Yes we do hear them classified by tribe and language, but you got to remember that the indians were classified by arrogant racists who could have probably cared less about what ethnicities may have existed within the native community (given that scholars estimate 95 million natives lived throughout all the americas prior to european contact, there is a good case that varying ethnicities existed). At any rate, since the whites did see differences in tribes, ethnic or not, and behaved toward them differently, it would be silly to say that if one tribe was target for extermination, it wouldn't have been genocide because in reality that tribe was part of a broader ethnic group. this is what i was getting at with the holocaust reference.

at this point we are merely splitting hairs and simply defining genocide in a manner that fits our arguments.

we also have to consider that in some cases ethnicity is just as imagined as it is real.

__________________
Anyone with a vision needs to see an eye doctor. -Helmut Schmidt.

"Mrs. Palin, which specific journals and news sources do you read? (after being asked once)"

"Oh, All of them!"

Just to help clear things up, the US Census Bureau of today uses tribe affilitation and language to classify them, and that is where I got that from.

Still, I maintain that, because of those varrying actions, a systematic policy of extermination towards indians was simply not the case. Perhaps on a tribe by tribe basis, but not on a whole. That is my whole point and has been my whole point all along.

I can agree with that. Though, I have maintained all along that they were the victims of ethnic cleansing.

Again, quite true.

__________________
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.

Thor, I'm not believing you've ever read any history at all. I don't believe you ever read that highschool history book you allude to, nor do I believe you've done the independent research you claim to have.

The strategy you dismiss offhandedly was very MUCH one of the strategies they used.

Your statement that we had them "outmanned and outgunned" is an outrageous mistake on your part proving you are a phony.

Originally we DID have them outgunned sort of. (in range, but bows and arrows were faster) but we certainly did NOT have them outmanned.

Hello, I'm talking to that historian Thor. What weapon exactly are you talking about when you say we had them "outgunned"? Do you mean the MUSKET LOL!

We were never anything other than deceptive to the natives. When we were the minority, and knew we couldn't fight them, we played friends. We were never friends, when we were militarily able to, we killed "the savages". We were only "friends" when we thought they posed a threat.

That's reality. Surely ONE of your history books, you've never read, tells the truth.

to move into later history, Indians tended to side with either the french or the english, very VERY rarely did they side with us. There's a very good reason for that. Neither the english or the french were there for the purpose of exterminating the "savages".

Much of our early extermination of native americans had to do with that they'd sided against us. But WHY had they sided against us? And more importantly, were they wrong?

You are right and it would help your argument to look into it deeper and see that for sure the "americans" did NOT look upon indians (as a general rule) as an ethnically diverse group. They were all lumped into one general term, and the propaganda of the day made sure of that; They were MOST commonly referred to as "savages". From presidency on down htp.

Once again, cbussey, you let your emotion bleed through. You offer no facts, and simply attack me as an historian (which I never claimed to be).

Do you really want to go into weapon systems employed? If you do, you will find that we had firepower on our side. Simple casualty ratios will help prove that.

I am done with you cbussey. When you want to have a rationa debate/discussion, like an adult, let me know. I will be more than willing to oblige.

__________________
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.

By the time of the 19th century, i think you can say the natives were outgunned as you did. however, that doesn't mean they were complete pushovers, i think hindsight contributes more to that perception. If the American government was acting moderately conservative in military ops to the west, then temoporary treaties would have been appealing to the politicians of the time.

As far as the whole land issue, i think you are right about it being the primary desire, conquest of land. However, that does not negate genocide, especially when it became the objective of the state to conquer the whole continent. Given the perception that the natives were incompatible with western society and culture, and were "merely wolves" as many state governments saw them, then extermination is a by product by default, seeing as how there is no where for them to live. While extermination was not the goal in and of its own, i see no difference in evaluating genocide if extermination is merely a by product (in almost all cases of genocide, we can make your same argument. Extermination is mostly attached to some nationalistic goal, and is found acceptable, but is not pursued merely for its own sake.)

__________________
Anyone with a vision needs to see an eye doctor. -Helmut Schmidt.

"Mrs. Palin, which specific journals and news sources do you read? (after being asked once)"

"Oh, All of them!"

thor is kind of right here, bussey.

__________________
Anyone with a vision needs to see an eye doctor. -Helmut Schmidt.

"Mrs. Palin, which specific journals and news sources do you read? (after being asked once)"

"Oh, All of them!"

Certainly the USA has been formed from ethic cleansing and attempted genocide.

The "civilised" exterior just paints a picture of so much repressed bullshit.
It's a nation built on murder and destruction but no-one wants to admit it. It's still going on in the same way under your nose.
Buy a cellphone and you're supporting a corporate backed mercenary war in Africa.
Fuel your oversized car and you're supporting a war in the middle east.

Don't worry though. You can justify anything if you try hard enough.

I've never denied being a man of emotion, it is part of me, it doesn't rule me. However I've provided ALL the facts here, you have provided nothing but opinions you incessantly fail to back up with fact. I didn't attack you "as an historian"; I felt all along that you were a phony. I challenged you to prove you deserved the credentials you had claimed. So now you're mad. LOL.

Absolutely. Well er yeah! I really WOULD like to hear YOU educate us on our extreme firepower (offensive of course) back then.


Wuss out. I expected it all along.

What is it in your makeup that spurs you to involve yourself in discussions you know absolutely nothing about?

would anybody else agree that I didn't handle this "debate/discussion" rationally and like an adult?

Please (that was nice right?) educate us on the extreme offensive arsenal we brought to bear upon the "savages".

and which anglo saxon country do you live in? ha ha

And do you have a cell phone? car? (i never knew that warring factions in africa were making cell phones) (i think you could make a case for diamonds, though)

__________________
Anyone with a vision needs to see an eye doctor. -Helmut Schmidt.

"Mrs. Palin, which specific journals and news sources do you read? (after being asked once)"

"Oh, All of them!"

I totally agree. They were certainly not pushovers. However, as I said, the tribes that fought did not have the manpower or the firepower that the US military could bring to bear.

Sorry, I am still not seeing genocide here. As I have said before, genocide implies that extermination is the strategy and policy. I mean, even if the indians fled off the land we wanted from them, that would not have stopped us if total extermination was the universal policy. Land would have not been the motivation; killing would have been. Reservations would not have been needed or ever created. We would simply have killed. The fact that we let various tribes live, in one form or another, shows that systematic extermination was not the goal.

Though, I fear we are just splitting hairs again. For me, genocide means a systematic and deliberate policy of extermination.

__________________
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.

You have been over emotional.
In relative terms, i believe that the whites had better weapons than the 'savages,' or at least a more efficient way of using them (more effective tactics)

I don't think Thor was asserting that the whites weapons systems were particularly awesome, just relatively better.

__________________
Anyone with a vision needs to see an eye doctor. -Helmut Schmidt.

"Mrs. Palin, which specific journals and news sources do you read? (after being asked once)"

"Oh, All of them!"

That means that we have to believe that the government of the time beleived:

1. The conquest of the continent would not have resulted in the destruction of the native american tribes

2. Reservations in the desert were legitimate places where a population could both thrive and grow

I believe if a government understands that extermination will result by default from one of its policies, then it is genocide. If it deliberately pursues a policy that it knows will spell extermination for a group of people...

__________________
Anyone with a vision needs to see an eye doctor. -Helmut Schmidt.

"Mrs. Palin, which specific journals and news sources do you read? (after being asked once)"

"Oh, All of them!"

Are you talking about total extermination or the end of their previous way of life?

But not all tribes (and I would argue the majority) were not placed in deserts or arid regions.

I agree. But I do not think that is what the government of the time intended.

__________________
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.

New Zealand has gone about dealing with past indigenous issues far better than Australia or the US has in comparison.

Regarding cellphones, check out where columbite-tantalite comes from.
My cellphone is about 3 years old.
I have cut down on the new computer parts in recent times since becoming aware of what I was indirectly supporting.

Fuel wise, you'll do well to beat a 1.8 litre diesel car on fuel efficiency.