|
Post by Dark Cloud on Feb 6, 2013 7:31:04 GMT -6
I never said the Army had the same view of the South that Sherman did. Sherman was totally okay with burning out the traitors and their cities and had no particular sensitivity to the pleas of southern women, whom he held as responsible as the men for the war, all in all. As they were.
Grant did not share that hate, but he was certainly willing to use it.
Sherman's supposed, and possibly true, hatred for the Indian was not put into force, either. If they wanted to eradicate the Indian, especially after the Civil War, they could have in an afternoon, including paper work. There was nothing to stop them. So if the head of the Army was a genocide enthusiast, and representative of a majority view, odd it never happened.
|
|
|
Post by AZ Ranger on Feb 6, 2013 8:18:33 GMT -6
|
|
|
Post by alfakilo on Feb 6, 2013 8:38:23 GMT -6
All of this sounds pretty much like a philosophy of genocide to me. Granted it was not "official", or at least "stated", government policy and represents the thoughts of one man, but he was the man that was largely calling the shots. Pretty damning stuff there. I have to wonder how Sherman came to those views. AK
|
|
|
Post by Gatewood on Feb 6, 2013 8:51:44 GMT -6
I think that we have sort of drifted off course, and since I am the one that originally brought Sherman into this, let me try to steer us back.
I didn't mean to disparage Sherman or to imply that he advocated the mass killing of the Indians, only that it would seem that he would not be adverse to looking the other way in those situations in which it might occur and that subordinates probably didn't have to worry about too many repercussions. Also, while the U.S. couldn't have a recognized policy of genocide, being a civilized people and all, that doesn't mean that it didn't exist in a back room type of way, and we will never know exactly what sorts of discussions that may have occurred and instructions given that couldn't be committed to writing in the official record.
Therefore, in regard to AK's original question as to whether we dare call it genocide, while I don't think that it was officially sanctioned genocide as such, it was in many respects much the same thing and there were no repercussions for those that may have been over zealous in the carrying out of their duties.
|
|
|
Post by Dark Cloud on Feb 6, 2013 9:00:41 GMT -6
There was no "coordinated plan" nor was there wish for their annihilation among any plurality that we know of in this nation. You need that for genocide. Genocide isn't the ultimate degree of mass murder by small groups or individuals. It has to be a coordinated process with annihilation as the intent. Until the SS, that didn't exist anywhere.
|
|
|
Post by justvisiting on Feb 6, 2013 12:02:35 GMT -6
There was no "coordinated plan" nor was there wish for their annihilation among any plurality that we know of in this nation. You need that for genocide. Genocide isn't the ultimate degree of mass murder by small groups or individuals. It has to be a coordinated process with annihilation as the intent. Until the SS, that didn't exist anywhere. Wrong. The first "modern" genocidal action began in 1915 when the Ottoman Empire began a systematic destruction of the Armenian people. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Armenian_GenocideBilly
|
|
|
Post by Dark Cloud on Feb 6, 2013 12:28:18 GMT -6
Not wrong. The Turks wanted them out of Turkey. There were no plans to hunt them down elsewhere in the future, as the Nazis had for the Jews as they conquered the world. They drove them out of Turkey, stole the land, killed any who lipped off about it. They had no interest if the Armenians moved to Russia or Persia. Of course, you can find individuals who felt that way, but there was no interest once Turkey was void of them.
God awful, but mass murder and grand theft land aren't genocide. The Wiki article reads like it came from the Armenian Defense Fund (?) - who, inevitably, function here in Boulder. Only when the term was applied to the Holocaust and others saw how it benefited the Zionists did the term spring alive to retroactive mass use.
If the nation accused had a forced emigration program, as the Turks did, hard to reconcile with genocide unless the emigration was mandatory to an extermination camp. Genocidal folks would have killed them all on sight.
It's important to remember that the term genocide was coined and felt needed to express a worse thing than mass murder and nation theft. It doesn't mean just "really, really bad mass murder." It means that the goal was the extermination of a people, not just those in one location, by many mutually supportive methods and units, as the Nazis had.
The US wanted the land, had no real interest in killing off the Indians given the moneyed lobbies that supported the noble red man. It was land theft, with few examples of mass murder. No doubt. But it was not genocide. If it were intended genocide, it was remarkably incompetent.
|
|
|
Post by wild on Feb 6, 2013 13:36:58 GMT -6
They drove them out of Turkey An example of Dark Cloud's whitewashing of genocide.Out of Turkey was by means of death marches into the desert where they perished.
[G]enocide means 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 The above is the UN Convention on genocide. I draw your attention to the reference in whole or in part.Annihilation is not a prerequisite of genocide. Genocide is the destruction of the group as such The US could have destroyed the plains Indians by forceably breaking up the tribes and scattering the fragments in such salubrious environs as the Florida swamps.
|
|
|
Post by quincannon on Feb 6, 2013 14:54:46 GMT -6
Wild: Your definition falls apart in relation to the American experience with the words "intent to destroy" for the reasons indicated. The phrase "in whole or in part" by itself cannot be seperated from the intent. The intent was manifest destiny which you may argue the right and wrong of until the cows come home for all I care, Unless you can show me, which you cannot, an organized policy driven agenda of deliberate and purposeful annihilation on the part of the United States Government then you can quote the after the fact United Nations conventions until the second coming and it still will not apply to the US experience, no matter how much you wish it to.
|
|
|
Post by justvisiting on Feb 6, 2013 17:27:35 GMT -6
Not wrong. The Turks wanted them out of Turkey. There were no plans to hunt them down elsewhere in the future, as the Nazis had for the Jews as they conquered the world. They drove them out of Turkey, stole the land, killed any who lipped off about it. They had no interest if the Armenians moved to Russia or Persia. Of course, you can find individuals who felt that way, but there was no interest once Turkey was void of them. God awful, but mass murder and grand theft land aren't genocide. The Wiki article reads like it came from the Armenian Defense Fund (?) - who, inevitably, function here in Boulder. Only when the term was applied to the Holocaust and others saw how it benefited the Zionists did the term spring alive to retroactive mass use. If the nation accused had a forced emigration program, as the Turks did, hard to reconcile with genocide unless the emigration was mandatory to an extermination camp. Genocidal folks would have killed them all on sight. It's important to remember that the term genocide was coined and felt needed to express a worse thing than mass murder and nation theft. It doesn't mean just "really, really bad mass murder." It means that the goal was the extermination of a people, not just those in one location, by many mutually supportive methods and units, as the Nazis had. The US wanted the land, had no real interest in killing off the Indians given the moneyed lobbies that supported the noble red man. It was land theft, with few examples of mass murder. No doubt. But it was not genocide. If it were intended genocide, it was remarkably incompetent. Obviously, I don't see it the way you do. The Armenians in Turkey were subject to moving or dying and then, once moved, being subject to elimination. I think you paint too wide a streak when you only consider the Nazis' world-wide view as the basic parameter for genocide. I don't agree with the UN's interpretation either as any warfare could then be considered genocidal. As far as the original subject, I do agree that while atrocities/massacres/murder occurred; that there was no cohesive plan to eliminate the Indian race from America. And, if memory serves me, the Iroquois were genocidal in their own right as they totally eliminated smaller tribes. Billy
|
|
|
Post by wild on Feb 6, 2013 17:28:27 GMT -6
The crime of genocide did not exist in 1876ish. There was no world body to set limitations on conflict. Thus this is an academic exercise.
Why is annihilation trotted out as a defence against the charge of genocide?Annihilation is not the only means whereby genocide is inflicted on a in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such. I do not have to show intent of annhilation on the part of the US.What is evident is the intent of the US to kill,transport and corral an ethnic group in order to deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part. Which constitutes genocide.
|
|
|
Post by justvisiting on Feb 6, 2013 17:32:34 GMT -6
The crime of genocide did not exist in 1876ish. There was no world body to set limitations on conflict. Thus this is an academic exercise. Why is annihilation trotted out as a defence against the charge of genocide?Annihilation is not the only means whereby genocide is inflicted on a in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such. I do not have to show intent of annhilation on the part of the US.What is evident is the intent of the US to kill,transport and corral an ethnic group in order to deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part. Which constitutes genocide. Wild, I'm proud of you for finally displaying rationality (as for the past seven or so years you have continuously attempted to use the modern U.N. definition of genocide to grade what happened in the American West).
|
|
|
Post by quincannon on Feb 6, 2013 17:45:00 GMT -6
Wild: Was there a Jewish ghetto in Dublin? Let me save you the trouble. There was. So, by the modern definition of genoside your country engaged in it. When you are the pot it does not pay to call the kettle black.
|
|
|
Post by benteen on Feb 6, 2013 18:02:28 GMT -6
I am getting a little confused. What is the issue here. Are we debating the complete annihilation of a people, or genocide. If Richards post on the acts that are considered genocide by the UN Convention on Genocide are correct, then it would appear to me that complete annihilation of a people is not required for genocide. In honesty I thought that it was. But seeing that it wasnt a needed condition, I would say that as far as wanting to annihilate every Indian, no the U.S. did not want that.
However, if we go by the items listed by this convention that constitute genocide, I would have to say yes, we did commit genocide against the Indians.
Be Well Dan
|
|
|
Post by wild on Feb 6, 2013 18:03:28 GMT -6
To your first observation it was always thus.How could it be otherwise.
Your second point;there was no area in Dublin to which Jews were restricted and we had a jewish Lord Mayor and at the moment a Jewish minister of Justice.
Billy And, if memory serves me, the Iroquois were genocidal in their own right as they totally eliminated smaller tribes. It unfortunately is a characteristic of the human tribe to act in a genocidal manner in the course of warfare.Thus as we become more civilised we use world bodies to limit our brutality.Nothing unusual about the US policy it was par for the course.The Germans took it to the extreme.
|
|