cbussey, I would appreciate if you would leave your emotional baggage out of this debate.

The fact of the matter is there were no laws at that time that prohibited it, so therefore not legal recourse can be taken.

Now that being said, from a moral stand point, what happened to some tribes was horrible. However, as Sherman said, "war is hell." That is why won't shed any tears for what happened. Some tribes fought and lost, and I respect that. Doesn't mean I sympathize with them.

__________________
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

That at least is a rational argument. It flies in the face of reality however.

I'm thinking that intent doesn't matter though. The result is what determines whether or not it was genocide.

Does it matter if you kill off a people by accident or intentionally? Doesn't the end result determine if it was genocide or not?

That is not the point he was trying to make. He was pointing out that it was about the land, not the people who lived on the land. After all, genocide is the deliberate and systematic extermination of an ethnic or national group. Actions taken differed from tribe to tribe.

__________________
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

So which of these many hundreds of tribes exist today on the land of their ancestors? Which tribe did not have their land stolen from them? I'm seriously hoping you'll bring up some of the "deals" that were made. Oh yeah, and honored of course.

Oh yes, ethnic cleansing. Much different than genocide. Do GERMANS still live in germany? Just wondering. I left there in the 70's. When I left it was mostly.... germans there. did they get "ethnically cleansed" yet? Gosh, I just can't tell the difference in ethnic cleansing and genocide.

Somebody post up those definitions, I'm getting confused.

Whether they exist on the ancestral lands is irrelevant. They (the tribes that were not attacked) were not targeted for extermination. I would even venture so far as to say those that came under attack were still attacked with the goal of driving them off their land, not to simply whipe them out. The tribes that chose to fight and eventually made peace are good examples. If the attackers were so hell bent on genocide they would not have made peace.

Obviously you are unfamiliar with Ostpreussen, the Sudetenland, and other regions of Europe that had massive populations of Germans prior to WW2. Just before the end of WW2 and continuing for a few years after, around 15 million Germans from eastern and central Europe were expelled to what is now Germany.

__________________
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

According to the Oxford Dictionary, genocide is the deliberate and systematic extermination of an ethnic or national group. Whereas ethnic cleansing refers to various policies or practices aimed at the displacement of an ethnic group from a particular territory in order to create a supposedly ethnically "pure" society

__________________
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

Is whether they exist on their ancestral lands "irrelevant" according to your signature? Which tribes were NOT attacked? Which tribes were not targeted for extermination. References please.


Absolutely. When you attack a bunch of leather wearers with long rifles from a distance, eventually killing everyting that stays, and burning out their village. That's not an attempt at extermination, that's just your way of saying "move along savage, move along".

Yeah, good examples they were. They "made peace" when they had nothing left but old men. You don't have to finish off your enemy when he's down to LITERALLY nothing left to fight with. I mean, we don't want to commit GENOCIDE after all.

It's always easy to "make peace" after you've annihilated everybody they ever knew and displaced them a few thousand miles.



How many of them were murdered before they were expelled? It must suck to be expelled to your own country. Gawrsh. I'm betting many indians even today would enjoy being expelled.... to their own country.

Meaning no indians experienced ethnic cleansing. I didn't see anything in the OXFORD dictionary definition that defines ethnic cleansing as shooting them away. Our indians, what are left of them, did not experience ethnic cleansing, they experienced genocide. They are survivors of a holocaust.

My sig really has nothing to do with this. Some of the Ojibwa tribes of Minnesota come to mind, simply because that is my home state. The mere fact they these tribes still exist (or any indians in America for that matter) show that genocide was not the goal. If it was, they would be dead.

Just like when a tribe is attacked, but then ceases to be attacked once they leave their territory? I can come up with neat little hythetical scenarios too.

But if extermination was the goal the fight would not have ended until they were all dead, even those old men.

you are right, it was easy. However, that is not genocide.

Estimates are between 2 and 3 million.

__________________
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

It's so easy to point fingers when it's "the nazis". Let's talk about the french, what was that called when they went around slaughtering their own like crazy. Inquisition?

But when it's me, when it's MY ancestors. All of a sudden excuses and strange explanations fly. We just practically exterminated an entire indigenous population from an entire continent..... "but...............

Many times killings go hand in hand with ethnic cleansing, but that doesn't make it genocide. Take a look at the Balkans, or Germany, again, after WW2.

And in order to be considered genocide, targetted extermination would have to be the standard practice when dealing with every indian tribe, which it wasn't.

__________________
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 do Nazis have to do with this.

Also, I wouldn't label what happend what happened with the French genocide. After all, as you said, they slaughterd their own. i.e. French killing French.

But that is not what we were trying to do, was it? Besides, it is not YOU.

__________________
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

This is the tribe you hold up as example. A tribe YOU would describe this way; "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. "

I believe the LACK of living indians in this day and age is testiment to the fact the LIVING tribe you speak of is NOT a testimony of who the indians were.

I doubt the Ojibwas are who you think they were either. Most likely they were old men and women that decided to keep their seed alive and nothing more.

Your signature, that for some reason you want to distance yourself from in THIS thread I'll bet any red man on this continent would attest to. It's funny, because people (their descendants) who actually LIVED your signature (which you never did) would probably clap you on the back for such a bold statement.

There's a reason there are so few indians left Thor. They lived what you preach with every post you write, and they died by it. You are a mere pretender, with the gall to defend their genocide.

Correct, I believe they should have fought. Even if they had, though, it still would not have been genocide if they lost.

But that fact they are around, because they chose not to fight, shows that total extermination was not the reason indians were killed.

Again, showing that extermination was not the policy directed at all indians. Therefore, genocide did not happen.

Ummm, buddy, I have fought in a war. So cut the bullshit high horse routine, ok?

Genocide did not happen. Again, in order for genocide to have happend, extermination would have had to been the predetermined strategy. Since all tribes were delt with differently (i.e. not all were attacked), genocide did not occur. Now, if we went out and killed indians simply because they were indians and not for their land, then I would be right beside you condeming it. However, that did not happen. Stop thinking with emotion and start using logic.

__________________
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

I don't expect you to know this, but individual tribes were only rarely known by their tribal name. In general they were referred to as "the savages".

We as a rule don't get our knowledge of tribe names from the soldiers that killed them. They are known because they also had white friends that made note of them. They were known to their murderers as "the savages". We know their tribal names from OTHER more peaceful sources.

If genocide was not the intention; it never had to happen. They posed VERY little threat. Just because a genocide is not 100% successful does not mean an attempt at genocide did not occur.