Skip to main content

View Diary: Michael Medved And Genocide Denial (45 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Yes, but (0+ / 0-)

    the means taken do not suffice to constitute genocide. One also needs a certain kind of intention.

    Something like starvation would be genocidal only if it were intended to cause the destruction, in whole or in part, of a national/religious/racial/ethnic group.

    Thus there may be cases of deliberate starvation inflicted upon a civilian population which would not constitute genocide, if there were no intent to destroy  a group as such. In the American case, however, it seems fairly obvious that policies were adopted with the intent to destroy indigenous polities. Whether the destruction of the bison was one such policy, I don't know, whatever its effect may have been.

    •  Uh , why else would you starve an entire (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Carib and Ting

      indigenous population other than

      "to cause the destruction, in whole or in part, of  national/religious/racial/ethnic group."

      As a fucking hobby??

      "we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex" Dwight D. Eisenhower

      by bobdevo on Tue Oct 02, 2007 at 11:03:59 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  You might (0+ / 0-)

        want to do it for purely military purposes that have nothing to do with the status of the group (e.g. against your own civilian population in a conflict zone) ... or you might want to do it as a punitive measure against the population for supporting the wrong political group, or suchlike.

        Genocidal intent is quite narrowly defined. It's not just killing lots of people and causing lots of heartache.

        •  The historical context makes it pretty clear (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Carib and Ting

          the idea was to depopulate the Great Plains in order to facilitate repopulation with sod-busters.  While one could use the euphemistic term ethnic cleansing, the better descriptor is genocide.

          "we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex" Dwight D. Eisenhower

          by bobdevo on Tue Oct 02, 2007 at 11:55:02 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  If that was the actual intent (0+ / 0-)

            behind the destruction of the bison, then yes.

            My point was simply that the destruction of the bison is not alone sufficient to constitute genocide, even if the effect was the the destruction of indigenous communities.

            •  To Quote General Sheridan: (0+ / 0-)

              "buffalo hunters have done more to settle the vexed Indian question  than the entire U.S. army . . . For the sake of lasting peace, let them kill, skin and sell until the buffaloes are exterminated."

              "we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex" Dwight D. Eisenhower

              by bobdevo on Tue Oct 02, 2007 at 02:04:50 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  If that was the intent behind the policy (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:

                then the policy is definitely genocidal. I'm not disputing that at all. I'm merely saying you can't infer genocide from the means taken and the effect produced alone. You also have to have people in positions of power intending the means taken to have a certain sort of effect. Not all policies which lead to catastrophic effects are genocide. Too many people think Really Fucking Awful Stuff That Kills Loads of People = Genocide.

                For instance, if we grant that much of the massive depopulation of the Americas post-1492 was the effect of the introduction of Old World germs, and that much of this germ transfer was not effected with the intent to destroy indigenous groups (although some would have been), then the depopulation was not, by definition, to that extent, genocide. Naturally, many millions of other New Worlders were deliberately wiped out, so there is more than enough genocide to wade through in the New World in the last 500 years.

                Whether something meets the definition of genocide or not is not a moral evaluation. Some things that are not genocide can be just as bad as genocide.

                •  I appreciate your position . . . (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:

                  and most of the disease brought to the New World was inadvertent, and a consequence of the barnyard animals:  pigs and chickens.

                  Charles Mann's 1491 is a really pertinent read.

                  "we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex" Dwight D. Eisenhower

                  by bobdevo on Tue Oct 02, 2007 at 07:32:04 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  Yes, that's a fine book (1+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:

                    The scale of the disaster of 1492 is something that popular culture has absolutely no comprehension of. Quite possibly, the worst event in human history -- in some sense inevitable though.

                    •  Absolutely inevitable. (1+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:

                      The New World cultures were like hothouse vegetables . . . and when the first European set foot in the Western Hemisphere it was like breaking windows just before the first hard frost.

                      "we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex" Dwight D. Eisenhower

                      by bobdevo on Wed Oct 03, 2007 at 07:26:09 AM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

        •  I would suggest that you READ (0+ / 0-)

           the National Archive. Read the old Newspapers of the era --

            Your ignorance of history is a denial of what was done to millions of humans who didn't happen to be WHITE Europeans.

           The intent was to eradicate and eliminate a whole population.

           This WAS genocide.

           You sir have a very bad case of denial.

           Interesting how genocide can be redefined by the some people who are guilty of the most extreme genocide in history.

          •  Don't be silly (0+ / 0-)

            Try to read what I wrote before spewing off.

            I was talking about the definition of genocide and what constitutes genocide, not the actual history of this case.

            Too many people think heinous activities are genocidal by virtue of being heinous. They're not. They're genocidal by virtue of being means taken with the intent to destroy a certain kind of group.

            Deliberate starvation per se is not genocidal. Deliberate starvation with the intent to destroy a group is. You can't infer genocide from the means taken alone.

            As it happens, I have very little doubt that many things have been done with a genocidal intent against indigenous communities. I would not be at all surprised if the destruction of the bison was one such policy.

            •  Oh so there we have it! (0+ / 0-)

               Genocide ONLY happens to Jews?

               The fact that the white Europeans wanted to deliberated wipe OUT -- exterminate a whole race isn't genocide.

               I don't give a damn about the "modern" -- well gosh golly gee them white folk way back then didn't really plan to kill off a whole race -- being used to make a modern genocide is THE genocide that matters.

               Genocide is ALSO stealing land so that the former culture/race/indigenous people cannot survive. AND this is what the white Europeans did -- they deliberately took the land needed for the Indians to survive.

                THIS is genocide.

                Plus -- one only needs to look at the numbers -- how many non indigenous vs immigrants? What is the condition and status of the indigenous population today.

                The early papers of the white European immigrants tell us that they wanted to eradicate the vermin (the indigenous people).

               As long as people pull out "legal" crap which devalues the indigenous people -- America will never come to terms with the FACT that America is build on STOLEN LAND and on the bones of millions of Indians.

                There was an AMERICAN Holocaust -- some was a by product of the GREED of the European white invaders -- and some of the holocaust was deliberate.

                FACTS are FACTS!

                READ the books listed in this diary -- each is well documented.

                Your definition of genocide is offensive and racist.

              •  What are you talking about? (0+ / 0-)

                I don't think genocide has only happened to Jews.

                I don't deny at all that genocide occured in the New World post-1492 on a massive scale.

                Of course genocide can be conducted through the expropriation of land, in so far as that creates conditions of life inimical to the survival of targeted group.

                But numbers alone do not suffice to constitute genocide. Those numbers need to be the result of a genocidal intent. That is my point. You keep thinking you are disputing with me when you say but there was genocidal intent. Of course yes, there was.

                Now why don't you actually read what people are saying before you accuse them of racism?

            •  I understand what you are saying (0+ / 0-)

              And agree.

          •  Oh and the definition of genocide I use (0+ / 0-)

            ... and which everyone else uses ... is that set out by Raphael Lemkin who, as a Polish Jew, is not really one of the people guilty of the extreme genocide.

            •  my ancestors were Native Americans (0+ / 0-)

               not Jewish -- and THEY believed what was done to their people was genocide.

               Thanksgiving is coming up -- and the true story of Thanksgiving was the celebration of the pilgrims at their successful plan to poison the Indians so that they could STEAL their land.

               THAT was another case of genocide -- killing off a population to steal their land.

               Your definition of genocide -- sucks.  

              •  The definition of genocide is as follows: (0+ / 0-)

                ...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.

                Did this happen to Native Americans? Yes of course. But not everything that caused depopulation in the New World post-1492 was genocide because not all such depopulation was caused with genocidal intent.

                Again, depopulation per se is not genocide. Depopulation with the intent to destroy a group, in whole or in part, is genocide.

                •  This is less known, and provides the intent (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  Carib and Ting

                  Genocide & Intent Of The Infected Blankets

                  Bioterrorist Threats: Potential Agents and Theoretical Preparedness

                  Dr. John Bartlett filled in for Peter Jahrling of USAMRIID for a segment devoted to one of the likely potential bioterrorist agents, smallpox.[2] The use of this agent to intentionally cause human disease dates back to 1754 during the French and Indian War, when infected blankets were given to Native Americans as a "token of good fortune."

                  American Indian Prophecies. Kurt Kaltreider, PH.D. pp. 66-67

                  In 1779, George Washington sent orders to General John Sullivan concerning the need to attack and destroy the Iroquois Nations.

                  "The immediate objects are total destruction of their settlements, and capture of as many prisoners of every age and sex possible -"

                  Washington was also an advocate of germ warfare, first introduced by Sir Jeffery Amherst after whom the town of Amherst, Massachusetts, and Amherst College are named. The idea of germ warfare with smallpox was suggested to Colonel Henry Bouquet, after which Colonel Bouquet wrote back:

                  "I will try to inoculate the [Indians] with some blankets that may fall into their hands, and take care not to get the disease myself. As it is pity to expose good men against then, I wish we could make use of the Spanish method, to hunt them with English dogs, supported by rangers and some light horse, who would, I think, effectually extirpate or remove the vermin."

                  About 60 years later, Andrew Jackson took Colonel Bouquet's advice in his war against the Seminoles. 


                  During the Seminole War the Federal Soldiers used germ warfare weapons, such as leaving small pox infected blankets for the Seminole to take and catch the disease.
                    This was a tried and true tactic of warfare in the Americas. The British attempted this against Washington's troops at Yorktown and Europeans used germ warfare against native Americans in New England. At Yorktown, the National Park Service explains the role of Slaves as germ warfare weapons in the plaque reproduced here. I guess the incentive for slaves was 'you're free if you go cause small pox among American forces ... if you survive.'

                  The fact that Europeans brought the deadly diseases with them, through ship rats who found their way to the indigenous tribes for example, is well established.

                  Historical Viewpoints. "American Indians And European Diseases." Alfred W. Crosby pp. 48-49

                  Whether plague or typhus, the disease went through the Indians like fire. Almost all the seventeenth-century writers say it killed nine of ten and even nineteen of twenty of the Indians it touched -

                  In short, one does not necessarily have to accept a 90 percent death rate for a given village or area to accept a 90 percent depopulation rate.

                  So, the European settlers (not all were vicious like this) and General Jeffery Amherst knew what smallpox and the deadly diseases were already doing:depopulating the indigenous people.

                  Added now: And George Washington knew it, too.

                  She nourishes us; that which we put into the ground she returns to us. Big Thunder

                  by Winter Rabbit on Wed Oct 03, 2007 at 02:06:57 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                •  Also: (0+ / 0-)

                  A THOUSAND LIES

                  George Washington...

                  In 1779, George Washington instructed Major General John Sullivan to attack Iroquois people. Washington stated, "lay waste all the settlements around...that the country may not be merely overrun, but destroyed". In the course of the carnage and annihilation of Indian people, Washington also instructed his general not "listen to any overture of peace before the total ruin of their settlements is effected". (Stannard, David E. AMERICAN HOLOCAUST. New York: Oxford University Press, 1992. pp. 118-121.)

                  In 1783, Washington's anti-Indian sentiments were apparent in his comparisons of Indians with wolves: "Both being beast of prey, tho' they differ in shape", he said. George Washington's policies of extermination were realized in his troops behaviors following a defeat. Troops would skin the bodies of Iroquois "from the hips downward to make boot tops or leggings". Indians who survived the attacks later re-named the nation's first president as "Town Destroyer". Approximately 28 of 30 Seneca towns had been destroyed within a five year period. (Ibid)

                  Thomas Jefferson...
                  In 1807, Thomas Jefferson instructed his War Department that, should any Indians resist against America stealing Indian lands, the Indian resistance must be met with "the hatchet". Jefferson continued, "And...if ever we are constrained to lift the hatchet against any tribe, " he wrote, "we will never lay it down till that tribe is exterminated, or is driven beyond the Mississippi." Jefferson, the slave owner, continued, "in war, they will kill some of us; we shall destroy all of them". (Ibid)

                  In 1812, Jefferson said that American was obliged to push the backward Indians "with the beasts of the forests into the Stony Mountains". One year later Jefferson continued anti-Indian statements by adding that America must "pursue [the Indians] to extermination, or drive them to new seats beyond our reach". (Ibid)

                  She nourishes us; that which we put into the ground she returns to us. Big Thunder

                  by Winter Rabbit on Wed Oct 03, 2007 at 02:11:01 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                •  That is YOUR definition (0+ / 0-)

                   There are others -- the one used in the book American Holocaust is the ONE I accept as accurate.

                  •  Sheesh (0+ / 0-)

                    That's the definition in the genocide convention, not MY definition. It's an accepted legal definition. Anything else is just playing with words. You might as well say that on YOUR definition a Martian is anyone from Iowa.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site