American eugenics inspired Hitler

rturner76 said:

On July 4, 1863, in response to raids by Dakota in southern Minnesota, the state’s Adjutant-General, Oscar Malmros, issued a general order for the establishment of a mounted corps of “volunteer scouts” to patrol from Sauk Centre to the northern edge of Sibley County. The scouts provided their own arms, equipment, and provisions, were each paid two dollars a day, and were offered an additional $25 for Dakota scalps. A reward of $75 a scalp was offered to people not in military service; that amount was raised to $200 on September 22. - See more at: http://www.usdakotawar.org/history/aftermath/bounties#sthash.XD3tPaaJ.dpuf

The taking of scalps is a clear indicator of the attempt to exterminate the native population. I'm sure it's not an indication of an attempt to preserve Native culture.

If you are insulted by my post I apologize. If you are not a confederate the comment would not apply to you. Also there are many on this very forum who would take being associated with white idealism and the Confederate cause as a compliment. If you are not on of them I commend you for your opinion on those matters.

Click to expand...

I never said that there were not acts of violence against individual tribes, or atrocities committed in wars against the tribes. The taking of scalps was a common practice on both sides. This indicates an attempt to decimate Sioux forces, not to systematically exterminate the tribe. Also, this was not done by the United States government. I don't believe there are any cases where the US government attempted to kill of an entire tribe.

Well, I'm glad to hear that you didn't direct that statement at me personally. I don't believe in the Confederate cause, I am glad the Union won, and believe slavery was a great evil. I believe that many of the confederate soldiers (my family included) who fought, were not doing it to preserve slavery, despite the aims of the Confederate government. I made this picture my avatar in honor of the Confederate soldiers who fought for their homeland. I am not a white idealist at all, I think that white people have done some jacked up stuff in this nation's history, but they have done some good stuff too. We have done enough bad stuff without getting blamed for things we didn't do!

Zach91 said:

Can you cite me specific examples where the United States government, as an act of official policy, attempted to exterminate an entire tribe?

Click to expand...

Most examples are probably in the context of the various Indian wars. I suppose we could dig out statement from Washington DC to their generals on the Plains with regard to their goals.

I would think that Trail Of Tears would qualify as an attempted genocide of several tribes.

The problem, of course, is that the standards of conduct have changed considerably from then until now.

I believe that we all agree on the facts. Native Americans were killed in the millions over the centuries. There were many atrocities. Of course, most of the damage was done by disease.

See the attached article that argues against the designation as "genocide".

http://historynewsnetwork.org/article/7302

mark46 said:

Most examples are probably in the context of the various Indian wars. I suppose we could dig out statement from Washington DC to their generals on the Plains with regard to their goals.

I would think that Trail Of Tears would qualify as an attempted genocide of several tribes.

The problem, of course, is that the standards of conduct have changed considerably from then until now.

I believe that we all agree on the facts. Native Americans were killed in the millions over the centuries. There were many atrocities. Of course, most of the damage was done by disease.

See the attached article that argues against the designation as "genocide".

http://historynewsnetwork.org/article/7302

Click to expand...

The Trail of Tears was committed by the State of Georgia (with the help of Andrew Jackson), in direct defiance of a ruling by the Supreme Court of the United States. While the Trail of Tears was a horrible event, and caused many Native American deaths, that was not its intent. The goal of Georgia and Jackson was to steal the Cherokee lands in Georgia, and stick them on a reservation in Oklahoma. As horrible as this was, it was not intended to Kill the Cherokee, but merely to take their land. As a result, many died of disease during the trip, but this was not intentional. Again the killer was disease, not the bullets or swords of American soldiers. Horrible? Yes. Theft? Yes. Genocide? No.

Zach91 said:

By the way, anyone that wants to call me a white idealist should now that I am 1/4 Blackfoot. My grandfather was full blooded Indian, straight from the reservation. If he was still with us (God rest his soul) he would tell you the same thing that I have.

Click to expand...

With all due respect, I'll trust the opinions and stories of my own elders and other NDN resources I know I can trust other than take you or your grandfather's word for it. And for the record, I won't continue arguing with you over this, because it's completely pointless and a waste of my time. There's no reason for either one of us to go back and forth with our individual arguments over and over again. We will never see eye to eye on this, so we might as well stop the argument now and move on. I'm done arguing.

Zach91 said:

Of course it doesn't matter to you what reputable scholars and historians who actually specialize on the topic have to say. You have stated before in other threads that you have ignore all non-Indian historians. You are the one who is denying history. I understand that the issue is personal to you, but your personal vendetta against European-Americans causes you to plug your ears and ignore the facts. Historians are trained to look at things objectively and not let their emotions skew their research. You think I deny history? That's fine, I actually have a degree in American History, and have had my research published in academic journals.

I'll say it again: the way that the United States treated Indians was wrong, but never once did it commit genocide against them. Never once did the United States systematically attempt to kill all Indians. The very premise is ridiculous.

Francis Paul Prucha is considered by the majority of mainstream historians to be the authoritative source on U.S.-Indian policy. Try reading this book if you want an honest an non-biased:

Click to expand...

Zach91 said:

Why are you personally insulting me? When did I ever say "Indians are savages and Christians are liberators?" I never said that, and neither does the author I mentioned. Have you even read Prucha? As a matter of fact, I said on numerous occasions that the way the government treated Indians wasn't right, it just never amounted to genocide. You are baselessly slandering me as being a white idealist, and you have no evidence to back that up. I challenge you to show me one single post I made calling Indians "savages," or lauding whites for christianizing them.

Also, I am not a Confederate, my ancestors were, and that is why I have this avatar. I am also a published historian and understand history quite well; your bias just will not allow you to consider arguments other than your own.

You can disagree with me all you want, but so far you have failed to provide any evidence countering my claims, but have chosen instead to personally insult and slander me.

Click to expand...

It would seem that we have many parallels, I also have Confederate ancestors. My 3x great grandfather served in the Tennessee 12th Infantry division, alongside his brothers. He also served as a conductor on the underground railroad, at least according to family lore. Likewise I had a direct relative who fought for the union, and died. I also had a direct relative who was more than likely a Native American who was kicked from his land. So, basically I have a diverse family history. I am an academic at heart, working in the business world, my chief interest is historical geography and pre-colonial America.

No academic knows with certainty how many people lived in the Americas before the arrival of the European explorers. The population was more than likely pretty sizable, based on physical evidence and oral tradition. When Europeans arrived they unwittingly spread disease that ravaged the land, killing an estimated 90% of Native Americans. From there things only got worse for Native Americans. Was it intentional though?

According to the 8th edition of the Oxford Dictionary of Law, genocide can be defined as, "Conduct aimed at the destruction of a national, ethnic, racial, or religious group," further it adds that genocide according the the United Nations can include , "causing serious physical or psychological harm... (and) forcibly transferring children of the group to another group". Obviously there are many definitions of genocide, using this as a reference point it is easy to see why the destruction of Native Americans would be considered genocidal.

The government of the United States did commit conduct that was aimed at destroying Native American nations and their religions, based on the ideas of racial supremacy. In addition the government forced natives to march to barren wastelands where they could barely find food to eat, and they ripped native children from their families and sent them to boarding schools. All of these actions are consistent with genocide. In World War 2, the United States even locked native people in concentration style camps where many died of malnutrition and poor sanitation.

Clearly there is strong evidence that what happened was a genocide, just look at the landscape today. There are barely any native people left, we wiped them out and segregated the few native people left into "ghetto" like reservations. These reservations in the Great Plains especially, are some of the most depressing places that you will ever see. We have to be honest with American history, so that we never do anything like this again.

mark46 said:

Most examples are probably in the context of the various Indian wars. I suppose we could dig out statement from Washington DC to their generals on the Plains with regard to their goals.

I would think that Trail Of Tears would qualify as an attempted genocide of several tribes.

The problem, of course, is that the standards of conduct have changed considerably from then until now.

I believe that we all agree on the facts. Native Americans were killed in the millions over the centuries. There were many atrocities. Of course, most of the damage was done by disease.

See the attached article that argues against the designation as "genocide".

http://historynewsnetwork.org/article/7302

Click to expand...

I appreciate you sharing your thoughts and opinions on this issue. Admittedly, I read part of the article you posted, but I stopped reading it when I read Ward Churchill's name mentioned. And besides that, I'm not interested in reading anymore kind of denial about what happened to my ancestors in this country. I'm also not interested in continuing to argue about it either. Quite honestly, I have more efficient and beneficial ways to spend my time than to repeatedly argue over something I won't change my mind about.

GoingByzantine said:

It would seem that we have many parallels, I also have Confederate ancestors. My 3x great grandfather served in the Tennessee 12th Infantry division, alongside his brothers. He also served as a conductor on the underground railroad, at least according to family lore. Likewise I had a direct relative who fought for the union, and died. I also had a direct relative who was more than likely a Native American who was kicked from his land. So, basically I have a diverse family history. I am an academic at heart, working in the business world, my chief interest is historical geography and pre-colonial America.

No academic knows with certainty how many people lived in the Americas before the arrival of the European explorers. The population was more than likely pretty sizable, based on physical evidence and oral tradition. When Europeans arrived they unwittingly spread disease that ravaged the land, killing an estimated 90% of Native Americans. From there things only got worse for Native Americans. Was it intentional though?

According to the 8th edition of the Oxford Dictionary of Law, genocide can be defined as, "Conduct aimed at the destruction of a national, ethnic, racial, or religious group," further it adds that genocide according the the United Nations can include , "causing serious physical or psychological harm... (and) forcibly transferring children of the group to another group". Obviously there are many definitions of genocide, using this as a reference point it is easy to see why the destruction of Native Americans would be considered genocidal.

The government of the United States did commit conduct that was aimed at destroying Native American nations and their religions, based on the ideas of racial supremacy. In addition the government forced natives to march to barren wastelands where they could barely find food to eat, and they ripped native children from their families and sent them to boarding schools. All of these actions are consistent with genocide. In World War 2, the United States even locked native people in concentration style camps where many died of malnutrition and poor sanitation.

Clearly there is strong evidence that what happened was a genocide, just look at the landscape today. There are barely any native people left, we wiped them out and segregated the few native people left into "ghetto" like reservations. These reservations in the Great Plains especially, are some of the most depressing places that you will ever see. We have to be honest with American history, so that we never do anything like this again.

Click to expand...

I found the following article, Genocide | Native American Netroots, and I thought you might want to read it.

Many examples of genocidal intent against Native Americans in this country are given in the article, including the definition of genocide by the United Nations.

“Genocide” is a relatively recent word in the English language and emerged during World War II to describe the deliberate destruction of Jews and other peoples by Nazi Germany. In 1948, when the United Nations formally classified genocide as a crime against humanity, genocide was identified as an activity against a national, ethnic, racial, or religious group which includes one or more of the following: (1) killing members of the group, (2) causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group, (3) inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction, (4) imposing measures to prevent births within the group, and (5) forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.

Click to expand...

Here are a couple of more articles I found interesting on this issue. I thought you might want to read them too.

The US and the Crime of Genocide Against Native Americans

Lakota to file UN Genocide Charges Against US, South Dakota

There are also the two articles I shared earlier in my first post in this thread.

Hitler’s Inspiration and Guide: The Native American Holocaust

Ugly Precursor to Auschwitz: Hitler Said to Have Been Inspired by U.S. Indian Reservation System

Red Fox said:

I found the following article, Genocide | Native American Netroots, and I thought you might want to read it.

Many examples of genocidal intent against Native Americans in this country are given in the article, including the definition of genocide by the United Nations.



Here are a couple of more articles I found interesting on this issue. I thought you might want to read them too.

The US and the Crime of Genocide Against Native Americans

Lakota to file UN Genocide Charges Against US, South Dakota

There are also the two articles I shared earlier in my first post in this thread.

Hitler’s Inspiration and Guide: The Native American Holocaust

Ugly Precursor to Auschwitz: Hitler Said to Have Been Inspired by U.S. Indian Reservation System

Click to expand...

I read the first article. The position taken is that a situation could be considered genocide if only one person is killed. I see that as similar to federal hate crime legislation. While this is certainly defensible, I think that this is just no what we communicated when we use the word. The crimes against Native Americans in the US is much, much more serious than the low bar of the author's use of the word.

wondrousgnat said:

It is interesting to me that the order was issued on Jul4, 1863. That was also the last day of the horrific battles at Gettysburg AND Vicksburg. So troops were involved in the Civil War and without it more would have been used against the Native American population.

Click to expand...

The two basic widespread mentalities of that time toward the Indians was the only good Indian is a dead Indian or Kill the Indian, Save the Man.

wondrousgnat said:

If my memory is correct the whites were trying to look like good guys by giving them blankets, blankets which were knowingly infected with yellow fever.

Click to expand...

I believe the blankets were infected with small pox, and not specifically yellow fever. The belief of chemical warfare being used against Indians has been disputed. However, there is historical evidence of the infected blankets and one such incidence points to Lord Jeffrey Amherst, the British commanding general during the French & Indian War.

Historical stories point to Lord Amherst requesting that smallpox infected blankets be sent to the Indians, like this one in Carl Waldman's Atlas of the North American Indianabout a siege of Fort Pitt by Chief Pontiac’s forces during the summer of 1763: “Captain Simeon Ecuyer had bought time by sending smallpox-infected blankets and handkerchiefs to the Indians surrounding the fort—an early example of biological warfare—which started an epidemic among them. Amherst himself had encouraged this tactic in a letter to Ecuyer.” - American History Myths Debunked: The Indians Weren’t Defeated by White Settlers

Click to expand...

And here is another article you may find interesting on this issue of infected blankets given to the Indians.

Genocide & Intent Of The Infected Blankets

wondrousgnat said:

I believe I stand corrected. I said yellow fever without looking it up. Small pox is I am sure the correct answer.

Click to expand...

Well, I'm afraid I'm going to have to remove the points from the board for your answer. Now, would you like to move onto the next question or take...

THE PHYSICAL CHALLENGE?!


....sorry. Couldn't resist.

Oh good grief, I'm gone for a few months and people start Godwinning all over the place again. I'm breaking out the chardonnay.

Antigone said:

Oh good grief, I'm gone for a few months and people start Godwinning all over the place again. I'm breaking out the chardonnay.

Click to expand...

Not sure which one of our memories is letting us down, but I don't remember Godwins ever being particularly rare; always had plenty of drinking opportunities.

Just, unfortunately, no one around to point it out of late.
So I must say, welcome back.

The smallpox-infected blankets actually came from the Hudson's Bay Company (a British Entity), not the United States government.

wondrousgnat said:

I believe I stand corrected. I said yellow fever without looking it up. Small pox is I am sure the correct answer.

Click to expand...

I'm sorry to hear you are leaving the site, but if you do happen to read this response, I wanted to recommend some books for you, if you would like more of a Native American perspective on the issues we have been discussing. I would like to recommend the books Bury My Heart At Wounded Knee by Dee Brown, Custer Died for Your Sins: An Indian Manifesto and God Is Red: A Native View of Religion by Vine Deloria Jr., and Where White Men Fear to Tread: The Autobiography of Russell Means. Black Elk Speaks is also another book I would recommend for you to read. Anyway, I wish you well on your life's journey and pray that the Creator guides your path and keeps you safe from harm.

GoingByzantine,

The following article was posted in an Idle No More group and I thought I would share it with you here in this thread.

The eight stages of genocide

Excerpted from the article...

"America has gone through all eight steps with Native Americans, arguably up to step 6 with Japanese-Americans and at least as far as step 4 with blacks."

You can see how it definitely parallels with what happened to Native Americans in this country.

And as mentioned by others in the group, the eight stages of genocide listed can also be applied to what happened to the First Nations People in Canada.

Red Fox, would it be a fair statement to say that First Nation people are your brethren, separated from Native Americans only by anglo-created political borders?

I guess I have been curious how the NDN community views the First Nation community? Are you close?

GoingByzantine said:

Red Fox, would it be a fair statement to say that First Nation people are your brethren, separated from Native Americans only by anglo-created political borders?

I guess I have been curious how the NDN community views the First Nation community? Are you close?

Click to expand...

While I can't speak for other NDNs, I personally see them as my relations and I know this sentiment is shared among other NDNs.

I have a few online friends who are First Nations that I met over time through my support of the Idle No More movement.

Many First Nations are involved in the American Indian Movement and many NDNs are involved in the Idle No More movement.

Red Fox said:

While I can't speak for other NDNs, I personally see them as my relations and I know this sentiment is shared among other NDNs.

I have a few online friends who are First Nations that I met over time through my support of the Idle No More movement.

Many First Nations are involved in the American Indian Movement and many NDNs are involved in the Idle No More movement.

Click to expand...

Thanks for enlightening me!

Sorry I diverged from the topic at hand, I was just curious.