Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Lord Shonus]

There was no genocide of indigenous North American societies. To say otherwise is a lie. It doesn't get much simpler than that.

Genocide is a mangled word (let's slap latin suffixes on greek roots, yay!) meaning "the act of killing a race/tribe/people" and given how rare it is to find people with more connection to their native american ancestry than a vague fraction like I've got, where I know 3/8ths of my ancestors were native american, but I've never met any of them, and have a hell of a time finding information beyond a vague "comanche, apache, cherokee" since they're all dead, I'd say it is a pretty apt term. You can argue whether it was deliberate or not, but these lands were populated by a range of peoples, those people aren't here anymore, they didn't just disappear, and arguably they would not have if shitbags like Columbus hadn't seen a rich new vista of child wives and free labor to cough and spread diseases into.

The Indian Wars were not a genocide. Calling them one deprives the Amerindians of all agency in their fate, and is obscenely racist.

>uses 'indian' and 'amerindian'
>claims others are being racist
 

Those are the terms every Amerindian (at least, those raised in the culture and not just connected by genetics) I've met prefers. The term "Native American" tends to get labeled "White Man's Horse Shit".

[redwallzyl]

It was more a cultural genocide then hitlery kill them all genocide. we did put them into boarding schools and do the whole "kill the Indian save the man" thing. but a genocide non the less. also they don't care what you call them, though if your knowledgeable they would probably prefer their tribe name.

Seriously, the boarding schools were legendarily horrific.

[Lord Shonus]

It was more a cultural genocide then hitlery kill them all genocide. we did put them into boarding schools and do the whole "kill the Indian save the man" thing. but a genocide non the less. also they don't care what you call them, though if your knowledgeable they would probably prefer their tribe name.

Seriously, the boarding schools were legendarily horrific.

That isn't in dispute, nor is is the notion that Europeans exploited their higher technology and cultural cohesion to gain significant advantage over the natives. All I am saying is that the modern "The innocent Native Americans were an enlightened society that were butchered by the barbarous Europeans for no reason other than greed" story is every bit as racist and demeaning to the natives as the old "It is the White Man's Manifest Destiny to spread out and bring civilization to the godless heathens". This is because it deprives the natives of any agency in their own fate, and reduces them to nothing more than a helpless victim.


Also, "genocide" means "trying to kill every last one of them". If there was no deliberate effort to do that, then there was no genocide.

[Frumple]

Eh... pretty sure the modern definition's a bit more nuanced. International law stuff? You can kill a people without putting them or their children in graves, heh. Plenty easy to be killin' everything without actually trying for it, too, really. Might be folded in with ethnic cleansing, I'unno. Not really too terribly much of a difference, most of the time...

[Max™]

It was more a cultural genocide then hitlery kill them all genocide. we did put them into boarding schools and do the whole "kill the Indian save the man" thing. but a genocide non the less. also they don't care what you call them, though if your knowledgeable they would probably prefer their tribe name.

Seriously, the boarding schools were legendarily horrific.

Yup, I'm Comanche/Apache/Cherokee/Scottish/German, since Indian originated from that douche Columbus I'm not going to use it. Find one who takes issue with "Native American" and I'll happily go with whatever term they prefer but the idea that there are people who are bothered by "Native American" but fine with "American Indian" or any permutation thereof, as though they prefer to even slightly honor mr. can't-find-shit-but-child-brides, well, Shonus may have met these hypothetical people I myself am dubious, and actually have something of a dog in this fight, considering "Native American" a nice neutral term, with no connotations of Columbiadouchery, so I am not of American Indian ancestry, but I do have Native American ancestors. There are points to be made about the historical link which "American Indian" has with the crimes against them, up to and including the eradication of their culture and bloodlines, but I would prefer to explain that I am aware of that but refuse to honor some douchebag kiddiefucking moron who couldn't figure out where he was by using a name he chose.

Here's some further reading for those who are interested: http://www.learnnc.org/lp/editions/nc-american-indians/5526

In politics news: http://www.politico.com/story/2017/06/25/justice-kennedy-retire-supreme-court-239940

Goddammit Kennedy don't you dare.

[Playergamer]

i'm offended by native american. i feel that i'm very native to the united states of america, like buffalo, and i should be allowed to call myself native american. just because i'm only a third-generation immigrant doesn't mean i'm somehow less than "natives".

[milo christiansen]

Don't forget that some tribes had pushed others off the land they held when the Europeans arrived. Might makes right, it always has and always will.

[Max™]

Indeed, humans love to fuck over other humans, and by no means am I proposing any sort of "noble savages" bullshit, just saying that you don't argue about calling something a duck when it quacks and waddles around with feathers and a rubbery bill, similarly you don't argue about calling something a genocide when it involves the elimination of entire cultures and bloodlines.

i'm offended by native american. i feel that i'm very native to the united states of america, like buffalo, and i should be allowed to call myself native american. just because i'm only a third-generation immigrant doesn't mean i'm somehow less than "natives".

Nobody cares what you think though, not even you.

[Playergamer]

i'm offended by native american. i feel that i'm very native to the united states of america, like buffalo, and i should be allowed to call myself native american. just because i'm only a third-generation immigrant doesn't mean i'm somehow less than "natives".

Nobody cares what you think though, not even you.

your first mistake was thinking that i think about the things i write about thinking.

your second mistake was replying to a comment i made in ameripol.

wait that might be backwards. meh.

[smjjames]

That's... kinda close to a personal attack there Max, but seems like that's you being sarcastic or something.

Don't forget that some tribes had pushed others off the land they held when the Europeans arrived. Might makes right, it always has and always will.

Well, displace a group and somethings gotta move.

In politics news: http://www.politico.com/story/2017/06/25/justice-kennedy-retire-supreme-court-239940

Goddammit Kennedy don't you dare.

The next SCOTUS fight is going to be the REAL battle I tell you. Unfortunately, the Republicans already nuked the 60 vote thing, and I believe they had to use Pence's vote in Gorsuch's case.

[Lord Shonus]

Taking a word that was introduced specifically so we have a way to describe "deliberate elimination by mass execution or intentional starvation", and redefining it to include even one concept that is not "deliberate elimination by mass execution or intentional starvation" weakens the entire concept, and is the cornerstone of many "Hitler was really a good guy" ideologies.

Did the Amerindians get shafted? Yes. Was their treatment justified? No. Were there policies forced assimilation, forced migration, and deliberate swindling? Indisputably. Were they genocided? Not unless you redefine "genocide" to a degree that the word becomes completely pointless.

Good words to use would be forced assimilation, or iconoclasm. There is merit in coining a new term to describe the situation - culturicide, for example. But redefining a word - especially one intended to be used for an act that is literally a declaration of war against the world - is a bad, bad idea.

[smjjames]

In more politics news, the CBO score is likely to be out tomorrow.

Pretty quick for an incoming CBO score, I think, but it'll certainly be revealing. Anybody want to put bets (only internet points, or dorfbucks maybe) that it'll be worse than previous?

[Dorsidwarf]

Genocide has to be intentional. Thats the definition, and I strongly resist attempts to change that because it weakens and softens the words meaning to allow unintentional death to be a genocide.

Genocide doesnt have to mean total extermination or the attempt at a total extermination - if you kill 50,000 of a theoretical cultural sect for being incompatible with your own views, its a genocide even if you dont invade the surrounding countries to go after all the other members.

A mass murder or campaign of mass murder based on ethnicity is plenty to count as a genocide, but it has to have been done on purpose.

[Neonivek]

I actually have an essay in one of my books that is an argument in favor of historical revisionism. I should give everyone a copy once, I mean it is despicable... but it gives you an understanding of WHY the USA did it to the extent it did.

Maybe a quick summary of what that is about? I meant 'historical revisionism' (or revisionist history if you want to call it that) in the way that some in the South try to change the cause of the Civil War as being over states rights and not slavery. It's a subtler form of historical revisionism, but still despicable.

It is about how revisionist history gives people cultural identity and can be used to steer a people towards prosperity and deal with the problems of the current day.

Making the American Civil War entirely about slavery, instead of say self-determination being spearheaded with the slavery law (Or one of the many other reasons. It isn't like WW2 was over the extermination of the Jews), is a way of legitimizing the North's treatment of the South as well as their right to prevent their succession. The fact that after the Civil war the south has been continuously demonized or mocked isn't an accident either. Even "IF" they suddenly found that the slavery speeches were fake, I highly doubt this would change.

A less controversial example would be Benedict Arnold, who for the longest time, and even today, is treated as a despicable person who has had a lot of undue importance put upon him (Historical Villain Upgrade!). Yet the actual history surrounding him is that he was the one who was continuously screwed over and his betrayal was rather understandable.

[Descan]

Then what's the proper term for what we're trying to say, if revisionist history/historical revisionism is not the right term?

you're thinking of "historical negationism," as what the bad version of editting and revising the historical record.

as in, "this is a google-able term with an actual definition easily found and entire articles written about it."