Basra, on 26 July 2011 - 11:50 PM, said:
I don't have time for your "questions", as for this main issue we are discussing you just keeping going with the same weak claims (to deny the white genocide against Native Americans) even though I've completely refuted your assertions. Refuting what you said in this quote, you mention "native americans in many cases doing the killing", there were again around 150,000 Jews that fought in the Nazi German military (called mischling, part Jews) http://www.kansaspre...edu/righit.html
These Jews in Hitler's Nazi German army were killing other Jews in Europe likely, so Jews killing Jews in WWII Europe!
The native americans were fighting themselves as well, and not only that but in many cases were allying themselves with the british, or french or colonists. The letter from Jefforson speaks for itself, the colonists in many cases didnt want to kill native americans, but through instigation by other means (such as native americans initiating the fight by slaughtering colonist women and children), were brought to war. Did the jews initially kill the nazis families? no of course not.
The point is, the existance of native americans suffered through a large number of events over the span of a good 400 years, youre comparing their numbers dwindling due to many events, to the jews numbers dwindling during the holocaust. Its not a proper analogy, the two concepts are very different.
I guess we can agree to disagree on this.
Basra, on 26 July 2011 - 11:50 PM, said:
Then you again say "I dont consider it genocide when the native americans die from diseases that more than likely werent deliberately spread to them. Its not genocide when they die off on their own." Again I've already refuted this argument the Jews died from disease as well (such as epidemic typhus that Anne Frank for example perished from) the Nazis no more "deliberately spread" diseases to anybody then did the European colonizers who invaded America did to the Natives. Many of the European chroniclers note the Natives that died of disease (and those they purposefully killed) were being "smitten to make room" for the whites showing they knew what was happening.
Theres a difference between a disease spreading within people trapped in concentration camps, in which the disease breeds in things such as human feces...theres a difference between this kind of epidemic, and an epidemic such as those that hit native americans who lived in their native lands with little to no contact with europeans.
Its not genocide if a community catches a disease due to natural reasons. If you really think that this is genocide, then you may as well consider any disease or infection that kills to be genocide of nature. If i catch a common cold from a random person who neither of us even realize that we have it, that person has not murdered me. Its simply something that happens. And with that said, even if many people died, i would not consider that genocide.
Genocide, lets get a definition here..."Genocide is defined as "the deliberate and systematic destruction, in whole or in part, of an ethnic, racial, religious, or national group","
ok, so theres nothing deliberate about what happened, therefore its not genocide. So by definition, you are wrong.
Basra, on 26 July 2011 - 11:50 PM, said:
You then again say "Its not genocide when they die off on their own. Assimilation is not genocide either. Its not genocide if they instigate combat as well." All of this is easily refuted and you don't seem to be willing or able to offer any response to my refutations or your pathetic attempted points. The Natives didn't "die of on their own" shown by the fact that the Natives were all living well before the whites came and killed 90%+ of their total population. I never said anything about "assimilation", the Natives were mostly killed and had their heritage stolen so I don't know why your even bringing up assimilation to start with. Then you claim Natives "instigate combat" what planet are you on?! The Natives were invaded to start with so the white Europeans by default (by the fact they were the colonialist invaders) instigated all the battles and conflict! Also using your logic we can claim that the Nazis and Hitler were just responding to the instigations of European Jews against Germany (not to mention that again their were tens of thousands of armed Jewish partisans throughout Europe fighting against the Axis powers). Hitler often mentioned how Communists (many of whom were Jews) tried to overthrow the German government in 1918.
The whites didnt kill 90% of the natives, viruses did, wars against a great variety of groups did, lack of agricultural know how did, lack of technology did, lack of advancement in many things led to their numbers dwindling. Its like with animals in todays time. All humans on earth arent committing mass genocide against the other animals of the earth, its just survival of the fittest, in new aged times. Often, and we can take modern day concepts as well, lets say, herpes for example. Many people have herpes, but they dont realize it because its dormant within them, however it can still spread. If a person gives herpes to another person, its not deliberate infection. So you cant say "those guys are all murderers" when in reality the people really didnt do anything themselves.
About Assimilation, yes many tribes did indeed die, but also many tribes did assimilate into communities. The Europeans actually built schools and universities for these native americans
as well, many did indeed assimilate and join communities. likewise, where do you think mexicans came from?
They came from spanish that bred with native americans. which is just about as far from genocide as you can get, the spanish had babies with them
And you cant say, just because whites showed up, automatically all white are guilty murders just for being present. As Jefferson letter adequately provides for us in his letter, the Native americans were manipulated by others into picking fights, along with picking fights themselves.
killing native americans was not the intent of many europeans
, this is a fact.
Basra, on 26 July 2011 - 11:50 PM, said:
So again on all the points you attempt to bring up I refute you and show the exact same argument could be made regarding the Nazis treatment of Jews in WWII Europe. So quite simply either you believe the Nazis killing Jews in WWII and the white Europeans killing Native Americans are both genocide, or neither of them are.
Also the genocide against Native Americans by whites went up to the modern time.
You arent refuting anything, you dont even know about the native americans who assimilated with the spanish, you consistently ignore the own lie that you earlier posted about jefforson, and you seem to think that nature is automatically under the control of europeans. Europeans cant control nature, nobody can, and yes at fort hood you can find an example of when they attempted to control it, but there is evidence that the native americans were whiped out long before that event by natural spreading, which is non intentional on behalf of the liberals who first entered the land.
The colonists, went to north america looking for peace, looking for a place to go, to get away from the oppresive England. Upon native americans, it was not their intent to mass slaughter them. The native americans died due to non intentional spreading of disease, lack of organization and technology amongst themselves (they in many cases would fight eachother even before colonists showed up with their new aged weapons), native americans died from things such as...the lack of knowledge of how to replenish resources prior to over using them, thus native americans in many cases whiped out their own food supply and without an understanding of agriculture, thats not good. Likewise though, the americans are doing their own thing trying to survive the Quasi and war of 1812 among others, they arent going out of their way to do anything against the native americans at all.
So lets take a look at the questions you didnt respond to.
Would you agree that, Many colonists, French, British, Germans, Spanish and others all at one point or another faught on the side of native americans? Would you agree that, based on Jefforsons letter above demonstrates that on a moral basis, there were many organizations that werent inclined to killing native americans? Would you agree that Native american tribes broke treaties and killed innocent women and children? Would you agree that the native americans primarily died from diseases in which transmission has unknown origin? (The event at fort pitt was arguably preceded by infections from elsewhere, so you cant use that argument with the blankets). Would you agree that many native americans assimilated with the Spanish?"
these are Yes, or no questions Basra, and you have deliberatly avoided all of them
. Youve brought up the concepts of assimilation and you appear to be clueless about how tribes did assimilate, you appear to be clueless about triibes that broke treaties and instigates war, you seem to think that deliberately spread diseases are what killed most native americans, and you seem to believe that it was the intent of all europeans to whipe out the native americans.
But in fact, We know that many native americans assimilated, we know that tribes did instigate wars, we know that tribes did kill innocent women and children, we know that native american tribes were infected by diseases they acquired non deliberately from europeans, and we know that many europeans did not want to fight the native americans, many even faught on the side of native americans, many faught for assimilation, many faught to protect their survival through building camps for them untill they learned how to assimilate (for fear that, if they didnt learn about things like agriculture, they would die),
and low and behold, those people who faught for the lives of native americans were correct about the direction they were headed. This occured over hundreds of years, people knew what was happening and they faught and tried to save the native americans. But you seem to not realise that these people too existed along side the people that you demonize.
I will admit, that there are europeans that massacred native americans, but likewise, you should admit, that just the same, many fought and died to save them. Not only that, but many did assimilate, as seen in mexican societies today.
"Per the 2000 U.S. Census, a plurality of 47.3% of Mexican Americans self identify as being of White race, closely followed by Mexican Americans who self identify as "Some other race", usually Mestizo (Native American/European) with 45.5%.<. Respondents who claim two or more races accounted for 5.1%, Blacks for 0.7%, and all other races for 1.4%. Mexican Americans are predominantly of Native American and European descent. A study presented by the American Society of Human Genetics found that on average, Mexicans (from Mexico) are 58.96% Caucasian, 36.05% "Asian" (Native American), and 05.03% Black, and 80% of Mexicans were classes as mestizos (racially mixed in any degree). The study also found the Mexican mestizo population has a higher heterogeneity compared to other populations. This is similar to the admixture of Mexican Americans (in general). According to the last Mexican census to record race (which was in 1921), 10 percent of the Mexican populace identified itself as white, 59 percent as Mestizo (Native American-European mixture), 29 percent as Native American, and 2 percent as "other", foreigner (regardless of race), or did not specify a race. Before the United States' borders expanded westward in the 19th century, New World regions colonized by the Spanish Empire since the 16th century held to a complex caste system (casta) that classified persons by their fractional racial makeup and geographic origin."
its scientifically proven.
There is nothing i have said here that is not factually true. If there is, quote me directly and say what you believe is false, and i will give you proof. Untill then, i do not consider this genocide. Building universities for people is not genocide, having babies with people is not genocide. People dying because they lack agricultural knowledge is not genocide, people catching a disease that was unintentionally passed on, is not genocide.
There are other cases of deliberate killings, yes i agree, but just the same, a lot was done to save native americans, and indeed many were saved and still live today. Their predecessors are the mexicans, and many americans have native american blood within them, like me. I have 2 tribal bloodlines within me, one from the south and one from the north and i can safely say that native americans from these tribes did indeed assimilate and live on.
If you still think its genocide, even now that you know many assimilated, and that many europeans fought and died to save them, and even knowing that many died from disease that wasnt deliberately passed to them, and many died for their lack of ability to grow crops for themselves, then you should reanalyze what you consider genocide and see who all your definition applies to.
This may be a bad situation for the native americans, and yes many died, but this is not genocide, this is a combination of many factors which over the course of 400+ years simply lead to a decline in their population.
Edited by iSilurian, 27 July 2011 - 03:41 PM.