Yet that is right. That is the reason why indians like Nez Percés when they fled, relinquishing their land, have never been hunted dogs niggers on the runaway...

It is not a genocide because it can not be a genocide.

If it were a genocide, it would mean that democratic people would be responsible for a genocide. And as democratic people do not do genocide, it is impossible.

End of the story.

so, its mere coincidence he led raids on villiages and killed women and children, collected noses and scalps, and ordered the mutilation of 800 creek indian bodies, and justified this action in front of congress? might i remind you, genocide is the destruction of a targetd group of people, where the group is defined by the perpatrators. your added criteria are not valid. (often, race is associated with an opposition to some form of power)

i yeah, i forgot to mention the intentional reduction of the buffalo population, after the cherokees were forced to migrate (death rate of forced migration of trial of tears= rate of death in battan death march) to the west.
you are joking, right?
it does not matter what motivates anyone to declare genocidal intent. racism is not the only criteria here. wanting to destroy a group of people is genocide, whether it for their land, becuase of their race, or their religion.

do you have solid evidence suggesting jews werent killed for their land or their possessions (which the nazis profited off of immensely)
Genocide is the targeted destruction of a group of people. motivation is not a factor. if they were white, no land would have been stolen from them.

so if the perpatrators of mass murder are too racially arrogant to consider their victims part of a distinct race, it is not genocide?

actually, in reality, the united states was aware of the ethnic, cultural, and lingusitic differences of native americans. racial ideology was possibly the cornerstone of justification of indian removal, (euphemism for death) as it was for slavery as institution.

native americans were compared to wolves on the frontier, simple beasts of burden inhibiting the spread of white culture.

Do the racial policies of Adolph Hitler count? Afterall, he didn't discriminate between a, lets say, wealthy German Jew and a poor Polish one.

Your own definition is coming out against you here. Actions towards native Americans differed from tribe to tribe. i.e. Not every tribe was attacked for their land. If the native americans are victims of anything it is ethnic cleansing. And yes, ethnic cleansing can happen without genocide. A good example of this is the ethnic cleansing of Germans at the end of WW2, and the events of the Balkans in the 80s and 90s.

__________________
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

both had something the 3rd reich wanted. one had money, the other lived in land that the Reich wanted to resettle with 'aryan' or ethnic germans. how do we know what was rhetoric and what was real from Hitler? he's possibly the most capable propagandist who ever lived.

what about the native american children who 'owned' little land?


i never implied there was one unified policy for all native tribes. yes, reasons for extermination varied.

i am going to need from you a definition of ethnic cleansing and a defintion of genocide, please.

OK. So the Wikipedia definition of Genocide uses the CPPCG definition of genocide.


According to their broad definition of genocide, The killing of the Indians falls into the distinction.

But the term Genocide was not even known to man before 1943. What would they have called it in Andrew Jackson's time?

So you can legitimately argue that our government enacted in some way what could be considered to be genocide. What's the point?

By the broad definition of genocide, Hardly any country can claim to have an innocent past.... Well, maybe Switzerland.

__________________

The world could use more Stan Ovshinsky's

Trouble is with genocide, time does not count and as long the country still exists as a body, it can be asked to respond for its past actions.

According to who? Who enforces this?

And since those responsible are all dead, what punishment fits the crime and who is at the receiving end?

__________________

The world could use more Stan Ovshinsky's

i think jackson called it 'removal.'

im not trying to make a point or say america is terrible or anything (not accusing you of implying that either)

ive just done research lately that has convinced me this was in many ways genocidal, and wanted some opinions

My view is that according to the modern definition of genocide, the "removal" of the American Indian could be termed as such.

In our time, (actually since after WWII), the practice of genocide has been abhorred by humanity. Before that time, it was rather common practice and the media and news channels did not exist to elicit widespread public outrage. We are much less tolerant than we used to be of human injustice and human rights violations.

We have to be careful when applying modern standards to historical events or figures. What happened to the Indians was wrong, but in the context of the era, it fit into what was happening and had happened to indiginous peoples all over the world and it was not a unique occurance whatsoever.

__________________

The world could use more Stan Ovshinsky's

Actually according to democratic people themselves. They are the ones who coined up the concept.

As mentioned, genocide are actions taken by a state. So if the country whose state commited these actions still exists, the receiving end is clearly defined.

Genocide are not individually based but organized at a society's level. Save in the cases the said society disappeared, usually, the persecutor still exists.

Who enforces this? Democratic people of course.

That is, as it was already stated, a reason why the extermination of indians is not a genocide.

The rule goes as following:

if it was a genocide, it would mean democratic people did it.
As democratic people do not do this kind of stuff, it is merely not a genocide.

End of the story.

I'm having difficulty understanding your reasoning. If the American people are responsible for the crime and the enforcement of it where's the impetus to punish anyone?

End of story is right, because I see no one paying the price for the the removal of the American Indian for anyone exept the American Indians.

It's just the reality of it. It was an injustice for sure, but No disciplinary actions are going to be taken.

__________________

The world could use more Stan Ovshinsky's

They are still there, mostly in the everglades.