60 replies to this topic

[Basra]

iSilurian, on 25 July 2011 - 09:37 PM, said:

The problem with random websites is, you just copy and paste mass articles which ultimately build biased arguments made up by 10 year olds.  Whites did not first hand kill 90% of native americans, then you go on and make a strawman argument right after claiming that you do not make them .  Also, the whole comparison of the Nazis with Europeans is flawed because in one hand you have one organization and first hand genocide.  In the case of europeans, you have 10s of organizations with multiple interests, even native americans themselves fighting eachother, europeans fighting eachother as well, simultaneously in history.

You so clearly love victor's "history" (i.e. the propaganda of the victor).  You cannot bring yourself to admit white Amerikkkans committed genocide against the indigenous Native Americans, while you clearly want to go with the common argument the Nazis were evil monsters that all Germans should apologize for continuously.  You get away with this because: white Amerikkkan genocidal monsters "won" whereas the Nazis lost WWII and thus nobody is around to attempt to offer defenses for them today (and doing so, even in small ways, could cause you to get locked up and thrown in prison in many European countries, like Germany, today).  You say: "Whites did not first hand kill 90% of native americans" okay the exact same thing is true of the Nazis they did NOT "first hand" kill all of even the 33% (lower than the 90% of Native Americans killed) of Europe's Jews that died during WWII or what the Zionist's call the "Holocaust".  Again large amounts of Jews died of disease and starvation; again http://www.codoh.com...dangofcall.html

Quote- Of course, in all genocides including the Holocaust an enormous proportion of deaths invariably derives from causes other than straightforward killing. For example, according to Raul Hilberg, between June and November of 1942 more than half of the prisoners taken to all German concentration camps died of disease or starvation. Of the two million Jews who died outside the camps during the Holocaust, nearly half succumbed to what Mr. Hilberg describes as "ghettoization and general privation," a category that includes high levels of death from disease.

end quote.

So you have to be consistent either large amounts of the victims of a said event dying of disease, starvation, etc is a genocide or it's not (you can't have it one way in the case of Jews in Europe and another in the case of Native Americans in what is today the US)!

Then as for your last excuses (to get away from having to admit white European invaders, that you may descend from, committed genocide against the indigenous Native Americans) you say "europeans, you have 10s of organizations with multiple interests, even native americans themselves fighting eachother, europeans fighting eachother as well" okay how is this any different then WWII: which obviously was a World War meaning all kinds of different people from all kinds of different places and viewpoints were fighting each other all simultaneously as you said!  There were even Jews fighting in the Nazi military!  

http://www.kansaspre...edu/righit.html Hitler's Jewish Soldiers, Mischling



These Jews in Hitler's Nazi German army (up to 150,000 Jews fought for and served in the Nazi German military in WWII : http://www.rense.com...ral20/jewso.htm) fought against other Jewish people that were partisans fighting for the Soviet Union for example (after the Nazis invaded Russia on June 22, 1941).  Then you also had lots of armed Jewish partisans around Europe fighting, etc so this attempt by you also fails: either you admit both the indigenous Native Americans and Jews (and Gypsies, Communists, etc) all suffered genocides or none of them did (you don't get to say just Jews and not Native Americans to suit your US "patriotism" which is just another word for fascism and jingoism which are both grounded in the corruption of the modern day nation state and the xenophobia it brings).

Edited by Basra, 25 July 2011 - 10:12 PM.

[Ya Aba 3abdillah]

iSilurian, on 25 July 2011 - 05:17 PM, said:

Any post that contains the words "faggots", "zioinists", "politics", "pantheists", "arab scum" and borat, all in the same post has to be setting a record for most effective post at killing braincells.

That's somewhat oxymoronic buddy. You were the one that recommended jstor. Five jstor journal articles were provided for your reference, peer reviewed. Feel free to filter out anything i said and just check the articles. Surely your recommendation doesn't kill braincells?

[iSilurian]

I present a decent chance for a debate and this is what you respond with?

"te Amerikkkans committed genocide against the indigenous Native Americans, while you clearly want to go with the common argument the Nazis were evil monsters that all Germans should apologize for continuously."
"www.codoh.com"
"]http://i43.tower.com"
"http://www.rense.com"
""patriotism" which is just another word for fascism and jingoism which are both grounded in the corruption of the modern day nation state and the xenophobia it brings"
~ Basrah

Obviously you arent interested in having a serious discussion.  Let me go ahead and repeat the prior post here and let me know what u have to say about this...

"The two concepts are so drastically non analogous [the holocaust and colonization of America, for countless reasons].

If you really want to have this discussion, first we need to drop the poor analogies, lets refer to specifics within this point in American history, ie between the entry of the first europeans on American soil, all the way untill today, in this region. Secondly, we need to start using big boy sources .

If not, then theres really no point in talking about it because instead of a legitimate discussion, what we have is random spam about Nazis and Gays and Norwegian right wingers and zionists and haitians and etc etc etc. And it just turns into a mess.

Its like trying to debate sects within Islam while pulling analogies from Buddhism , it just doesnt work. Nobody in the right mind would try to make it work, unless they have no life and want to spend hours breaking it down, which is not particularly in my interest.

So if you really want to have this discussion, let us begin , but if i see a single youtube video or godisnotwhite.com used as a source, im not going to take you seriously.

~ iSilurian


These are my parameters, first you need a baseline education, secondly, you need to use credible sources, third, you need to stick with the subject.  Youre trying to compare apples to oranges, and youre using non accredited material to support yourself.  This is the kind of stuff those young earth creationists who believe jesus road diinosaurs do.  And then when i present decent parameters for a debate, they just spam me with non accredited sites and continue to make strawmen arguments like you are.

Again, my offer for a legitimate discussion is here, if you would like to take it, feel free to state your argument in the proper format.  Otherwise, nobody in the right mind would waste their time sifting through "Godwaswhite.com" like you seem to want me to do .

Im sorry if i dont feel like wasting hours reading through such websites , theyre a waste of my time, and a waste of yours if youre using them to make up arguments that you cant make yourself haha.

If you dont want to have a legitimate discussion, then im not going to bother wasting my time.

Edited by iSilurian, 26 July 2011 - 02:47 PM.

[iSilurian]

Ya Aba 3abdillah, on 26 July 2011 - 02:30 AM, said:

That's somewhat oxymoronic buddy. You were the one that recommended jstor. Five jstor journal articles were provided for your reference, peer reviewed. Feel free to filter out anything i said and just check the articles. Surely your recommendation doesn't kill braincells?

When you have a discussion on a topic, and this is what ive been telling Basrah as well, lets say we want to discuss traits of an apple.  Now, the primary information you should be using, is information about apples.

What you dont want to do is go on and grab 20 various publications about random subjects, stuff them all together and then use subjection to derive an argument.

I guess you could do this, but you will never be able to make a specific point using so much subjection from so many various areas of research.  

The main point is, and you can read this in my posts to Basrah, i keep repeating it to him as well.  Not only do you need to use credible sources, like those in JSTOR, but you also need relevancy, and you need objectivity.  
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

In the world of science, these are essentially the fundamentals of getting research published, not that i expect you guys to all have published research, but still...

for example, if i wanted to publish a paper on american colonial times, and i went and made subjective arguments sourced from non relevant information (such as research about gays, zionists, "politics", "pantheists", "arab scum" and "borat"), the peer reviewers would take my paper and throw it in the trash in about 10 seconds.

I hope that makes sense.  Its like, you cant prove shia Islam by making subjective arguments based on references about zen buddhism.  It just doesnt make any sense.

[Ya Aba 3abdillah]

iSilurian, on 26 July 2011 - 02:55 PM, said:

The main point is, and you can read this in my posts to Basrah, i keep repeating it to him as well.  Not only do you need to use credible sources, like those in JSTOR, but you also need relevancy, and you need objectivity.

Objectivity is defined by a subjective conscience. So what may be objective to one party may be considered subjective to another, and vice-versa. The old Catholic bureaucracy would have 'objectively' (in their view) argued that Galileo was evil. Similarly, Israelis would argue that Dershowitz is objective when writing about Israel, whilst Palestinians would argue Edward Said was objective in his assessment of the Palestinian question. You could be a writer and say Person A says UVW and Person B says XYZ and present both sides. If the researcher then presents a conclusion, he's making a subjective conclusion. And therefore the arguments go back and forth. The heart of the problem lies in the inability to define absolute truth, present it as a point of reference, and then any argument presented is compared in respect to that reference point. This fuzziness is more present in humanities than in sciences as the former tend to be more qualitative in nature whereas the latter can be proven in the lab through quantitative means.

Anyways, you seem to be complaining mostly about the Borats, give it a break.

I've provided scholarly literature which argues strongly that the civil rights movement derived and corresponded with the liberalization of American society, which was spearheaded by secular humanism which was imported from Europe through intellectuals who (just happened to) mostly belong in ancestry to a certain religious domination who for whatever intents and purposes love to change their name.

[iSilurian]

Ya Aba 3abdillah, on 26 July 2011 - 03:53 PM, said:

Objectivity is defined by a subjective conscience. So what may be objective to one party may be considered subjective to another, and vice-versa.  This fuzziness is more present in humanities than in sciences as the former tend to be more qualitative in nature whereas the latter can be proven in the lab through quantitative means.

Agreed, however you can still make a distinction between "godisnotwhite.com" and an actual database of scholarly research.  Which is the overriding purpose of me even stating this, im sure you would agree.  

Ya Aba 3abdillah, on 26 July 2011 - 03:53 PM, said:

Anyways, you seem to be complaining mostly about the Borats, give it a break.

Its just another one of those oranges in in the discussion of apples.  You never find historians making references to borat haha, and yet here he is in our conversation, which was the other point directed more appropriately for you in particular, but also very important for basrah

Ya Aba 3abdillah, on 26 July 2011 - 03:53 PM, said:

I've provided scholarly literature which argues strongly that the civil rights movement derived and corresponded with the liberalization of American society, which was spearheaded by secular humanism which was imported from Europe through intellectuals who (just happened to) mostly belong in ancestry to a certain religious domination who for whatever intents and purposes love to change their name.

ahan haha

Edited by iSilurian, 26 July 2011 - 04:05 PM.

[Ya Aba 3abdillah]

iSilurian, on 26 July 2011 - 04:03 PM, said:

Its just another one of those oranges in in the discussion of apples.  You never find historians making references to borat haha, and yet here he is in our conversation

You couldn't be more wrong. I just included him in a mocking manner, it's a discussion forum dude, i'm sure you wouldn't include :-) ^.^ o_O in your research papers either. I could have made it more mature, but come on ....

Anyways, may I present to you .....

Quote

                   "Borat," Multiculturalism, "Mnogonatsional'nost'"            Steven S. Lee                               Slavic Review
                Vol. 67, No. 1  (Spring, 2008), pp. 19-34        
        (article consists of 16 pages)                                                                 Published by: Association for Slavic, East European, and Eurasian Studies                                           Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org...52764

شبعا، هونين، ابل القمح، قدس، المالكية، تربيخا، صلحا، النبي يوشع - القدس

SHAME on the those who exploit the tragedy of Her Majesty Fatimah Al-Zahraa' (as) to create hate and sectarian discord! You are a SHAME to Her, to Her Father and to Islam!
Ya Shahid Al-Sadr - You lived like Muhammad. You fought like Ali. And you died like Hussain!
Save the Middle East & Declare Jihad Against Sectarianism!

• Back to top
• Quote
• MultiQuote

[iSilurian]

Ya Aba 3abdillah, on 26 July 2011 - 04:17 PM, said:

Don't blame me man, you're the one that opened up the floodgates of hell by referencing jstor ooops, no smilies ... this is real mature research

[/center]

it is mature research, ty :}

ok, now i ask you, are you giving me credible oranges or apples?  Im interested in material related to the subject, im not so much interested in borats lost son nor, "folklore in the media"

ty though, im sure they are very interesting, maybe i will have a look at them, if i were a fan of borat, im sure i would, and im sure these papers are much more informative and beneficial than the random websites basran has been giving me.

Edited by iSilurian, 26 July 2011 - 05:07 PM.

[Schrodinger]

Most people would walk away after being owned this hard.

[iSilurian]

Schrodinger, on 26 July 2011 - 04:27 PM, said:

Most people would walk away after being owned this hard.

whos doing the owning?  Ya aba is talking about borat and basra hasnt yet made an argument using anything other than youtube and godisnotwhite.com.

i guess youre correct in saying Ya aba is owning at a discussion about borat .  I respect the fact that hes using actual research.  ty Ya Aba, youre setting a standard.  

I will await Basras first credible response (unless he decides not to make one).  Untill then, im quite confident in my own sources and have yet to see anyone provide sources to the contrary of my words.  Therefore i would say right now im fairly comfortable with the credibility of my words.

If you guys would like, feel free to quote me, quote anything ive said, and i will provide sources if you dont believe my words.

I do not agree with basras words, which is why i am awaiting him to use credible sources.

i hope you see the pattern here schrodingler

related statements without sources = (basra)
sources without related statements = (Ya aba)
related statements with sources = (me), if you would like my sources just let me know.

Edited by iSilurian, 26 July 2011 - 05:09 PM.

[iSilurian]

also everyone, for whom it may apply, there are other databases you can use aside from JSTOR.  I often use EBSCOHOST, as well as a handfull of more scientific ones like PubMed, ScienceDirect etc.

[Ya Aba 3abdillah]

[Basra]

iSilurian, on 26 July 2011 - 04:30 PM, said:

whos doing the owning?  Ya aba is talking about borat and basra hasnt yet made an argument using anything other than youtube and godisnotwhite.com.

i guess youre correct in saying Ya aba is owning at a discussion about borat .  I respect the fact that hes using actual research.  ty Ya Aba, youre setting a standard.  

I will await Basras first credible response (unless he decides not to make one).  Untill then, im quite confident in my own sources and have yet to see anyone provide sources to the contrary of my words.  Therefore i would say right now im fairly comfortable with the credibility of my words.

If you guys would like, feel free to quote me, quote anything ive said, and i will provide sources if you dont believe my words.

I do not agree with basras words, which is why i am awaiting him to use credible sources.

i hope you see the pattern here schrodingler

related statements without sources = (basra)
sources without related statements = (Ya aba)
related statements with sources = (me), if you would like my sources just let me know.

Your a fool, your not using any sources yourself (much less "jstor"), and the sources I bring are often from the work of academics.  My last post before this included info from a University of Kansas press book.  Again you seem not to have any response to my last post.  I refuted all of your attempts to claim differences in the treatment of Jews in WWII Europe and Native Americas in what is today the US, so either both are genocides or neither is, the choice is yours, but you cannot logically call only the killing of Jews in WWII Europe "genocide" and not admit to the white Europeans genocide against the Native Americans (which I would guess you just don't want to admit as your a "proud" Amerikkkan)!

Edited by Basra, 26 July 2011 - 06:32 PM.

[iSilurian]

Basra, on 26 July 2011 - 06:22 PM, said:

Your a fool, your not using any sources yourself (much less "jstor"), and the sources I bring are often from the work of academics.

Thats why i said that if you have a question about anything ive said, and if you would like a source, feel free to ask , i guess you didnt read that part.  And "Godisnotwhite.com" and youtube are not works of academia.

Basra, on 26 July 2011 - 06:22 PM, said:

My last post before this included info from a University of Kansas press book.  Again you seem not to have any response to my last post.

That was your 1 credible source out of about 100 things you spammed in the last 3 posts you made, do you really think im going to sit and read through all of the spam just to hit 1 point?  If you want, you can post your specific argument with your credible source and i will reply to it.  Im here for whenever you decide to do that.

Basra, on 26 July 2011 - 06:22 PM, said:

  I refuted all of your attempts to claim differences in the treatment of Jews in WWII Europe and Native Americas in what is today the US, so either both are genocides or neither is, the choice is yours, but you cannot logically call only the killing of Jews in WWII Europe "genocide" and not admit to the white Europeans genocide against the Native Americans (which I would guess you just don't want to admit as your a "proud" Amerikkkan)!

again, you cant use "godisnotwhite.com" and youtube as your sources and then claim to have proven me wrong.

If you take notice to how our discussion has gone, all uve done is gone around spamming info from a great number of random non accredited websites, you also go around insulting me, calling me a fool and insulting my nation as well , its very immature as well, and i hope all who are witnessing, take notice of that.

I will give you 1 more try now.  All you have to do is, without being rude, 1. Make your Argument, 2. post the relative accredited sources, and 3, Stick to the topic.  thats it.  Its not that hard, you can do it , i believe in you.

Dont give me 10 non accredited websites, while slipping 1 accredited site in the middle of it, engulfed in spam and insults.  I mean, do you talk to your mother like that?  just yell random info at her? haha.

If you want to have a discussion, you must act like an adult, be respectful, use big boy sources, and be accurate.

Mmk, so now i ask, what is your argument, what is your source?  If you have a valid argument and a valid source and point, im certain i will be more than happy to accept it.  But first you must supply it.

As a matter of fact, i will do you a favor , i will go reply to the single post you made with the single credible source you used, give me a moment to read through it, and lets see how much you have provided.

Edited by iSilurian, 26 July 2011 - 07:05 PM.

[Basra]

iSilurian, on 26 July 2011 - 07:03 PM, said:

Thats why i said that if you have a question about anything ive said, and if you would like a source, feel free to ask , i guess you didnt read that part.  And "Godisnotwhite.com" and youtube are not works of academia.



That was your 1 credible source out of about 100 things you spammed in the last 3 posts you made, do you really think im going to sit and read through all of the spam just to hit 1 point?  If you want, you can post your specific argument with your credible source and i will reply to it.  Im here for whenever you decide to do that.



again, you cant use "godisnotwhite.com" and youtube as your sources and then claim to have proven me wrong.

If you take notice to how our discussion has gone, all uve done is gone around spamming info from a great number of random non accredited websites, you also go around insulting me, calling me a fool and insulting my nation as well , its very immature as well, and i hope all who are witnessing, take notice of that.

I will give you 1 more try now.  All you have to do is, without being rude, 1. Make your Argument, 2. post the relative accredited sources, and 3, Stick to the topic.  thats it.  Its not that hard, you can do it , i believe in you.

Dont give me 10 non accredited websites, while slipping 1 accredited site in the middle of it, engulfed in spam and insults.  I mean, do you talk to your mother like that?  just yell random info at her? haha.

If you want to have a discussion, you must act like an adult, be respectful, use big boy sources, and be accurate.

Mmk, so now i ask, what is your argument, what is your source?  If you have a valid argument and a valid source and point, im certain i will be more than happy to accept it.  But first you must supply it.

Plain and simple I have refuted all claims you've made; so either both the killing of Jews in Europe during WWII (by the Nazis) and the killing of Native Americans by white European invaders are both examples of genocide or they both are not genocide.  I consider them both genocide, how about you?!

Edited by Basra, 26 July 2011 - 07:08 PM.

[iSilurian]

Ill go ahead bit by bit with responses. ill just delete the ones from random websites and random things about nazis youre throwing in, itll save me the time.

Basra, on 23 July 2011 - 08:15 PM, said:

Also you make the common claim that Native Americans "picked sides in wars", ummm excuse me their land was invaded by Europeans they had every right to do anything possible to regain their stolen land.

That doesnt excuse the fact that theyre engulfed in the wars just the same as everyone else, which negates the idea that theyre being massacred out of existence.

Basra, on 23 July 2011 - 08:15 PM, said:

Also here are some clear genocidal quotes from early white American colonialists!
http://www.countercu...hamer081209.htm Apology To The Native American Indians By Dr. Mary Hamer, M.D
Quote- *”Thomas Jefferson (President:1801-1809), (The principle author of the Declaration of Independence) instructed his War Department that any Indians who resisted American expansion into their lands, must be met with ‘the Hatchet’”. “We will never lay it down until that tribe is exterminated”. Jefferson said that the American government had no other choice than “To pursue (the Indians) to extermination”. (134)

"In cases where Native tribes resisted assimilation, Jefferson believed that they should be forcefully removed from their land and sent west.[1] As Jefferson put it in a letter to Alexander von Humboldt in 1813:"

ok so in this case, the native americans chose not to assimilate, but rather chose war.

"You know, my friend, the benevolent plan we were pursuing here for the happiness of the aboriginal inhabitants in our vicinities. We spared nothing to keep them at peace with one another. To teach them agriculture and the rudiments of the most necessary arts, and to encourage industry by establishing among them separate property. In this way they would have been enabled to subsist and multiply on a moderate scale of landed possession. They would have mixed their blood with ours, and been amalgamated and identified with us within no distant period of time. On the commencement of our present war, we pressed on them the observance of peace and neutrality, but the interested and unprincipled policy of England has defeated all our labors for the salvation of these unfortunate people. They have seduced the greater part of the tribes within our neighborhood, to take up the hatchet against us, and the cruel massacres they have committed on the women and children of our frontiers taken by surprise, will oblige us now to pursue them to extermination, or drive them to new seats beyond our reach.[12]"

Yea, that Jefforson sure is a criminal all right ,   Basically what he is saying here is, during his time, the colonists are trying to assimilate, theyre trying to help make peace between the people, but the brits are influencing them, and theyre killing women and children colonists, and so, as your quote states, Jefforson has no other option but to take them down, for he has spared nothing to bring peace between the two, but it simply has not succeeded.

This is far far from genocide, this is...as ive said before, all out war, and nobody is innocent.

on a more serious note, this clearly demonstrates that your quote is bias cherry picking, with that said im going to move past your other jefforson quote because your previous quote is essentially a lie about the intent of Jefferson as shown by the letter above.

Basra, on 23 July 2011 - 08:15 PM, said:

*“In 1851 California Governor Peter Burnett promised a “War of extermination will continue to be waged between the two races until the Indian race becomes extinct”. (140)

*Governor Alexander Ramsey declared in 1862: “The Sioux Indians must be exterminated or driven forever beyond the borders of the state” “His plan was further implemented when bounties were placed on the scalps of Dakota people which reached $200”. (141)

fair, however this still ignores the many who helped the natiive americans, native american instigated wars, and the fact that majority of native americans died due to reasons aside from being killed by europeans

Basra, on 23 July 2011 - 08:15 PM, said:

*PRESIDENT ABRAHAM LINCOLN: (1861-1865): In the aftermath of the Dakota War of 1862, “President Abraham Lincoln ordered the execution by hanging of 38 Dakota Sioux prisoners in Mankota Minnesota”—Referred to as the largest mass execution in U.S. history. (142) DiLorenzo points out regarding this mass execution: “The guilt of the executed could not be positively determined beyond reasonable doubt”. (143) DiLorenzo

38?  i wouldnt consider that genocide.

Basra, on 23 July 2011 - 08:15 PM, said:

*Lincoln’s General John Pope said: “It is my purpose to utterly exterminate the Sioux. They are to be treated as maniacs or wild beasts”. (144)

fair

Basra, on 23 July 2011 - 08:15 PM, said:

*”In 1867 General William Tecumseh Sherman said: ‘We must act with vindictive earnestness against the Sioux, even to their extermination’”. (145) “Sherman’s philosophy was that since the inferior Indians refused to step aside so superior American culture could create success & progress, they had to be driven out of the way”. (146) “Sherman expressed his deep disappointment over the fact that were it not for ‘civilian interference’ his army would have ‘gotten rid of them all’ & killed every last Indian in the U.S.”. (147) Sherman described a ‘Final Solution’ to the Indian problem: “Sherman ordered his subordinates to kill the Indians without restraint to achieve what he called: ‘The Final Solution’”. (148) DiLorenzo quotes Sherman regarding the war of extermination of the American Indians: “I am charmed at the handsome conduct of our troops in the field”. (149)

ah see that? "civilian interference", again people are supporting the native americans.  People were fighting on all sides, and over the course of 150 years, the native americans simply fell into descent do to lack of agricultural advancements among a multitude of other things.

Basra, on 23 July 2011 - 08:15 PM, said:

*General Sheridan stated regarding noncombatants: “If a village is attacked & (Indian) women & children killed, the responsibility is not with the soldiers but with the people whose crimes necessitated the attack”. (150)

*Theodore Roosevelt (President 1901-1909) said: “The Sand Creek Massacre was ‘As righteous & beneficial a deed as ever took place on the frontier’”. (151)

this doesnt help your position

Basra, on 23 July 2011 - 08:15 PM, said:

*Entertainment Industry: John Wayne of movie fame told interviewer Richard Warren Lewis: “I don’t feel we did wrong in taking this great country away from (the Native Americans) … Our so called stealing of this country was just a matter of survival”. (107)

first off, John wayne is an actor, not a founding father, and so i wouldnt expect john wayne to be a credible source.   The general Sheridan comment doesnt help your position either, hes saying that the native americans instigated fights "the people whose crimes necessitated the attack", so if anything, all 3 of these quotes support me.

These quotes really arent even refutations to my points, theyre just quotes from a hanfull of people, the majority of which are cherry picked.  

Ultimately youre ignoring my points, in that all nations (10+) were involved with wars with eachother and were far more concerned with eachother than the native americans.  Majority of the native americans died from things like disease, the inability to work with agriculture, wars between many different groups including wars against other native american tribes, etc etc.

Which is far from any sort of first hand genocide.  The native Americans died off over the period of 100+ years as well, its not like europeans came in and just laid waste.  The native americans slowly died off over time for a large number of reasons, and still have reserves in just about every state today, and also they assimilated down in mexico, which is why we now have hispanics living down there.  And assimilation also is not genocide.

ok now for your other post...

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Basra, on 25 July 2011 - 01:14 PM, said:

]http://www.sfbayview.com/

"http://www.godisnotwhite.com/

http://www.counterpunch.org

http://www.squidoo.com

"http://revcom.us

http://revcom.us

mmk, this is all on abolition material, so aside from the fact that your sources are beat, we can talk about this once were done with the native american discussion

Edited by iSilurian, 26 July 2011 - 07:50 PM.

[Basra]

iSilurian, on 26 July 2011 - 07:41 PM, said:

Ill go ahead bit by bit with responses. ill just delete the ones from random websites and random things about nazis youre throwing in, itll save me the time.



That doesnt excuse the fact that theyre engulfed in the wars just the same as everyone else, which negates the idea that theyre being massacred out of existence.




"In cases where Native tribes resisted assimilation, Jefferson believed that they should be forcefully removed from their land and sent west.[1] As Jefferson put it in a letter to Alexander von Humboldt in 1813:"

ok so in this case, the native americans chose not to assimilate, but rather chose war.

"You know, my friend, the benevolent plan we were pursuing here for the happiness of the aboriginal inhabitants in our vicinities. We spared nothing to keep them at peace with one another. To teach them agriculture and the rudiments of the most necessary arts, and to encourage industry by establishing among them separate property. In this way they would have been enabled to subsist and multiply on a moderate scale of landed possession. They would have mixed their blood with ours, and been amalgamated and identified with us within no distant period of time. On the commencement of our present war, we pressed on them the observance of peace and neutrality, but the interested and unprincipled policy of England has defeated all our labors for the salvation of these unfortunate people. They have seduced the greater part of the tribes within our neighborhood, to take up the hatchet against us, and the cruel massacres they have committed on the women and children of our frontiers taken by surprise, will oblige us now to pursue them to extermination, or drive them to new seats beyond our reach.[12]"

Yea, that Jefforson sure is a criminal all right ,   Basically what he is saying here is, during his time, the colonists are trying to assimilate, theyre trying to help make peace between the people, but the brits are influencing them, and theyre killing women and children colonists, and so, as your quote states, Jefforson has no other option but to take them down, for he has spared nothing to bring peace between the two, but it simply has not succeeded.

This is far far from genocide, this is...as ive said before, all out war, and nobody is innocent.

on a more serious note, this clearly demonstrates that your quote is bias cherry picking, with that said im going to move past your other jefforson quote because your previous quote is essentially a lie about the intent of Jefferson as shown by the letter above.



fair, however this still ignores the many who helped the natiive americans, native american instigated wars, and the fact that majority of native americans died due to reasons aside from being killed by europeans



38?  i wouldnt consider that genocide.



fair



ah see that? "civilian interference", again people are supporting the native americans.



this doesnt help your position



first off, John wayne is an actor, not a founding father, and so i wouldnt expect john wayne to be a credible source.   The general Sheridan comment doesnt help your position either, hes saying that the native americans instigated fights "the people whose crimes necessitated the attack", so if anything, all 3 of these quotes support me.

These quotes really arent even refutations to my points, theyre just quotes from a hanfull of people, the majority of which are cherry picked.  

Ultimately youre ignoring my points, in that all nations (10+) were involved with wars with eachother and were far more concerned with eachother than the native americans.  Majority of the native americans died from things like disease, the inability to work with agriculture, wars between many different groups including wars against other native american tribes, etc etc.

Which is far from any sort of first hand genocide.  The native Americans died off over the period of 100+ years as well, its not like europeans came in and just laid waste.  The native americans slowly died off over time for a large number of reasons, and still have reserves in just about every state today, and also they assimilated down in mexico, which is why we now have hispanics living down there.  And assimilation also is not genocide.

ok now for your other post...

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~



mmk, this is all on abolition material, so aside from the fact that your sources are beat, we can talk about this once were done with the native american discussion

You have no legitimate argument, you are just parroting the usual denial tactic of saying the Native Americans were allegedly "killed in wars".  Again as David Stannard and other logical thinkers have shown, if you want to use this argument than the Nazis themselves could use the exact same argument saying (quite accurately) that Jews were involved in the fighting of WWII and it was in wars (anywhere Jews rebelled against Nazis even the concentration camps which almost all had rebellions would thus be in "wars" as you say)! Again I showed you the tens of thousands of armed Jewish partisans fighting throughout Europe and many other examples.  Also one well known event, the fighting that took place at the Warsaw Ghetto called the "Warsaw Ghetto Uprising" http://en.wikipedia....Ghetto_Uprising one of the groups that fought against the Nazis here were even called the "Jewish Combat Organization"! http://en.wikipedia....anizacja_Bojowa So again you have no argument, either both instances we are discussing are genocide, or neither of them is (I say both are).  Clearly the only thing stopping you from admitting this (and going with the clear logical position I have demonstrated) is your US "patriotism" (which is just another word for fascism, grounded in the modern nation state).

Edited by Basra, 26 July 2011 - 07:57 PM.

[iSilurian]

After responding to your last quote and exposing a blatent lie about Thomas Jefforson, here is a question for you Basra.

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?

Each of my questions posed to you, i am more than willing to provide sources for, but im wondering if you recognize that these things did occur.

You speak as if europeans sailed up on shore and said "ok, time to kill them all!", but in reality it was nothing like that, and they died out slowly over the span of much time, they declined over the span of many wars, and many battles faught within wars against many organizations including themselves.  Many instigated battles, broke treaties and sided with europeans for their own benefits, and killed europeans just as ruthelessly as europeans returned the favor and vise versa.

Would you agree with what im saying?

Basra, on 26 July 2011 - 07:54 PM, said:

You have no legitimate argument, you are just parroting the usual denial tactic of saying the Native Americans were allegedly "killed in wars".  

Up untill this point i havent been making my argument, however you have gotten a hint of it in Jefforsons letter in which he openly describes how he wanted peace with the native americans and how he was turned against native americans after they were influenced by british into killing innocent women and children colonists.

My further argument is made in the statement above.  Im curious if you dont believe what im saying, or do you simply not acknowledge these questions as being credible evidence for the fact that europeans did not have the intent of whiping them all out, nor did they whipe them all out.

Statistically we know that majority of native americans died on their own away from the battle field due to disease and lack of food and agricultural capabilities.  But do you deny this?  or are you simply ignoring it or what?

All youve done is quoted a handfull of people (most of which were cherry picked and some right out lies as i demonstrated), so, on the subject of the native americans, what exactly do you believe? and dont start talking about nazis, lets just stick with the subject.  Its time to bring some clarity between our discussion so we can move on with a conclusion.

My opinion is essentially stated in the questions posed above, and im 100% certain that it is indeed true and i have facts to back it up, so the question is, do you disagree?

Or do you agree, but you would simply like to add things? (aside from lies about Jefforson) .

Also, notice how you said "you have no legitimate argument" when in reality is was just refuting yours , obviously in a refutation im not making my own argument.  I demonstrated a blatant lie in your post, i think i deserve some credit for that ty .  

This is why i really dont pay attention to random website responses , u find cherry picked false information, and you should take note of that next time you want to have a meaningful discussion.

Edited by iSilurian, 26 July 2011 - 08:12 PM.

[Basra]

iSilurian, on 26 July 2011 - 08:01 PM, said:

After responding to your last quote and exposing a blatent lie about Thomas Jefforson, here is a question for you Basra.

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?

Each of my questions posed to you, i am more than willing to provide sources for, but im wondering if you recognize that these things did occur.

You speak as if europeans sailed up on shore and said "ok, time to kill them all!", but in reality it was nothing like that, and they died out slowly over the span of much time, they declined over the span of many wars, and many battles faught within wars against many organizations including themselves.  Many instigated battles, broke treaties and sided with europeans for their own benefits, and killed europeans just as ruthelessly as europeans returned the favor and vise versa.

Would you agree with what im saying?



Up untill this point i havent been making my argument, however you have gotten a hint of it in Jefforsons letter in which he openly describes how he wanted peace with the native americans and how he was turned against native americans after they were influenced by british into killing innocent women and children colonists.

My further argument is made in the statement above.  Im curious if you dont believe what im saying, or do you simply not acknowledge these questions as being credible evidence for the fact that europeans did not have the intent of whiping them all out, nor did they whipe them all out.

Statistically we know that majority of native americans died on their own away from the battle field due to disease and lack of food and agricultural capabilities.  But do you deny this?  or are you simply ignoring it or what?

Your such a fraud.  Let us read some Nazi quotes showing how they wanted to treat the Jews with justice as well!

First from Nazi official Johann von Leers http://en.wikipedia....ohann_von_Leers
http://www.codoh.com...tristagch2.html

Quote- Johann von Leers wrote, in his book 14 Jahre .Judenrepublik [Four teen Years of the Jewish Republic]:

    For all its radicalism, our struggle against Jewry has never aimed at the destruction of the Jewish people, but rather at the protection of the German people. We have every reason to wish the Jewish people success in an honorable national development in a land of their own, so long as they lack the will or the opportunity to interfere ever again with Germany's national development. Hostility to Jews for its own sake is stupid and, in the last analysis, barbaric. Our opposition to the Jews is based upon the desire to rescue our own people from spiritual, economic, and political enslavement to Jewry. The basic idea of Zionism, to organize the Jewish people as a nation among nations in a land of their own, is -- provided no ambitions of world-domination are involved-- healthy and justified. Instead of fruitlessly shoving the Jewish problem on each other, century after century, it would behoove the European nations to rid themselves of Jewry, once and for all, by organizing the settlement of the Jews in an adequate and wholesome extra-European colonial territory.19

end quote.

And also from Richard Glucks http://en.wikipedia..../Richard_Glücks a high ranking Nazi official who oversaw all the Nazi German concentration camps;

On January 20, 1943, chief inspector of the camps, Richard Glucks, answered Himmler, "Every means will be used to lower the death rates." (Source, Nuremberg Trial Document No. 1523.)

The majority of Jews died of disease and starvation as well.  Really you have no argument.

Edited by Basra, 26 July 2011 - 08:12 PM.

[iSilurian]

Basra, on 26 July 2011 - 08:11 PM, said:

Your such a fraud.  Let us read some Nazi quotes showing how they wanted to treat the Jews with justice as well!

Well, i said id give you 1 more chance

Alright, so instead of responding to my posts, you continue with insults and random spam about Nazis.  I think im done here, im not in the mood to listen to random rants about zionists   I tried not to waste my time with responding to your flawed sourced info...finally after being coaxed into reading your unaccredited responses, i quickly found blatantly obvious flaws in your posts.  I responded, then gave a counter argument and you simply ignored it and continued to spam about Nazis as opposed to responding or at the very least, talking about native americans.  If you dont see whats wrong here with your posts, then its not my problem.

if anyone is reading this and would like to have a legitimate discussion that doesnt involve blatent lies about Thomas Jefferson and random internet websites made by 10 year olds, feel free to raise your arguments.

Oh yea, and i generally prefer not to hold discussions with people who call me names every post they make , if you call me a "poopyhead" like were in the fifth grade, i wont take you seriously, and if you use websites like youtube and Godisnotwhite.com and you "quote mine" (if you dont know what quote mining is, look it up) information to make an argument, then you arent worth my time :}.

goodbye Basran

Edited by iSilurian, 26 July 2011 - 08:29 PM.

[Basra]

iSilurian, on 26 July 2011 - 08:17 PM, said:

Alright, so instead of responding to my posts, you continue with insults and random spam about Nazis.  I think im done here, im not in the mood to listen to random rants about zionists

if anyone is reading this and would like to have a legitimate discussion that doesnt involve blatent lies about Thomas Jefforson and random internet websites made by 10 year olds, feel free to raise your arguments.

Oh yea, and i generally prefer not to hold discussions with people who call me names every post they make , if you call me a "poopyhead" like were in the fifth grade, i wont take you seriously, and if you use websites like youtube and Godisnotwhite.com and you "quote mine" (if you dont know what quote mining is, look it up) information to make an argument, then you arent worth my time :}.

goodbye Basran

There are far more genocidal quotes from white Europeans talking about killing the Native Americans; then any quotes about genocide from the Nazis. http://www.codoh.com....php?f=2&t=5978 Did the Nazis ever make any claims matching the Americans?!

I have consistently refuted all your attempts to try to deny the genocide against Native Americans, I think anyone reading can see that clearly (whether it be on the issue of deaths from disease, or war situation, etc)

Edited by Basra, 26 July 2011 - 08:32 PM.

[iSilurian]

Basra, on 26 July 2011 - 08:30 PM, said:

I have consistently refuted all your attempts to try to deny the genocide against Native Americans, I think anyone reading can see that clearly (whether it be on the issue of deaths from disease, or war situation, etc)

You ignored my response Basra, i dont undestand how you can ignore my response and then call it refutation.  

Come on Basra, just be fair , im a nice guy, i wont bite...just respond to my last post with the questions.  I am genuinely curious about your thoughts on those questions, and they are important to me in understanding what you believe.

And you should trust me, you can find posts with me accepting all sorts of anti Isreal and Anti american things, even one of your quotes i stated was fair.  But likewise, its a two way road, and you cant simply take all and give nothing.

So please respond to my questions, lets see what you have.  and please be nice , im asking you nicely and you  should respect that.

and one more thing, quit talking about nazis , were having a discussion about earlier colonial days of america, not WW2 .  We must stick with the subject, otherwise i feel like im being distracted from the actual important material of the discussion, and i dont like distractions that  waste my time:P.

mind you, im taking time out of my day to find legitimate information on the subject, and so its something i care for deeply and im not interested in playing games.

"I have consistently refuted all your attempts to try to deny the genocide against Native Americans, I think anyone reading can see that clearly (whether it be on the issue of deaths from disease, or war situation, etc) "

And as for this, i dont consider it genocide when the native americans in many cases are doing the killing.  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.  Assimilation is not genocide either.  Its not genocide if they instigate combat as well.

But the thing is, you havent responded to my questions from before, so i cant tell if you actually acknowledge that these things exist.
And i want to know your thoughts on Thomas Jefforson after having read his letter too :}. haha.

Edited by iSilurian, 26 July 2011 - 09:15 PM.

[Basra]

iSilurian, on 26 July 2011 - 08:51 PM, said:

And as for this, i dont consider it genocide when the native americans in many cases are doing the killing.  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.  Assimilation is not genocide either.  Its not genocide if they instigate combat as well.

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 and http://www.kansaspre...edu/rigliv.html These Jews in Hitler's Nazi German army were killing other Jews in Europe likely, so Jews killing Jews in WWII Europe!





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.

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.  

http://en.wikipedia....rman_Revolution German Revolution 1918-19 aka Socialist Revolution

List of prominent Jews involved in the Communist Revolution attempt.

http://en.wikipedia....iki/Kurt_Eisner Kurt Eisner

http://en.wikipedia..../Rosa_Luxemburg Rosa Luxemburg

http://en.wikipedia....wiki/Karl_Radek Karl Radek

Hitler often spoke of what he and the Nazis called the threat of Judeo-Bolshevism: http://en.wikipedia....wish_Bolshevism Jewish Bolshevism

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.

Edited by Basra, 27 July 2011 - 12:02 AM.

[iSilurian]

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 and http://www.kansaspre...edu/rigliv.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",[1]"

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?"
~iSilurian

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.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Conclusion
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%.<.[19] 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).[20] The study also found the Mexican mestizo population has a higher heterogeneity compared to other populations.[21] 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.[22] 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.[23][24]"

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.

[Basra]

iSilurian, on 27 July 2011 - 03:12 PM, said:

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.



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",[1]"

ok, so theres nothing deliberate about what happened, therefore its not genocide.  So by definition, you are wrong.



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.



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?"
~iSilurian

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.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Conclusion
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%.<.[19] 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).[20] The study also found the Mexican mestizo population has a higher heterogeneity compared to other populations.[21] 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.[22] 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.[23][24]"

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.

Your a shameless, clear white supremacist genocide denier with wild fascist Amerikkkan "patriotism" as rapper Immortal Technique says the land of "indigenous holocaust and the home of the slaves".  Every stupid "point" you attempt to make is weak: you widely exaggerate people allegedly "helping" the Natives the only helping that happened was peaceful Natives who saved the first pathetic white colonialist invaders that is were the stupid "thanksgiving" myth comes from.  These same white invaders the Native Mongoloids saved then exterminated them, raped them, and STOLE their land.  Yet the stupid myth of "thanksgiving" you white supremacists perpetuate today is of the "table of brotherhood" what a sick joke you genocidal monsters with your genocide against the Natives you exterminated (100 million of them, 90+% of their total population the largest genocide in human history) and today lock them in the same system of white supremacist oppression and poverty you do to all others (via your destruction of the very planet earth itself by stealing all its resources and creating global warming: http://articles.cnn....ntists?_s=PM:US and http://articles.cnn....ity?_s=PM:WORLD)

You can attempt to argue that genocides didn't happen in both WWII Europe and what is today called "America" (named after the "navigator" Amerigo Vespucci of Italy in the 15th century CE), but you cannot logically claim one was a genocide and the other wasn't. Jews died of disease and starvation, Jews fought with arms aka weapons both for the Nazis and as militant partisans for the equally wicked and imperialist Allied powers such as Amerikkka and the Soviet Russians, 80,000 Jews survived in just the nation of Germany alone these 80,000 German Jews were alive and well even at the end of WWII after the alleged "Holocaust": so the Nazis didn't even "kill" all the Jews in the nation of Germany alone much less all Europe itself (at the very most 33% of Europe's Jews were died at the end of WWII mostly from diseases like typhus and starvation, compared again to the 90%+ of Native Americans exterminated by evil white invaders from Europe)! You never even attempt to respond back to these devastating refutations of your imperialist excuses of the genocide against Native Americans by white invaders. You are very sick for claiming the theft of Native land was done by white European invaders simply for "religious freedom" (yes the whites "witch" burnings what "freedom") it was pure colonialism you are such a pure white supremacist liar all whites should pay reparations and be deported back to their evil homes in Europe.

Edited by Basra, 27 July 2011 - 05:03 PM.