Talk:American Indian Genocide

From Conservapedia
This is an old revision of this page, as edited by EasternOrthodox (Talk | contribs) at 23:17, 25 June 2019. It may differ significantly from current revision.

Jump to: navigation, search

I prefer my edit - it doesn't completely reek of liberal bias. --Thammersmith 17:32, 17 April 2007 (EDT)

I like yours better too. It isnt anti-American. It gives just the facts.Bohdan

At the same time, we must be careful not to gloss over the fact that the Dawes Act was an unfortunate episode in American history. DanH 17:35, 17 April 2007 (EDT)

Forgive me for being hopelessly P.C., but shouldn't this article be called "Native American Genocide"? Human 21:34, 22 April 2007 (EDT)

I think this article originally was talking about the cultural ramifications of the Dawes Act, which led to the creation of institutions such as what is now the Haskell Indian Nations University in Lawrence, Kansas. American Indians were taken from their homes and not allowed to speak their native languages, not allowed to hunt, and not allowed to eat food they were used to. A number died in the first winter of its enactment. It may not have been "genocide' per se, but the fact that a description of this term was erased with the statement "liberal myth" bothers me. I've had a look at some of the primary documents dealing with this subject and, quite frankly, there's not a whole lot to be proud of there. DanH 22:32, 18 March 2008 (EDT)
Added the Dawes Act and its ties to the liberal myth, while at the same time making it extremely clear that, at least strictly speaking, it was not a genocide due to the fact that it was not a deliberate attempt at killing a mass amount of people for their culture. Pokeria1 (talk) 07:38, 13 June 2017 (EDT)

Genocides did happen

I'm really disappointed that none of you accept this. Though they were small scale events, they did happen. It's such a small thing to admit. There's the Gnadenhutten massacre, the Sand Creek massacre, Custer’s Campaigns, and Wounded Knee. According to the 1775 Phips Proclamation in Massachusetts, King George II of Britain called for “subjects to embrace all opportunities of pursuing, captivating, killing and destroying all and every of the aforesaid Indians.”

Also, colonists were paid for each Penobscot Native they killed – fifty pounds for adult male scalps, twenty-five for adult female scalps, and twenty for scalps of boys and girls under age twelve.

I need only to quote the California Governor Peter H. Burnett, 1851, “A war of extermination will continue to be waged between the two races until the Indian race becomes extinct.” EasternOrthodox (talk) 16:11, 25 June 2019 (EDT)

There were approximately 2000+ Native Americans that died on the Trail of Tears, targeted by law specifically due to their race. They cannot be considered civilian deaths in combat or collateral damage, IMO. They were unarmed. RobSDeep Six the Deep State! 16:15, 25 June 2019 (EDT)
Exactly, I don't understand the point in omitting facts like this. It's just the American brand of Holocaust Denial, only in this case there isn't anything to fall back on, e.g "The Jews were bad anyway". EasternOrthodox (talk) 21:45, 25 June 2019 (EDT)
I suggest you take it up with Andy Schlafly, since he's the one who rewrote it to be what it is right now, maybe come to an agreement on how to deal with it. Personally, I'd leave it at "grossly exaggerated" instead of absolutely false, due to your points. Pokeria1 (talk) 21:52, 25 June 2019 (EDT)
@EasternOrthodox: There was never a systematic effort to wipe out all American Indians. Even if the context around those quotes you mentioned supports your view (as opposed to them being soundbites taken out of context), the expressed views never became reality. This argument is also used by leftists trying to accuse the U.S. and its founding values as on-par or comparable to the Nazis and other despicables (of course, they claim, socialism and open borders are always the answer!). --1990'sguy (talk) 21:55, 25 June 2019 (EDT)
One possible solution is to give a definition of genocide in the Intro, and then note the term itself was coined after the Holocaust (1945) to describe the holocaust. Then you can describe how the term has been remolded to fit zillions of other historical events, ex post facto, a type of revisionism. RobSDeep Six the Deep State! 22:33, 25 June 2019 (EDT)
Genocide, like totalitarianism, is term that was invented after 1945 to describe the events prior to that era. The terms were unknown and non-existent to the people who lived through those events. Native American Genocide is term that appears in the 1970s. The article could explain historical revisionism a little better, rather than deny certain specific facts. RobSDeep Six the Deep State! 22:40, 25 June 2019 (EDT)
It's all semantics, in the end the state sanctioned murder of innocent lives is just that, the murder of innocent lives. I fail to see how the date of the invention of the term is relevant. One should be able to invent a term whose definition accurately describes the actions of past events and not be hounded on for it. Besides this, if there's any hardcore example of Historical Revisionism, it's the omission of non-trivial facts about something as dire as genocide. It would be like one writing a book downplaying the Holocaust, and leaving out Auschwitz. Then, when the publisher brings up Auschwitz, the writer responds with "the word Holocaust originally referred to burnt offerings anyway." To sum it up, does the fact that the word DNA originated in the modern age mean we didn't have DNA before then?
@1990'sguy If there is any context that would put those quotes under a different light I would be happy to see it. Also, I wasn't aware that a systematic effort to wipe out all of X was needed for something to qualify as a genocide. But whatever you wish to call it, there is no good in omitting parts of a story yet having an article about Revisionism. EasternOrthodox (talk) 00:17, 26 June 2019 (EDT)