-Really? The UN says it’s OK to target women and children if they may be regarded as “colonizers?”
Hmm. Guess the UN has no problem with Palestinian suicide bombers then.
grow up spoke.
we weren’t talking about that. we were supposedly talking about the recognized rights of peoples to defend themselves and their territories. you had to turn it into something else… i believe i said in the last thread i think the children are the only innocents as they essentialy have no choice, and i do not advocate harming them. women are a different story entirely. i do not generally advocate harming women in those situations either, but women like that were of an age where they could well understand the implications of being on others’ lands, and so understood the consequences thereof that might occur. they were gambling, essentially. they took a chance, and some of them lost. they may not have been active combatants, but their actions are combative nonetheless. the children just get caught up in it all, and it is the parents’ fault for placing them in those situations.
-Why not? It amounts to an attempt to “ethnically cleanse” the Americas. Please explain how this is not genocide.
how many times do i have to explain it to you? i don’t think there can such a thing as ‘enough’ here. you have your beliefs…
-I see how your game is played, though. Define “genocide” in such a way that white atrocities against Indians qualify, but Indian atrocities against whites do not.
actually, you’re the one playing the games here, using a narrow definition of the word and manipulating it for your agenda. i used the true definition of the word. i even used the word’s legal definition which came from that. and i’m the one playing games, by using accepted definitions instead of abridged versions thereof? wow…
-Tell me, do you think for a minute that if roles were reversed, and if the Indian nations had possessed the means to expand into Europe, that they would have hesitated to do so?
i doubt it. why would they want to? they did not have the same goals as european colonizers did in invading the americas. they did not require slaves. they did not need gold and silver. they did not need new lands to pay anyone for wars. they did not have kingdoms who required vast swaths of land the world over to rule. they were quite content with what they had. it was a part of their cultures, their very existence. their religions. i doubt you’d have seen that.
-They certainly didn’t hesitate to invade their neighbors’ territories within the Americas. Warfare between tribes was a constant.
name two tribes who were constantly warring and give examples or shut up with your made up history.
-All of this is relevant to counter your implicit assertion that Indians were and are morally superior to whites.
show where i asserted it and not yourself doing as much in my place.
-So deliberately targeting women and children is a legitimate act of warfare? Nice double standard you have there.
no, and yes. i’ve explained numerous times in different posts about children, and again about the women… it is legitimate in the sense that they are illegally occupying territories that are not theres, often that were taken from others. when those ‘others’ try to obtain what is theirs back from the perpetrators, any means they use to do so is legitimate… i do not consider warfare against noncombatants generally as legitimate however. listen to my words instead of immediately finding ways to contort them.
-It occurs to me that you would have much common ground with an al-Qaida terrorist in asserting this belief.
or an 18th century u.s. terrorist. either way, not much difference. buncha religious fanatics trying to justify the destruction they’ve caused, which is what you’re doing as well.
-Not OK, perhaps, but also not worthy of genocidal response.
legitimate acts of warfare (i.e. defending your life and the lives of others as well as your property from invaders) is never considered genocide. this is pretty friggin’ absurd we have to go over this repeatedly.
-Besides which, it would have been mighty hypocritical of the Powhatan to cry about their land being taken, considering the swath of destruction they themselves had cut against other Indian tribes. They were “colonists” in the area themselves, having taken the land from other Indians at the business end of a tomahawk.
name one tribe they took the land from (the powhatan you speak of were actually a confederacy of numerous tribes, all with long histories in the area). if you cannot name one tribe they supposedly took the land from, then again, shut up. i’m tired of hearing your little nonsensical ventures into imagined bits of history. offer some kind of proof or retract your statement.
-Ah, but Indian-against-Indian atrocities are not enough to earn your rebuke, I suppose. Only when the evil whites are involved do you rail at the injustice of it. (One might think it a racist trait to decry only white violence.)
i think you only keep trying to shove these non-arguments in our faces because something about the topic makes you too uncomfortable. let that be your problem and stop trying to make it mine or someone else’s.
-We went over all this in the earlier thread.
you ignored it.
-I normally use the dictionary definition of genocide:
quote:
The systematic and planned extermination of an entire national, racial, political, or ethnic group.
explain why your definition is more relevant than mine. keep in mind, one i gave was the original definition, the other, the legal definition and the one commonly accepted. explain why what dictionary.com says is more relevant.
-Under that definition, there was no genocide against the Indians. The white settlers wanted their land. Armed conflict was not desired, but was rather incidental to the goal of grabbing land. There was no intent to exterminate.
denial… whether there was intent or not, extermination happened. i’m sure it was indeed all unintentional though. i mean, what need could they have possibly had by doing away with indians. i can’t think of a one… it was planned and very intentional in most instances. if you don’t think native peoples were exterminated, tell me then, where today are the niantics, the wappingers, the natchez, the timucuans, the tekesta, the coosa, the yamasse, the patuxet, the nauset, the massachuset, the mosopelea, the oconee, the waccamaw, the moneton, the susquehannock, the nottoway, the pocumtuc, the canarsee, the manhattans, the massapequa, the nantucket, the eno, the potomac, the offuskee, the hackensack, the podunk, the nottaway, the pedee, the woccon, the apalachee, the calusa, the cheraw, the mobile, the guale, the pennacook… what happened to them and hundreds of others? did they go on vacation spoke?
under even that definition there was genocide. but nothing will suffice for the willingly stupid.
-You, on the other hand, seem to have chosen a broader definition of “genocide,” and one which allows you to apply it to white atrocities, but not to Indian atrocities. You have created a distinction without a difference, in my view.
the difference is simple, and i’ll reiterate again for you; it is impossible for warfare, no matter how brutal and grotesque, to fall under the definition of ‘genocide’ when those whom it is aimed at are illegitimate combatants (meaning, for instance, those who are illegally occupying stolen lands, etc.). that’s not what the term genocide was meant for. it wasn’t meant to be applicable in every instance of combat or warfare, nor only for those types of things either. if you’d bother reading lemkin’s works, you’d get a better perspective. i don’t think you care for one though, since the one you have now works so well for you.
-If you want to define genocide in the broadest terms, then the word can be applied to the actions of both whites and Indians. (Shall we discuss Tecumseh’s campaign of ethnic cleansing again?)
i guess we should because you still don’t get it. you don’t even know who tecumseh was, you just heard his name in passing on some website. he was pretty much the antithesis of the type of indian you tried to portray him as. don’t come at me with your search engine erudition bullsh*t and try and compare that with actual research and knowledge of this particular subject. how many books have you read on tecumseh? how many people have you talked to about tecumseh? how many original documents have you seen? you know, president harrison didn’t call him an ‘uncommon genius’ for nothing, and people, his enemies included, didn’t admire him for nothing either. it certainly had nothing to do with lies about his instructing people to kill settlers or rip “unborn babies” out of pregnant mothers… you just don’t know when to quit.
-Cite? (Too much to ask, I suppose.)
is it too much to ask of you to have a working understanding of the things you talk about?
-The whites did commit atrocities against the Powhatan. They did burn towns, destroy crops, etc. But they did these things after, the Jamestown Massacre. If you have cites to the contrary, please provide them.
it’s common history. you’re actually this unaware of the subject matter you’re speaking on? damn… do your own research, preferably outside of just what you find on the 'net.
here: http://www.patc.net/history/native/ind_hist.html
even if the settlers had not attacked them, what rights do you imagine they had of landing in virginia and settling in the first in lands that weren’t theirs? that alone is a defiant gesture worthy of retribution through attacks. you act like those colonizers had a right to everything they laid their sights on. imagine that. no wonder you think indians defending themselves against whites is genocidal. how dare they
-Whites committed atrocities against Indians. Indians committed atrocities against whites (and against blacks, for that matter). An atrocity is an atrocity in my view, whether you regard it as “self defense” or not.
some atrocities are genocidal. your insistance on denying genocide against natives is reprobate and unmerited given every bit of historical information out there to illustrate what happened. keep ignoring, but don’t get excited when people call you exactly what you are for doing as much.
