i agree. so we are in agreement that it genocide, or 'genocidal,' if the defintion is the targeted and planned destruction of a group of people over a period of time?

Hitler's racial policies made it illegal for Jews to own land and busnisess, IIRC. These policies were put into place in the 30s, before the Final Solution was put into place. So, why would Hitler kill them if he already had everything he wanted from them (land, money) as you are suggesting?


You also have to take into account the fact that not all tribes were exterminated.

I have found two pretty good definitions of ethnic cleansing

1."[E]thnic cleansing [...] defies easy definition. At one end it is virtually indistinguishable from forced emigration and population exchange while at the other it merges with deportation and genocide. At the most general level, however, ethnic cleansing can be understood as the expulsion of an "undesirable" population from a given territory due to religious or ethnic discrimination, political, strategic or ideological considerations, or a combination of these."

2."[E]thnic cleansing is a well-defined policy of a particular group of persons to systematically eliminate another group from a given territory on the basis of religious, ethnic or national origin. Such a policy involves violence and is very often connected with military operations. It is to be achieved by all possible means, from discrimination to extermination, and entails violations of human rights and international humanitarian law."

and genocide, TLB already gave a good one, and the acepted one. The part of that definition that causes so many problems, however, is the "in whole or in part" section. The International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia delved into this.

Therefore, in my eyes, because the actions taken varied from tribe to tribe
what happened to the Native Americans (as a whole) was not genocide, but ethnic cleansing if anything.

__________________
There can be no bystanders in the battle for survival. Anyone who will not fight by your side is an enemy you must crush.

We are at war with forces too terrible to comprehend. We cannot afford mercy for any of its victims too weak to take the correct course. Mercy destroys us; it weakens us and saps our resolve. Put aside all such thoughts. They are not worthy of those in the service of country.

Fighting with crocodiles to make a few bucks...

Impressive. Native americans (as a whole) never existed before the arrival of proto democratic and democratic people. Did they consider as a gender before? Nope.

But indeed, that is more like ethnic cleansing in the democratic book and this is why in darfur there is no genocide.
People there simply understood that by copying the ways of democratic people, democratic ustaters in this case, they will not be worried about their actions.

first, the racial polices of the thirties affected only german jews (500,000) 95% of those killed lived outside of germany's prewar borders. 4 out of est. 6 mil killed lived in poland and russia. these jews, as i stated, lived in areas targeted for germanization. nazis profited immensely simlpy from the possessions they took with them to the camps. when the final solution was put in place, germany's resources were overextended, occupied territory adminstrators were having trouble feeding jewish ghettos as well as the general populations, which was most likely a financial factor of the final solution.



true, but each tribe was a distinct ethnicitiy, culture, and language. as long as just one of those tribes was intentionally exterminated, then we can say genocide occurred. like i said, we know that tribes were dealt with differently at different times, and varying from case to case, some circumstances may allow the "unintended tragedy" or "ethnic cleansing" argument to be made. however, it is impossible to say that genocide or 'acts of genocide' did not occur over the course of three hundred years of rapid depopulation of the natives.





given how genocide must occur toward a distinct people, it would not have been possible for genocide to occur to the natives as a whole.

There is also evidence suggesting that (or proving, but since I have no source right now, I won't say so) the Nazis sped up the proces of actually killing of the Jews, when it became more and more apparent to them that they would lose the war. Many times, trains important for the war effort had to stop to wait for trains loaded with people meant for the Gas chambers in Auschwitz and Treblinka. Some Nazis simply thought the racial policy was so important that they would rather exterminate the Jews than making anything to win the war. I guess some of them thought that even if they lost the war, the extermination of the Jews would still be an irreversible act that would give them a good legacy some time in the future, even if the war was lost.

__________________
President Josiah Bartlet: Sweden has a 100% literacy rate. 100%! How do they do that?
Leo McGarry: Maybe they don't and they can't add.

I can't see how they could be considered anything else.

This was Thorhammers response to the topic of the genocide of the native Americans.

I thought it was a very interesting thing for somebody to say who has a signature (is that what you call the words that come after the solid line when you post?) That reads;

"War is an ugly thing, but not the ugliest of things. The decayed and degraded state
of moral and patriotic feeling which thinks that nothing is worth war is much worse.
The person who has nothing for which he is willing to fight, nothing which is more
important than his own personal safety, is a miserable creature, and has no chance of
being free unless made or kept so by the exertions of better men than himself."


He can't bring himself to care when the discussion is about a people that did just what his signature would indicate he should admire.

The indians DID fight back thor. And what WERE they fighting for? They were fighting back against insurmountable odds (surely you realize they could tell their bows and arrows were a TAD inefficient agains the long rifles of their enemy). What WERE they fighting for? Hmmm, that's a real brain teaser. That word, what is it, it's right on the tip of my tongue. Just can't think of it. STARTS WITH AN F. hmmmm. ... Friendship!?! No, that's not it. hmmmmm.... FREEDOM! duh, oh yeah.

I'll tell you something Thor; They fought to a point (you pretend to admire) that I doubt you have an ancestor can lay claim to. They fought FOR FREEDOM until their wives were dead, and their kids were dead. They fought to the point of annihilation bud. Name your ancestors that did the same thing, then look at your signature ONE MORE TIME. Shame on you.

If there was a genocide, disease was the perpetrator.

__________________

Now it's horrible? Earlier you couldn't even bring yourself to care. Somehow I think your "horrible" is just thrown in there. I'm not feeling it. Nobody had yet written down genocide wasn't ok yet, so it was ok.

Morals hadn't been invented yet.

Were rape, murder, and pedophilia "bad" before they were written into law as such? I mean if you can bring yourself to care about all the rapes and murders and child molestations that occurred before they were recognized INTERNATIONALLY as bad things.

It was human beings that slaughtered the native Americans Thor. Is it your contention they were slaughtered by subhumans with no morals?

Currently, if you can understand, I'm going to assume it was your ancestors slaughtering them from long range. You seem like you could do it. Well I mean not now, it's WRITTEN somewhere that it's illegal right? But I mean, if it wasn't written anywhere, right?

I respect those who fought and died for what they believed in. However, they lost, and I don't care that they lost and will not shed any tears.

__________________
There can be no bystanders in the battle for survival. Anyone who will not fight by your side is an enemy you must crush.

We are at war with forces too terrible to comprehend. We cannot afford mercy for any of its victims too weak to take the correct course. Mercy destroys us; it weakens us and saps our resolve. Put aside all such thoughts. They are not worthy of those in the service of country.

As I said, I was pointing it out from a legal stand point. Not a moral one.

__________________
There can be no bystanders in the battle for survival. Anyone who will not fight by your side is an enemy you must crush.

We are at war with forces too terrible to comprehend. We cannot afford mercy for any of its victims too weak to take the correct course. Mercy destroys us; it weakens us and saps our resolve. Put aside all such thoughts. They are not worthy of those in the service of country.

Desist with the personal comments. Discuss the thread topic and not the ancestry or personal attributes of other posters.

Matt

__________________
De duobus malis, minus est semper eligendum

"Came off"? Are you insinuating you were misinterpretted?

As far as I know; "I can't bring myself to care (about a particular genocide) " is not ANY "legal stand point".

Just so you know, even WAAYYYY back then, humans existed among us. Not all participated in that genocide. Some even broke ranks and refused to participate. Some even wrote down what they saw. That's why we know about it. You didn't read about it in your American history book pal.