Is America Still Genocidal

Is America still genocidal?
| Abagond
http://abagond.wordpress.com/2010/03/24/is-america-still-genocidal/
Abagond
500 words a day on whatever I want
Feeds: Posts Comments
Is America still genocidal?

Wed 24 Mar 2010 by abagond
(http://www.bluecorncomics.com/2009/01/indians-need-big-daddy-to-survive.html) Is America still genocidal? According to the Teflon Theory of White History the answer is no: the last full-blown genocide was in the 1800s. That was too long ago, so it has absolutely no effect on the present. To prove your case you need to provide Recent Examples: Because wiping out over a million people could not possibly affect White American ideas about race and human worth. Or be a sign of how screwed up they might still be; Because enjoying the material fruits of said genocide could not possibly cause a serious case of Moral Blindness in which white people turn a blind eye to the very faults that led to genocide. Genocide is a crime. And like with other crimes, those who have done it once are more likely to do it again. Sudan has carried out two genocides in my lifetime. Ethiopia and what used to be Yugoslavia are
1 of 31
7/22/2013 1:56 AM
Is America still genocidal? | Abagond
also repeat offenders.What about America? Genocides unfold in eight stages: 1. Classification: the division into us and them. Example: Asking an Asian American what country he is from. 2. Symbolization: applying symbols to the them to mark them out as pariahs, as objects of hate. Examples: black skin, yellow stars, race or religion on ID cards. 3. Dehumanization: seeing the pariahs as not truly human. Example: the word nigger. 4. Organization: training and arming. Example: the Ku Klux Klan. 5. Polarization: silencing the voices in the middle that still stand up for the pariahs. Example: calling whites who stand up for blacks nigger lovers. 6. Preparation: separating the pariahs from everyone else. Examples: ghettos, prison camps. 7. Extermination: mass killings. Example: the Holocaust. 8. Denial: dispute the numbers, blame history, see it as natural, derail discussions about it, etc. Examples: The comments on this post? The first step is natural, as Americans would put it, meaning it is common to all human societies. It is when it moves beyond Stage 1 that something is going seriously wrong. White America has gone beyond Stage 1 not once but at least three times: Stage 7: 1600s to 1800s: Native Americans Stage 5: 1870s to 1950s: blacks Stage 6: 1940s: Japanese Americans Where different sorts of Americans are now: Stage 0: whites Stage 1: Asians, Mexicans, Muslims Stage 2: Stage 3: blacks Stage 4: Stage 5: Stage 6: Stage 7: Stage 8: Native Americans ? Jews I would put at 0.6, Muslims, at 1.8. I am not sure if Native Americans are an 8: I put them there because in my experience whites are not comfortable talking about it and try to derail. If you cannot admit to a fault there is little chance of change. Like a drunk who thinks he is not a drunk. But even apart from that, you still have blacks at 3 . Deep down whites think of blacks as monkeys. That makes it easier to kill them or, what is most commonly the case, to stand by and do little when they die in large numbers, as during the heroin and crack epidemics and the high murder rates that followed. See also: genocide (../2009/04/22/genocide/)
2 of 31
7/22/2013 1:56 AM
the eight stages of genocide (../2009/04/16/the-eight-stages-of-genocide/) How to deny a genocide (../2009/10/06/how-to-deny-a-genocide/) examples of genocides: Staceyann Chin reads Las Casas on the Spanish genocide of Hispaniola (../2010/01/27 /staceyann-chin-reads-las-casas-on-the-spanish-genocide-of-hispaniola/) The genocide in Southern Sudan (../2009/06/13/the-genocide-in-southern-sudan/) Darfur (../2007/03/30/darfur/) Maori (../2007/03/08/maori/) The Sioux (../2008/07/28/the-sioux-today/) The Delaware (../2009/02/10/the-delaware/) The war in Gaza (../2009/01/14/the-war-in-gaza/) black people as monkeys (../2009/02/25/black-people-as-monkeys/) Derailing for Dummies (../2009/04/08/derailing-for-dummies/) white innocence (../2008/09/06/white-innocence/) reading while white: history and news (../2010/03/21/reading-while-white-history-and-news/) racism is unnatural (../2009/09/28/racism-is-unnatural/) Posted in America, genocide, history, race | 100 Comments
100 Responses
alwaysright101 on Wed 24 Mar 2010 at 13:04:11 America uses systematic genocide unlike other countries such as Africa.that is why no one notices it or does but has no idea how to fight back until it becomes full blown mass killing genocide.
no_slappz abagond,
on Wed 24 Mar 2010 at 13:35:20
I see you are experiencing another flare-up of your black alternate reality paranoia syndrome.
ColorOfLuv To alwaysright101 America uses systematic genocide.
on Wed 24 Mar 2010 at 13:48:14
If youre talking about welfare, the poverty level in the U.S, and public education I most certainly agree with you.
Vindicator no_slappz said: abagond,
on Wed 24 Mar 2010 at 13:51:49
I see you are experiencing another flare-up of your black alternate reality paranoia syndrome. I see youre still chatting c*** again! What a tool!
3 of 31
7/22/2013 1:56 AM
Annaleisha on Wed 24 Mar 2010 at 14:47:41 That Kinga Alfred thing was friggin disturbing! So much so that it sounds like a horrorn movie, tht cant b real man! Abagond please do me a favour and read that link in its entirety and see what that thing really is about. If u find any truth to it would u mind doing a post on it in the next few weeks. That made me feel sick.
abagond on Wed 24 Mar 2010 at 14:54:36 I saw that too. Not sure if the King Alfred Plan is an urban legend or what, though. If it turns out to be true I will certainly do a post on it.
J I am not totally sure eitherbut I think it is an urban legend ie The King Alfred plan
on Wed 24 Mar 2010 at 14:58:36
There is also one regarding P.W. Botha and committing genocide against Blacks in South Africa. Many consider this to be true
Mira on Wed 24 Mar 2010 at 15:14:15 As someone who was born and raised in Yugoslavia, I know what youre talking about. As for the topic of America, I believe what happened to Native Americans (well, in both North and South America) is genocide. If you count number of victims, its the greatest genocide in history. Thats why its really disturbing to hear US teaching you about human rights, justice and freedom when the government is unable to admit what happened to Native Americans was genocide (stage 8). Not just US government, but its the most powerful. What happened to blacks was also genocide, not sure which one on the scale- there were killings, but since blacks were useful for slave work, I am not sure if the goal was extermination. Dehumanization is only on stage 3, but what about Jim Crow and segregation, and KKK? Smells more like other stages (4-6). Not sure about today, but its definitely not 0. One more thing: the us vs them dichotomy is natural. However, the way you choose to form who is us and who is them isnt natural. Why is to many people, us still people of my own race, and not people of my own country. Why do so many white Americans see themselves as us, but black Americans as them?
J With regard to:
on Wed 24 Mar 2010 at 15:27:20
What happened to blacks was also genocide, not sure which one on the scale- there were killings, but since blacks were useful for slave work Just for clarification this was also the case for the Jews in Auschwitz, who were also used for work in the concentration camps.
4 of 31
7/22/2013 1:56 AM
Mira Ok. So, you do think it goes to scale 8 for blacks as well?
on Wed 24 Mar 2010 at 15:32:47
abagond Mira:
on Wed 24 Mar 2010 at 15:41:01
Good point about the us v them is natural but not the form it takes: race. religion, language politics, etc. I put Jim Crow at a 5 because the polarization was never complete. The civil rights movement stopped it from getting that far. You still have the Klan but they are a shadow of their former selves. They are no longer lynching people, for example. So when white people say it is not as bad as it used to be I agree: it is no longer a 5, just a 3. But when they think racism is dead (Stage 0) or that their racism is natural (Stage 1), that is where I disagree.
Mira on Wed 24 Mar 2010 at 15:48:50 I see. So, youre talking about the present situation, not how far it went in history? You know better than me, so if you think blacks are at 3 now, I believe you. So yes, I mean, of course its not the way it used to be, even I know that. If it was 5 or 6 (or 7, as J says), it is better to be 3. But 3 isnt the goal, 0 (or perhaps 1) is! And what about Native Americans? I think I read somewhere there only 1-3% of them today in the US. I know their history is stage 8, but what do you think, where are they today? What stage? From what I can see, todays white Americans tend to see Natives as exotic others (unlike blacks, who are, I guess, still seen as pathetic others)- thats why you have so many people claiming their grand grand mother or someone was a Native American. But I dont think it helps. There are so little of them left, and I wonder if they are organized enough to practice their culture or at least teach their children about it.
J With regard to: Ok. So, you do think it goes to scale 8 for blacks as well?
on Wed 24 Mar 2010 at 16:05:37
That was not my point but understanding the nuances and the process of genocide
Mira on Wed 24 Mar 2010 at 16:34:48 I was just wondering where would you put genocide against blacks (what stage): during the slave era, and where would you put it today (what stage). Am I just paranoid, J, or are you seeing all of my posts as some sort of propaganda against blacks? I am sorry to ask this, but it does seem like it sometimes.
5 of 31
7/22/2013 1:56 AM
Mira on Wed 24 Mar 2010 at 16:40:43 Sorry J, I realize my words sound harsh. I meant to say, sometimes I get the feeling youre always questioning what I say, trying to make it look like I said something against black people, or something to make their suffering look less important or extreme.
J on Wed 24 Mar 2010 at 16:58:54 No what I was trying to do was attempting to have a look at what I see as your ways of looking at things but at this time with the issue of genocide. It does not matter if you hold the perception that you do either. Cheers!!
Mira on Wed 24 Mar 2010 at 17:21:52 No what I was trying to do was attempting to have a look at what I see as your ways of looking at things but at this time with the issue of genocide. I believe in the presented scale. Genocide doesnt equal killing and nothing else. There are some steps that precede killings, but could be seen as genocide. So, regarding blacks, I wrote: What happened to blacks was also genocide, not sure which one on the scale- there were killings,but since blacks were useful for slave work, I am not sure if the goal was extermination. I wrote that because I thought blacks were seen as useful for work (unlike Native Americans) and were not systematically killed (with extinction as a goal) during the slave days. Then you wrote: Just for clarification this was also the case for the Jews in Auschwitz, who were also used for workin the concentration camps. Then I thought: Hmmm, hes right, Nazi did use Jews for work but planned to kill (extinct) them. Maybe I was wrong, maybe the same thing happened to slaves in America? So I wrote: ok, So, you do think it goes to scale 8 for blacks as well? in a way: did the same thing happened to blacks? And you answered: That was not my point but understanding the nuances and the process of genocide. So it got me confused. It looked like you missed the point intentionally or something. If you are interested in my general views on race, racism etc please ask. If you want to know my intentions for writing what I write, please ask.
Hathor Mira,
on Wed 24 Mar 2010 at 17:30:26
Those whites that usually claim Native American ancestry dont live in the Mid-West. America
6 of 31
7/22/2013 1:56 AM
has to be looked at regionally in some views about race. This was around forty years ago, but when I was in Oklahoma, Texas and Colorado, I was shocked at the intolerance of Native Americans and how they were even more despised than Black folk. These white folks racism is constantly evoked by the Native defending their right to exist, which to them were those heathen massacres. It doesnt play into their mind that not only land was taken, but tens of millions of Buffalo were slaughtered in order starve the Native Americans. What is so interesting now, is that these people that have benefited from the genocide and property theft are some that fiercely defend their property rights. Some of them have gotten very upset on their blogs, when I point out the Homestead Act of 1862 was the biggest entitlement program from the FEDs. This program lasted til 1934.
J on Wed 24 Mar 2010 at 17:37:06 There need NOT have to be steps towards genocide, unless you are hinting that all genocides work the same way which I know you are not. The point which I am making, and I do not want to reduce it either to what Fanon refers to being objective etc. That one has to understand the historical processes for genocide. You had made mention of African slaves and work. I merely pointed out that the Jews were also made to work before being murdered as part of the process. And still on teh same theme, if we are speaking of extinction then that would characterise the European Jew genocide only. It did NOT incorporate all Jews across the planet like the Beta Israel Jews (Ethiopia), Sephardic Jews, Bene Jews (India). Hence my point about understanding due process(es). I do not understand your point when you say: So it got me confused. It looked like you missed the point intentionally or something. If you are interested in my general views on race, racism etc please ask. If you want to know my intentions for writing what I write, please ask.
Mira on Wed 24 Mar 2010 at 17:48:25 There need NOT have to be steps towards genocide, unless you are hinting that allgenocides work the same way which I know you are not. I was talking about 8 stages of genocide. I didnt see you oppose the idea presented in Abagonds post. So why are you quoting my posts only. If you dont think genocides work in stages, we can talk about it. I was commenting on Abagonds scheme about the 8 stages of genocide (ok, it was not his| scheme, but the one presented here). I think stages are good to use because otherwise people would disregard any genocide that is not about mass killings as not genocide. True, there are other definitions of genocide, but like I said, if you want to argue the presented 8stages scheme, just say to. I do not understand your point when you say: So it got me confused. It looked like you missed the
7 of 31
7/22/2013 1:56 AM
point intentionally or something. If you are interested in my general views on race, racism etc please ask. If you want to know my intentions for writing what I write, please ask. What was confusing about it? Like I said, I might be paranoid, but it looked to me that youre reading my comments not for what I actually write, but to reveal something hidden behind them, something that- as far as I can tell from you other posts- goes in the direction of me trying to deny or minimize suffering of black people. So I said, if you want to talk about my intentions, we can do that. But please dont misinterpret my posts. If I say blacks were not exterminated, you could write: are you sure about that? They were and we can talk about it. Not but Jews were used for work too- that way Im getting the feeling youre either missing the point or trying to play a game with me, a game I dont understand. My English is not be perfect, so yes, it can be a factor here so Im not saying youre mean or doing this on purpose. Maybe I am the one whose comments are confusing.
Hathor Abagond,
on Wed 24 Mar 2010 at 17:54:38
When genetic engineering can give you the child with specific characteristics, then I think all Americans including Black folks will participate in genocide. How man Black people will opt for a blond, blue eyed and fair skinned child. Do you think that the Black child who now picks out the white doll, grow up to think differently?
Ankhesen Beautifully written again.
on Wed 24 Mar 2010 at 17:56:03
Mira @Hathor
on Wed 24 Mar 2010 at 18:03:34
Those whites that usually claim Native American ancestry dont live in the Mid-West. America has to be looked at regionally in some views about race. This was around forty years ago, but when I was in Oklahoma, Texas and Colorado, I was shocked at the intolerance of Native Americans and how they were even more despised than Black folk. True. Of course America is not uniform. But I dont know much about regional differences, so I cant tell. Also, note that my experience with these things comes from Internet (blogs like this one) or media. Perhaps its a bit different in practice. All in all, I do see (online and in media) white people pretty often talking about Native American ancestry, no matter how small. So I got the feeling Natives are considered exotic others (as the opposite of pathetic others) these days. When genetic engineering can give you the child with specific characteristics, then I think all Americans including Black folks will participate in genocide. How man Black people will opt for a blond, blue eyed and fair skinned child. Do you think that the Black child who now picks out the white doll, grow up to think differently? This is a very good question. I am not sure about blond, blue eyes child, but I do think many black parents would opt for lighter skin and straight hair.
8 of 31
7/22/2013 1:56 AM
Thats why movie Gattaca is (unintentionally, I guess) interesting. In their world, there are only a few black people. (Sure, it was probably because of white-producers-are-racist, as usual, but in this case, it did have a meaning. Also, whites were mainly blonde and blue eyed).
alwaysright101 on Wed 24 Mar 2010 at 18:04:50 color of love, that was not what i was referring to. i was referring to institutionalized racism and colorblind racism and anything that falls under that category.
Hathor on Wed 24 Mar 2010 at 18:25:50 Mira, I was thinking of that movie, although I hadnt seen it. The theme is popular in sci-fi, only now has technology brought it closer to reality.
Mira on Wed 24 Mar 2010 at 18:30:21 It is a decent movie. Not perfect, though. Some things are just way to naive to be believable, but the concept is ok.
abagond 1. I saw Gattaca too. It was interesting.
on Wed 24 Mar 2010 at 19:11:04
2. The 8-stage model of genocide comes from Gregory Stanton of the US State Department. He studied the genocide in Cambodia and noticed that the genocides in Rwanda and Sudan went through the same stages. It also clearly applies to the Holocaust. But applying it to America is me, not him. 3. White Americans have long used blacks as a cheap supply of labour, but ever since Emancipation blacks have become an optional population, if that makes sense. There is a great Derrick Bell story about that, The Space Traders. Blacks were worth more to whites when there was a dollar-sign on their head, when they had market value as slaves. 4. Native Americans might be back down at Stage 1. That is why I put a question mark after them in the post. It depends on current white views on having wiped them out, something I do not have a good handle on.
abagond on Wed 24 Mar 2010 at 19:23:44 The King Alfred Plan was made up by John A. Williams in 1967 for his book The Man Who Cried I Am. He left copies of the plan in the New York subway and it became an urban legend. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/King_Alfred_Plan
davi on Wed 24 Mar 2010 at 20:06:02 Im sorry butt step 1 doesnt apply to Native Americans. They were not separated into us and them because there never was any us to begin with. In Germany, Serbia, Rwanda the victims were already part of the social contract of the place, but in America there were two
9 of 31
7/22/2013 1:56 AM
completely different and incompatible social contracts and lifestyles competing for the same territory. The annihilation of the weaker one was a given. And genocide implies the idea of choice. The Germans had a choice, the Yugoslavians had a choice and the Rwandans had their choice too. What happened there was not something that was inevitable. But in Americas case I think the social forces and momentum were so much in the disfavor of the Native Americans that no government could have amassed the power to stop them. The masses wanted land and they wanted it then. Any government that would have tried to deny them for the sake of some hunter-gatherers would have failed and would have been quickly thrown out of power .
Mira on Wed 24 Mar 2010 at 20:25:45 I dont know about Rwanda, but what happened in Germany and Yugoslavia was not a similar thing, and what happened in America is also different. Three different things. In case of Yugoslavia, one thing that is rarely mentioned is the fact that it was fall and disintegration of one nation in a civil war. Because thats what it was: one nation, civil war. Nobody talks about it this way (including the participants), because today its really unpopular to say it was a civil war or that all those ethnicities once (and not so long time ago!) made one nation (Yugoslavian). Instead, people talk about centuries of hate between ethnic groups and it was always like this, while, in fact, it wasnt. It was a civil war that happened to one nation. None of the ex-Yugoslavian republics want to talk about it that way (because it doesnt suit their interest), but that doesnt change the fact it was a civil war.
no_slappz Is the US government genocidal?
on Wed 24 Mar 2010 at 20:52:29
Obviously not. If the government were genocidal, elected officials would begin to support the full legalization of all recreational drugs. If all recreational drugs were legalized, the death and devastation blacks would inflict on themselves would amount to genocide. But no responsible politicians support legalization.
J With regard to your comments Mira.
on Wed 24 Mar 2010 at 21:36:50
This is a chatboard where people put forwards ideas and exchange ideas. Sometimes people put forward ideas as a compliment, or to clarify matters, or to be adversial, or for a variety of reasons. However, when people adopt the position, why are you addressing me, but did NOT address someone else. personally for me that does NOT make any real sense. Since, if one has the facts no matter who addresses you, or whatever they may claim. The facts ought to be able to speak for themselves, even if an individual may have a dishonest appoach. Personally I think it may be your command of the language and the nuances thereof, how it can be used overtly or covertly andexplicitly or implicity which may be creating your perception??
10 of 31
7/22/2013 1:56 AM
Hope this makes some sense.
Mira on Wed 24 Mar 2010 at 21:45:40 Facts cant speak for themselves. They always need someone to interpret them. But thats another story. When it comes to this post, I didnt understand you wanted to challenge the whole idea behind stages of genocide. I thought there was something in my posts you want to challenge- but you didnt say what.
J on Wed 24 Mar 2010 at 21:52:42 I came to clarify a point which I identified viz that work also occurred for Europeans Jews in their genocide, as it also occurred for the African slaves. Surely you must agree also that there is nothing to be interpreted here with regard to these two facts of information. I am afraid you are mis-representing my position if that is your perception- but as I had said earlier that is fine by me.
Hathor davi,
on Wed 24 Mar 2010 at 21:58:13
The Federal government got the land then open the door to immigration to fill the land. There were no masses demanding land. A lot of the land gotten from the Native American was high in minerals, water or forest. You look at the population density of the Mid-West. There was no need for the Native American to be removed except there would have to be some compromise in whether the whites would get all the benefits and profits or their nations sovereignty would be violated. There is always an argument that the Indian didnt understand property rights or couldnt assimilate, but many of the nations tried, they became educated, formed local governments in the American style, some already had governments and forms of justice that the colonist adopted, especially the Cherokee and the northern nations like the Iroquois. What Europeans forget is the only thing that made their technology possible was gun power and the horse. Horses did not even exist in America until the Spanish brought them over.War was another pressure that advanced their technology. If Europe had not been as populated, I would venture to say they would have at the same stages as the rest of the world.
bremoni davi,
on Wed 24 Mar 2010 at 23:23:50
I have to respectfully disagree. The binary of White versus the Racialized Other was predicated on the idea that Europeans were clean, advanced, civilized, progressive, industrious, and favored by God. The Other, specifically Native Americans in this case, was predicated on the idea that they were
11 of 31
7/22/2013 1:56 AM
savages, barbaric, backward, primitive, and pagan. Ultimately, this representation functioned to allow white settlers to delude themselves into thinking that their expansion into Native American territory was only natural. They saw themselves as advancing the country as a whole by bringing modernity and progress to what was essentially considered a wilderness populated by savage nobles who had no idea how to properly work the land. Hence you have ideas such as Manifest Destiny floating around, that God wanted white people to spread and flourish. So yeah, there definitely was a us versus them in place for all of this to occur. Socially constructed, but real all the same. It was deliberate, legitimized, reinforced, and acted upon. So none of this it was societal forces and hence inevitable is not flying with me. Honestly, Im not sure why you think Native Americans had to be formally included in American society for them to be dehumanized in the first place. Genocide is not concerned with social contracts. Genocide is genocide.
davi on Thu 25 Mar 2010 at 19:11:52 The title itself Is America still genocidal ? sounds like the Did you stop beating your wife? question
abagond on Thu 25 Mar 2010 at 19:21:38 Right, because it assumes that America at least used to be genocidal even if it is not any more.
Eurasian Sensation @ J,
on Thu 25 Mar 2010 at 22:54:16
I think the comparison between Jews in WW2 and the African-American experience is comparing apples and oranges. This is not to get into an oppression olympics and compare whose suffering is worse. Its just different. The intent for the European Jews was to wipe them out. The forced labour they did was a side benefit of the process, but not the goal. I dont think this could ever really be said of any government plan towards African-Americans. The intention was to use their labour, not to kill them. Although of course they historically treated as subhuman and it was not important whether they died or not. But there is a difference. The Native American situation, historically speaking, does count as genocide. Although it was not directed and explicit in the way that the Jewish Holocaust was, in effect it was still genocidal, and was being carried out by many independent agents in many locations around the US.
12 of 31
7/22/2013 1:56 AM
J Eurasian,
on Thu 25 Mar 2010 at 23:25:03
Just to say I was not comparing Jewish Holocaust and the African-American process. Why do people keep refering to slavery as only an American experience I do NOT understand why some here can only see slavery being restricted to the shores of America, when it was a global enterprise?? And again the extermination of the Jews in the history book is written as if ALL Jews were to be exterminated when this obviously was not the case, only White European Jews. So there was no attempt to wipe out ALL Jews These are the facts that we have before us on the discusson table.
no_slappz j, you wrote:
on Fri 26 Mar 2010 at 00:40:49
And again the extermination of the Jews in the history book is written as if ALL Jews were to be exterminated when this obviously was not the case, only White European Jews. So there was no attempt to wipe out ALL Jews Oh. In other words, you are claiming that if Germany had won WWII it would have stopped killing Jews. Thats a new one. The Nazis would have killed every Jew in every country under German control. Thus, if Germany had realized its goal of world domination, it would have been positioned to exterminate almost every Jew on the planet. At the time of the Holocaust the total number of Jews in the world was about 18 million. Hitler killed 6 million. Meanwhile, today the global population of Jews is about 15 million, with about 5 million in Israel and 6 million in the US, leaving 4 million scattered elsewhere.
J on Fri 26 Mar 2010 at 00:53:30 I am saying what the historicals facts are. What you are saying here is conjecture?? Can I politely enquire if you are Jewish??
J And again No_Slappz, If we are going to use the Holocaust as the basis of our analysis.
on Fri 26 Mar 2010 at 01:02:32
If we look at it the Nazis also murdered the Gypsies, Jehovah Witnesses, disabled, to a lesser extent Afro-Germans. Can you confirm if you also think if Germany had gained world domination these or at least some of these groups would also be exterminated globally, and if so which ones, if any??
13 of 31
7/22/2013 1:56 AM
Thaddeus Sigh. Well, theres a problem with this.
on Fri 26 Mar 2010 at 14:44:09
First of all, Abagond, youre using a rhetorical trick here which is known as the loaded question or, more colloquially, the Have you stopped beating your wife yet? gambit. Basically, you allege that something has happened in the past and ask if it continues, insisting on a yes or no answer. If your target says no, he tacitly admits to doing something in the past. If he says yes, of course, he admits to doing it now. The proper intellectual response to such a loaded question gambit is to break the question down into parts and answer them seperately. However, you refine the rhetorical trick by playing a further one which presumes beforehand that anyone of a given complexion who attempts to discuss the complex history of white-indian relations in the U.S. must ipso facto be attemping to appologize for genocide. Nevertheless, I will attempt to apply logic to the question, breaking it down into parts and answering those. The parts are: 1) Has the U.S. committed genocide? 2) Has the U.S. committed genocide against Indians? 3) Is the U.S. committing genocide today? 1) and 2) The first problem we run up against is your definition of genocide, which is oddly restricitive. About the only people who argue that genocide needs must mean mass killings on the level of the Holocaust are Jewish activist who wish to reserve the word for the Holocaust and nothing else. Native American activists like Russel Means, Ward Churchill and Vine Deloria Junior have all argued AGAINST the definition of genocide which you post above because it doesnt adequately encompass the Native American experience. The Native American population in the U.S. was never, in and of itself, the target of mass killings, though many separate Native American groups were. This is a point well recognized by even the most radical Native American historians such as Ward Churchill. Instead, Native Americans prefer to use the United Nations definition of genocide which encompasses forced attempts at mass cultural change with an eye to eliminating a group from the face of the Earth (probably more threatening, actually, to group survival than actual mass killings). This, the Indians definitely suffered as a discrete racial group from about the 1880s on to the 1960s. So if we use the U.N.s definition of genocide (which, btw, the U.S. refuses to recognize precisely BECAUSE it could be applied to Indians), then yes, the U.S. has committed genocide against its Native American population. If we use the 8 step process you describe above, no it hasnt. By the same U.N. definition, the U.S. has committed genocide against its African American population, too, though one would be hard pressed to find this articulated as official federal policy, as was the case with the Indians. Some case could definitely be made.
14 of 31
7/22/2013 1:56 AM
3) With the advent of the John Collier administration of the BIA, federal Indian policy swung decisively behind the idea of maintaining the Indian nations as discrete socio-cultural and political groups. Some radicals like Ward Churchill argue that this was only done in order to better rationalize the exploitation of Indian lands and theres some truth in that. Also, from around 1950 to the end of the 60s, assimilation policy made a brief and incomplete come-back in the BIA. From the Nixon administration on, however, the federal focus has been to maintain native groups as they are. The U.S. thus stopped committing genocide upon the Indians in 1934 or if ytoure a stickler in the early 1970s. As for other groups The U.S. does not seem to be dedicated to forced, mass cultural or physical obliteration of any ethnic groups within its frontiers as a matter of policy. OUTSIDE its borders is another question. One could argue that the current crusade against Islam is a form of genocide, for even people like Obama seem to feel that forced cultural change must take place in Iraq and Afganistan. Obama probably doesnt foresee using such change to eliminate entire ethnic groups: Bush certainly came close to that idea, however.
Thaddeus on Fri 26 Mar 2010 at 14:52:12 In other words, you are claiming that if Germany had won WWII it would have stopped killing Jews. Thats a new one. Well, there was this whacky idea certain members of the Nazi government had (most particularly Eichmann) of establishing a Jewish homeland in Madagasgar. So its not inconceivable that they would have stopped at some point. However, Id argue that the hatred which had been whipped up against the Jews was so strong that the Nazis probably COULDNT stop it, even if theyd won the war and expulsed Jews from Germany, It would have been politically prohibitive. Furthermore, the natural tendency of fascism its the prepetuation of radical othering. As anthropology has shown, time and again, human groups dont define themselves as such so much by what they have in common but by who they define themselves AGAINST. Being that fascism was an attempt to form hyper-cohesive, unitary and homogenous national ethnic groups, it needed a correspondingly radicalized other. In short, if the Jews didnt exist, Hitler would have had to make them up (in fact, he did, in a sense). My guess is that the Nazis would have gone on killing Jews until they had no more to kill. Long before then, theyd have turned on another ethnic group in order to keep the ball rolling. My best guess, given the historical evidence, would be the Slavs (sorry Mira, but Im pretty sure youll agree given the history of Yugoslavia during WWII).
abagond Thad said:
on Fri 26 Mar 2010 at 15:14:53
As anthropology has shown, time and again, human groups dont define themselves as such so much by what they have in common but by who they define themselves AGAINST.
15 of 31
7/22/2013 1:56 AM
What an idea. So how does that apply to White Americans?
Mira What an idea. So how does that apply to White Americans?
on Fri 26 Mar 2010 at 15:20:23
No, Abagond, that is true. We (whatever we means to any of us) define our group not as much on we are THIS but we are NOT like THEY. Seriously. The division between us and them is mainly based upon we are different than them. Not we are this. But: we are not this (that our enemies are). In other words, you cant build identity on its own. You need another, enemy group to define your identity as the opposite of you enemies.
abagond Thad:
on Fri 26 Mar 2010 at 15:26:07
I do not remember anything about forced cultural change in the UN definition of genocide which itself was a compromise between the winners of the Second World War (notably, Stalin did not want mass killings based on politics to count as genocide just those based on race, religion and ethnicity.)
abagond Thad:
on Fri 26 Mar 2010 at 15:27:19
You are right, the post takes it for granted that wiping out over a million Native Americans is genocide.
J With regard to:
on Fri 26 Mar 2010 at 15:46:06
My guess is that the Nazis would have gone on killing[EUROPEAN WHITE] Jews until they had no more to kill. Long before then, theyd have turned on another ethnic group [IN FACT THEY HAD ALREADY DONE SO WITH THE GYPSIES] in order to keep the ball rolling Just for clarification I have decided to redacted the following by adding the words in capital letters enclosed in brackets
Thad What an idea. So how does that apply to White Americans?
on Fri 26 Mar 2010 at 15:56:12
Very much applies to white and white Americans. Whites didnt see themselves as such until they began to run into categorically different groups on a mass scale following the birth of modernity. And the Americas was pretty much the laboratory for racialist and racist thinking in the world, whites being no exception there. You are right, the post takes it for granted that wiping out over a million Native Americans isgenocide.
16 of 31
7/22/2013 1:56 AM
First of all, Abagond, even Native American historians themselves are very divided on this question. Theres no consensus at all on how many Indians were in North America prior to contact, how many died from biological shock and how many died from wars and murder. I can categorically state that theres no point in U.S. history where the federal government set out to systematically murder 1,000,000 Indians. If youve got informantion to the contrary, Id love to see it. In fact, the best analyses Ive seen (carried out by Native scholars themselves) shows that the Native American population was on the upswing by the second half of the 19th century at the latest. Some argue for earlier than that. When it comes down to historical proof rather than simple rhetoric, the fact of the matter is, we just dont know. This is why most Native scholars insist on the U.N. definition of genocide. It is MUCH easier to prove that the U.S. did that as a matter of policy rather than mass killings. I do not remember anything about forced cultural change in the UN definition of genocide Then you didnt read it, apparently. Article 2 of the UN Convention on Genocide quite clearly calls deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part genocide. Forced cultural change fits that description like a glove. Article 2 in general, in fact, can be applied to Native Americans. Note that there is exactly ZERO mention of mass killings.
abagond on Fri 26 Mar 2010 at 15:56:30 In terms of percentages, the German genocide against the Gypsies was far worse than that against the Jews.
Thad on Fri 26 Mar 2010 at 16:00:15 J is correct. The Nazis already HAD turned on other groups and not just the gypsies. They were also ramping up on the Slavs by the wars end. As for Jews, white or black, I very much doubt Hitler would have had many qualms against killing them. Seeing as how Italy controlled Ethiopia, however (home of something like 95% of the planets black Jews at the time) and Italy was Germanys ally, it would have depended upon how hard Hitler couldve leaned on Mussolini regarding the question. My guess is pretty hard.
Thad on Fri 26 Mar 2010 at 16:01:46 In terms of percentages, the German genocide against the Gypsies was far worse than that against the Jews. Yes it was. The point being? (Not being a smart-ass here, simply cant see why this is an issue,
17 of 31
7/22/2013 1:56 AM
precisely, given that Im certainly not arguing that the Jews have been the only people to suffer a genocide in history).
Mira on Fri 26 Mar 2010 at 16:13:55 My best guess, given the historical evidence, would be the Slavs (sorry Mira, but Im pretty sure youll agree given the history of Yugoslavia during WWII). Well, in terms of major Nazi victims, Slavs are listed on the third place, after Jews and Gypsies. I am not sure how they measured this: by number of killings or percentage?
no_slappz j, you wrote:
on Fri 26 Mar 2010 at 16:13:58
If we look at it the Nazis also murdered the Gypsies, Jehovah Witnesses, disabled, to alesser extent Afro-GermansCan you confirm if you also think if Germany had gained world domination these or at least some of these groups would also be exterminated globally, and if so which ones, if any?? If Germany had won WWII it would have continued its extermination policies as long as these enemies of the state were visible.
J Thanks
on Fri 26 Mar 2010 at 16:34:39
Personally I have never been a fan of an aspect of History when it talks what would have happened if Hitler succeeded and so on?? And there is also another reason why I am not concerned what Hitler would have done is that it had already been a feature of Blacks/People of Color lives for many years [Aime] Csaire says, these unconcealed genocides were quickly absolved by the West on the pretext of their victims non-Europeanness. Only centuries later, when Hitler, Mussolini, and Franco turned fascism against their own kind, was there a popular awakening in the West of antifascist consciousness and organized resistance
no_slappz j,
on Fri 26 Mar 2010 at 16:43:25
Inasmuch as Hitler is dead and Nazi Germany long gone, I do not concern myself with what MIGHT have happened if the Nazis had triumphed. What DID happen was more than enough.
abagond No Slappz
on Fri 26 Mar 2010 at 16:52:52
18 of 31
7/22/2013 1:56 AM
Are you nuts? You are the one who brought this up! When I say you are not a serious commenter, this is just the kind of stuff I mean. (Thought that is hardly the worst of it.)
no_slappz abagond,
on Fri 26 Mar 2010 at 17:00:02
My previous comments were in response to a statement in someone elses comment. Not my own.
abagond Thad: I am speechless even with my mad rhetoric self.
on Fri 26 Mar 2010 at 17:33:14
So like Native Americans just all fell over dead from smallpox and whites walked in and settled abandoned land, is that it? And, hey, it was never official government policy, so it does not count? And some say Native numbers were on the upswing, so there? I mean, Thad, this is deep Stage 8 stuff: http://abagond.wordpress.com/2009/10/06/how-to-deny-a-genocide/
Mira Have anybody read Guns, germs and Steel?
on Fri 26 Mar 2010 at 17:35:27
abagond http://abagond.wordpress.com/2009/11/09/guns-germs-and-steel/
on Fri 26 Mar 2010 at 17:36:41
Mira
on Fri 26 Mar 2010 at 17:40:28
Will comment there. But seriously, people, read that book. Its really interesting, even if you dont agree with whats written in it.
Thaddeus on Fri 26 Mar 2010 at 18:03:59 Abagond, theres a couple of problems with your rhetoric and yes, its rhetoric. You dont want an answer, do you? First of all, youre collapsing history and presuming, somehow, that the U.S. government existed prior to 1789. The main shock of small pox occurred in the early 17th century, perhaps even earlier. Theres excellent evidence, for example, that New England was underpopulated by small pox long before the Puritans showed up. Squantos testimony on the matter, just to begin with. Theres zero evidence that this small pox epidemic of about 1600 was engineered. It was apparently
19 of 31
7/22/2013 1:56 AM
picked up off of Basque whalers and European cod fishers whod been using the area perhaps since before Colombus. In fact, the only evidence Im aware of concerning conscious attempts to spread disease among the Indians comes from Bouquets and Amhersts correspondence during Pontiacs Rebellion in 1763: a full 150 years, at least, after the initial small pox epidemic which devastated the coastal Indians. Im willing to buy the idea that Amherst and Bouquet put their plan into operation and that this could be qualified as genocidal (against Potniacs people, if not the Indians as a whole), but even then there are two problems: 1) Amherst and Bouquet werent representatives of the U.S., a country which didnt even exist in 1763. 2) Theres no indication that this plan was any sort of government policy. It appears to be the work of two war criminals (presuming we use todays definition of war criminal). Abagond, millions of Indians died in the contacts between European colonists and the First Nations. That is not enough to qualify a situation as genocide, however, neither by the UN definition or your definition. By the way, Abagond, this isnt a WHITE reading of history but a Native reading of history. Also, as I mentioned above, its not a negation of genocide: its the recognition that genocide should RIGHTLY be defined by the UN and not according to the 8 step program youve outlined above. Planned mass murder is not necessary to qualify a situation as genocidal. So it seems to me that instead of implying that the United States used a time machine to engage in 16th century germ warfare, youd be much better off in joining native activists in decrying the genocide which quite provably DID occur. Presuming, of course, that your goal is to encourage social justice and not just spout rhetoric.
Thaddeus on Fri 26 Mar 2010 at 18:08:12 By the way, Abagond, not even Ward Chuchill whos by far one of the most vocal and radical Native American activists, considers most of the East Coast to have been stolen by whites. For better or worse, at least 70% of the east coast region was negotiated for legitimately in treaties which even most native groups themselves recognize. Native American history is a complicated affair, Abagond. Its not quite the simple story youd make it out to be.
abagond SMH
on Fri 26 Mar 2010 at 18:19:35
abagond Thad:
on Fri 26 Mar 2010 at 18:25:07
Since you seem to have an interest in this subject I am going to ask you this: To the best of
20 of 31
7/22/2013 1:56 AM
your knowledge, do most White Americans see it as a genocide or not? And by genocide I mean either We killed them to take their land or even Like what Hitler did to the Jews since I doubt most White Americans know the UN definition (either your version or mine or some other version).
Thaddeus on Fri 26 Mar 2010 at 18:38:10 To the best of your knowledge, do most White Americans see it as a genocide or not? How the hell am I supposed to know, abagond? Do I live in the U.S.? Id say plenty do, given the persistence of the Century of Dishonor meme among white americans. Plenty of white americans who are 1/128th Cherokee also consider themselves to be Indians today (as do many black americans, just to keep it fair). In 2004, I was doing research at the Smithsonian National Museum of the American Indian and working on the side helping them set up their Our peoples exhibit for the opening of the new museum on the Mall. One night, Ana and I went down to Adams Morgan for some beers and we got to talking to some white guys at the bar. When we told them why we were in D.C., one of these dudes launched into an hour-long spiel regarding how he was really Native American and that we (a black and a white) couldnt meaningfully understand the Native experience. Said guy was as white looking as you could wish (blond and blue-eyed, even), had never set foot on a rez, had no knowledge of any native language, no knowledge of any native culture at all in fact. At first we thought he was making some sort of droll joke, a lets lead the foreigners on sort of thing. But he was deadly serious: he believed that he was an Indian because one of his great-grandsomethings was an Indian (at least partially). Then, a few weeks later at the NMAI, someone asked what I was researching. I responded Oh, Indian affairs in the 1930s and then got a half hour lecture from a very white women who claimed that we Native Americans to the word Indian and you disrespectful whites had better learn that. Lady, I responded Im studying the BIA. Yknow, the Bureau of Indian Affairs? And arent YOU an employee of the NMAI the National Museum of the American Indian? It seems to me that if youre serious about what youre saying, you have bigger fish to fry than me. Americans are loons when it comes to race and are particularly loony when it comes to Indians which, Ill remind you, is a racial category which CAN be mixed in American mythology. Ill thus not hazard any guesses on what white americans believe about Indians any more. From where Im sitting, it looks like increasing numbers of white and black Americans actually believe that they ARE Indians. And, byt the way, it is precisely these white and black Indians who are most likely to rant about genocide.
21 of 31
7/22/2013 1:56 AM
Thaddeus on Fri 26 Mar 2010 at 19:20:54 We killed them to take their land seems to be the consensus view in the States among Americans Ive known, though of course theres always the Flat earth Brigade to consider.
Dochartaigh on Fri 26 Mar 2010 at 19:41:22 Americans are loons when it comes to race and are particularly loony when it comes to Indians. Yeah why is that? I couldnt agree more, black, white, and brown people are crazy in America when it comes to race. My hypothesis is we are such a young and diverse country, people are not ready to accept a commonality. Yet Brazil is also a young diverse country and racism is totally different there.
ColorOfLuv on Fri 26 Mar 2010 at 19:53:50 Flat earth brigade Where have they been hiding lately? Ah now I remember, I recall they set sail to prove their point, but in so doing fell to their demise. Therefore, they are no longer a threat. I think thats the way the story goes LOL
Dochartaigh To colorofluv
on Fri 26 Mar 2010 at 21:13:41
Believe it or not there are still people alive today that believe the earth is flat!! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flat_Earth_Society
Jade Thad said: Americans are loons when it comes to race I agree on that!
on Fri 26 Mar 2010 at 22:27:36
Thaddeus on Sat 27 Mar 2010 at 17:10:48 Some people wanted to hear the story of my experiment for the first day of my Biology, race and culture class at the Federal University of Rio de Janeiro. Most of the class is very light perhaps white, by Bahian standards but 20% could call themselves black in the U.S. and have no raised eyebrows. Almost all are middle class. So this is thew group of Brazilians who typically avoid talking about race amongst themselves because em casa de enforcado, no se fala em corda (in a hanged mans house you dont talk about ropes) meaning that race is a potentially very explosive issue because while everyone considers themselves to be white or pardo (light brown), no one wants to look TOO closely at their ancestry. So I asked the kids to divide themselves up by race. They milled about, hemmed and hawed, and finally did it by hair form: curly hair to the right, wavy hair in the middle, straight hair to the left.
22 of 31
7/22/2013 1:56 AM
(I SHOULD have said OK, all you girls who are using hair-straightening products, move to where your hair would REALLY place you, but I forgot.) Interesting, no?
J on Sat 27 Mar 2010 at 17:23:53 Only interesting in the sense as I said elsewhere if ALL the present categories for race and/or even differences could be removed and done away with, humans would devise another set. This in essence is what your class did in one sense
J OOOps..thanks for relaying the information
on Sat 27 Mar 2010 at 17:24:19
Thad on Sat 27 Mar 2010 at 17:28:26 Not really. Hair form is one of the ways people talk about race in Brazil without talking about it.
Mira on Sat 27 Mar 2010 at 17:31:51 Hair form is one of the ways people talk about race in Brazil without talking about it. This is interesting. @J Only interesting in the sense as I said elsewhere if ALL the present categories for race and/or even differences could be removed and done away with, humans would devise another set. (Im jumping from another post) What about eye colour, for example. Its not big deal now, but what if a new division is based on eye colour. Then most of the black people and many white people would make one race, while others would be another race. And everybody would see that as natural and logical.
J on Sat 27 Mar 2010 at 17:37:25 YesI am aware that hair type is also a social category regarding race, but not hair per se though However, within the artificial experimental setting of your classroom. I suspect this was the only category they could use (or perhap think of) without disturbing their sensitivities Or what other category could they use, if the subject is taboo? If you follow??
J
23 of 31
on Sat 27 Mar 2010 at 17:39:50
7/22/2013 1:56 AM
Mira Spot on!! With regard to: What about eye colour, for example. Its not big deal now, but what if a new division is based on eye colour. Then most of the black people and many white people would make one race, while others would be another race. And everybody would see that as natural and logical
Thaddeus What about eye colour, for example. Wouldnt work here. Amber to brown is what 99% of cariocas have.
on Sat 27 Mar 2010 at 17:40:46
However, within the artificial experimental setting of your classroom. I suspect this was the only category they could use (or perhap think of) without disturbing their sensitivities You got it. I forced them to line up by blood type and tooth size as well. I didnt want to be cruel and do skin color. That may have blown a few lids.
J Left handed and Right-handed race then ha ha
on Sat 27 Mar 2010 at 17:45:56
What do they call that in the social sciences unethical putting your subjects, in this case your students through hell. Then again there are some who suggest students do need such a shock ha ha
Patricia Kayden on Tue 30 Mar 2010 at 10:56:48 Abagond said: Deep down whites think of blacks as monkeys. That makes it easier to kill them or, what is most commonly the case, to stand by and do little when they die in large numbers, as during the heroin and crack epidemics and the high murder rates that followed. Do you really believe this to be true? Then why did so many Whites rush to Haitis aid after the earthquake? I understand your point that some Whites are racist, but I think you are exaggerating a bit. White have been genocidal in the past no doubt. But looking at what happened in Rwanda and what is happening in some African countries right now (Congo, Sudan, Uganda), Black Africans have no problem with kiling each other. By the way, Whites killed 50+ million Whites during WWII, so they are not above killing each other as well. Perhaps, unfortunately, genocide is human nature and a part of the sin problem. Its not confined to any one race.
24 of 31
7/22/2013 1:56 AM
J With regard to this point only:
on Tue 30 Mar 2010 at 12:10:44
and what is happening in some African countries right now (Congo, Sudan, Uganda), Black Africans have no problem with kiling each other. This can be viewed as a simplistic picture if you do not take on board issues of the politics of neo-colonialism
abagond Patricia:
on Tue 30 Mar 2010 at 12:17:18
Yes I believe that. I promised Uncle Milton a post on it but wound up writing this one instead. Thanks for reminding me. To answer some of your points I will apply your style of reasoning to Chris Brown, who beat up Rihanna a year ago. Question: Will Chris Brown ever beat up a girlfriend again? Abagond: He has done it before so it is quite possible he will do it again. Those who beat up their girlfriends and wives tend to do it more than once. Patricia Kayden: Do you believe that? I mean, look at what a nice man he is (Haiti). Besides, he is not the only one who has beat up his girlfriend (Rwanda). Some men beat up men too, you know (WWII). Maybe it is just part of human nature. And while we are at it, here is Thad: Thad: That is a loaded question, Abagond. You are playing rhetorical tricks. Maybe he beat her, but he did not beat up Rihanna (does not fit the definition of genocide; there were killings but hardly any mass killings). And look at what good health she is in! (Native American numbers went up at the end of the 1800s.) Besides, Chris Brown never publicly stated that he was making it a practice to beat her up (genocide was never stated government policy).
Thad on Tue 30 Mar 2010 at 18:15:15 Abagond, heres a question: is there any conceivable native death in the context of whiteindian conflict that you would be willing ton qualify as NOT genocidal? War is not necessarily genocide, Abagond. Neither is murder. There are two definitions out there for genocide: one, which you stipulate above, requires mass murder. That definition is REJECTED by most native american scholars of genocide, including the most radical, because it does not adequately encompass the Native American experience. The second definition, proferred by the U.S., qualifies ANY attempt to eliminate an ethnic group as genocide, including forced schooling, separating parents from children, etc.
25 of 31
7/22/2013 1:56 AM
My point and it should be very clear by now is that I stand with native activists in supporting the SECOND definition of genocide because it adequately encompasses native experience. My point is not that genocide didnt occur. To use your rather strained metaphor, its as if you were claiming that in order to be considered as beaten, Rihanna needs to have been hospitalized. My point is that she wasnt hospitalized, but thats not an adequate definition of beaten, anyhow. Youre the guy who went about defining genocide so precisely above, Abagond. And whether you are aware of it or not, your definition is precisely the same used by white folks (many of the Jewish) who wish to claim that what happened to the Indians WASNT really genocide. You need to read Ward Churchills Fantasies of the Master Race, Abagond. this topic is a hell of a lot more complicated than you imagine it to be. The history of racism against Native Americans isnt simply a generic people of color history or black history with a war bonnet on its head. It has very specific characteristics of its own. Vine Deloria Juniors The Red and the Black goes into this in some detail andd should be required reading by any black activist who wants to talk about Indians in the context of racism.
abagond Thad: Thanks for the book recommendations.
on Wed 31 Mar 2010 at 04:00:44
Of course there is plenty I do not know about how Native Americans got wiped out. But let us not lose sight of the fact that they did get wiped out, that those who did the wiping out stood to benefit hugely and did. Did the government round up natives and shoot them in the back? No. Wounded Knee is the closest thing to that that I know of. There were few mass killings in that sense. But in that a whole continent of people got almost completely wiped out, I count that as a mass killing. If a million dead or even 100,000 dead is not mass, I do not know what is. It was more like Darfur than the Holocaust. In fact, it was pretty much a slow-motion, coast-to-coast Darfur. Given that racism was used to excuse it, it was genocide.
Thad on Wed 31 Mar 2010 at 13:32:33 But let us not lose sight of the fact that they did get wiped out, that those who did the wiping out stood to benefit hugely and did. No, they didnt. They had their land stolen from them. But unlike the Jews in Germany and the Armenians in Turkey, they werent wiped out. Sorry. Thats just not true. The largest fall of the population was due to biological shock, not consciously directed policies of mass murder. This occurred long before the United States existed. Wounded Knee is the closest thing to that that I know of.
26 of 31
7/22/2013 1:56 AM
If you want to argue that mass murder was committed, I suggest you look into the history of scalp bounties. Thats a better ground to argue from than Wounded Knee. Wounded Knee was hardly premeditated. But in that a whole continent of people got almost completely wiped out, I count that as a masskilling. If a million dead or even 100,000 dead is not mass, I do not know what is. Genocide, by any definition, is the consciously directed and planned attempt to eliminate a group AS POLICY, Abagond. Biological shock hardly qualifies, even if we presume that the occasional war criminal like Amherst attempted to use it as a weapon. The millions who died in Europe due to the black plague were not victims of Chinese and Indian genocide, even though the plague originated in those lands. Again, youd be better off arguing this sort of genocide against various groups of Indians and not Indians as a whole. Even Amherst wasnt looking to kill off his native allies. Theres no doubt in my mind, however, that Plymouth Colony engaged in genocide against the Pequods. But again, this wasnt against Indians. Even while the puritans were burning the Pequods in their villages, they were working together with various other native groups who were their allies. At no time during that war did Indians, in general, become a target. To repeat my metaphor above, Hitlers genocide was mostly directed against Jews and Gypsies, not against whites, for all that Jews and Gypsies were white. By the time the U.S. government actually attempted genocide (the post Civil War period), the Indian population in the U.S. was well on the upswing. If you want to talk America and genocide against the Indians, you need to look at the forced assimilation policies of the late 19th and early 20th centuries. These policies were quite clearly centrally planned and directed against Indians as a whole. Their goal was to make Indians disappear. They were strictly genocidal, following the UN definition of the term. And it is for this reason that Indian activists who are SERIOUS about this issue (and not just trying to score rhetorical points with whites over beers) talk about this sort of genocide, which is very actionable under international law, and not mass murder, which is nect to impossible to prove in this case. Finally, Abagond, if youre going to write about native history, you need to LEARN SOME OF IT. It is a hell of a lot more complicated than a slow motion coast to coast Darfur, as you would have it. Id be happy to send you the first chapter of my thesis, if you like. It attempts to be a sort of history of white-native contact for dummies, written for Brazilians who presumably know nothing about U.S. native history. The Indian wars of north america were rarely strictly racial, Abagond, nor did they involve the planned and centrally directed attempt to eliminate Indians as a whole until the 19th century. Even then, it wasnt until the LATE 19th century that this impetus really congealed along racial lines.
27 of 31
7/22/2013 1:56 AM
abagond Thad: Yes, please send it. Thanks.
on Thu 1 Apr 2010 at 03:57:12
abagond Thad:
on Thu 1 Apr 2010 at 04:33:23
1. I am not trying to score rhetorical points. I honestly believe what I am saying because to the best of my present state of knowledge it is true. 2. If I were Native American I would be pushing on the cultural genocide angle too. It is way easier to prove and it was done by a government that is still in operation. You cannot sue white people, but you can sue the American government. And even apart from all that, cultural genocide has done far more long-term damage to natives: numbers can recover way more easily than can cultures. 3. You seem to notice the forest or the trees depending on whichever will make white people come out looking better. You did that with Sally Hemings and you are doing it now again with dead Indians.
Thad on Fri 2 Apr 2010 at 00:40:59 1. Either am I. And ditto. And I would suggest that until you start really reading Native history, your present state of knowledge is probably more based on prejudice than anything else. 2. This is indeed why they are pushing this angle. 3. Abagond, you have to be arguing in EXTREMELY bad faith or not listening to a word that Im saying if you think that either this post or the Hemmings post makes white people look better. In both cases, the situation was actually far grimmer than your two-dimensional, four-color superhero version of history would have it. Ive pointed this out several times, but you apparently dont care to listen. Thats your look out, not mine. But I find it grimmly amusing that Im providing you with all the ammo needed to REALLY nail the U.S. with a charge of genocide and make it stick and yet you somehow teist this around in your mind as defending white people. Go figure. Have you noticed, Abagond, that you dont believe its really history unless it somehow makes you feel better as a person? If it doesnt speak to your immediate political concerns, then you think it aint history.
abagond Thad said (in corrected spelling):
on Fri 2 Apr 2010 at 23:08:07
But I find it grimly amusing that Im providing you with all the ammo needed to REALLY nail the U.S. with a charge of genocide and make it stick and yet you somehow twist this around in your mind as defending white people.
28 of 31
7/22/2013 1:56 AM
Go figure. Have you noticed, Abagond, that you dont believe its really history unless it somehow makes you feel better as a person? If it doesnt speak to your immediate political concerns, then you think it aint history. The first time you read my post it seems you read it as a cheap piece of bash-whitey rhetoric. Fine, we all make mistakes. Please read the post again but this time ASSUME that I mean just what I say. Try not to read any motive into it other than maybe, Oh crap, most of Abagonds family is in America and they are not white. After that, while still in my shoes, think about what would most trouble me about your comments.
Thaddeus on Sun 4 Apr 2010 at 00:16:58 Seriously, Abagond: every single description you make of the world has a clear-cut victimizing group and a clear cut victim group. Every one. Ever notice that? Its as if you cant conceive of history with out bad guys and good guys. Prove me wrong, man: show me one post of yours that deals with history and doesnt eventually try to boil things down into two clear cut good and evil sides. Worse, these groups are presented by you as essentially homogenous and reducible to one single characteristic. So you say white in the context of Native History and, all of a sudden, you have your historical North Star to guide your rhetorical steps. Whites are essentially the same General Custer, Alice Fletcher, the whites who lived married into Indian groups and fought for them they all have essentially the same interest in eliminating Indians from the Earth. And, on the flip side, Indians to you are essentially generic victims, whatever relationship they might have had to white power structures, whatever their tribes and nations. They are essentially cast as equal and the same, facing whiteness. I mean seriously, Abagond: all you need to do to orientate yourself in history is ask what is the color of the actors? and you immediately know everything you intend to ever know about the topic. Its reductionism Abagond, pure and simple. Determinist reductionism. Your thermometer for historical validity is whatever political project you feel needs to be pushed in the here and now.
abagond Thad said:
on Mon 5 Apr 2010 at 08:03:46
Prove me wrong, man: show me one post of yours that deals with history and doesnt eventually try to boil things down into two clear cut good and evil sides. http://abagond.wordpress.com/2006/08/28/osama-bin-laden/
29 of 31
7/22/2013 1:56 AM
http://abagond.wordpress.com/2006/06/10/british-empire/ http://abagond.wordpress.com/2006/07/19/hizbullah/ http://abagond.wordpress.com/2006/07/18/crusades/ http://abagond.wordpress.com/2006/10/18/byzantine-empire/ http://abagond.wordpress.com/2006/08/16/tamerlane/
abagond Todd:
on Mon 5 Apr 2010 at 09:32:50
Like Bay Area Guy, you are making my position more extreme than it is to discredit it. I never said whites are pure evil. I know there are good whites like the white abolitionists and so on. Something not accounted for in your model of me. If you think whites got all the land they have in North America mostly through biological shock, you are fooling yourself. You are not facing up to how little whites value the lives of those who are not like them. Whites are STILL like that.
Thad on Wed 7 Apr 2010 at 20:18:09 OK, let me restate it: is there any history youve written that has touched on the concept of race, Abagond, and has not involved the notion of clear cut villians and good guys? Im willing to believe that you can write about the Byzantine Empire without dichotomizing, but I highly doubt you can do the same, consistently, with any historical formation which you see as building part of your identity. The problem with your writing isnt the supposed whites are pure evil premise, Abagond: its the reliance on portraying abstract social units as if they were individual actors, conventiently ignoring the fact that sociology isnt simply psychology writ big.
J I think this is the only place I could put this article/link: New Colonialism: Pentagon Carves Africa Into Military Zones http://www.countercurrents.org/rozoff070510.htm
on Sun 9 May 2010 at 12:15:42
ImadK on Wed 12 May 2010 at 14:58:07 I think that this is a pretty good article. Id like to know what are you opinions on the following issues, abagond: - On that scale of stages, where would you place the Irish Catholics? Catholics as a whole faced a good degree of discrimination in America in the 19th century, even in the 20th Century (making JFKs inaugration as president of the USA more special, since hes the first Catholic prez in the countrys
30 of 31
7/22/2013 1:56 AM
history), and even in Europe. Like Africans/Arabs, Some commentators on race,culture,ethinicity and the like thought that countries like Spain and Ireland would not be as progressive nor productive as the other Protestant countries. Id think that theyd be up there with the Mexicans, but id like to know what thoughts you have on it. - Just touched briefly by Thad, The Armenian genocide is a hot issue. Its pretty controversial, since even though most historians on Ottoman/ Turkish history, Armenian history or on World War I would say that the Ottomans commited genocide against the Armenians, there are still a substantial number of historians, most Turkish but not all of them, who claim that it doesnt reach that standard of genocide. Most would claim that Armenians were certainly massacred by the millions, but Turks were also murdered as well by Armenians. The more extreme voices would even claim that there were more Turks killed than Armenians. So id like to know what do you think of that.
calculator on Sun 2 Jan 2011 at 00:00:09 @Mira None of the ex-Yugoslavian republics want to talk about it that way (because it doesnt suit their interest), but that doesnt change the fact it was a civil war. 1) Well, I suppose it barely cuts the definition for a civil war considering at least 80% of all people who died during the war were Bosniaks. It was also an extremely lopsided civil war since most war factories were in Serbia, and Serbia channeled generous military supplies to the Serbs in Bosnia while the other ethnic groups scraped by with whatever defense they had.
Comments RSS
Blog at WordPress.com. The MistyLook Theme.
Follow
Follow Abagond
Powered by WordPress.com
31 of 31
7/22/2013 1:56 AM

Is America Still Genocidal

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Is America Still Genocidal

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Is America still genocidal?

Is America still genocidal?

Is America still genocidal? | Abagond

Is America still genocidal? | Abagond

on Wed 24 Mar 2010 at 13:35:20

ColorOfLuv To alwaysright101 America uses systematic genocide.

on Wed 24 Mar 2010 at 13:48:14

Vindicator no_slappz said: abagond,

on Wed 24 Mar 2010 at 13:51:49

Is America still genocidal? | Abagond

on Wed 24 Mar 2010 at 14:58:36

J With regard to:

on Wed 24 Mar 2010 at 15:27:20

Is America still genocidal? | Abagond

on Wed 24 Mar 2010 at 15:32:47

on Wed 24 Mar 2010 at 15:41:01

on Wed 24 Mar 2010 at 16:05:37

Is America still genocidal? | Abagond

on Wed 24 Mar 2010 at 17:30:26

Is America still genocidal? | Abagond

Is America still genocidal? | Abagond

on Wed 24 Mar 2010 at 17:54:38

Ankhesen Beautifully written again.

on Wed 24 Mar 2010 at 17:56:03

on Wed 24 Mar 2010 at 18:03:34

Is America still genocidal? | Abagond

abagond 1. I saw Gattaca too. It was interesting.

on Wed 24 Mar 2010 at 19:11:04

Is America still genocidal? | Abagond

no_slappz Is the US government genocidal?

on Wed 24 Mar 2010 at 20:52:29

J With regard to your comments Mira.

on Wed 24 Mar 2010 at 21:36:50

Is America still genocidal? | Abagond

Hope this makes some sense.

on Wed 24 Mar 2010 at 21:58:13

on Wed 24 Mar 2010 at 23:23:50

Is America still genocidal? | Abagond

on Thu 25 Mar 2010 at 22:54:16

Is America still genocidal? | Abagond

on Thu 25 Mar 2010 at 23:25:03

no_slappz j, you wrote:

on Fri 26 Mar 2010 at 00:40:49

on Fri 26 Mar 2010 at 01:02:32

Is America still genocidal? | Abagond

Thaddeus Sigh. Well, theres a problem with this.

on Fri 26 Mar 2010 at 14:44:09

Is America still genocidal? | Abagond

abagond Thad said:

on Fri 26 Mar 2010 at 15:14:53

Is America still genocidal? | Abagond

What an idea. So how does that apply to White Americans?

Mira What an idea. So how does that apply to White Americans?

on Fri 26 Mar 2010 at 15:20:23

on Fri 26 Mar 2010 at 15:26:07

on Fri 26 Mar 2010 at 15:27:19

J With regard to:

on Fri 26 Mar 2010 at 15:46:06

Thad What an idea. So how does that apply to White Americans?

on Fri 26 Mar 2010 at 15:56:12

Is America still genocidal? | Abagond

Is America still genocidal? | Abagond

no_slappz j, you wrote:

on Fri 26 Mar 2010 at 16:13:58