Americans committed the worst genocide in world history

reply to post by kozmo

I'm glad to see that you've renounced your citizenship, donated all of your ill-gotten gains to the native Americans and made arrangements to move back to Europe! Because if you hadn't - well, that would make you just a belly-aching hypocrite!

That's actually kind of funny.

Back in 2007 when the Lakota declared their sovereignty and set out to reclaim all the lands that had been usurped by the feds since the treaties were broken, they made the offer to any Americans willing to give up their citizenship to join them to live in the free and independent Republic of Lakota.

You would be stunned at the number of people who wanted to move there and share in that freedom. Thousands of them and many did move there hoping the dream could come to fruition. Of course the government wasn't about to sit still and have any of the land they had stolen, stolen back from them.

www.commondreams.org...

Originally posted by alldaylong

Originally posted by XxNightAngelusxX

Originally posted by frazzle

Originally posted by XxNightAngelusxX
I've already replied and made my peace, but I'd also like to add that these America is evil! threads are based on ignorance, hate, and to finally put a term I created to use, a classic case of the Secular Blame Reaction Effect.

A psychological disposition, very basic and almost primal, in which someone blames most or all problems on a particular sect of group of people (religions, races, genders, cultures, countries, etc).

Something many ATSers seem to be suffering from nowadays.

And many people in general.

Basically, its a fashion statement, and unfortunately, its fashionable to hate Americans nowadays. So, people like the OP jump on the bandwagon, spread hateful disinformation, and sit back as people argue and debate over it almost as though its something worth talking about. Its a plea for attention.

And, like the attention seeking OP wanted, this thread is blowing up.

Pathetic.

FROM WOUNDED KNEE TO LIBYA:

A CENTURY OF U.S. MILITARY INTERVENTIONS

academic.evergreen.edu...

The list is too long to copy. Read it and weep.

America barely made a dent.

That makes it all hunky-dory then?

Of course not.

But for so many of you to shine the spotlight on America, while ALL governments (not the countries and citizens themselves, but their wealthy leaders) kill non stop is pretty stupid. The sheer existence of our country is not responsible for all the lives lost to governments and war.

Its not nation vs nation.

Its citizens vs governments.

reply to post by frazzle


I remember that... vaguely. The problem here is that no one alive today had anything to do with what happened 200 to 400 years ago. We could traverse the globe confiscating property and returning it to its "Rightful owner", but WHAT point in history makes it their country? Who was here before the native American Indians? Someone was, we just don't know who.

All we can do as a society is to work to make tomorrow better than it was today. To give EVERYONE equal opportunities to succeed and be free. Beyond that, I'm not at all for trying to repent for transgressions that I had no part in. The liberal white guilt simply won't work on me.

Originally posted by kozmo
reply to post by frazzle

 

I remember that... vaguely. The problem here is that no one alive today had anything to do with what happened 200 to 400 years ago. We could traverse the globe confiscating property and returning it to its "Rightful owner", but WHAT point in history makes it their country? Who was here before the native American Indians? Someone was, we just don't know who.

All we can do as a society is to work to make tomorrow better than it was today. To give EVERYONE equal opportunities to succeed and be free. Beyond that, I'm not at all for trying to repent for transgressions that I had no part in. The liberal white guilt simply won't work on me.

But see, by your own reckoning you don't have any expectation of equality and opportunities as you currently perceive them based on your own treaty with the government. You didn't write it, you didn't approve of it, you didn't sign it, and heck you weren't even born yet. See how that works?

And guess what, the land conquered by your ancestors from somebody else's ancestors isn't yours anymore either, its owned by mortgage companies and banks and it will be a whole lot easier to dispossess you than it ever was to dispossess the Indians. All it will take is another little piece of paper.

mortgage

mort = death, gage = debt.

Originally posted by XxNightAngelusxX

Originally posted by alldaylong

Originally posted by XxNightAngelusxX

Originally posted by frazzle

Originally posted by XxNightAngelusxX
I've already replied and made my peace, but I'd also like to add that these America is evil! threads are based on ignorance, hate, and to finally put a term I created to use, a classic case of the Secular Blame Reaction Effect.

A psychological disposition, very basic and almost primal, in which someone blames most or all problems on a particular sect of group of people (religions, races, genders, cultures, countries, etc).

Something many ATSers seem to be suffering from nowadays.

And many people in general.

Basically, its a fashion statement, and unfortunately, its fashionable to hate Americans nowadays. So, people like the OP jump on the bandwagon, spread hateful disinformation, and sit back as people argue and debate over it almost as though its something worth talking about. Its a plea for attention.

And, like the attention seeking OP wanted, this thread is blowing up.

Pathetic.

FROM WOUNDED KNEE TO LIBYA:

A CENTURY OF U.S. MILITARY INTERVENTIONS

academic.evergreen.edu...

The list is too long to copy. Read it and weep.

America barely made a dent.

That makes it all hunky-dory then?

Of course not.

But for so many of you to shine the spotlight on America, while ALL governments (not the countries and citizens themselves, but their wealthy leaders) kill non stop is pretty stupid. The sheer existence of our country is not responsible for all the lives lost to governments and war.

Its not nation vs nation.

Its citizens vs governments.

I remember many years ago, actor Marlon Brando refused to accept an Oscar award because of the plight of Native American Indians. He said America was "Turning a blind eye" to the situation that was still happening to these people.
It looks like some still are.

The article is here:-

www.history.com...

reply to post by frazzle


Frazzle - don't get me wrong. I agree with your premise. Further, I follow what you are saying about tretise with the government (Which is a WHOLE different topic in WHOLE different forum!).

That said, my great grandparent immigrated here over a century after the US was formed. In fact, they weren't even born yet when the revolutionary war took place. My point is - I was born here. I didn't choose where to be born. But I was brought onto this rock in this place. I was raised in this place. I was educated in this place. Today I live and work in this place. I'll likely die in this place.

I do not own this place - it is not mine. I am using it while I am here. I am working to be a good steward of it while I am here. When I am gone, another will use it in my place. In the interim, I will also work hard to make sure that those around me are treated fairly. Beyond that, I can do little more than you or anyone else to restore true equality in the US. For that, we must all work together.

Thanks!

reply to post by alldaylong


Really? It was in the paper..
People migrated, its that simple.

reply to post by kozmo


Thank you for that response, I would not ask more of anyone than you are already doing.

Working together is the problem, we the people can't agree on what needs to be worked on, much less what kind of work it would take to fix whatever's wrong. We can't even agree on what's wrong.

I probably come across as abrasive sometimes ~ well okay, most of the time, but its just me venting my frustration over the fact that while we may call this the "united" states, we have no common interests, or common culture, or common bonds, or mutual goals. There is no "unity". And most of all we don't have much hope that things will improve for our children and grandchildren unless the madness stops. I'll be gone from here sooner rather than later and leaving knowing that I've not done anything appreciable to fix the mess my kids are inheriting is hard to take. All I have left to give is words. I can't force people to listen. Thank you for listening.

Originally posted by Freeborn
At what point did the colonists stop being colonists and become Americans because it's largely those self-same colonists who are being labelled 'European' who fought against Britain for American independence?

It seems pretty straightforward to me. The United States didn't exist until we declared our independence in 1776. Some of the areas that people think about when the topic of American Indians come up, still were not part of the US until even later. Much of the “old west” was actually part of Mexico, with states like Texas, Arizona, New Mexico, being prime examples.

Originally posted by Freeborn
And disease was probably the single biggest cause of death, but there was no concerted effort to conduct some sort of biological warfare against them.

There were some attempts, but its hard to document their effectiveness. It was common to use biological means in warfare going back thousands of years, including compromising of water supplies, or catapulting rotten/diseased meat into sieged fortifications,

A classic documented case was done by the British soldiers of Fort Pit, during the French Indian war, in which the fort commander gave blankets, and handkerchiefs, infected with smallpox to the Indians. That did happen, it is documented, and the correspondence between the fort commander and the commanding officer of the British forces still exists.

reply to post by defcon5

It seems pretty straightforward to me. The United States didn't exist until we declared our independence in 1776.

You really think it's that simplistic and straight forward?

I suppose it's only a minor detail, maybe I'm just trying to split hairs or maybe I'm not explaining myself very well.....I guess it doesn't really matter.

A classic documented case was done by the British soldiers of Fort Pit, during the French Indian war, in which the fort commander gave blankets, and handkerchiefs, infected with smallpox to the Indians.

That is the only documented case in what was hundreds of years of conflict.
Surely if the practice was so common and widespread there'd be more accounts?

It has been noted earlier in this thread that there were several epidemics, one major epidemic possibly occurred just before any colonisation, that resulted in the deaths of up to 90% of the Native American population.

As tragic as those deaths were they were not the result of any deliberate attempt, by Europeans, Americans or anyone, to commit genocide against the Native Indians.

Now none of that excuses the many atrocities that were committed against them.
And none of it will be a consolation to Native Indians today or will help them in their current situation.

Originally posted by Freeborn
You really think it's that simplistic and straight forward?

It's a matter of semantics really. I assume that by “Americans” the OP is referring to “Citizens of the United States”, there was no “United States” until 1776. Prior to that we were a bunch of colonies from different countries. For example, Florida was mostly from Spain, Louisiana was French, etc...

Originally posted by Freeborn
That is the only documented case in what was hundreds of years of conflict.
Surely if the practice was so common and widespread there'd be more accounts?

That's the only documented case in the American Colonies that I am aware of, and we only know about that one because of the correspondence between the two commanding officers.

This was also toward the end of that behavior being considered “fair” in combat conduct. Wars changed to being fought using “honorable” Napoleonic style combat rules where ranks faced each other across a field. Using disease was not considered an acceptable or honorable tactic at that point in history.

If you want to find other cases, look back to European and Middle Eastern battles, especially those involving the siege of forts or towns.

I'll say it again, this thread nothing less than a hate on The US thread. Allow me to break down why.

First, the thread title - Americans committed the worst genocide in world history....really? This was the absolute worst ever? So what Hitler, Stalin, Mussolini, etc did was BETTER? Or less worse? Why is that? Because of sheer numbers? If so then read on and I'll explain further into that. Plain and simple genocide is genocide, there is no worst genocide, they are ALL equally atrocious. To give the claim of "worst" to America is simply put hate against America. You may say I'm nitpicking at words, and I absolutely am. I didn't choose the words used in the thread title.

Second, the referenced wiki in the OP. It CLEARLY references the "Americas" not the modern day United states as referred to by the OP

Originally posted by ThinkingHuman
There were 50 million Natives living in what is now US territory. We decimated them.

It does NOT reference ONLY the United States, but ALL of the Americas, North, Central, and South America. Again, by falsely claiming it was something ONLY in the United States is nothing other than hate for America.

Third, the numbers game. Had the title of the thread been Americans committed the LARGEST genocide in world history, it would leave much more room for a civil debate thread. That isn't the case though, and this is the result, 28 pages of bickering and placing blame and shame. As far as the actual number of deaths through the direct action of the United States military, lets go ahead and pretend the numbers listed from the referenced wiki are accurate and ONLY represent the United States, and no more of the Americas. 50 million was the population, and about 3 million remain. lets go with the lowest estimates of death toll from disease the wiki gives, 80%. So of 50 million 80% (40 million) died from disease, leaving a remaining 10 million which were reduced to 3 million. 7 million killed, pretty sure Stalin has that number beat, so largest genocide is also out. There were several countries that contributed to these deaths and slaughters other than the United States, so to place it ALL on America without even considering any other country a guilty party is again simply hate for America.


What was done regardless of number, who was involved, and when is irrelevant. It is a disgusting part of American history, and is no better or worse than similar acts in world history. But it is just that, American HISTORY, not American present or future, but it's past. Does that make it okay? Of course not, just like Hitler purging the Jews was not and still isn't okay. What is great about learning history, is this will NEVER be repeated in American history, the majority of it's citizens today simply would not let it happen.

I don't know why supporters of this thread are painting this like history is being mis-taught. In school I learned it was a very violent and gruesome time in the Americas (all of them). I was never taught the US was right or justified in any of it, ever. America knows it own violent and bloody past, and also what was wrong about it. We don't try to make ourselves less of a bad guy, just an equal with all the others in history. It is the majority of people supporting this thread that think we feel we are less guilty. No, your wrong, we're just not MORE guilty, that's all.

Has anyone noticed that the
instigator of this thread has
abandoned it?

reply to post by KnowledgeSeeker81

What is great about learning history, is this will NEVER be repeated in American history, the majority of it's citizens today simply would not let it happen.

Lets fast forward from early history to the 1970s when Indian women were targeted for surgical sterilization. Any hunter knows that unless you want to drive a species into extinction you do not target the life givers.

Then fast forward to today. Technology has now arrived at the point that not just the life givers can be targeted, everyone is fair game in the eugenics wet dreams of those who want to reduce the total population of the world by about 80%.

The Real Agenda
June 1, 2011

Genetically modified organisms (GMOs) used to create food and crop seeds are true biological weapons to create infertility worldwide. There are several companies working in the field of biotechnology and nanotechnology, which exist for the sole purpose of studying, experimenting and creating genetically modified organisms that cause infertility in animals, plants and humans. The most famous of all the companies that produces GMO seed is Monsanto, whose executives have publicly said that they want Monsanto to become the only producer of seeds in the world and that no food should be grown that does not come from seeds manufactured by their company.

real-agenda.com...

And you're so certain that we'd never allow it to happen again? Hell, we can't even get these provably deadly products labeled. We won't even admit they are deadly. We keep right on eating them like pigs to be fattened for the slaughter. Someday someone will say how come we can't have babies, how come everyone is dying like flies. It won't be their fault, it will be ours. Solly challie, we allowed it again.

Originally posted by frazzle

Lets fast forward from early history to the 1970s when Indian women were targeted for surgical sterilization. Any hunter knows that unless you want to drive a species into extinction you do not target the life givers.

This was publicly known? No. Had it been made public by anyone at the time it would have been a big deal. The women weren't forcefully sterilized, they were coerced by fear and lies. Does that make it any better, of course not. However once congress discovered this it was halted, so -1 and +1 government? Oh, and learning from history...apparently it's checked on pretty regularly now.

Originally posted by frazzle
Then fast forward to today. Technology has now arrived at the point that not just the life givers can be targeted, everyone is fair game in the eugenics wet dreams of those who want to reduce the total population of the world by about 80%.

The Real Agenda
June 1, 2011

Genetically modified organisms (GMOs) used to create food and crop seeds are true biological weapons to create infertility worldwide. There are several companies working in the field of biotechnology and nanotechnology, which exist for the sole purpose of studying, experimenting and creating genetically modified organisms that cause infertility in animals, plants and humans. The most famous of all the companies that produces GMO seed is Monsanto, whose executives have publicly said that they want Monsanto to become the only producer of seeds in the world and that no food should be grown that does not come from seeds manufactured by their company.

real-agenda.com...

And you're so certain that we'd never allow it to happen again? Hell, we can't even get these provably deadly products labeled. We won't even admit they are deadly. We keep right on eating them like pigs to be fattened for the slaughter. Someday someone will say how come we can't have babies, how come everyone is dying like flies. It won't be their fault, it will be ours. Solly challie, we allowed it again.

Every food out there is a gmo product? There is NO way to distinguish them? There is NO way to avoid them? This is a current event and as word of it spreads, you are seeing worldwide protests and bans of these gmo's. In America they may not be banned, but they are easily researched and avoidable. If that is something you are truly concerned about here, go out and protest it. Plenty here already have you covered on spreading the word on ATS.

reply to post by KnowledgeSeeker81

This was publicly known? No. Had it been made public by anyone at the time it would have been a big deal. The women weren't forcefully sterilized, they were coerced by fear and lies. Does that make it any better, of course not. However once congress discovered this it was halted, so -1 and +1 government? Oh, and learning from history...apparently it's checked on pretty regularly now.

Congress didn't "discover" a damn thing.

Sparked by concern about overpopulation in the 1960s, eugenics was legally sanctioned under the Nixon administration (Johansen 1998). This sanctioning was given life in a campaign to sterilize the impoverished. For instance, between 1969 and 1974, the budget for family planning increased from $51 million to more than $250 million (Johansen 1998). This money helped to sterilize between 192,000 and 548,000 women each year between 1970 and 1977 compared to an average of 63,000 a year between 1907 and 1964, a period that included the pinnacle of the eugenics movement (Johansen 1998).

Congress already knew, they appropriated the funding to pay IHS doctors to perform these surgeries. You think they were going to tell the people who paid their salaries what they were up to?

When people such as Dr. Uri (a Choctaw Doctor) started publicizing the claims about reproductive abuse, Native Americans began to realize the appalling frequency of such procedures and the unethical tactics that were being used to gain consent.

In 1974, she started her own inquiry into complaints made about the Claremore, Oklahoma IHS hospital (Johansen 1998). Evidence against Claremore, provided by her, as well as research done by other concerned parties, was brought to the attention of Senator James Abourek. He in turn orchestrated an investigation to be carried out by the General Accounting Office.

robertjprince.wordpress.com...

It would probably still be going on today if not for Doctor Uri and one fearless congressman and nobody would be any wiser. We don't even know for sure that it ISN'T still going on.

As for gmo foods, the only country in the world that's pushing these products is the US. No one else wants anything to do with them. Aren't we just so smart.

reply to post by frazzle


I don't have much knowledge on this subject, but from your link and a few google searches it seems more like this was an opportunity for IHS doctors to make more money and get "practice" on the procedures performed. Was it from influence of the government, most likely. The reason I said once congress discovered it is because it was Senator James Abourzek who shed the light in getting it stopped. Once a congressional hearing with facts was brought about it stopped...as far as we know.

The other thing I have to point out though, the stuff in the 70's with eugenics targeted more than just Native Americans, so It's hard to say that this was specifically targeted as genocide on them.

See now what you provided me was productive information, something I didn't know. Actual FACTS. I'll research it more and actually learn something, thank you for that. You didn't provide false/misconstrued information to push a belief.

Originally posted by KnowledgeSeeker81
reply to post by frazzle

 

I don't have much knowledge on this subject, but from your link and a few google searches it seems more like this was an opportunity for IHS doctors to make more money and get "practice" on the procedures performed. Was it from influence of the government, most likely. The reason I said once congress discovered it is because it was Senator James Abourzek who shed the light in getting it stopped. Once a congressional hearing with facts was brought about it stopped...as far as we know.

The other thing I have to point out though, the stuff in the 70's with eugenics targeted more than just Native Americans, so It's hard to say that this was specifically targeted as genocide on them.

See now what you provided me was productive information, something I didn't know. Actual FACTS. I'll research it more and actually learn something, thank you for that. You didn't provide false/misconstrued information to push a belief.

You're welcome for the lead, I appreciate that you're willing to investigate it further. And yes, the eugenics program did also target other "indigent" people, just as the Nazis had done during WWII. Others were affected in both cases but we're only okay with calling what the Nazis did genocide. Think about that for a moment.

Also consider that Nuremburg was a quarter of a century over when Nixon and the US congress decided it would be a good idea to experiment on and eliminate the unwanted from our own population. And keeping in mind that this program was heavily aimed at government paid doctors on reservations because private physicians would have spilled the beans a lot sooner than they were.

reply to post by frazzle


See there is where i will disagree though, you say it targeted mainly Native Americans, as where the numbers in that say otherwise. A few thousand have been reported regarding Native Americans, while numbers of other ethnicities reach into the hundreds of thousands. By comparison of populations, I would say they would relatively be equal.

I also don't know the context of these instances, so as a pure hypothetical, if you had any specific population rising, while not being able to self-sustain and therefore requiring aid from the government, how would you deal with it? Do you encourage an overpopulation by allowing government aid and not setting any restrictions? If a woman has 3 children, isn't working, isn't married, and is receiving and living off of government benefits, should she be allowed to have another child? We bring morals into question here without a doubt, but that goes both ways. What is the right thing to do then?

Originally posted by alldaylong


The US Congress "Authorized" war against both Vietnam and Iraq
For your further education:-

en.wikipedia.org...

You are incorrect. Congress authorized a war on terrorism in Iraq. They did not authorize war on Iraq. Words mean things and that word "on" or "against" is crucial. They use the boogy man of terrorist to launch all the wars now. It's a war ON terrorism IN various countries. What they get is "authorization for the use of military force" and congress has not declared war on any nation since WWII.