Were American Indians the Victims of Genocide?

An unreferenced hate site against Christians is your reference?

Heck, why not just use a link to the KKK the next time somebody brings up Dr. King. Would have about as much relevance as your reference. I looked through a lot of that site, and found myself laughing because of how it phrases things. Like this claim:

Well, yea. Of course, "Christians" were not killed generally, but criminals and traitors were. And the Coliseum (more accurately the "Flavian Amphitheatre") was built at the beginning of the decline of Gladiatorial games. While the image of "Christians" being thrown to the lions is popular in folklore, it is highly questionable to historians.

However, that did not mean that it never happened at other amphitheaters, just that evidence at the Flavian Amphitheatre is questionable at best.

And this is the kind of source you are using as a reference? Sheesh.

 

To a degree, yes is my answer. However, to the victor goes the spoils. No, this isn't making a mockery of the American Indian, although it does invite criticism, but rather suggests that during any type of war, there is a victor and a loser. This isn't anything new. Manifest destiny has really been taking place since mankind started warring over lands. All one has to do is check the history of the world as far back as our possible historical dates can take us. Land passes from one to the other and over and over again. It is what it is. Not proud of it, but as the old saying goes, "if you take it, it's yours until you can't keep it. When you can't keep it, someone will take it." It's part of everyone's history. Like it or not.

 

Who said the genocide stopped ?

And as far as the'example of sustained Genocide 'one can go no further then the Genocide of the Aboriginal peoples of Australia.


at least the American Aboriginal peoples were recognised with treaty's that identified although nominally as being human ,and having claim to there lands ,although extremely limited they do have recogition in the laws and conventions of the USA .


In 2013 ,that recognition is still not enshrined in the laws of Australia ,when the British colonised they had the policy of that saw the aboriginal peoples as no more then vermin .


presently the only section of the National population that is denighed Anti-discrimination protection is the Aboriginal peoples of the Arhnem Lands. special legislation was enacted and still in force to suspend their recognition under Australian and International Law ,

When did the genocide finish?

hasn't yet in Apartheid Australia.And they call themselves civilised!

http://www.amnesty.org.au/news/comments/17387/

 

Entire nations of people were slaughtered or forced to move hundreds of thousands of miles from their homes. It was ethnic targeting and ethnic cleansing on a mass scale in order for the new, "superior" Americans to set up their power. I didn't know this was controversial.

 

OMG, really?

Now this is exactly the type of hysteria and propaganda that makes a complete mockery of any kind of reasonable discussion of something like this.

I invite anybody to look again at this insanity, and remember it for the complete and utter nonsense that it is.

"...forced to move hundreds of thousands of miles from their homes."

Hundreds of thousands of miles? The Earth is less then 25,000 miles in circumference at the Equator. What in the heck did the US Government do, make them walk around the planet 10+ times? I guess they took a page from Noah, and learned to tread water real good, cause those oceans would have been a major pain.

Sorry, but your nonsense post is flushed for the complete nonsense propaganda that it is.

 

the f and the r keys are close together, hundreds OR thousands.

 

Typo

There is no propaganda, only fact if you are to acknowledge the definition of the word "genocide" and the reality of the Native American situation. American policy consisted of the moving of or extermination Native Americans. Targeted, calculated oppression and killings. Ethnic, national cleansing. Genocide: "The deliberate killing of a large group of people, esp. those of a particular ethnic group or nation." If you refuse to recognize this, you are clearly misguided or a victim of propaganda. No flag is large enough to cover the slaughter of innocent people. In his later years, President John Quincy Adams recognized the fate of “that hapless race of native Americans, which we are exterminating with such merciless and perfidious cruelty, to be among the heinous sins of this nation, for which I believe God will one day bring to judgement.”

It's no secret:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indian_removal
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indian_massacre
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trail_of_Tears
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wounded_Knee_Massacre
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seminole_Wars
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_the_Little_Bighorn
http://www.iearn.org/hgp/aeti/aeti-1997/native-americans.html

 

Yes,yes,& yes!

 

Wow, talk about context loss.

The John Quincy Adams quote you gave is not talking about the treatment of all Indians, but about the Seminole tribe, in the wake of the Second Seminole War. This followed closely the Annexation of Florida, as well as the relocation of tribes West of the Mississippi. You are badly mixing up almost a century of history into one quote, made half a century before the primary era you are talking about and which was actually more about slavery then the Indians themselves.

Because John Quincy Adams was among other things, an abolitionist. And he knew that bringing Florida into the nation as a state would have placed it deep in the Southern sphere of influence. And he believed it would be better if the Indians were allowed to control it then to become a state which allowed slavery.

In fact, if he had really cared about the Indians themselves, why did he turn down the offered appointment of the Chairman of Indian Affairs when it was offered to him in 1841? In reality, he felt (as was common at the time) that the Indians were inferior, and that it was the "Natural Right" for whites to dominate. He simply hated slavery more then Indians.

But nice try, taking a quotation out of context.

 

Nice post. The agenda driven America haters will do and say anything to accomplish their goal of sullying this country, even if it means taking 150 year old Presidential utterances completely out of context as you pointed out.

 

Does it matter what John Quincy Adams' true views were? Does it matter if a quote was "taken out of context"? Does it mean that the treatment towards Native Americans was not genocide?

 

"Wait, I was wrong. But that does not matter because I am right".

Bah.

 

it was cultural genocide which destroys more slowly

 

It's irrelevant. It was obvious that Adams never cared about Native Americans and it was shown in his policies. I used that quote to express the facts of Native American oppression. So once again, please tell me, is it not genocide?

 

and here you are grouping all aboriginal nations as if they're one homogenous group, they were anything but ... Seminole are not Apache or are they Iroquois, Dakota or Salish, all different nations, with different cultures, and languages...that would be like claiming all European nations are one people and waging a war of exterminating on Italians isn't genocide because the same wasn't done to the french and Germans too...

even if it was "only"one nation and even if extermination wasn't successful by any definition it was still genocide...and it wasn't just one aboriginal nation in which genocidal wars were waged it was many...

 

So they were forced to move completely around the earth 20+ times before stopping? The Earths diameter is only 7,918 miles, ten times around would be 79,180 miles.

Were they forced to march to the Moon? It's 221,600 miles away.

 

It all depends on what era you look at it from.
From a cultural anthropological stand point:

If you look at it from that period as an indian or US Calvaryman, it is not genocide. Why, because that form of population control and colonialization was the norm. And there was no definition of genocide in that period.

Today if you look at it and the other ways of colonialization tactics that were used, you would say it is genocide. In modern era, we have clear terms and definitions for what the colonialist have done. If you apply those tactics today, it will be considered immoral and will be in the category of war crimes. Much like the stuff you see in Syria.

When you are being slaughtered, the definition and term of genocide does not cross your mind. Because the only thing you think of is survival. the large picture does not matter, it is the personal and immediate events and incidents that will be of most importance.

 

^^^
*Or. Not of. Typo

 

but OP is asking us in the present if it was genocide, and by every definition it was...

strange how many cultures nearly deify/excuse past personalities whose main claim to fame was genocide...Genghis Khan, Tamerlane, Julius Caesar, anyone with the title "The Great" after their name... asking people/cultures that were victims of those leaders and "Great" is not a word you'll hear to describe them...

 

The whole post?

 

You have diameter confused with circumference. The Earth is around 25,000 miles around. But your point is st ill generally valid re moving populations around.

I see the usual liars are still fervently promoting their 'genocide' nonsense, a sure sign they know they're full of BS. Carry on.

 

It seems to me that a whole lot has been made of someone typing an F instead of an R. The fact of the matter is that some native American tribes were forcefully moved from their ancestral homes to one more convenient to the European tribes, were they not?

Now, imagine for a moment just what the US would be like today if none of that had happened - if all of the native American tribes were still living in their ancestral lands, speaking their various languages, following their cultural traditions, and for the sake of argument, imagine that it was the natives who had diseases for which the Europeans had no resistance, instead of the other way around. What do you think North America would be like today?

 

Ward Churchill also blamed the USA for 911. Idiots are a dime a dozen.

 

I'd keep the dime before I blew it on idiots like Ward. But I did vote yes on the poll. We killed quite a few of them.

 

Agreed. I would submit that most nations were formed via wars and violence. Not that it diminishes what was done to them.