is america still genocidal

8/13/2019 Is America Still Genocidal

1/31


2/31

alsorepeat offenders.What about America?

Genocides unfold in eight stages:

Classification: the division into us and them. Example: Asking an Asian American what country heis from.

1.

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.

2.

Dehumanization: seeing the pariahs as not truly human. Example: the word nigger.3. Organization: training and arming. Example: the Ku Klux Klan.4.Polarization: silencing the voices in the middle that still stand up for the pariahs. Example: callingwhites who stand up for blacks nigger lovers.

5.

Preparation: separating the pariahs from everyone else. Examples: ghettos, prison camps.6.Extermination: mass killings. Example: the Holocaust.7.Denial: dispute the numbers, blame history, see it as natural, derail discussions about it, etc.Examples: The comments on this post?

8.

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 leastthree 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 nocomfortable 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/)

merica still genocidal? | Abagond http://abagond.wordpress.com/2010/03/24/is-america-still-ge

31 7/22/2013


3/31

on Wed 24 Mar 2010 at 13:04:

on Wed 24 Mar 2010 at 13:35:2

on Wed 24 Mar 2010 at 13:48:1

on Wed 24 Mar 2010 at 13:51:4

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

alwaysright101America 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_slappzabagond,

I see you are experiencing another flare-up of your black alternate reality paranoia syndrome.

ColorOfLuvTo alwaysright101 America uses systematic genocide.

If youre talking about welfare, the poverty level in the U.S, and public education I most

certainly agree with you.

Vindicatorno_slappz said:

abagond,

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!


31 7/22/2013


4/31

on Wed 24 Mar 2010 at 14:47:4

on Wed 24 Mar 2010 at 14:54:3

on Wed 24 Mar 2010 at 14:58:3

on Wed 24 Mar 2010 at 15:14:1

on Wed 24 Mar 2010 at 15:27:2

AnnaleishaThat 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.

abagondI 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.

JI am not totally sure eitherbut I think it is an urban legend

ie The King Alfred plan

There is also one regarding P.W. Botha and committing genocide against Blacks in South Africa.

Many consider this to be true

MiraAs 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 blac

Americans as them?

JWith regard to:

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.


31 7/22/2013


5/31

on Wed 24 Mar 2010 at 15:32:4

on Wed 24 Mar 2010 at 15:41:0

on Wed 24 Mar 2010 at 15:48:5

on Wed 24 Mar 2010 at 16:05:3

on Wed 24 Mar 2010 at 16:34:4

MiraOk. So, you do think it goes to scale 8 for blacks as well?

abagondMira:

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. Bu

when they think racism is dead (Stage 0) or that their racism is natural (Stage 1), that is where I

disagree.

MiraI 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 gran

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.

JWith regard to:

Ok. So, you do think it goes to scale 8 for blacks as well?

That was not my point but understanding the nuances and the process of genocide

MiraI 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.


31 7/22/2013


6/31

on Wed 24 Mar 2010 at 16:40:4

on Wed 24 Mar 2010 at 16:58:5

on Wed 24 Mar 2010 at 17:21:5

on Wed 24 Mar 2010 at 17:30:2

MiraSorry 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.

JNo 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!!

MiraNo 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 somesteps 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,b

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 worki

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.

HathorMira,

Those whites that usually claim Native American ancestry dont live in the Mid-West. America


31 7/22/2013


7/31

on Wed 24 Mar 2010 at 17:37:0

on Wed 24 Mar 2010 at 17:48:2

has to be looked at regionally in some views about race. This was around forty years ago, but when

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, bu

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.

JThere 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.

MiraThere 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


31 7/22/2013


8/31


9/31


10/31

on Wed 24 Mar 2010 at 20:25:4

on Wed 24 Mar 2010 at 20:52:2

on Wed 24 Mar 2010 at 21:36:5

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 powe.

MiraI 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 a

those ethnicities once (and not so long time ago!) made one nation (Yugoslavian). Instead, peopletalk 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_slappzIs the US government genocidal?

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.

JWith regard to your comments Mira.

This is a chatboard where people put forwards ideas and exchange ideas. Sometimes peopleput forward ideas as a compliment, or to clarify matters, or to be adversial, or for a variety of reason

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??


31 7/22/2013


11/31

on Wed 24 Mar 2010 at 21:45:4

on Wed 24 Mar 2010 at 21:52:4

on Wed 24 Mar 2010 at 21:58:1

on Wed 24 Mar 2010 at 23:23:5

Hope this makes some sense.

MiraFacts 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 didnsay what.

JI 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 earlierthat is fine by me.

Hathordavi,

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 sa

they would have at the same stages as the rest of the world.

bremonidavi,

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


31 7/22/2013


12/31

on Thu 25 Mar 2010 at 19:11:5

on Thu 25 Mar 2010 at 19:21:3

on Thu 25 Mar 2010 at 22:54:1

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 peopl

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.

daviThe title itself Is America still genocidal ? sounds like the Did you stop beating your wife?

question

abagondRight, because it assumes that America at least used to be genocidal even if it is not any

more.

Eurasian Sensation@ J,

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.


31 7/22/2013


13/31

on Thu 25 Mar 2010 at 23:25:0

on Fri 26 Mar 2010 at 00:40:4

on Fri 26 Mar 2010 at 00:53:3

on Fri 26 Mar 2010 at 01:02:3

JEurasian,

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_slappzj, you wrote:

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

million. Meanwhile, today the global population of Jews is about 15 million, with about 5 million inIsrael and 6 million in the US, leaving 4 million scattered elsewhere.

JI am saying what the historicals facts are. What you are saying here is conjecture??

Can I politely enquire if you are Jewish??

JAnd again No_Slappz,

If we are going to use the Holocaust as the basis of our analysis.

If we look at it the Nazis also murdered the Gypsies, Jehovah Witnesses, disabled, to a lesser exte

Afro-Germans.

Can you confirm if you also think if Germany had gained world domination these or at least some o

these groups would also be exterminated globally, and if so which ones, if any??


31 7/22/2013


14/31

on Fri 26 Mar 2010 at 14:44:0ThaddeusSigh.

Well, theres a problem with this.

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 ayes 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 int

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 answeringthose.

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 theHolocaust 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 argue

AGAINST the definition of genocide which you post above because it doesnt adequately encompas

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 poin

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.


31 7/22/2013


15/31


16/31

on Fri 26 Mar 2010 at 15:20:2

on Fri 26 Mar 2010 at 15:26:0

on Fri 26 Mar 2010 at 15:27:1

on Fri 26 Mar 2010 at 15:46:0

on Fri 26 Mar 2010 at 15:56:1

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

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

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 ourenemies 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.

abagondThad:

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 nowant mass killings based on politics to count as genocide just those based on race, religion and

ethnicity.)

abagondThad:

You are right, the post takes it for granted that wiping out over a million Native Americans is

genocide.

JWith regard to:

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

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

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


31 7/22/2013


17/31

on Fri 26 Mar 2010 at 15:56:3

on Fri 26 Mar 2010 at 16:00:1

on Fri 26 Mar 2010 at 16:01:4

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 Nativ

American population was on the upswing by the second half of the 19th century at the latest. Someargue 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 prov

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

In terms of percentages, the German genocide against the Gypsies was far worse than thatagainst the Jews.

ThadJ 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.

ThadIn 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,


31 7/22/2013


18/31

on Fri 26 Mar 2010 at 16:13:5

on Fri 26 Mar 2010 at 16:13:5

on Fri 26 Mar 2010 at 16:34:3

on Fri 26 Mar 2010 at 16:43:2

on Fri 26 Mar 2010 at 16:52:5

precisely, given that Im certainly not arguing that the Jews have been the only people to suffer a

genocide in history).

MiraMy 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 amnot sure how they measured this: by number of killings or percentage?

no_slappzj, you wrote:

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.

JThanks

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 hadalready 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,

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.

abagondNo Slappz


31 7/22/2013


19/31


20/31


21/31

on Fri 26 Mar 2010 at 18:38:1

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 mos

White Americans know the UN definition (either your version or mine or some other version).

ThaddeusTo 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 anhour-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-grand-

somethings 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. Fromwhere 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.


31 7/22/2013


22/31

on Fri 26 Mar 2010 at 19:20:5

on Fri 26 Mar 2010 at 19:41:2

on Fri 26 Mar 2010 at 19:53:5

on Fri 26 Mar 2010 at 21:13:4

on Fri 26 Mar 2010 at 22:27:3

on Sat 27 Mar 2010 at 17:10:4

ThaddeusWe 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.

DochartaighAmericans 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

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.

ColorOfLuvFlat 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

DochartaighTo colorofluv

Believe it or not there are still people alive today that believe the earth is flat!!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flat_Earth_Society

JadeThad said: Americans are loons when it comes to race

I agree on that!

ThaddeusSome 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 themselve

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 the

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.


31 7/22/2013


23/31

on Sat 27 Mar 2010 at 17:23:5

on Sat 27 Mar 2010 at 17:24:1

on Sat 27 Mar 2010 at 17:28:2

on Sat 27 Mar 2010 at 17:31:5

on Sat 27 Mar 2010 at 17:37:2

on Sat 27 Mar 2010 at 17:39:5

(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?

JOnly 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 deviseanother set.

This in essence is what your class did in one sense

JOOOps..thanks for relaying the information

Thad

Not really. Hair form is one of the ways people talk about race in Brazil without talking aboutit.

MiraHair 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 evendifferences 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 wha

if a new division is based on eye colour. Then most of the black people and many white people wou

make one race, while others would be another race. And everybody would see that as natural and

logical.

JYesI 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


31 7/22/2013


24/31

on Sat 27 Mar 2010 at 17:40:4

on Sat 27 Mar 2010 at 17:45:5

on Tue 30 Mar 2010 at 10:56:4

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 othe

would be another race. And everybody would see that as natural and logical

ThaddeusWhat about eye colour, for example.

Wouldnt work here. Amber to brown is what 99% of cariocas have.

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 anddo skin color. That may have blown a few lids.

JLeft handed and Right-handed race then ha ha

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 KaydenAbagond 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 hav

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.


31 7/22/2013


25/31

on Tue 30 Mar 2010 at 12:10:4

on Tue 30 Mar 2010 at 12:17:1

on Tue 30 Mar 2010 at 18:15:1

JWith regard to this point only:

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

abagondPatricia:

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 theirgirlfriends 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 isnot 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, buthe did not beat up Rihanna (does not fit the definition of genocide; there were killings but hardly an

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).

ThadAbagond, heres a question: is there any conceivable native death in the context of white-

indian 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.


31 7/22/2013


26/31

on Wed 31 Mar 2010 at 04:00:4

on Wed 31 Mar 2010 at 13:32:3

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 youare 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 lo

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.

abagondThad:

Thanks for the book recommendations.

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 closesthing 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

But let us not lose sight of the fact that they did get wiped out, that those who did the wipingout 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.


31 7/22/2013


27/31

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 warcriminal 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 tim

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 o

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.


31 7/22/2013


28/31

on Thu 1 Apr 2010 at 03:57:1

on Thu 1 Apr 2010 at 04:33:2

on Fri 2 Apr 2010 at 00:40:5

on Fri 2 Apr 2010 at 23:08:0

abagondThad:

Yes, please send it. Thanks.

abagondThad:

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 t

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

Thad1. 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 superherversion 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 ainhistory.

abagondThad said (in corrected spelling):

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.


31 7/22/2013


29/31

on Sun 4 Apr 2010 at 00:16:5

on Mon 5 Apr 2010 at 08:03:4

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 ain

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.

ThaddeusSeriously, 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 youhistorical North Star to guide your rhetorical steps. Whites are essentially the same General Custe

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, facin

whiteness.

I mean seriously, Abagond: all you need to do to orientate yourself in history is ask what is the colo

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 forhistorical validity is whatever political project you feel needs to be pushed in the here and now.

abagondThad said:

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/


31 7/22/2013


30/31

on Mon 5 Apr 2010 at 09:32:5

on Wed 7 Apr 2010 at 20:18:0

on Sun 9 May 2010 at 12:15:4

on Wed 12 May 2010 at 14:58:0

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/

abagondTodd:

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 lik

them. Whites are STILL like that.

ThadOK, 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 th

fact that sociology isnt simply psychology writ big.

JI 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

ImadKI 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 JFK

inaugration as president of the USA more special, since hes the first Catholic prez in the countrys


31 7/22/2013


31/31

is america still genocidal

Documents