StarDestroyer.Net BBS

Thanas wrote:The Armenian "genocide" was largely forced relocation, with the deaths largely being caused by the effects of forced marching, banditry and the inhospitality where they were marched into.

So I don't see why this should be different.

Good enough answer for me. I like the succinct reasoning.

Certainly there were a lot of deaths from the Native American forced marches.

Edi wrote:I'll need to recheck that reference wrt Oklahoma, it may have only talked about Kentucky, Oklahoma may have been the place where some of those displaced wound up. This post, like the previous one, was made from work, where I don't have that book at hand.

No worries, I understand how that is.

Oklahoma was used as the relocation area for the Five Civilized Tribes. The Cherokee nation is still there in Oklahoma.

If I recall correctly, there were several stages. First, they cleared the Natives from the Atlantic to the mountains. The next stage was clearly out the Ohio valley and lands east of the Mississippi, pushing the Natives across the big river. By that time the Natives got the message that the whites weren't going to stop their advance which may account for some of the more fierce resistance from the Plains tribes. Once the whites were past the Mississippi they were running out of places to push the Natives as settlements were already on the West Coast so instead of pushing them westward they started forcing them onto "reservations" which, of course, were on land nobody else wanted and often impossible for subsistence living (which is often why no one was living there in the first place).

Of course, by "push" I mean "either the Natives submitted to relocation or they were killed". This wasn't a polite request.

Okay, so I fail US geography. The stuff Washington did was in Ohio, not Oklahoma. Got the two names mixed up for some reason. It was especially in clearing the Ohio valley where he pulled that crqap.

Thanas wrote:The Armenian "genocide" was largely forced relocation, with the deaths largely being caused by the effects of forced marching, banditry and the inhospitality where they were marched into.

So I don't see why this should be different.

Death marches were part of the method used to exterminate the Armenians, but hundreds of thousands were simply outright shot, or sent to concentration camps designed to work them to death. Really, it was very similar to the Nazi Holocaust, just more low-tech. Plus, the whole affair was a coordinated, orchestrated policy implemented intentionally by the Ottoman government with the express purpose of getting rid of Armenians (and other undesirables, like Greeks).

In fact, apparently the term "genocide" was coined with this very event in mind, and was meant to reflect the coordinated and efficient manner in which a state carries out mass murder as a matter of policy.

However, I agree that the US policy of encroachment/Indian Removal Act arguably amounts to de facto genocide, even if it was motivated by land rather than a desire to ethnically cleanse a population.

I guess ultimately, the difference amounts to this:

The Turks and Nazis literally said out loud : we want you all dead, and we're going to make a serious effort to kill you.

The Americans were basically just like: we don't really like you, and don't particularly care what happens to you. But we want your land. Go away.

In some case, though not in all. In a large number of cases, extermination was clearly the goal from the start.

Care to list a few? I'd be interested in which ones you believe were deliberate, premeditated genocide and which ones were some other less methodical but still deadly genocide.

Broomstick wrote:Care to list a few? I'd be interested in which ones you believe were deliberate, premeditated genocide and which ones were some other less methodical but still deadly genocide.

I didn't say deliberate, premediated genocide. I said extermination was the goal, maybe I should have said that it was the expected end result. There is a difference between the two - one assumes a large plan, the other just "let's go out and kill them". For example, the concentration camps belong in the former, the massacres carried out by the Wehrmacht (besides those of the Einsatzgruppen, of course) when they destroyed villages in retreat or advance in the latter.

You can take the Pequot war (Link) which though some were spared to be sold into slavery, did at least have some genocidal traits and resulted in the elimination of the tribe. This is rather how those early wars went - butchered and sold into slavery.

Then once we move west (if we do not consider things like settlers massacring peaceful natives because they think they were warlike) we got things like the Sandy Creek massacre, where apparently according to all reports the public opinion in the state was overwhelmingly in favor of:
"There is but one sentiment in regard to the final disposition which shall be made of the Indians: ‘Let them be exterminated—men, women, and children together". Its commander, Chivington, had issued orders that no quarter was given ("Nits make lice") and attacked a peaceful encampment. The fact that Chivington escaped from this without any charges or consequences is a travesty and one of the greatest indictments on the attitude of "Oh the general public really cared, things just happened" espoused by so many apologists. If the worst the outcry can muster is the guy never even being charged then what is that worth?

Especially when you consider: "[they] dressed their weapons, hats and gear with scalps and other body parts, including human fetuses and male and female genitalia. They also publicly displayed these battle trophies in Denver's Apollo Theater and area saloons." I mean, this shit was not even considered okay under the Nazis.

Then you got the aforementioned Yuki example, where the war turned a tribe of 5000 to less than 300. Even worse than the Yuki example is the 1860 Wiyot Massacre. The Wiyot, being a peaceful tribe, had never once harmed a white men. Yet a number of white assholes decided to wipe them out, surrounded their island and then butchered them with hatchets. Of the up to 250 people, only 8 survived. The same group of racist assholes then carried out similar attacks against other indian tribes in the area.

Then you got gems like Sheridan saying that the only good indians he saw were dead. Apologists say that this was just a quip, but it is more insidious. By saying the Indians could not be trusted, he was also denying their suitability for asking for quarter. His campaign deliberately destroyed lodges, shelters and food supplies, thereby starving them out. Might not be genocidal in intent, but the end result is the same.

These amount to atrocities, not genocide. The Sand Creek massacre and similar atrocities are analogous to, say, the Soviet massacre of Polish officials at Katyn, (which was much worse, in terms of body count, but not brutality, than Sand Creek), yet we wouldn't accuse the Soviets of genocide.

I don't want to come off as an apologist for the US here. I'm well aware of the horror and mass death the US unleashed on the natives. But genocide implies to me something much more calculated on a state-wide scale.

Channel72 wrote:These amount to atrocities, not genocide. The Sand Creek massacre and similar atrocities are analogous to, say, the Soviet massacre of Polish officials at Katyn, (which was much worse, in terms of body count, but not brutality, than Sand Creek), yet we wouldn't accuse the Soviets of genocide.

It is kinda funny that you claim that one needs to view every tribe as a separate case and when it comes to separate cases you then go "nuh-uh, not state level enough".

For the tribes involved, it was genocidal.

I don't remember saying we need to view each tribe as a separate case. Although, thinking about it, we probably should - although many of these tribes tended to consist of populations far lower than ethnic groups which we typically determine to have been victims of genocide.

Whatever, we're just arguing over words, really.

Channel72 wrote:I don't remember saying we need to view each tribe as a separate case. Although, thinking about it, we probably should - although many of these tribes tended to consist of populations far lower than ethnic groups which we typically determine to have been victims of genocide.

Since when does there need to be a minimum number of victims? The percentages of the group extinguished counts. Genocide often coincides, but does not exclusively mean mass slaughter.

What Thanas has described for the Americas is not that dissimilar to what happened to the aboriginal Tasmanians, which is widely considered genocide (and a successful one, too - there are no more full-blooded main island Tasmanians anywhere, and have not been, depending on who you believe, since either 1876 or 1905).

Clearly, the technological level of the victims has an impact on survival. The Tasmanians were arguably the most primitive culture in existence at the time of their demise (no hafted weapons, no bone implements, no ability to make fire according to reports). The only survivors are the mixed ethnicity descendants who are now of mostly non-Tasmanian ancestry.

In the Americans we see that same pattern again - tribes like the Yahi who never left the stone age were wiped out. Tribes who adopted European technology like firearms might also be wiped out, but not always, they at least had a chance of survival.

If we look at the Armenians and Jews, who at the time had the same technological base as their killers, they suffered massive losses but still survive today in significant numbers. Survival depended in part on sub-groups getting the hell out of dodge, but transport is also dependent on technology.

That's another factor in group survival - the willingness and/or ability to relocate can mean the difference between life and death. By that I don't mean the forced-march relocation to a shit location, I mean relocating to somewhere of the groups' choosing, forming a diaspora.

So we have Tasmanians - 0 left of the full blooded variety. Complete loss of culture and language (well, a few wordlists survive from some dialects)
Native Americans - between 0 and 5 million, depending on tribe/nation. If I recall, the Cherokee are the largest surviving US group at around 300,000. I've seen estimates of the Maya being around 5 million, keeping in mind that the Central American Natives had a higher technology and larger, more organized society than any in North America. Among the survivors, some have lost their language, oral history, and nearly or all of the culture. Some have retained language/history/culture but it's spotty - the Cherokee gained a writing system, the Maya lost theirs. Generally, the larger the group of survivors the more retained, but that might be from starting with a higher population to start, and possibly better technology and social organization than some of the smaller groups with heavier losses.
Armenians and Jews - 10 million of the former, 13-14 million of the latter. Retention of language and culture.

Of course, the above are estimates.

Looked at that way, though, if you call what happened to the Armenians and the Jews in the 20th Century genocides it seems to me you have to call all the rest genocides as they were even more devastating in any category you care to name than the horrific losses of Armenians and Jews.

(Surviving an attempt at genocide is of interest to me in part because my immediate family on my father's side managed to just miss the Nazi atrocities, and some of the extended family did not miss it. If no one else in the thread wishes to pursue that tangent I'll just leave it here.)

Thanas wrote:
Then once we move west (if we do not consider things like settlers massacring peaceful natives because they think they were warlike) we got things like the Sandy Creek massacre, where apparently according to all reports the public opinion in the state was overwhelmingly in favor of:
"There is but one sentiment in regard to the final disposition which shall be made of the Indians: ‘Let them be exterminated—men, women, and children together". Its commander, Chivington, had issued orders that no quarter was given ("Nits make lice") and attacked a peaceful encampment. The fact that Chivington escaped from this without any charges or consequences is a travesty and one of the greatest indictments on the attitude of "Oh the general public really cared, things just happened" espoused by so many apologists. If the worst the outcry can muster is the guy never even being charged then what is that worth?

Especially when you consider: "[they] dressed their weapons, hats and gear with scalps and other body parts, including human fetuses and male and female genitalia. They also publicly displayed these battle trophies in Denver's Apollo Theater and area saloons." I mean, this shit was not even considered okay under the Nazis.

There was some strong condemnation of Chivington's actions at Sand Creek. The Joint Committee on the Conduct of the War said:

As to Colonel Chivington, your committee can hardly find fitting terms to describe his conduct. Wearing the uniform of the United States, which should be the emblem of justice and humanity; holding the important position of commander of a military district, and therefore having the honor of the government to that extent in his keeping, he deliberately planned and executed a foul and dastardly massacre which would have disgraced the verist savage among those who were the victims of his cruelty. Having full knowledge of their friendly character, having himself been instrumental to some extent in placing them in their position of fancied security, he took advantage of their in-apprehension and defenceless condition to gratify the worst passions that ever cursed the heart of man.

Whatever influence this may have had upon Colonel Chivington, the truth is that he surprised and murdered, in cold blood, the unsuspecting men, women, and children on Sand creek, who had every reason to believe they were under the protection of the United States authorities, and then returned to Denver and boasted of the brave deed he and the men under his command had performed.

In conclusion, your committee are of the opinion that for the purpose of vindicating the cause of justice and upholding the honor of the nation, prompt and energetic measures should be at once taken to remove from office those who have thus disgraced the government by whom they are employed, and to punish, as their crimes deserve, those who have been guilty of these brutal and cowardly acts.

Kit Carson commented:

Jis to think of that dog Chivington and his dirty hounds, up thar at Sand Creek. His men shot down squaws, and blew the brains out of little innocent children. You call sich soldiers Christians, do ye? And Indians savages? What der yer 'spose our Heavenly Father, who made both them and us, thinks of these things? I tell you what, I don't like a hostile red skin any more than you do. And when they are hostile, I've fought 'em, hard as any man. But I never yet drew a bead on a squaw or papoose, and I despise the man who would.

"Strong" condemnation that never amounted to anything, not even restitution for the victims. Oh yes, sure counts for a lot.

Channel72 wrote:I guess ultimately, the difference amounts to this:

The Turks and Nazis literally said out loud : we want you all dead, and we're going to make a serious effort to kill you.

The Americans were basically just like: we don't really like you, and don't particularly care what happens to you. But we want your land. Go away.

Can you provide citation of the Turkish state sponsored attempt at exterminating the Armenian Genocide more like the Nazi Germans as opposed to forceful removal, deportation, and ethnic fighting?

I think the difference is the definition of the word genocide and whether you are speaking to state policy vs individuals carrying it out.

ArmorPierce wrote:

Channel72 wrote:I guess ultimately, the difference amounts to this:

The Turks and Nazis literally said out loud : we want you all dead, and we're going to make a serious effort to kill you.

The Americans were basically just like: we don't really like you, and don't particularly care what happens to you. But we want your land. Go away.

Can you provide citation of the Turkish state sponsored attempt at exterminating the Armenian Genocide more like the Nazi Germans as opposed to forceful removal, deportation, and ethnic fighting?

I think the difference is the definition of the word genocide and whether you are speaking to state policy vs individuals carrying it out.

Well, according to some historians there are such statements directly from the government leader. Though they are only availbale in Turkish and French. I don't know if you can read those. The wikipedia article on the genocide links to them or interviews with historians here - PDF and here. However, the allies of the Turks, the Germans, were quite clear what they thought of the Turkish Policies:

Gen. von Kressenstein wrote:The Turkish policy of causing starvation is an all too obvious proof, if proof was still needed as to who is responsible for the massacre, for the Turkish resolve to destroy the Armenians

Military attache to the Turkish Government Gen. von Lossow wrote:The Turks have embarked upon the "total extermination of the Armenians in Transcaucasia ... The aim of Turkish policy is, as I have reiterated, the taking of possession of Armenian districts and the extermination of the Armenians. Talaat's government wants to destroy all Armenians, not just in Turkey but also outside Turkey. On the basis of all the reports and news coming to me here in Tiflis there hardly can be any doubt that the Turks systematically are aiming at the extermination of the few hundred thousand Armenians whom they left alive until now.

So the evidence is pretty clear cut IMO. If your ally, with whom you are engaged in a mutual war, thinks your policy is the systematic extermination of people via starvation and forced marches then I think you can't claim that nobody understood what the policy did (unless you want to claim that the entire Turkish Government was so dumb that they were unable to comprehend what visitors to their country did comprehend, at which point this just gets silly).



The Turks have embarked upon the "total extermination of the Armenians in Transcaucasia ... The aim of Turkish policy is, as I have reiterated, the taking of possession of Armenian districts and the extermination of the Armenians. Talaat's government wants to destroy all Armenians, not just in Turkey but also outside Turkey. On the basis of all the reports and news coming to me here in Tiflis there hardly can be any doubt that the Turks systematically are aiming at the extermination of the few hundred thousand Armenians whom they left alive until now

I've always felt that the entire Armenian Genocide debate has been obscured by the Muslim vs Christian mentality and an effort to cast muslims in a negative light.

Thanas wrote:

ArmorPierce wrote:

Channel72 wrote:I guess ultimately, the difference amounts to this:

The Turks and Nazis literally said out loud : we want you all dead, and we're going to make a serious effort to kill you.

The Americans were basically just like: we don't really like you, and don't particularly care what happens to you. But we want your land. Go away.

Can you provide citation of the Turkish state sponsored attempt at exterminating the Armenian Genocide more like the Nazi Germans as opposed to forceful removal, deportation, and ethnic fighting?

I think the difference is the definition of the word genocide and whether you are speaking to state policy vs individuals carrying it out.

Well, according to some historians there are such statements directly from the government leader. Though they are only availbale in Turkish and French. I don't know if you can read those. The wikipedia article on the genocide links to them or interviews with historians here - PDF and here. However, the allies of the Turks, the Germans, were quite clear what they thought of the Turkish Policies:

Gen. von Kressenstein wrote:The Turkish policy of causing starvation is an all too obvious proof, if proof was still needed as to who is responsible for the massacre, for the Turkish resolve to destroy the Armenians

Military attache to the Turkish Government Gen. von Lossow wrote:The Turks have embarked upon the "total extermination of the Armenians in Transcaucasia ... The aim of Turkish policy is, as I have reiterated, the taking of possession of Armenian districts and the extermination of the Armenians. Talaat's government wants to destroy all Armenians, not just in Turkey but also outside Turkey. On the basis of all the reports and news coming to me here in Tiflis there hardly can be any doubt that the Turks systematically are aiming at the extermination of the few hundred thousand Armenians whom they left alive until now.

So the evidence is pretty clear cut IMO. If your ally, with whom you are engaged in a mutual war, thinks your policy is the systematic extermination of people via starvation and forced marches then I think you can't claim that nobody understood what the policy did (unless you want to claim that the entire Turkish Government was so dumb that they were unable to comprehend what visitors to their country did comprehend, at which point this just gets silly).



The Turks have embarked upon the "total extermination of the Armenians in Transcaucasia ... The aim of Turkish policy is, as I have reiterated, the taking of possession of Armenian districts and the extermination of the Armenians. Talaat's government wants to destroy all Armenians, not just in Turkey but also outside Turkey. On the basis of all the reports and news coming to me here in Tiflis there hardly can be any doubt that the Turks systematically are aiming at the extermination of the few hundred thousand Armenians whom they left alive until now

Well the quote of one men his not proof in of itself. Americans did put native americans in force marches towards reservations where many did die from starvation. Was that genocide? I am willing to accept that it is but then so was a treatment of the Native Americans. There should be knowledge that the reckless disregard of their actions would result in extermination of the people.

I don't think that anyone is denying that lots of killing did take place. The question is whether there was an intent by the government to systematically exterminate the entire population. I cannot read Turkish or French, but regardless, is it accepted by the majority that there was an direct order and policy from the government itself to exterminate all Armenians? Is there an English source?

There should be knowledge that the reckless disregard of their actions would result in extermination of the people.

According to the German attaches there was no doubt that this was precisely what the Turkish expected.

I've always felt that the entire Armenian Genocide debate has been obscured by the Muslim vs Christian mentality and an effort to cast muslims in a negative light.

Ridiculous. The ones making the negative comments were not only christians, but also the allies of the Turkish.

Thanas wrote:

There should be knowledge that the reckless disregard of their actions would result in extermination of the people.

According to the German attaches there was no doubt that this was precisely what the Turkish expected.

Yes, my point is then, there should be knowledge that marching the native americans hundreds of miles to a reservation on foot while being poorly supplied would result in many deaths too. From that logic, the trail of tears was genocide.

I've always felt that the entire Armenian Genocide debate has been obscured by the Muslim vs Christian mentality and an effort to cast muslims in a negative light.

Ridiculous. The ones making the negative comments were not only christians, but also the allies of the Turkish.[/quote]

Their allies are christian, and was probably more an alliance of convenience/strategic necessity. The ottomon empire did not historically have a good relationship with their allies after all. Some of their allies were states that revolted just years before.

ArmorPierce wrote:Yes, my point is then, there should be knowledge that marching the native americans hundreds of miles to a reservation on foot while being poorly supplied would result in many deaths too. From that logic, the trail of tears was genocide.

Yes, like I argued in this thread.

Their allies are christian, and was probably more an alliance of convenience/strategic necessity. The ottomon empire did not historically have a good relationship with their allies after all. Some of their allies were states that revolted just years before.

But it always had excellent relations with the German empire, which was one of the major investors into the empire. So that scenario goes out the window.

ArmorPierce wrote:I've always felt that the entire Armenian Genocide debate has been obscured by the Muslim vs Christian mentality and an effort to cast muslims in a negative light.

You do know that the Turks and the Orthodox Catholics had a very very interesting relationship that includes the hanging of one Ecumenical Patriarch over the Greek revolt right? Along with genocides committed by both sides?

Thanas wrote:

ArmorPierce wrote:Yes, my point is then, there should be knowledge that marching the native americans hundreds of miles to a reservation on foot while being poorly supplied would result in many deaths too. From that logic, the trail of tears was genocide.

Yes, like I argued in this thread.

Should we make any moral distinction between simply not giving a shit about a group of people, and thus "neglecting" them to death, (e.g. forcefully relocating them via long marches on foot, with no measures taken whatsoever to ensure their safety/survival) versus putting serious effort into outright exterminating them (e.g. setting up concentration camps, industrial solutions to mass murder, etc.)?

The law generally makes a distinction between neglect and outright murder. A parent who outright plans and implements the murder of their children will be treated much more harshly by the law than some delinquent junkies who accidentally leave their child to die in the car during a heat wave because they just don't really give a shit. I think the interesting insight here is that this distinction becomes incredibly hazy/increasingly irrelevant at larger (genocidal) scales.

the problem is that this was not just accidentally leaving someone to die. This was more akin forcing a guy to walk into the desert without any water (and in some cases that was exactly what happened).

Concentrated acts of genocide appeared from the very first with Anglo-Saxon protestant settlers in North America. Look up the first use of the "bush doctrine" of preemptive defence during King Phillip's War -- militias from the surrounding colonies conducted an assault on the fortified town-redoubt of the Narragansett tribe (located about five miles from where I've lived for the past two years) and massacred everyone in it including women and children. They were allied with the whites and at peace, and were preemptively taken under a surprise attack to eliminate the "risk" of their joining their traditional enemies under King Phillip which didn't exist. In short the attackers were a bunch of einsatzgruppen. For the past two years now I've gone there to pay my respects on the 4th of July instead of celebrating anything. Massachussetts then also preemptively massacred the unarmed villages of "praying Indians" because they might join in the fighting too.

Now with the very recent ruling on aboriginal title in Canada which finally starts to address the rights the native peoples have in the Americas in a fashion which makes amends, we need to have a serious conversation on this because our courts have consistently held against aboriginal title, now putting us in the position of the morally culpable holdout. Coming from the pacific northwest where the tribes regained their fishing rights decades ago and mostly survived, have programmes in the local community colleges (even one I attended) for their native languages -- to this, where the township next door has a lawyer on retainer to do nothing but fight the surviving Narragansett and their rights are still being specifically targeted and attacked by legislation excluding them from the usual reservation privileges (all started because they dared not be racists and intermarried blacks in the late 19th century) -- was an eye opening experience. The book 1491 I believe is a fairly good introduction to the subject of just how heavily the Americas were populated.

These people were the survivors of the vast majority who had died within the past century of plagues and diseases moving through highly integrated trade networks up from Mesoamerica. They were living in fields so vast that the passenger pigeon population was exploding to feed on untended crops in highly sophicated farm-garden agricultural modes, and that's where huge numbers of passenger pigeons came from. And whites showed up, and certainly there was plenty of open land because of this, but that wasn't good enough so these tribes were consciously and directly exterminated in an unambiguous genocide.

We should restore about 75 % of federal owned land, 50% of state owned land, make broad based amends, scale BIA funding to native population size automatically so that the claims of any group to tribal ancestry can be supported and acknowledged without harming others, completely remove the tribes from state jurisdiction and put them only under federal jurisdiction, acknowledge aboriginal title over the rest of government owned land so they can exclude harmful development, allow their courts to tribe white people for crimes on the reservation, and give them specific designated input roles in government including their own congressmen elected by native electoral rolls. That would be an acceptable response to the reality of that past.

In the 19th century they built a memorial on the spot of the massacre.

To the men who committed it.

Fortunately for the Narragansett youths I understand it's something of sport to vandalize it. Good riddance to it.