5-HT wrote:
Yeah, well, I was using a valid literary affect, foreshadowing, to lead gracefully into the question at the end.
My cat’s breath smells like the Christmas tree. sigh
Another thing is, once a thread goes off course, it can be real hard getting it back on topic.
C’mon people. We have whole forums to talk about what our cats’ breath smells like or to swap Simpsons quotes in.
Manifest Destiny was an excuse to take what the WASP’s in power wanted: Most of North America. I don’t think very many people of the time were thinking genocide. The yellow journalists slanted the news in whatever way they saw fit anyways.
And genocide? I’m still here. My maternal grandmother was Native American, didn’t die till 1995. In many people’s way of reckoning, I would count as a Native American, even tho I look more like my paternal ancestors (Prussian).
Even attempted genocide might not be the most reasonble way to look at it.
BTW, FTR, there were alot of surviving American Indian tribes.
Does this get it back to topic, over excitable putz?
Moderator’s Note: NoClueBoy, please don’t use direct personal insults (“over excitable putz”) in Great Debates.
Aw shucks…
How about the smiley?
I saw someone (the lovable old sweet willy, IIRC) get slapped down for using it as an insult outside the pit.
Is this supposed to be a debate about Indian Hater Jackson? Or about Indians in general? Or what?
Seems to fluctuate between the Jackson question and Native American genocide in general.
FWIW, I rarely read rules (because I think I’m so damn smart), but I reread the rules, or code of conduct, whatever you want to call it, and…
I erred in posting a personal slight in a non pit thread. I don’t think the OP requires a pitting, tho, just a reminder to be more clear and to expect some flippant responses. Happens in real life, too. (Others had already done a good job of that, btw)
So, I take back and apologize for the last sentance of my first post in this thread, but the rest of it stands.
i don’t think puma understood the ralph wiggum reference, but reciprocally neither do any of you appear to understand how that and other off-topic banter could put he and others off. it trivializes serious issues. do you get that?
noclueboy, i’m taken aback that you think only attributing “attempted genocide” is the closest thing to a reasonable assessment of european invasion and subsequent policies, to the present even, regarding native americans. explain.
i’d also like to know what definition of genocide you’re employing to reach that conclusion, and also what instances in history do you see as genocidal (and if you will, why?)?
i also might add, where confused about the purpose of a thread, why not ask for clarification? just because you don’t understand its aim doesn’t give anyone license to take in their own direction out of personal caprice.
c’mon now
I did ask.
PumaClaw, don’t let the reaction to your OP get you down. Stick around. You may find some allies for your position here. (Certainly Libertarian feels as strongly about Jackson as you do. Trust me on this one.)
Is there a particular question you want to throw out for further debate? Or an unfinished thought from the other thread you want to continue?
I said “might not be”. Look again. I think the imperialistic drive of white europeans was entirely selfish and most reprehensible of all were the “Christians” finding a new place for their blood lusts.
But, were the rank and file, even most of the leaders, really trying to entirely wipe out a race of peoples? I don’t think so. (And this is the forum for opinions) What I see as having occured was the desire for supremecy, whatever the cost. But, not purposeful genocide. I think we were meant to be discussing intentions, not outcome.
When it comes down to it, though, I wasn’t there. History is written by the victors and they will bias their stories.
What instances do I view as genocidal? The Holocaust. And the 3rd Crusade. (I may have my Crusades mixed up. The one where the Euoropean Christians meant to kill off everyone not of their own in Jerusalem, even the Eastern Christians)
Hope that clears up my opinion a bit.
Spoke wrote:
Thank you for recognizing that, Spoke. Maybe you and I could call a truce, and smoke a pipe of peace. 
NoClueBoy wrote:
You got that right. Have you read Amerigo Vespucci’s account of his first voyage? Here’s the last sentence (!!) from it:
-I said “might not be”. Look again. I think the imperialistic drive of white europeans was entirely selfish and most reprehensible of all were the “Christians” finding a new place for their blood lusts.
But, were the rank and file, even most of the leaders, really trying to entirely wipe out a race of peoples? I don’t think so. (And this is the forum for opinions) What I see as having occured was the desire for supremecy, whatever the cost. But, not purposeful genocide. I think we were meant to be discussing intentions, not outcome.
genocide does not require one wipe out an entire race of peoples. if so, then your example of what you consider as such below, being the holocaust (i’m not going to get into the crusades) was not genocide either since that was a long ways from being accomplished with respect to any of the groups targeted. in fact, the amerindian race on a whole suffered greater losses, numerically and percentage-wise than any of those affected by the holocaust as well.
in fact, unbeknownst to most, genocide does not even require the killing of a single person to be accomplished on some level… this is why i asked you more or less what you considered to be genocide. most people who throw the word around do not have a firm grasp of what it actually entails. i would advise using raphael lemkin’s definition or the summation of that adopted by the u.n. genocide convention regarding the word. the former is the original definition of the word and intentions for its usage, the latter will suffice.
-What instances do I view as genocidal? The Holocaust.
what differences do you see in, for instance, what happened to the indians of california, or those of the caribbean compared to the holocaust?
So… You gonna let us in on it? Or let us all wallow around in our own filth?
Sorry if this sounds trite, but now you’re not making yourself very clear. And please, please, please, use a capital letter every now and then.
But, back to the point, I appreciate your point of view, (or what I think is your point of view, based on what you’ve posted) I just don’t agree with it.
Post on, Brother.
here is the word’s true definition, as given by its neologist 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.”
please understand the implications of the word’s definition here, which is, as i said, the true definition (he of course coined the term); how it was originally intended. then apply it accordingly. i don’t think there’s anyway you could escape acknowledging the burden of genocide the u.s. and its predecessors carry knowing the history and policies involved.
here is the more succinct version adapted from lemkin’s by the u.n. though it does expound fully on each of the areas, it does an adequate job of inclusion and laying out the basic tenets all the same.
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.
on that last definition alone, the u.n.'s, i can count instances where the united states alone has done each to native americans.
and i was still wondering what you thought the differences were between the holocaust and what happened to the natives of california and the caribbean. i could’ve picked any region, but i chose those. i guess what’s more important here is why you consider the holocaust genocide. i would agree of course, but i’d like to know for what reasons. i bet i can apply those with respect to the regions i mentioned above.
sorry about the posting style, but i just rarely bother with caps. i’m not gonna cater to anyone regarding that either as i don’t see a need to be formal, but i hope it doesn’t turn anyone away from what i’m saying at the same time.
Ah… that does change it, doesn’t it?
For the Holocaust, I would say all five fit.
But, with this more succinct (sp?) def of “genocide” I can see why even the attempt fits the word.
So, from the Jewish invasion of Caanan, through the forced relocation of Native Americans, down to the massacres of Hutus and Croats, it’s all Genocide. Thanks for the clarifying post. (See? Now that’s what I’m talking about!)
BTW, I don’t take the Trail of Tears saga lightly. Some of those people were among my ancestors. I have a very mixed lineage.
Though I often lamented the crimes, I never once thought of it as a Genocide.