It is interesting to note that the Seminoles were the only tribe who were never defeated and never signed a peace treaty with the US.

Matt

what happend to them?

Are you saying that it isn't genocide if it occured before 'established rules of war' were created?

__________________
please click and help the eggs hatch!

"The only abnormality is the incapacity to love"
-Anias Nin

thor has a funny way of reasoning things!

They got their very own homepage too...

http://www.seminoletribe.com/

God Bless 'Em.

__________________
Diplomacy is figuring out what you want to say, and then figuring out how not to say it...

Most tribes do these days- what's so remarkable about that?
Here's an excerpt:
Here's ours:
Official Site of the Cherokee Nation based in Tahlequah Oklahoma - Federally Recognized

__________________
please click and help the eggs hatch!

"The only abnormality is the incapacity to love"
-Anias Nin

Not at all, I am simply pointing out that what happened during WW2 violated established rules of war. What happened to certain native american tribes, while horrible, did not break any rules of war or international law.

__________________
I am a liberal, a classical liberal. Classical liberalism is liberalism, but the current collectivists have captured that designation in the United States. In Europe they are glad enough to call themselves socialists. But no one in America wants to be called socialist and admit what they are.

Courage, Truth, Honor, Fidelity, Discipline, Hospitality, Industriousness, Self-Reliance, Perseverance

What bearing does this have on whether it was genocide?

__________________
please click and help the eggs hatch!

"The only abnormality is the incapacity to love"
-Anias Nin

I was just approching it from a legal stand point, that is all. I was not trying to take away what happened to certain tribes, but I am sorry if that is how I came off.

__________________
I am a liberal, a classical liberal. Classical liberalism is liberalism, but the current collectivists have captured that designation in the United States. In Europe they are glad enough to call themselves socialists. But no one in America wants to be called socialist and admit what they are.

Courage, Truth, Honor, Fidelity, Discipline, Hospitality, Industriousness, Self-Reliance, Perseverance

On the non-genocide side of the argument:

It was mainly about conquest... taking the land and it's resources.

The people who settled the land did not discriminate; They killed everyone who got in their way. I think the motivation for killing the people was to steal from them.... not to purge their race from the earth.
.
.

__________________

The world could use more Stan Ovshinsky's

so i assume your from the school of interpretation that says Andrew Jackson's quote "I think the Cherokee nation needs to be scourged" is taken out of context?

Can genocide not accompany conquest? especially if your goal of conquest is an entire continent, (manifest destiny) and you consider natives incompatible with your social system?

Given that 4 of 6 million holocaust victims were in eastern europe, a future sight of Germanization, is safe to say the holocuast was not genocide but actually part of territorial conquest?

I simply presented a non-genocidal side of the argument. Not necessarily my point of view or school of interpretation.

On the Pro-Genocide of the argument, you could say that Colonials viewed themselves to be racially superior to the Indians (as Hitler and the Nazi's viewed their Aryan race to be superior to the Jews) and thus were bent on exterminating them.

Taking a quote by Andrew Jackson does not prove that this is the case. His quote amounts to promoting extermination, but whether the motivation is to eliminate the people based on their race or based on their opposition to power is unclear. I would interpret his comments to be non-genocidal since he references the Cherokee Nation and not the Cherokee.

Genocide requires an ideology that promotes killing based on race. To prove the pro-genocide side of the argument, you have to show that. If there is mass killing and the victims all happen to be of a certain race, it is not necessarily genocide if the motivation and reasoning is based on something else.

__________________

The world could use more Stan Ovshinsky's

yet again, htp, you only give the half truth about what happened in eastern europe. Therefore, you trying to relate it to what happened to the native Americans is dishonest.

native americans were killed for their land, not because they were simply native american.

__________________
I am a liberal, a classical liberal. Classical liberalism is liberalism, but the current collectivists have captured that designation in the United States. In Europe they are glad enough to call themselves socialists. But no one in America wants to be called socialist and admit what they are.

Courage, Truth, Honor, Fidelity, Discipline, Hospitality, Industriousness, Self-Reliance, Perseverance

While in some ways this is true, it is also a little simplistic to deny the strong, racial and religious element of why Americans were killing native americans.

__________________
First rule: Do not use semicolons. They are transvestite hermaphrodites representing absolutely nothing. All they do is show you've been to college.

And I realise some of you may be having trouble deciding whether I am kidding or not. So from now on I will tell you when I'm kidding...

We are about to be attacked by al-Qaida. Wave flags if you have them. That always seems to scare them away. I'm kidding.
-Kurt Vonnegut

That is an interesting point because one could think the chronological order to be reversed:
Apparently, democratic people thought at this time that there could be other known rule of warfare, probably more suitable to democratic civilized standards.