Genocide/democide/politicide

Cecil's Columns/Staff Reports
101

-Scalping a European invention? That is hilarious. Especially given the mountains of archaelogical evidence of pre-Columbian scalping among Native American tribes. Check it out.

Of course, you two seem unconcerned with actual evidence. No doubt you will tell us that the dozens of reports of pre-Columbian scalping in the archaeological record are really just the product of some vast Caucasian conspiracy of misinformation.

look here for a nice summation:

http://ct.essortment.com/historyscalpin_rdrp.htm

hmm… it appears the earl of wessex was scalping in th 11th century. well whadda ya know…

we can go back and forth all day with sources that say conflicting things. believe me, i’ve seen them. you will dig your heels in though. and you will refuse to understand the main points within the argument which you forgot to touch on.

no one really can know who scalped first, just as no one can know from the archeological evidence you presented whether or not such postulations are factual and not just theoretical. your problem with handling information is, as i mentioned earlier, your penchant for somehow turning conjecture into non-fiction. we’ll go into that again later, as again, you made another post which relies on this fallacious way of handling information.

i thought it was strange they mentioned there was so much evidence, such as linguistic evidence, but yet i saw none presented. if i looked over it, please tell me. but i saw more allusions to contentions not directly validated than anything substantial. again, that will simply not do in civilized debate, and no one’s going to be fooled by it either. don’t insult peoples’ intelligence by not employing your own.

the point about scalping you need to understand, which seems to have even been indicated in your sources, is that, though there probably were a few likely tribes who had done as much, it was not pervasive… not until the europeans came and started doing it themselves for bounties, which were then offered to tribes for those they’d killed as the colonial powers set out against each other for influence in the new world. only then did it become almost customary and attached to native peoples.

please get all this at some point.

102

-Oh yes, and here is the requested information on the extinction of large mammals caused by overhunting (by Paleo-Indians) in the Americas.
spoke, i hope you realize at some point that speculation on cause and effect when advanced as theory is not a pretext for a factual argument. just because the indians supposedly were around at the time doesn’t mean such things can reasonably be attributed to them. it’s probably ridiculous even at that given how sparse the populations were then, and, ridiculous everything else considered. i understand it’s a neat idea to some people, but either way, it’s just that: an idea. seeing you try to present it as you have, which is to transition from theory to proven discovery is not only irresponsible on your part, but reprehensible as well. i don’t really believe you’re trying to humanize native people at all. you seem to be just trying to save face, for what reasons i do not know.

it would be akin to me arguing that the ancestors of modern europeans wiped out the neanderthals. well… there is decent evidence to present that case, but nothing to prove it. so it exists, for awhile, as a potential truth but nothing near an actual one. do you see the difference?

your sources are also highly suspect. i don’t know where you got that thing about tecumseh, and apparently you were not forthright enough to state it, then you come on telling lies about andrew jackson, and now, the sources you want us to believe are credible pertaining to this issue actually state that it was only “11,000 years ago… when humans (Paleo-Indians) colonized North America.” i’m sorry, but this is off by a good 20,000 years, and no credible source for such scientific and anthropological/ecological analysis would ever make such a glaring error, let alone have it for the public to see without at some point retracting it. they have exceedingly high standards, and very little is of trivial importance.

so, i suggest you start looking elsewhere aside from the places which only provide what you want to see.

103

to www, what can i say… you just managed to say a whole lot without really having said much at all. congratulations. i guess that takes some kind of skill.

104

Nice. I link scholarly articles with bibliographies, and you link anonymous, unfootnoted reports. (By whom?) (Is this a high school history report that you linked, or what?)

My cites provided information on primary sources which demonstrate that scalping was practiced by American Indians on a large scale, over a broad geographic area, and (more to the point) before Columbus was even a gleam in his Daddy’s eye. And you still want to argue that the Europeans taught the Indians to scalp? Delusion.

I readily grant you that the Indians were no more “savage” than the Europeans, but they were certainly no less so. Make a list of atrocities by Europeans or Americanized Europeans against Indians, and I can match you atrocity-for-atrocity with massacres and mutilations committed by Indians.

As for the definition of genocide, I’m glad you brought that up. It is an attempt to wipe out a race, are we agreed on that? What was the attack on Ft. Mims but 19th century “ethnic cleansing”? What was the attack on the Jamestown colony but a 17th century version of the same thing? Why were women and children slaughtered indiscriminately in each of these instances, if not to wipe out the seed of the white man? Why were the fetuses cut from pregnant women except as a symbolic demonstration of that intent?

And turning the question around (and returning to the subject of the original column), we have to ask whether Andrew Jackson was genocidal. Did he intend to wipe out the Indians? Did he intend to eliminate them as a race? The answer, quite clearly, is “No.” If you contend otherwise, you have to explain the following:[ul][li]Why did Andrew Jackson spare Creek (Muscogee) women and children at Horseshoe Bend? (I mean, if you want to wipe out the race, here’s a chance, right?)[]Why did Andrew Jackson adopt an orphaned Creek child?[]Why did Andrew Jackson relocate the Southern tribes instead of just slaughtering them, as he could have done?Why did Andrew Jackson offer the Cherokee the option of remaining in the East and becoming citizens?[/ul][/li]
Were the Indians ripped off? Sure. Were they forced off their land? Yes. Were they wronged? Absolutely.

Were they the victims of “genocide”? No.

105

By the way, here is one reference to Tecumseh’s exhortation to his Creek followers to “open the wombs” of the white women.

106

Actually, when I think “sources” I think of books and articles in scholarly journals, not hyperlinks to poltically charged websites (although one will more quickly be able to evaluate the latter).
But it is probably impossible to find a written account of pre-Columbian Native American cultures satisfactorily unbiased to those posting here because no such cultures had written languages. A written account of a “first contact” situation would be to the eyes of some who post here doubly suspect because of the inherent European viewpoint of the witer and the self -evident contamination of the native culture by the mere presence of the writer and his cohorts. I had considered using Native American accounts of the battle of Little Big Horn as a cite for the warlike attitudes and speech of Native American chiefs (Stitting Bull was said to have lost much authority and prestige by his failure to participate in the battle). But these groups were better armed (with repeating rifles) than their opponents and by that fact alone were not free of the European taint, despite their rejection of the white man’s reservations.

There is, however, a treasure trove of anti-US information available to those who hate this nation and have certain linguistic skills. There recognized academicians have prepared carefully compiled volumes detailing the rascism, opression and genocide of not only the United States goverment but also its Western European Allies. These works are cross-indexed and fully footnoted with references to enough questionable sources to satisfy even the most rabid US hater who posts to this board. I speak, of course, of the poltical sections in the libraries of the former Soviet Union. Alas for some these printed resources are now in a state of neglect and decay. Moreover, the Soviet Union collapsed before most of the material coud be transferred to digital media so there are no websites to click on (though if bought in bulk the books might be had very cheaply indeed). If some US hater…perhaps you?..could go there, withstand the difficult living conditions and stomach some of the more bizzare preversions of history (not to mention the glorification of Soviet superiority) you might have the satifaction of a lifetime quest as you transfer material to your laptop.

Of course, it is just possible through the cooperation of sympathetic computer hackers here one of our posters is actually a third level Iraqui bureaucrat shivering away at some library in Novorossiik, in which case he should be urged to get to the good stuff in that chilly basement before Saddam gets him.

107

Here’s a last bit of information before I depart this thread.
In the 29 November Cedar Rapids Gazette (page 8B, the article itself is not online), there’s an article about Luther College anthropology professor Colin Betts, who studied Native American cooking pots unearthed in northeast Iowa, dating to 1200-1700.

Betts took the size of cooking pots as an indicator of family size, and compared the sizes over the period. He found that they remained stable until about 1630-1650, when they quickly decreased in size. His conclusion: disease was devastating the Native American population of the upper Mississippi during that period.

However, the first European explorers to that area (Marquette and Joliet) didn’t arrive until the 1670s. The decline also pre-dates the Lord Amherst incident by a century. But there was a smallpox epidemic in the East during that same time period, and Betts’ hypothesis is that the epidemic spread among the Native American population along trade routes to the interior of the continent.

A straightforward reading of the evidence suggests that most (if not all) Native American disease deaths were the result of accidental transmission. Sure, I guess the first Euro-to-Native transmission could’ve been from some really mean white guy who was doing it on purpose, but it’s more likely that it was transmitted to the Native population multiple times (accidentally) during that time period.
One other tidbit, coming full circle to my first post here. In the Belgian Congo, the colonial forces beheaded and amputated their native victims, not for bounty or trophy, but to prove to their superiors that they had really killed somebody. See, the Belgian government didn’t want its people wasting bullets, so the soldiers had to prove they’d killed someone. (Source: “King Leopold’s Ghost”, by Adam Hochschild)

In some areas, there were alot of amputees, because soldiers would cut off the “proof” they needed for their superiors without actually killing their victims. If that sounds familiar, think of the recent civil war in Sierra Leone. I don’t know if there’s a direct historical link between the two, but folks learn fast regardless of their skin color or geographic location.
Which just goes to show that there’s nothing new under the sun. I’m sick of reading the posts of the last few days about how many scalps can fit on the head of a pin. Some of these posts are interesting, and some of them are even on-topic, but I think things have degenerated considerably. If you really want to hash and rehash the question “How bad do Europeans suck?,” might I suggest you move it over to the Great Debates wing?

Bye-bye for now,
Al

[P.S. BTW, “swords and plowshares” appears thrice in the Bible (Isaiah 2:4, Joel 3:10, Micah 4:3). Once they’re beating plowshares into swords (Joel), twice vice-versa (Isaiah, Micah). It’s pretty clear from the context that swords bad, plowshares good. I may be an agnostic, but I know enough to have a searchable Bible on my computer.]

108

-Nice. I link scholarly articles with bibliographies, and you link anonymous, unfootnoted reports. (By whom?) (Is this a high school history report that you linked, or what?)

if you want a specific reference, i’ll get it for you. not everything i have i can link to. i don’t get most of my info from internet sources.

-My cites provided information on primary sources which demonstrate that scalping was practiced by American Indians on a large scale, over a broad geographic area, and (more to the point) before Columbus was even a gleam in his Daddy’s eye.

they did anything but. rather, they suggested, even outright stated in instances that the practice was begun over here, for what that’s worth. they could not reasonably argue its reach however, so they more or less shied away from anything too definitive on that. you on the other hand didn’t. they gave you 2 inches and you made a foot out of it.

-And you still want to argue that the Europeans taught the Indians to scalp? Delusion.

was i arguing that?.. talk about delusional. i even stated it was likely some tribes developed the practice here, with a few lone warriors in others having taken it upon themselves to do as much, but just as you have sources saying this and that, i have some in books that tell of it having to be introduced to various tribes who’d never been involved in the practice. and either way, the main crux of what i was saying is that the colonial european powers, and later the u.s. government and its various state and territorial polities caused the practice to become widespread where prior it had not been.

-I readily grant you that the Indians were no more “savage” than the Europeans, but they were certainly no less so.

oh, so they were pretty much even then. let me tell you something… if native people were about the same, you and i wouldn’t be having this conversation now because white people wouldn’t be here.

-Make a list of atrocities by Europeans or Americanized Europeans against Indians, and I can match you atrocity-for-atrocity with massacres and mutilations committed by Indians.

and yet you fail to realize, or give much thought to what the brutality was for on either side, which is a key element in grasping the discussion thereof… native people were really only as brutal as they had to be. and because of being marked for extirpation, they had to be very brutal at times. what did the whites have to be brutal about? think about it before you give a knee-jerk response, or give one and then reflect on it. i don’t care. the answer won’t sound too good no matter how you spin it.

-As for the definition of genocide, I’m glad you brought that up. It is an attempt to wipe out a race, are we agreed on that?

no we are not. to have committed genocide, you don’t even have to kill anyone. you may target their culture for annihilation. most people don’t realize that because genocide’s generally misunderstood. i hope you argue further with me on that because i’m being purposefully vague. i’d advise you to look into how the term came about and how it’s defined now.

-What was the attack on Ft. Mims but 19th century “ethnic cleansing”? What was the attack on the Jamestown colony but a 17th century version of the same thing? Why were women and children slaughtered indiscriminately in each of these instances, if not to wipe out the seed of the white man? Why were the fetuses cut from pregnant women except as a symbolic demonstration of that intent?

i mentioned this prior and you seemed to have glossed over it… the reason why none of those occasions was genocidal is, one, because all of the above ‘victims’ were combatants. only the children i could say were innocents, but their parents should not have placed them in such situations. all others were not innocent bystanders. they were occupying muskogee (creek) and tsenacommacah (powhatan confederation) lands respectively. that, no matter what you think of it, is an act of war. as such, any response to that falls within the guidelines of war and not of a genocidal campaign. it isn’t as if the creeks went to scotland or something and started trying to drive those people out. these people were on creek lands. what they got is what they got. that is the chance they took.

-And turning the question around (and returning to the subject of the original column), we have to ask whether Andrew Jackson was genocidal. Did he intend to wipe out the Indians? Did he intend to eliminate them as a race? The answer, quite clearly, is “No.” If you contend otherwise, you have to explain the following:

it should be said again that you are basing your premise on a faulty understanding of the word you’re using, so the argument has to reverse now. you have to understand the applicability of the word genocide before you can bat it around as such.

-Why did Andrew Jackson spare Creek (Muscogee) women and children at Horseshoe Bend? (I mean, if you want to wipe out the race, here’s a chance, right?)

i believe i said they did in fact target woman and children at horseshoe bend, as well as throughout the upper creek towns. you need to get better sources if the ones you have are consistantly lying to you. it’s no secret what happened there.

-Why did Andrew Jackson adopt an orphaned Creek child?

who knows… i’ll just concede that point, not knowing whether it’s true or not, but saying to that, who cares? so if i’m to believe that kind of argument is viable, then let’s say hitler adopted a little jewish child during the european holocaust. does that mean there wasn’t genocide committed against european jewry then? come on…

-Why did Andrew Jackson relocate the Southern tribes instead of just slaughtering them, as he could have done?

it was not so easy to just have slaughtered the tribes at that point, nor politically expedient, believe it or not… it should be pointed out that such a removal was a form of genocide in and of itself.

-Why did Andrew Jackson offer the Cherokee the option of remaining in the East and becoming citizens?

few ever got this. and, of course, it was because they’d done something in turn for him. more than he ever did for them.

-Were the Indians ripped off? Sure. Were they forced off their land? Yes. Were they wronged? Absolutely.

Were they the victims of “genocide”? No.

this is just getting downright stupid… please, look up a guy named rafael lemkin, and see what he did. then, look into the u.n. genocide convention for more practical, yet scaled down definition. i can’t stress enough the importance of knowing what you’re talking about here.

to think though, you would call acts against those who are the aggressors ‘genocidal,’ while not considering the reciprocal as such, let alone worse, when the intent is not only for their territory, but for their lives, cultures, and very existence as peoples as well. it’s f***ing preposterous. it’s as if you can’t understand the concept of self-defense.

109

-By the way, here is one reference to Tecumseh’s exhortation to his Creek followers to “open the wombs” of the white women.

any others? plain and simple, that’s a blatant untruth. you should be more careful of what you read, and then of what you around spouting off as reality. it just isn’t so in this instance.

i noticed they refer to seekabo on that site as ‘the shawnee prophet.’ the [shawnee] prophet was tecumseh’s brother, tenskwatawa. seekabo wasn’t even shawnee. he was creek, and a close friend of tecumseh’s who acted as guide/interpreter for him among the southern tribes.

remember what i said about getting better sources? now might be the time to act on that. this crap is really going to come back at you hard one of these days.

110

So do I. The statement was that Jesus advocated turning plowshares into swords. As I pointed out, that was not correct. Were you agreeing or disagreeing? Or was your statement above in response to Puma_Claw?

I fear this thread may soon be on its way to GD or the Pit. It has nearly ceased to be informational.

RR

111

RR, sorry for the confusion. I was trying to expand on, not disagree with, your reply to PumaClaw. Ineptly, it seems.

To summarize:
[ol][li]Old Testament sez: Plowshares good, swords bad.[/li][li]Jesus sez: I bring a (clearly metaphorical) sword; nothing about plowshares.[/ol][/li]Al

112

Now you want to quibble over the definition of genocide? I am using the common English definition of the word.

Here are the two definitions of genocide that pop up at dictionary.com:

(Which makes sense, if you note that the word derives from the roots “genos” (race) and “cide” (kill).)

Here are the words of Tecumseh:

Sure sounds genocidal to me.

Perhaps few took advantage of the offer, but the offer was there, spelled out in the Treaty of New Echota. The very fact that this option was available tends to disprove the idea that Jackson was genocidal. Why make Citizenship an option if you mean to wipe out the Cherokee?

113

Women and children were most definitely not targeted by Jackson at the Battle of Horseshoe Bend.

This site confirms that Jackson’s troops allowed the women and children to cross the river to safety before the battle began, and that between 300 and 500 women and children were taken prisoner (estimates varied). Some small number of women and children did die in the course of the battle (possibly in the shelling that preceded the assault), but it appears that the great bulk of them were spared.

If you have sources that say otherwise, please produce them.

114

No sweat. I was the one confused. I’m still learning that I have to do things differently on a message board than in a regular conversation.
RR

115

Ah well, Spoke makes it up as he goes along.

116

I am sorry to post this here, but I could not find a “private message” option.

Where did you get your searchable bible? I would love to have one for myself.

117

-Women and children were most definitely not targeted by Jackson at the Battle of Horseshoe Bend.

This site confirms that Jackson’s troops allowed the women and children to cross the river to safety before the battle began, and that between 300 and 500 women and children were taken prisoner (estimates varied). Some small number of women and children did die in the course of the battle (possibly in the shelling that preceded the assault), but it appears that the great bulk of them were spared.

If you have sources that say otherwise, please produce them.
i did produce one. it’s a book. “the knights of the horseshoe,” by william alexander caruthers. most likely you won’t be able to find this accoutn since it was written about 1835 i believe, but it is nonetheless one used often in scholarly research you will find cited. it does not tell of the mutilations which occurred however.

i do not feel like going through google and picking out conflicting sites to fight with you about because i know you have seen them anyway as you’ve gone along in your search engine erudition and chose to ignore those over ones more favorable to your purposes. and you seem to move from one source to another after a part of one you held up was discredited. admit when your sources are a little less than reliable. you have not thus far.

that site you just showed looks like more of an andrew jackson groupie site. it does not “prove” anything and i found so much wrong in the first paragraph alone i could tell where it was going from there. they were wrong about the number of men jackson had, i think it conflicted even with a prior source you gave about the number of people killed at fort mims… it’s about disgusting given that it’s supposed to pass as history. they actually (and this is why it appears to be no more than an andy jackson groupie site) make the reader believe he had little to work with on his ‘adventures,’ and ‘led his troops by will.’ heh… no mention of the $300,000 (a huge sum at the time) raised by the tennessee legislature for “exterminating the hostiles.” kinda strange.

please stop picking whatever you find from the internet and injecting it into serious discussion. i can not take that very seriously after awhile.

118

i don’t think this sent, so i’ll have to try again… anyway, it should also be noted again that jackson’s troops stormed through the upper creek towns, destroying much of everything in their path, even people. davy crocket himself mentioned one particular instance where a ‘squaw’ was riddled with 20 musket balls; not atypical behavior of jackson’s men in the upper creek towns. they also destroyed food sources, which affected not just the warriors but women and children as well in the hopes they all would perish, and generally layed waste to everything they could. sorry to squash your dreams spoke, but that’s genocidal behavior. they were not the gentleman you want to believe they acted as. that’s a sorry joke.

-Now you want to quibble over the definition of genocide? I am using the common English definition of the word.

yes, i want to “quibble.” it appears i have to, since you didn’t do anything with the sources i gave you. i’m not playing semantics here, you are, by continuing to refuse true understanding of the word you’ve chosen to misuse.

here is the word’s true definition, as given by its neologist (get yer dictionary out again) rafael (raphael) lemkin, as stated in his book “axis rule of occupied europe”: “Generally speaking, genocide does not necessarily mean the immediate destruction of a nation, except when accomplished by mass killings of all members of a nation It is intended rather to signify a coordinated plan of different actions aiming at the destrcution of essential foundations of the life of national groups, with the aim of annihilating the groups themselves [even if all individuals within the dissolved group physically survive]. The objectives of such a plan would be a disintegration of political and social instutitions, of culture, language, national feelings, religion, and the economic existence of national groups, and the destruction of personal security, liberty, health, dignity, and even the lives of the individuals belong to such groups. Genocide is directed at the national group as an entity, and the actions involved are directed at individuals, not in their individual capacity, but as members of the national group.”

let that sink in, read it over a few more times, and then understand why i stressed the importance of comprehending the word’s true meaning )not its abridged version in the dictionary) and applicability.

following lemkin’s league, the so-called u.n. genocide convention drafted its own definition, which is more succinct and doesn’t leave all that much out from the original (re: lemkin’s) version in its scope:

Article II. In the present Convention, genocide means any of the following acts committed 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;
© Deliberately inflicting on members of 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 transfering children of the group to another group.
so those are the proper, accepted definitions of genocide you should have at least aware of considering you spoke so authoritatively on the matter. learn at some point that things like dictionary.com will not impress too much in an argument, let alone get you very far at times.

granted the first (lemkin’s) doesn’t bode well for a european apologist such as yourself, but even if you were to only look at the last one, native peoples in the u.s. have been victims of each, a through e, and certainly each that lemkin laid out… so you’re still wondering where the genocide’s at? i can’t believe we’re having a discussion about that, especially when you think it’s europeans who’ve been victims of genocide here. that is woefully out of it.

as i explained to you before on that, for the instances you brought up, those settlers were just that; settlers. givent hat they were illegally occupying land, they were therefor not innocent, and the indians had every right and reason to defend themselves and their territroy. even if they had wiped every settler out at jamestown, and at plymotuh, and at roanoke, that does not constitute an act of genocide because even the u.n. recognizes the right of peoples and nations to defend themselves, and illegally settling on others’ land is an act of war that the victims have every right to defend against, in any way they see fit to do (not that any way is ethical or moral or anything, as ‘any way’ certainly isn’t to me. only, for the sake of discussion here, ‘any way’ in such instances does not count for being genocidal. it is still, agree or not, a legitimate act of war against aggressors).

-(Which makes sense, if you note that the word derives from the roots “genos” (race) and “cide” (kill).)
actually ‘genos’ is greek for ‘type.’ it can be understood to mean ‘race,’ or ‘tribe’ or something like that in a human context though, but it means ‘type.’

-Here are the words of Tecumseh:

quote:

Burn their dwellings-destroy their stock-slay their wives and children, that the very breed may perish.

i saw nothing of ripping ‘unborn children’ out of anyone’s wombs. that’s a complete prevarication. this one however may not be, but it nonetheless was completely out of tecumseh’s character to have said. i wouldn’t expect you to understand though, and i can’t exactly explain if you haven’t done any research on tecumseh, in which i wouldn’t have to… you should pick up a book on tecumseh sometime. “tecumseh: a life” by john sugden is the best. you won’t be sorry you bought it.

-Sure sounds genocidal to me.

it would. but again, you didn’t exactly have a great handle on what genocide entails either.
-Perhaps few took advantage of the offer, but the offer was there, spelled out in the Treaty of New Echota. The very fact that this option was available tends to disprove the idea that Jackson was genocidal. Why make Citizenship an option if you mean to wipe out the Cherokee?

you mean the treaty he later ignored? c’mon now, let’s think a little… and why would the cherokee want to become u.s. citizens at that point anyway? you forget they were their own sovereign nation, with their own territory at that point they believed they’d get to keep. why would you expect them to cede all that to another nation?

119

ava;

Here’s a direct link to the King James Bible utility I use:
http://download.com.com/3000-2135-10119390.html?tag=lst-0-1
If that doesn’t work, just go to http://www.download.com, and search for “Bible”. It should be the first item. It’s freeware, and works pretty well for me.

Al

120

ava;

Sorry, the link at download.com is broken. Instead, go to the horse’s mouth:
http://www.bibkjv.com/
It’s a huge page. Scroll down a few pages, and look for the screen capture of the program; the download is just below that.

Al