Biggest holocaust in all humanity being hidden from history

they almost were.... read on further in your history books. the american government tried to kill them off, chase them into little corners, how many american indians are even living today and why? read about custer's last stand and the laws surrounding that. look up 1850-1900 united states laws on the american indian "problem"

 

Sorry, don't think it qualifies. The United States killed a lot of Germans and Japanese - but they weren't wars of genocide against Japan and Germany. Genocide has a specific meaning, not "lots of people got killed".

 

120 million dying over a 300 year period can't compare with millions of people dying in a couple years, with whole families killed. More than 120 million people have died in the last 300 years, does that mean it compares to germany's applied eugenics program based on darwin's theory of evolution? No it doesn't.

Also, ya can't forget that there were alot of deaths due to diseases and virii that the euro's had defences to that the natives didn't. That wasn't a planned biological attack, that was just something that happened. Europeans didn't get those defences by miracle, lots of them died as diseases spread through europe.

 

Maybe a working definition of genocide is needed:

In the present Convention, genocide means any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such:

(a) Killing members of the group;

(b) Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group;

(c) Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part;

(d) Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group;

(e) Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group




See Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide, 1948, 'Article Two', http://www.unhchr.ch/html/menu3/b/p_genoci.htm.


​

 

^^^When I was doing my history homework I thought about linking something from wikipedia which described how colonial American's went out and killed Native American's who refused to give up/move off of their lands.

 

I never once said they killed alot of people so that means it is genocide. I was saying that they killed entire tribes off. You need to realize that these tribes where different from each other with thier own languages,cultures and religions. Many of these tribes where killed off on purpose to the hands of europeans.

Try researching about residential schools, the whole purpose of them was to assimilate natives into white culture. These schools took little kids and did not let them learn anything about thier own culture, this is called cultural genocide.

and dash there is some documentation on deliberate viral attacks on natives, these where letters telling soldiers to give blankets infected with smallpox to certain tribes they were at war with, it has been awhile since i read this but maybe after I get off work I can look it up for you.

and I should have said this on my first post. I think the origional poster used the wrong method to bring up this genocide, I think it is not a good idea to put a value on these genocides and compare them against each other. This was a mistake by the origional poster because people now are trying to bring up other genocides to try and argue their point that "this one wasnt so bad because not as many people died." It is a horrible offence to kill off an entire culture no matter how many people you kill.

 

here is some info on germ warfare documented from letters between some europeans generals.

it is called the The Amherst letters

http://academic.udayton.edu/health/syllabi/Bioterrorism/00intro02.htm

 

Nuff said.

 

The smallpox blanket story is a myth.

Cultural repression is reprehensible, but genocide? What is it, musical genocide if you teach native americans western music? Genocide is a deliberate attempt to completely kill off all members of a group. What happened to the native americans was not genocide. You don't need to call it genocide to make it sound bad, it is already bad enough.

 

Maybe you did not read fisters post above:
Fister defined genocide as: Genocide is a term defined by Article 2 of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (CPPCG) as "any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnic, racial or religious group, as such: Killing members of the group; Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group; Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life, calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part; Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group; and forcibly transferring children of the group to another group."

What happened to First Nations in North America fits into every single one of these catorgories.

By your definition with having deliberate in there still applies in many cases. You are still ignoring my point on individual tribes.

Here are a few examples of tribes who had deliberate plans of extermination on from the Europeans: Narragansett ,Pequot and Arawak.

well what I have read shows his letters which is a primary source of information. If you have any evidence to support that this is a myth or made up please share it with us.

 

a few more things to add

also this is a bad example you forgot to add that the teacher believes that they are superior and not allow the student to continue thier traditional music and then beat, rape and kill the student if they disagree or try and sing traditional songs.

if it is alredy bad enough then why are you so determine to not label it genocide? what is your motive? are you really obsessed with the english langauge and really hate to see people have grammer errors?

My motive in calling it genocide is because I want people to know the truth in what really happened in North America (as well as many other parts of the world) from colonization. What the Europeans did with colonization fits into every single definition of genocide.

 

No, actually I didnt forget that. You keep going back to this logic whereby I deny something is genocide, and they you claim that means I don't think its bad. The definition of genocide is not "doing bad stuff".

I don't want the word to lose all meaning because people use it to advance their political agenda.

Genocide is the deliberate and systematic elimination of an entire group of people. This is not what happened. As I said before, the fact that lots of people get killed doesn't make it genocide. Otherwise there was a genocide against the Amish a few weeks ago.

Teaching people what colonization did is a good idea. Misrepresenting it as genocide is not. You don't educate people by distorting history.

 

try researching those tribes I listed there was a deliberate and systematic elimination plans on them.

 

You listed the "smallpox blanket" myth so I don't have a lot of faith in your research.

 

well it does not matter about your faith in my research because I said try researching those tribes YOURSELF.

besides I said it was years ago when I learned about the smallpox thing in a history class and there are actual letters. I will say it again if you have any proof or anything which makes it a myth please share it with us. are these letters fake?

I have no faith in your research abilities because you seem to think you know everything which has happened to First Nations people and you have no idea about any of the tribes I listed. For me to say there was genocide by your definition all I have to do is find one tribe which had a deliberate attempt of killing them off. I said you think you know everything which happened because you would have to in order to take the stance that no genocide happened.

Do you really think that there was no deliberate killing of entire tribes?

and how does saying there was genocide advance anyones political agenda if it "was already bad enough"?

and why did you say my definition of genocide is doing something bad?

I listed the definition I was using (which is the same one as fisters)

 

Was there genocide against the Amish a few weeks ago? No, it was murder and murder is bad enough. There is no reason to call it anything else.

Now the native american tribes has lots of wars. Were they waging genocidal wars against each other? If no, they why wouldn't these wars be classified as genocidal?

The smallpox blanket myth has been widely debunked. The fact that a quick google search could tell you that suggests that you have never made any effort to look. Its a myth you want to believe because it supports your ideological interpretation of history.

http://www.plagiary.org/smallpox-blankets.pdf

You probably think are views are farther apart than they are. All I'm saying is that genocide is the wrong word. It seems strange to me that unless it is called genocide you seem to think there can be no criticism of colonialism in the United States.

 

did you realize we are talking about two different smallpox cases.

yours is the made up one of W churchhill about the US army in 1837 against the mandan

My link talk about the Engilsh army in 1763 during the french and indian war and it was during Pontiac's Rebellion . it was from a general Jeffrey Amherst and as far as I can tell by looking at the sources of what I have read had nothing to do with Churchill's lies.

What churchill did was a very terrible thing but I do not think we should dismiss all evidence of "smallpox warfare" just because one guy lied about it.

 

it would have helped if you told me exactly what you were talking about instead of making me guess.

 

I did tell you exactly what I was talking about, I even gave a link.

Maybe you should try something more then "a quick google search" next time.

 

http://hnn.us/articles/7302.html

If there was a biological warfare attempt at genocide, why was there a smallpox vaccination program?

And how were wars between native american tribes not genocidal?