Posted on 09/19/2007 4:58:59 AM PDT by Kaslin
Yes, Diaz’ account is nearly the entire source for British black propaganda; British history takes Diaz’ evidently wild exaggerations and portrays them as typical of Spanish cruelty. Diaz’ book is nearly synonymous with “the Black Legend.”
People often use the word genocide when the word should be greed. That’s the truth of the matter. I agree the “genocide” thing is mostly myth but the “greed” thing is more of a reality, it’s pretty much documented.
Everyone should always keep a close watch on their government, this we will certainly agree on.
Where we are just going to have to agree to disagree is calling the history of the conflict Genocide. If european settlers has wished genocide upon the native americans, honestly you and I would not be having this conversation, as you and your bloodline would no longer exist. That’s the definition of genocide.
Genocide: (n) the deliberate and systematic extermination of a national, racial, political, or cultural group.
Native Americans cannot claim they have been exterminated, in fact more claim Native American blood today than when the Europeans first arrived her. What Germany did with the Jews was attempted genocide, what happened to the native americans, was not. Does this mean no horrible things happened? Of course not, but calling it Genocide is just not appropriate.
Part of the PC nonsense is to bandy about words beyond their meanings for shock value. IE calling Bush a Nazi.. or Conservatives “Fascists”... This is the what is being done when GENOCIDE is used in relation to the native americans. While it may not have been something moral, that doesn’t make it a Genocide.
There have been true genocides in history. I personally have little doubt, had the Native Americans won the war against the europeans you’d be hard pressed to find more than a trace of caucasian blood on this continent. Children and women were not spared their wrath, except for a few women who were taken as wives and spoils of war. What the native americans have been through, was not and is not genocide, if it was as I stated before you and I would not be having this conversation.
I do not believe that (Germany's war) was genocide either, otherwise we wouldn't have any j*ws about. I guess we will disagee.
I personally have little doubt, had the Native Americans won the war against the europeans you’d be hard pressed to find more than a trace of caucasian blood on this continent.
In some cases, perhaps but "American Indians" are not a uniform people, we are all different. To this day you can be part of Navajo tribe and be white as snow, they are not all racially motivated.
There would need to be some motivation because why else would you bother?. Greed is a powerful motivator. (ya' ta' eh fish hawk, NS, Navajo Nation - The Dinetah)
several DAMNyankee apologists, here on FR, have said that the 4-day blood orgy against MY family in 1864 by "sherman the destroyer's FILTH on blue" was NOT "genocide" or a "massacre" either.
ONE "former forum member" of "the DAMNyankee coven of lunatics,BIGOTS, fools, LEFTISTS,haters, REVISIONISTS, nitwits & a RACIST" said on a WBTS thread that ALL the "stupid, injun savages should have been killed out to the last one so that they wouldn't have been on the "public dole". (you should also note that NOT even ONE "member of the coven" chose to say that he was wrong! i presume therefore that they AGREED that we ALL should have been exterminated.)
as there were (at least) 92 women, elderly men & several children (under 12 years old) raped/sodomized/tortured/robbed/slaughtered, as if they were cattle, one wonders WHAT it would take for them to call it a "massacre" and/or "genocide"????
free dixie,sw
we Tsalagiyi PROUDLY fought to the bitter end for LIBERTY from the DAMNyankee elitists, who HATED & FEARED all AmerIndians & all other "persons who are other than white", including Asians,Blacks,Jews,Latinos,Mormons,Quakers, Roman Catholics & other smaller minority religious/ethnic groups.
FACT.
free dixie,sw
"the peculiar institution" was NOT "a moral issue" for the vast majority of AIs (as it was NOT a "moral issue" for 95+% of other Americans!!!) in the 18th/19th centuries.
you really should go do some REAL research from the PRIME sources & stop reading SELF-serving/sanctimonious/SELF-righteous "fiction" from the REVISIONIST LEFT.
free dixie,sw
perhaps you should head over to "daily kos", "DU" and/or "moveon.org", where BIGOTS are welcome. i predict that you'll be a STAR on any/all of those sites.
free dixie,sw
Oh please, all your name calling doesn’t change facts...
Genocide is defined as:
The deliberate and systematic extermination of a national, racial, political, or cultural group.
The native americans were not victims of GENOCIDE, claiming so is just nonsensical. They were indeed conquered, and yes there were massacres committed by native americans and european settlers, but genocide is a rediculous and ludicrous claim.
You can call me every name in the book because I will challenge the PC demand (a demand absolutely not backed up by historical fact) that the native american people were simply peaceful angelic people ravaged by the white man, but that doesn’t change the facts.
Go ahead a call me any name you want, doesn’t change the facts. The native american people were not subjected to Genocide... the fact you are here to call me names is proof of that. There are more people today claiming indian blood than there were indians alive when the europeans arrived. The charge of Genocide is just liberal pc nonsense.
Coyoteman,
Cook’s work is one of what I would consider the old guard’s work. Even when published, there were younger anthropoligists who challenged that number. The population in the Los Angeles area has always been difficult to estimate because of the long period of occupation, the size and extent of the shell midens and the fact that the area is periodically cleansed through fire or flood. That it supported a large population is undoubted.
The California areas most significantly undercounted are the Sierra and Coastal Range foothills. Long thought to support only scattered hunters and gatherers, it is now known that the acorn-based economies in the foothills was a much stronger basis for a large population than previously believed.
Regardless of the numbers, my point remains the same. The numbers are politically charge. I think the discussion should not turn on whether there were 100 million Indians who vanished, or only 10 million. The basis for the discussion should consist of the principles of right, wrong, morality and politics as freepers know them.
I am always a bit surprised how the discussion of the mistreatment of Indians triggers such rabid denials and accusations on this board, both ways.
IMHO
Oldplayer
(Choctaw)
instead, like SEVERAL other FReepers, i'll continue to feel that you are a DUNCE & a BIGOT, absent evidence to the contrary & i'll make sport of your DUMB-bunny comments & openly ridicule your silly/false posts.
the FACTS are that it was the stated OFFICIAL POLICY of the federal government for nearly a century) to "DRIVE from our Dominions or EXTERMINATE" my people, the American Indian. FACT, not opinion.
free dixie,sw
it was NOT for LACK of DESIRE and/or WANT of TRYING, that the Indian-HATERS failed in their "glorious crusade to cleanse the world of the "red, soulless savages"!
free dixie,sw
If the european settlers wished to exterminate the native americans, they certainly had the means and ability to do so.... While there is little doubt attrocities were committed over the centuries by settlers and native americans in their conflicts, the claim of GENOCIDE is just laughable.
There are about 2 Million Americans today who claim pure native american blood, given that most estimates put the population of the entire continent at the time of the first europeans arriving at between 7 and 12 million total individuals, to claim genocide is just not supported.
Being conquered and removed from land is not GENOCIDE, and as to extermination, the fact we are having this conversation pretty much disproves that.
I know the lies about intentional use of germ warfare, etc etc etc are all out there, but other than one mention of contemplation of doing it by one commander at Ft Pitt in the 1700s, thats all the evidence there is of it ever being considered, let alone used... unless of course you buy into the lies and debunked crap Ward Churchill has been peddling.
You can believe me a biggot or whatever other name you wish to call me, and I am not sitting here saying native americans suffered no attrocities at the hands of europeans. However the charge of Genocide is just not founded.
Did native americans suffer attrocities by europeans? You bet your a$$... did they also deliver attrocities onto them? You bet your a$$! In fact he first massacre between native americans and europeans was the Native Americans slaughtering about 1/3 of all europeans on the contininent, men women and children in 1 day in the 1600s called the Jamestown massacre.
You can go with the sensational and emotionally charged reactionary claim of Genocide, but the fact is that you are here to have this conversation debunks that claim. Clearly if the Europeans wished all traces of native american blood be whiped from the continent, they certainly could have accomplished this.
You can hate me if you wish, call me whatever name you wish, and presume I am ignorant if that makes you sleep at night.... doesn’t change the facts. What the native americans suffered, does not meet the definition of the word Genocide
The fact that Lincoln was dead doesn't stop Tommy DiLusional from blaming it on him, does it?
BS... if the Governement wanted every last native american dead, they certainly had the means to accomplish it. Your stand does not remotely stand up to reason.
When placed on trains for relocation they could have just as easily infected those trains with smallpox, or emptied gattling guns into the boxcars... or once on the new reservations lined them up and shot them all.
Claims of GENOCIDE are rediculous. Had the government wanted every last native american dead, there would indeed be none today.
If that was their goal, they could have carried it out.
The native american tribes were conquered. Genocide claims are just not supported remotely by facts.
Facts are facts; don’t bother me w/opinions!
The California areas most significantly undercounted are the Sierra and Coastal Range foothills. Long thought to support only scattered hunters and gatherers, it is now known that the acorn-based economies in the foothills was a much stronger basis for a large population than previously believed.
Even more significant is the drop in population that is increasingly being seen archaeologically in those coastal areas. This seems to have begun in the 1600s, long before the Spanish colonization.
instead i PITY you as you "know NOT & know NOT that you know NOT".
you've been LIED TO & made a FOOL of, like all too many Americans. perhaps one day you'll figure that out!!
the fact that i'm here & was BORN is NOT due to the "fiction of genocide" but rather that my ancestors were TOUGHER TO DRIVE OUT and/or KILL than the Europeans thought.
had the elites of the USA had access to "gas chambers","WMDs", etc. i believe that they would HAVE used them without mercy.
btw, according to a Pawnee friend of mine on the staff of the NMAI, there were about 15-20 million Indians in the "lower 48" in the 17th century & HALF that many a century later!!!
free dixie,sw
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.