.

Miles

[OneBrickOneVoice]

Originally posted by Zampanò@April 16, 2007 01:55 pm
I don't think you can call it a "genocide" since the death of millions of Native Americans wasn't "deliberate".
of course it was. Native Americans were at the best seen as "noble savages" meaning savages who could be brought to the level of the white man. This was coined by Jefferson, and suprisingly, was one of the better views. Most people, especially in the regular army corps were flat out racists and white nationalist types. That's where the whole "redskin" terminology came from. Also keep in mind, you were moving to the concentration camp reservation based on your skin color and heritage. That's why there were no poor whites or working class whites in the concentration camps

[Avtomat_Icaro]

Meh...it all depends on how you would define genocide. When the UN came together to define it, the big guys (USSR, US, France, UK) made sure that the actual definition of genocide created by Raphael Lemkin was altered to such a level that these big guys would stay clean.

[RNK]

There doesn't need to be some malevolant central authority guiding a mass genocidal action for it to be considered genocide. Individually, and, yes, perhaps unconsciously, the entire settler population led to the mass deaths of almost the entire Native population. It took the Natives almost 400 years to regain the population they had when the white man first started to colonize.