America's treatment of Native Americans, genocide or no?

In my Comparative Genocide class we discussed the definition of genocide and what it means to actually commit genocide. In the history of supposed genocides, the American Indians comes into question. What do you guys think? Was the American's treatment of the Indians from Jamestown up to the reservations, genocide? My class was split on the issue though I had judged, for myself at lest, that it was not genocide as inflicted by the United States, though genocide had been the unintended result.

My reasoning was on three main reasons:

First of all the the act does not fit the legal U.N. definition of genocide which is (any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial, or religious group as such: killing members of the group; causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group; deliberately infliction on the group conditions of life, calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part; imposing measures intended to prevent birth within the group; and forcibly transferring child of the group to another group.)

It was never U.S. federal policy that the Native Americans be destroyed or wiped out on a grand scale due to their race or culture.

Second, I had come to the conclusion that given the wars and relocations had spanned hundreds of years rather than taking place in a much shorter time span such as with the Jews and the Armenians, that the resulting deaths were the result of centuries of fighting a turmoil with the U.S. rather than a proposed genocidal action.

Third, most all instances of genocide involve scenarios in which the victim could not fight back. The Armenian Genocide, Holocaust, Rwanda, and Darfur all consisted of non-combatant groups (Rwanda has a small exception near the end of the tragedy). The Indians on more than several occasions actively engaged in warfare with the colonists and the United States. Deaths during these events would have been attributed to war and not part of ethnical killings.

Understand I don't mean to justify what happened to the Native Americans. It is truly sad what happened to their people. I simply believe that the United States did not enact genocide.

No but that is what happens when two cultures clash and land/resources are at stake. Happened throughout history in every country so we'd have to accuse everyone of genocide if that is that case.LJS9502_basic

Exactly, and that was my argument in the class I took. We must be careful to make sure we limit the definition of what genocide is, or else everyone's committed it.

I don't think so, but what we done to them and their homes isn't one of America's proudest moments....

Not really sure if I would consider it genocide but the way the Native Americans were treated was completely wrong.

It wasn't genocide, it was just straight up conquering. A lot of the times, our ancestors took the land by force. Nearly every country ever has had to do that to gain it's modern borders. Or ther borders were forged after some bloody war or revolution.

Anyways anybody who calls it genocide is just trying to find a reason to bash our country. They fail to realize that we today can't change the actions of our ancestors.

Genocide? No. However, based on documents between U.S. government officials, it's plainly obvious that they didn't care what happened to them. They wanted the land, by any means necessary. They weren't like the Romans, though. They hired the Germanics. The U.S. didn't want anything to do with them. It was the destruction of the culture, for sure.

No but that is what happens when two cultures clash and land/resources are at stake. Happened throughout history in every country so we'd have to accuse everyone of genocide if that is that case.LJS9502_basic

of course it was genocide weezyfb

of course it was genocide weezyfb

Do you believe the U.S. committed genocide, or that genocide was an unintentional result?

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"]No but that is what happens when two cultures clash and land/resources are at stake. Happened throughout history in every country so we'd have to accuse everyone of genocide if that is that case.Seajack

Join us or die
Hardly genocide, they did have a choice

I wouldn't necessarily say the U.S. did it because it wasn't a country when alot of this started. But yes unfortunately a genocide was committed and cultures were lost and put on the brink of extinction.trick_man01

[QUOTE="Seajack"][QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"]No but that is what happens when two cultures clash and land/resources are at stake. Happened throughout history in every country so we'd have to accuse everyone of genocide if that is that case.LJS9502_basic

Yeah, I know. And the thylacines.

[QUOTE="trick_man01"]I wouldn't necessarily say the U.S. did it because it wasn't a country when alot of this started. But yes unfortunately a genocide was committed and cultures were lost and put on the brink of extinction.LJS9502_basic

We wanted the land, not all Native Americans wiped off the face of the earth....

It's cruel, but there is a difference.

If Americans do it, its war on terror and homeland security.

If people with darker skin do it, its terrorism and genocide.

We wanted the land, not all Native Americans wiped off the face of the earth....

It's cruel, but there is a difference.

Blue-Sky

[QUOTE="weezyfb"]of course it was genocide bacon_is_sweet

Do you believe the U.S. committed genocide, or that genocide was an unintentional result?

[QUOTE="Seajack"][QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"]No but that is what happens when two cultures clash and land/resources are at stake. Happened throughout history in every country so we'd have to accuse everyone of genocide if that is that case.LJS9502_basic

It's genocide, and admitting it won't make you less American.Stavrogin_

bu..bu.. but i learned on CNN and Fox that if speak out against this government's policies i'm on the side of the boogiemen (al-qaeda)

Join us or die
Hardly genocide, they did have a choice

Microsteve

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"][QUOTE="trick_man01"]I wouldn't necessarily say the U.S. did it because it wasn't a country when alot of this started. But yes unfortunately a genocide was committed and cultures were lost and put on the brink of extinction.trick_man01

It's genocide, and admitting it won't make you less American.Stavrogin_

Woah.....person A moving next door to person B who may not have been exposed to disease Z does not commit genocide if person B cannot fight off the disease. Throughout history some tribes/groups have been killed, imprisoned, displaced, or left to die by conquerors. Either all people have committed genocide or those actions are not genocide.LJS9502_basic

Today's OT theme: America on trial.

[QUOTE="BranKetra"][QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"]Yes...but the world has lost many a Germanic or Celtic tribe as well....and many other groups over time in various parts of the world.LJS9502_basic

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"][QUOTE="BranKetra"]Yeah, but the Romans actually employed them. In part due to the fact that they were a military power capable of fighting the Romans, although it was through raids. Indians didn't have that level of comparable battle power.BranKetra

[QUOTE="BranKetra"][QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"]The Romans killed off many a Celtic tribe. They starved women and children. They took some slaves. As far as battle...the Romans had a large army against small scattered non unified tribes. Hardly a fair fight and one of the reasons the Celts couldn't compete.LJS9502_basic

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"][QUOTE="trick_man01"]I was actually referring to rubbing blankets on smallpox infested patients and then giving them to the Native American people who had absolutely no immunity to the disease as the colonists well knew. That was completely intentional.trick_man01

Your definition..the deliberate and systematic destruction of a racial, political, or cultural group...does not fit what happened.

LJS9502_basic

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"]Your definition..the deliberate and systematic destruction of a racial, political, or cultural group...does not fit what happened.

trick_man01

They way I see it, you can easily replace native Americans with any other ethnicity and the out come would of been the same.

Of course its genocide, how is it not?

Under the legal definition of genocide, technically no. (only because we only fulfilled However, our disregard for the lives of Native Americans was absolutely horrific and should be considered an atrocity just about as bad as a full on genocide.

I would, however, consider elements of our treatment of Native Americans as being cultural genocide, done in the name of "Christianizing" the "savages". Many Native languages and cultures have been lost due to this.

EDIT: I looked up the 8 criteria of Genocide, and honestly I would consider the wipeout of Native Cultures to be genocide after reading it. Especially the proposed part 9 where genocide is justified as a way of acquiring land and defending borders.

No but that is what happens when two cultures clash and land/resources are at stake. Happened throughout history in every country so we'd have to accuse everyone of genocide if that is that case.LJS9502_basic

Considering that in the 1800s California paid bounty hunters for bringing in dead indians I would most definately say yes. 95% of the native populations of the Americas were wiped out after westerners came. Admittedly, most of that was due to diseases brought over by europeans but the US sure didn't do anything to help those numbers...

Genocide along with breaking just about every treaty ever made with them.