Can the actions of the Spanish, British, and evntually the American governments towards native populations from discovery to the nineteenth century be considered genocidal? why or why not?

Well, the smallpox-laden blankets would establish intent, so I'd say that the behavior of some could be considered genocide.

__________________
Whan they come, Ah sall staun mah grun
Staun mah grun, an be na afraid.
Thochts ae hame tak awa mah fear
Sweat an bluid hide mah veil o tears.

Smallpox laden blankets, a forced march across the country in all weather, paying a bounty for indian scalps, and then there was the outright massacre of entire tribes and villages, including unarmed women and children. So...in short, yes.
The intent was to exterminate, and was very similar to the intent at the time towards wolves, coyotes, and any other 'competitors'.

__________________
please click and help the eggs hatch!

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

I'd say yes.



Homeland Security Fighting Terrorism since 1513.

I tend to think it was not. A tremendous (albeit, 40k words long) article on the topic, by Guenter Lewy, is here ----> Were American Indians the Victims of Genocide?

Really a fascinating read on a very somber topic in American history.

__________________
Many bad policies are simply good policies taken too far.
-Thomas Sowell

Could you summarize the points that you found interesting for those of us who are too lazy to read a 40k word article?

what about the 400 page book, by david e stannard, phd, yale univ., titled 'The american holocaust', which argues logically that they were victims of genocide, citing murderous actions of the spanish, and clear statements of intent of extermination from california governors and andrew jackson himself, who collected indian body parts? deporting the cherokees and killing the bison in the west at the same time intentionally isnt a planned famine?

He tries to argue that it was unintentional and not centrally planned, and that we were somehow to dumb to know what we were doing... which is 110% BS...

A few things he he didn't see as requiring emphasis in his 40k "essay"...

1815-1817 - Frist Seminole War - General Andrew Jackson atempts to subdue the "civilized" tribes of the Southeast.

1830 - Indian Removal Act - Being an act of Congress signed into law by President Andrew Jackson, to forcibly remove those Indians of the Southeast still remaining. Results in the "Trail of Tears", pushes the Cherokee Nation, as well as several other tribes, into lands west of the Mississippi. Mainly lands in Oklahoma, which were thought to be useless at the time.

1835-1842 - Second Seminole War - Seminole Indians who refused to be "Removed", along with run away slaves, fight a bitter war to retain central Florida.

1848 - Gold in California Causes War with Apache - Lasts for 40 years...

1862 - Homestead Act - All Western Territory not spceifically protected by treaty becomes free to whites.

1870's - Slaughter of American Buffalo (Bison) - Removed main source of livelyhood for plains Indians. FYI for those who think it was "to protect locamotives"..."Let them kill, skin and sell until the buffalo are exterminated. Then your prairies can be covered with speckled cattle and the festive cowboy." --General Phil Sheridan (he's the same Jackass who said "The only good Indians I ever saw were dead."

1876 - 1877 - Black Hills War - Removal of the Lakota (Souix) from the Black Hills against previous treaties.

1889 - Oklahoma Land Rush - United States decides it needs the best of the Oklahoma lands after all. The surviving Great Grand Children of the Indians removed from the Southeast have their land taken by white settlers.

1890 - Wounded Knee Last major armed conflict between the United States governmaent and an Indian Tribe. Between 150 and 300 Lakota (men, womaem, and children), including Sitting Bull, killed by US troops.



Plus A LOT of others.


Happy Quote:

Andrew Jackson - Having said this Between the Seminole War which he led and the Removal Act which he signed - "It will be my sincere and constant desire to observe toward the Indian tribes within our limits a just and liberal policy, and to give that humane and considerate attention to their rights and their wants which is consistent with the habits of our Government and the feelings of our people."

And Yes, he is the guy on the $20 bill.

Anyway, that took about an hour to read and get organized, so I gotta go now, but the whole "it wasn't intentional" thing is a load of crap. No better than a Holocaust Denier. Period.

Chris

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

It would vary between tribe. Either way, I really can't bring myself to care.

__________________
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

At least you don't pretend to have a consience. That's always refreshing.

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

I just look at what happened for each tribe and then I make my judgement. For example; If a tribe fought a war against the United States, and lost, then they are at the mercy of us. If we forced them to move, that was our right as the conquerors. If they don't like it, tough. Guess they should have fought harder. They didn't have the same rules to war and the like back then, so it really is hard to hold them to the same standards as we do ourselves.

__________________
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

wouldnt that same reasoning apply to the majority of the holocuast victims? didnt poland and the ussr fight the germans? wasnt it germany's 'right as conquerors' to do as the pleased, as you argue was the case for us? the question had nothing to do with today's standard, it had to do with wether or not the native americans were victims of intended extermination.

I agree. It can certainly be considered genocide even if it was (in some parts) unintentional and even if it was not centrally planned.

There have been numerous genocides throughout history, few of which have been centrally planned or intended by those having the highest power.

However, I would not say that there was a genocide directed towards all of the native Americans. The extent of the genocide (or genocides, if we prefer to say so when getting down to the details) is serious enough as it is, nevertheless.

__________________
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.

negative, because at the time of the holocaust and WW2 there were established rules of war.

As for the extermination claim, I say that it depends on the tribe. Some were, some weren't. All were victims of ethnic cleansing to a certain extent, because ethnic cleansing carried with it expulsions.

__________________
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

Great post!