Unfortunately, for some people, it will. Just a heads up.
I agree on substance over style, but the all lower case sometimes makes a point hard to follow. If you do continue in all l.c., separate your main points with more space. Just a suggestion.
I’m going to think some on this definition, talk to my folks about grandparents and stuff…
But still, bottom line: I wasn’t there. I doubt I will ever know the whole story.
-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!)
were you being facetious here? i couldn’t tell. i’ve given those definitions to people before who thought they had broader implications than they did. they’re actually narrower than they appear in their inclusiveness, but some people don’t understand that and think that almost anything could fall under those definitions the way they read them… are you one of those, or do you understand the select applicability of the term?
you weren’t there for the holocaust either, but you seem comfortable calling it what it is. why do you not have the same comfort level regarding our history here?
if the united states was guilty of even one of those acts as set forth by the u.n., they have been guilty of genocide. i can give instances of all five however. so, i think it’s a pretty clear case. i think the only argument that remains revolves around the pervasiness of it all and extent, and that is certainly up for some debate.
i was curious too as to what tribe(s) your relatives were.
An odd mix for the times…Cherokee, Comanche, much later Irish (maternal)
Prussian all the way for paternal.
As for that, I was laboring under an incomplete def of the word. Did I not make that clear? But with the right def, well, see my above post.
No facetiousness at all in my other words.
I think we need a smiley for “Did I not make myself clear?”
i wasn’t sure of your position on applying the concept to native america because you’d said something about thinking on it some more, so i in turn made that point about your supposed comfort level when applying elsewhere for clarification purposes of my own. i just wasn’t sure, and i’m still not.
lol, not that i need a ‘so what say you now’ response or anything immediately, i was just curious about that. that’s how i read it though, but maybe it wasn’t how you meant it.
I’ll still have to consider what my actual feelings on it are. Learning a new fact doesn’t always have an immediate impact on my values/beliefs/feelings. Part of being human, I guess.
btw, ftr, fwiw, I’m related to about 600 “Parkers” in the Oklahoma area. You and anyone with a basic knowledge of Native Americans know what that means. Somewhere down the line, someone gave up their Indian name and took up the “respectable” Quannah Parker’s surname. So, alot of my Cherokee family line is from oral testimony only. I most definitely have Comanche blood, but I have always been a little suspicious of my fams claim of Cherokee. (Kiowa seems more likely to me and one of my cousins, but how to find out now? {not everyone listed themselves on the rolls. I remember stories of our fams not wanting to be counted by the white man. If they could see me now})
Oh yeah, I hardly look Indian at all. Well, maybe a bit. My mom does, tho. And Grandma could’ve been in picture books.
I’ll let someone else get this back to Jackson and genocide if they want.
Look for me opening a GD thread about Parkers and rolls.
well, yeah… just let it sink in. consider everything and see where it all fits in. study it. have fun. take some time on it. it can be interesting.
can i suggest some books? i’ll suggest 'em anyway:
‘a little matter of genocide’ by ward churchill. good stuff.
‘american holocaust’ by david stannard.
‘a little matter of genocide’ goes into interesting parallels between the european holocaust and genocide in the americas and the denial thereof. it’s an excellent read.
If you can’t bother to write thoughtfully, why should I bother to read thoughtfully?
Okay, NoClueBoy, let me enlighten you about something: You’re considered a “twinkie” in Indian circles, possibly even a “wannabe.” Yanno, this thing about speaking for Indians on grounds of your greatgrandma having been a Cherokee princess and all that stuff. Just a little advice from me. Another one is that you learn history and not the propaganda put out by the white government here.
http://www.mun.ca/sgs/science/april2381.html
http://www.ibiblio.org/nge/thanks/
http://www.tbwt.com/views/specialrp…-1_11-22-00.asp
http://www.nativeweb.org/pages/lega.../lord_jeff.html
http://americanhistory.si.edu/paac/aquest/frontier.htm
http://www.dickshovel.com/500.html
http://www.worldfreeinternet.net/Am...t/stealing.htm?
http://www.dickshovel.com/was.html
http://www.smithsonianmag.si.edu/sm...c97/bosque.html
http://cca2000.4t.com/slaves.htm
http://la.essortment.com/whatisindianr_rhin.htm
Right into the 20th century:
http://www.dickshovel.com/IHSSterPol.html
http://www.isis.csuhayward.edu/ALSS.../6800sj/slj.htm
http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/R…_Guatemala.html
http://hallsciences.com/technology/670.shtml
http://www.geocities.com/crazyoglal...ow95_Lurie.html
http://www.petitiononline.com/2047/petition.html
Jac, how dare you expect white Americana to ask if something is not clear to them? This would be an entirely new concept. LMAO
NoClueBoy, the London telephone directory is full of Parkers, ya reckon they’re all related to Quanah? Since your family didn’t even know that Quanah was Comanche and not Cherokee, may I suggest that they’re not related to him at all? If you have not even a clue which Indian Nation your ancestors supposedly stem from, could it be that they’re not Indian at all? We usually know which nation we belong to. In fact, your family could well be related to the family of Quanah’s mother, who was white.
No matter what your exterior looks like, your interior is white. If you think that a few survivors negate that a policy was genocide, then I suppose, with your logic, Hitler didn’t commit genocide either since there are still thousands of Jewish Germans left.
Attempted genocide is when one doesn’t even put the plans into action. The minute the pogrom starts, it’s genocide, if it’s 100% successful or not. The actual attempt to kill off an entire race of people is considered genocide and not “attempted genocide.” You see, an attempted crime is one that didn’t get carried out. By the time someone commits a crime but it doesn’t succeed 100%, it’s still a crime and not an attempted crime, in other words, just because he didn’t get every dime that was in the bank this doesn’t turn his bank robbery into an attempted bank robbery, it’s still a bank robbery.
-If you can’t bother to write thoughtfully, why should I bother to read thoughtfully?
why should i care? if it pains you that much to read in lower case, don’t bother. sorry to put you out.
PumaClaw
It is entirely possible that NoClueBoy is a twinkie, and I understand your being incensed at any hint of denial at the multiple holocausts our people have suffered.
But that said, I appeal to you to represent our nations with the dignity that befits us. Frame your responses to attack the argument and not the man. My father told me when I was a little boy, “You can best teach the white man by being noble.” When I became older, I understood what he meant.
Well, if you want people to read what you’re writing, then maybe you should comply. Then again, you might not care, in which case I wonder why you even bother to post?
ok people… i’m not gonna acquiesce to others’ demands here as if anyone’s earned that right to have so much influence. if i were writing in all caps, i could understand the unease created by having to sift through PARAGRAPHS LIKE THIS. but if you truly cannot get past the absence of a few capital letters here and there, your problems are bigger than can be solved by not omitting them.
i think maybe some of you expect people to cater to you, and jac will not where your concerns are not that serious. i hope you do not exclude the words and thoughts of others whose diction you find undesirable, such as people who cannot spell very well, or whose lexicon is not that extensive. they often have wonderful things to share, and you will miss out on them if you insist on not absorbing them because of a poor habit of being overly pedantic.
do not detract from serious subject matter by continuing on with this trivial bullsh*t. you will not be entertained, and if you can’t get over it, don’t read my words. enough of this already. we’re talking about more important things, and if i didn’t know better, i’d think you didn’t want to
[hijack]
Which makes you an asshat, jac, without social grace. I will therefore not read anymore of your posts. Your loss, not mine.
[/hijack]
Gaspode: Yanno, when it comes down to an argument over typing, I get the feeling that the typo-gestapo has arrived. Do you want me to post responses or do you want me to just go over your posts with a fine-tooth comb and correct all your typos?
Libertarian, you’re mistaken, I’m not incensed. Sad about such ignorance but no, not incensed. I’m too used to it for that.
I enlightened NoClue about his status in Indian circles and didn’t directly address him with these terms. And who exactly are “our nations?” I’m only from one nation, and I don’t represent it.
I’m posting my personal views and not views which I coordinated with my nation. Why is it that whites qualify as individuals who represent themselves but minorities are constantly viewed as spokesmen for the entire group?
The problem with whites who claim some distant Indian heritage but don’t really know beans about BEING an Indian is that they simply take this as an excuse that should allow them to trample Indian people by pretending to be one of us. This is quite common on the Internet.
Moderator’s Note: The Gaspode, do not directly insult people in Great Debates. Got it?
Wouldn’t the legal definitions of “genocidal” apply to quite a few Indian tribes? The Mayans and Aztecs certainly hacked on each other quite a bit, the Navahos started being peaceful rug weavers only after the Apaches pounded them into the ground (long before the first white colonists established a stronghold), the Choctaws fought the Cherokee fought the Creeks fought the Chickasaw, etc etc., for untold centuries before whites. Pisarro conquered the Incas largely because they were in the aftermath of a bloody civil war which culminated in Atahuallpa’s murder of his own brother (after first making him eat dung in the streets of Cuzco) and slaughter of his brother’s followers, and the gods alone know what happened to the people who populated Macchu Picchu, the Chilean steppes, and other sites of high civilization that were depopulated before the whites.
Once the whites were here, while their atrocities against the indigenous people is irrefragable*, let’s not forget that the Indians were sinners as well as sinned against. Quanah Parker, to use a name already mentioned in this thread, was born of a woman who was taken in a raid in which men, women, and children were murdered and their cattle stolen; the raid on the mission of Marcus and Narcissa Whitman saw the massacre of small children and the gang rape of female captives, at Fort Mims in Alabama at least one pregnant woman was hacked to pieces, etc etc…
I mention this not to prove that Indians really were savages, but I loathe the “Golden People” mythos that even Indians today buy into. Once upon a time, millions of people lived in harmony with nature and each other, then a bunch of fanatical hypocritical dead white men sailed an ocean one day and drove them from their Eden.
*I think, however, that to judge Amerigo Vespucci or Columbus by the standards of the 21st century, or even by the standards of the 18th, is a bit unfair. Remember that these men came of age in a time when most people were illiterate and had never travelled more than a few miles from their birthplace. To the average central or western European, next to nothing was known of the cultures and religions outside of Europe and the Meditteranean (the Judeo/Christian/Islamic religions), and so to the best of the knowledge of the vast majority of people all people worshipped the same God (i.e. Judeo-Christian-Islamic religions). Centuries of religious warfare had left the distinct impression that “multiculturalism is not a good thing”, and Heaven/Hell were not concepts but as real to Renaissance laity as Iraq is to you or me. One in three children did not live to adulthood, childbirth was a common cause of death, hygiene and medicine had actually declined since antiquity, and within living memory (in 1492) a plague had killed one-third to one-half of the people in Europe. Is it any wonder that life was not particularly precious and other cultures, especially those without writing, pack animals, navies, firearms, etc., were seen as barbaric?
oh, god… can’t we just have one conversation about this without someone coming in pointing out that indians were mere humans, subject to the lesser sides of humanity, especially to indian people? do you realize how silly, pompous and offensive that is trying to humanize indian people to indian people? this happens everytime… every, time. what do you imagine you’re proving?
let me remind you that, regarding columbus, we do not even have to worry about judging his actions on the standards of our time; we can judge them on those of his. there were great debates at the time regarding the humanity of the indian (apparently there still are since we seem to need to be reminded of it so often, as if it weren’t apparent), and men like bartholome de las cases fell on the same side of the argument you are hearing from people such as myself today. they cannot simply be excused or rationalized because the time period was different. it was not really so long ago, and these were not cavemen, they were supposedly ‘civilized,’ well-educated and calculating thugs. they were aware of the ramifications of their activities and only really justified them through a process of cognitive dissonance, or psychological subterfuge within their own minds (for those who had some semblance of a conscience at least). you can see it all play out in columbus’ own journals. he knew very well he was not dealing with barbaric heathens, and in fact the conquistadors who later ventured into mexico met civilizations more advanced than their own, or any they had seen in their travels.
i would hate for someone a couple hundred years from now try to make the same arguments for the great purveyors of genocide of our time period. i would think it shameful for someone later on to think we could not assess adolf hitler regarding his actions because it was a different time period, so long ago, and is thus unfair to try and judge them.
i believe there was some amount of genocide in the americas before the invasion of europeans. generally though, it was nothing near the size and scope of what occurred in other parts of the globe, nor did it even come close to matching, even were you to accumulate it from the beginning of time, that wrought on the peoples of the americas that last 500 years. let me remind you as well that mere instances of fighting between nations is not necessarily genocidal, so, your attempts to label such as being so are out of place. but, as far as pre-colombian genocide is concerned, why do you even think it’s a relevant point to bring up? do you think it will somehow negate european genocide against natives just because one tribe happened to conquer another 700 years ago or something? we are more or less discussing the merits of calling the policies in the americas genocidal, which some seem to question, as well as the pervasiveness of it. i see nothing relevant about bringing up alleged instances of amerindian on amerindian genocide other than to make a subtle yet concerted effort at demonstrating a mark of european apologism regarding what occurred here.