Skip to main content

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

Comment Preferences

  •  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:
        bobdevo

        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:
          mapantsula

          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:
            bobdevo

            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:
              mapantsula

              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 ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site