Talk:Genocide of indigenous peoples/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

→

Archive 5

Please quote the correct source

The editor who included the claim, "Various European empires such as the Spanish and British Empire have been accused of carrying out genocidal campaigns against the indigenous peoples of the Americas." appears to have misread his source. The quoted page of the cited work says, "And even as Peter Hulme argues for the inclusion of America within post-colonial studies because 1492 marked the advent of European settlement in the new world, he writes that 'as a post-colonial nation, the United States continued to colonize North America, completing the genocide of the Native population begun by the Spanish and the British.'"
Therefore, it is Peter Hulme claiming the genocide of the native population was begun by the Spanish and the British and Jodie Byrd is merely quoting (and citing) Hulme.
I found the same passage being quoted on p.17 of Fictions of the Black Atlantic in American Foundational Literature by Gesa Mackenthum, and there it is cited as (Hulme 1995:122). I think the book they are quoting is Colonial Encounters: Europe and the Native Caribbean (1492-1797) by Professor Peter Hulme of the University of Essex but I have been unable to confirm that.
Therefore, the quoted comment is not "wrong" so I have left it in but I think a proper citation is required. Thank you Cottonshirtτ 15:51, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

What?

"The Genocide of indigenous peoples ... examples of genocide have been given ... the city state of Athens ... against the indigenous peoples of the Americas." Surely "the City state of Athens" happened before the Americas were discovered. Can you amend please Victuallers (talk) 23:20, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

No, it is very clear that it were the European Empires which carried out genocides in the Americas, the article does not even come close to what you are suggesting it says. Darkness Shines (talk) 08:05, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

Definition of Indigenous

Shouldn't the article include a discussion of what 'indigenous' is. It need not be a detailed discussion of the debate, but the article currently seems to exclude the Jewish holocaust without any clear reason given--that is really problematic. The claim that the Jewish were not 'indigenous' (not the word used) to Germany or Eastern Europe was of course part of the genocide against them. This doesn't mean that I want to include the holocaust in the article, but simply that the reader would be aided by a brief discussion of what indigenous means so that they don't come away with any incorrect perceptions about other genocides. Since the claim "they are not indigenous" is often a key part of genocides (this was often stated in Rwanda, for example), the article should be attentive to the appearance it may provide about who 'is' and 'is not' indigenous. I'm willing to help add this section, but would prefer to be more of a second editor (fixing and adding to content--rather than creating it). AbstractIllusions (talk) 12:07, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

Something along those lines would fit in the debates section, the article still is in the middle of expansion really and I keep getting sidetracked into other subjects, I am also working on a FA at the moment and another article in userspace. I will see what I can dig up on this and add to the article ASAP. Darkness Shines (talk) 12:19, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

We should use the internationally established definition of indigenous peoples, (which is not the same as a people that is indigenous). And yes we should include a discussion of this, and give examples of genocides that are not against indigenous groups. The discussion should be attentive to not confuse the common sense meaning of "indigenous" and the technical term "indigenous peoples" and it should be sourced to relevant reliable sources.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 12:27, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

And the internationally established definition of indigenous peoples would be? Cos I am reading Maybury-Lewis right now and he says it cannot be just who was there first, as if that were the definition then it will not work for anywhere but Oz and the Americas. Darkness Shines (talk) 12:36, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

There are a few different ones by ILO, WTO and UNESCO, but they all share the definition of indigenous groups as those that are cultural minorities that existed in a territory prior to colonialism and the formation of a nation state. So the definition is both cultura, historical and political. Danes are not an indigenous people in Denmark for example, in spite of the fact that they are the only group that can claim to be indigenous to the territory - that is because they are the majority group controlling the nation state. The article on Indigenous peoples spend a great deal of space talking about the definitions.12:56, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

WP:NORUSH, of course. Just trying to suggest a needed direction. And I agree with Manus about those issues. For the start of a definition of indigenous people, this is the best place to start. AbstractIllusions (talk) 12:50, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

@ Maunus. That is roughly along the lines of what Maybury-Lewis has written, so I will go with that one. Darkness Shines (talk) 13:01, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

Yes, Maybury-Lewis and other anthropologists have been part of the discussion that has defined the international legal concept of "indigenous peoples".User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 13:03, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

Content removal

Why is not only content but internal links to other articles being removed? Darkness Shines (talk) 21:01, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Because they're being repeated in the article. But links are also added. Behold! "shit" (and revert it). --Niemti (talk) 21:22, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Hmm, and you removal of content? Why remove the link to the Herero? Darkness Shines (talk) 21:27, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Hmm, abd already explained there: [1] (disporoprtionate attention to some small incidents a single country in the article about global history). And it was me who wrote "excavated ruins" (and attributed the date). Now, revert what you yourself call "shit". Geez. --Niemti (talk) 21:30, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

And what part of "Because they're being repeated in the article" you don't understand? Herero was already linked, above it. OF COURSE. --Niemti (talk) 21:32, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

You do realize of course that those "few hundred" are entire villages wiped out? And are a part of the ongoing genocide? I know you are not big on genocide, you seem to think Germany did not commit it after all, perhaps you need edit articles less stressful, all caps is a bad sign, Darkness Shines (talk) 21:37, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, I am of course referring to Leopold, not Germany. Darkness Shines (talk) 21:40, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

??? Leopold? What are you even talk about? "OF COURSE" is a running joke, villain talk trope in B movies. I seriously don't care if you make an entire separate article about "entire villages wiped out" in Bangladesh or what not, this article is about global history in its entirety (spaning more than 2,000 years on all contients), not a situation in a small part of the world in the late 20th century (it was way too long even in my version, it really should just mention there are also massacres in addition to the "genocide through rape" accusation mentioned there). And now go and revert yourself already. --Niemti (talk) 21:46, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Btw, I just realized the Zulu stuff was pretty modern history, well into colonial era actually, not quite "early examples". So after a revert you might think what to do with this. --Niemti (talk) 21:56, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Also the Russian Empire / Soviet Union might be mentioned, in particular in the Caucasus but also Siberia and Central Asia. The Mongols (and Turco-Mongols) seriously need more attention, they laid some serious devastation to most of the known world and killed off then world's largest city (Baghdad), then did it again. --Niemti (talk) 22:03, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Not unless you can find reliable sources that discuss the Turco-Mongol devastation as a case of genocide against indigenous peoples.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 13:02, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

Right, I restored the most of your changes, I have not removed the content on Bangladesh though as I think it belongs. The Russian empire certainly warrants a section, but I want to finish writing up the British Empire one first. Darkness Shines (talk) 07:48, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

I might suggest the Japanese Empire, in particular in China, but it's debatable. (Yet the Rape of Nanking was not committed by impersonal or distant perpetrators, nor was its intent genocidal. The incident is difficult to explain, even in the context of a war which routinely violated the norms of civilian immunity. To return to theme of rape and sexual violence, for example, why were Chinese women subjected to these outrages? Rape was a weapon against "enemy" women, an action that was both misogynist and xenophobic. It humiliated the victims and demonstrated power, over both women who were the immediate victims and men who traditionally were regarded as their protectors. The Japanese military encouraged a rape culture, and rape as well as murder was a means to avenge the 70,000 Japanese soldiers killed or wounded in first six months of the war in China. Explanations for the behavior of Japanese soldiers should probably focus on their brutalization, in training as well as in warfare, and the military culture that encouraged them to see enemy human beings as animals. This was not exclusively a trait of the Japanese army, of course, but it was carried to an extreme there. Specific conditions of a particular time and place, not national character, led to the massacre.)

The WWII German conduct in Poland and the USSR is a much more obvious case (see Bloodlands: Europe Between Hitler and Stalin). --Niemti (talk) 12:48, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

Nanking falls under genocidal rape, already working on that article, I was thinking a grief summary here would be good though? Darkness Shines (talk) 12:53, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

There were to my knolwedge no indigenous peoples involved in either Poland or Nanking. This article is about massacres against indigenous peoples, not just about genocide against people who inhabit a specific territory other than the one inhabited by the perpetrators.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 12:58, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

Polish people are pretty indigenous to Poland. (There were Celts before them, but they moves on long ago.) --Niemti (talk) 13:09, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

Please read Indigenous peoples and the section below on "Definition of Indigenous" to understand why being "indigenous" and being and "indigenous people" is not the same thing. Polish people are indigenous to Poland but they are not an indigenous people.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 13:12, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

Polish people (or the descendants of several Westen Slavic Polish tribes that fell under the domination of the Polans) are native to Poland, and should I even mention the Germans were absolutely "politically dominant" in both the annexed and occupied territories, as there was no Polish administration at all? German actions were both unquestionably genocidal and mostly colonalist in nature (Drang nach Osten & Lebensraum). See Generalplan Ost for the loosely defined long-term plans regarding (former) Poland and the native population. And yes, there are no "truly indigenous peoples" in Poland other then the Western Slavs themselves (who were all supposed to: be exterminated, turn into Germans, become illiterate slaves/serfs serving the colonialists, or be deported further east). --Niemti (talk) 13:09, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

Native people != Indigenous people. Read the article.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 13:46, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

So who are those "true indigenous people" of Poland - and in this specific case, of the Third Reich-annexed territories and of the General Government and the western parts of the Reichskommissariat Ostland? (Also the Hunger Plan and so on.) What are these supposed differences from, say, the German colonial territories in Africa (discussed in this article)? --Niemti (talk) 13:39, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

There aren't any (except arguably the Gorals, the Silesians and the Kaszubians). Read the article to understand what an "indigenous people" is within academic discourse and under international law.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 13:46, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

Accoriding to Wikipedia (the lead of the article that you linked me to): "Indigenous peoples are peoples defined in international or national legislation as having a set of specific rights based on their historical ties to a particular territory, and their cultural or historical distinctiveness from other populations that are often politically dominant. [1] The concept of indigenous peoples defines these groups as particularly vulnerable to exploitation, marginalization and oppression by nation states that may still be formed from the colonising populations, or by politically dominant ethnic groups." So, how does it not apply? Is this article (that you linked me to) wong or what? The German non-indigenous (even if largely pre-existing) minority in Poland became totally (100%) "politically dominant" after Poland ceased to exist (part of it becoming part of the Greater Germany nation-state, other parts turned into brand new colonial territories) and included "colonising populations" too, with the Poles becoming "particularly vulnerable to exploitation, marginalization and oppression" alright (and to physical extermination). You're actually right about "the Gorals, the Silesians and the Kaszubians", but they that's only for their own territories (I might also add that there were the Polish Ukrainians, Polish Belarusians and others in the former Kresy, but they were also indigenous peoples suffering from the German genocide). --Niemti (talk) 14:01, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

It might be possible to make the argument that Poles were an indigenous people before the creation of the nation state Poland, but I dont know of anyone who has made that argument, and Poles are not generally considered in the literature on indigenous peoples and discussions of genocide against indigenous peoples do not generally include the Holocaust against the Poles. Unless you can find a case that discusses the holocaust against Poles as an example of a "genocide against an indigenous people" and not just as a case of genocide in general then the Poles will not go in this article.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 14:37, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

Alright, so who were the indigenous peoples of say, the newly-incorporated western parts of the German Reich (for example, in the area of the town of Oswiecim, which was renamed as "Auschwitz") circa 1942? Nobody? Were there always only the Germans? What is a fundamental difference between the General Government and the African colonies in this article, in the light of Drang nach Osten, Lebensraum, Generalplan Ost, and so on?

Also I'm actually totally against the concept of a "holocasust against Poles". The Holocaust/Shoah was the WWII genocide against the Jews, lumping every WWII German genocide and even all WWII German crimes against humanity into the category "Holocaust" is totally distorting its meaning. And when people even say the Croat (and non-German!) WWII genocide against the Serbs of Croatia was a part of it, then it's just obnoxious. --Niemti (talk) 14:53, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

Generally the only recognized indigenous people of Europe are the Sami and the indigenous people of Northern Russia, and sometimes the Basque. I don't know of any sources that describe the events in Europe during the holocaust as involving any Indigenous peoples. Being an indigenous people as you can see from the definition in the article I directed you to is not just about "being there first", you can be there first and still not be "an indigenous people". This article is only about genocides that have been described specifically as affecting "indigenous peoples". Not just about genocides against people who claim to be native to the place they inhabit.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 15:05, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

Lol, you didn't even read the article (to quote you: "read the article") that you keep sending me to it. So I'm going to quote it to you:

There is no single, universally accepted definition of the term "indigenous peoples"; however, the four most often invoked elements are:[7] a priority in time[ambiguous]; the voluntary perpetuation of cultural distinctiveness; an experience of subjugation, marginalisation and dispossession; and self-identification

So, which points did the ethnic Poles in former Poland (including the Greater German Reich) fail in the early 1940s, according to you? --Niemti (talk) 15:13, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

Hello? --Niemti (talk) 15:34, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

No, because there was no genocidal intent. Which is everything (contrary to popular belief that genocide is where there are organized mass murders or even just mass deaths in general). It was a My Lai style incident on a massive scale due to the completely dehu13:36, 25 August 2013 (UTC)User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw·manized and out-of-control (civilian control) state of the Japanese military. Just compare the "Greater East Asia Co-Prosperity Sphere" was very different than the Generalplan Ost, where Japan was supposed to be liberating the other peoples from the colonialists - and in the case of China, from the depraved military regime (that had a horrific human rights record on its own). --Niemti (talk) 13:02, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

I know of no definition of genocide that requires "genocidal intent".User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 13:12, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

So you don't understand the basics of the subject. Maybe you should start reading:[2][3] --Niemti (talk) 13:24, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

Neither do you as you have demonstrated at length here. Your link to a google search is utterly irrelevant. Read this article: Genocide definitions. Some of them do include intent, but not "genocidal intent", simply intent to destroy or denationalize in part or whole. Most definitions do not include intent, and many events considered genocides did not have "genocidal intent".User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 13:36, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

I do. The most common (and totally incorrect) definition is that genocide is basically any organized mass murder. In reality, all you need (but you do need) is the premeditated genocidal intent (or intent to destroy, yes), and according to the UN definition no one even has to die at all. Which is different then, for example, out-of-control actions of the military, or reprisal operations. There was no deliberate intent by the Japanese to destroy the other peoples and cultures in Asia (including the Chinese), but there was the German intent to destroy the other peoples and cultures in Eastern Europe (including indigenous peoples, such as the Poles of Poland), all while their reprisal/anti-partisan massacres in France and Italy were not genocidal. (And so the incidents like the Sant'Anna di Stazzema massacre weren't genocidal, but kidnapping of children by Nazi Germany and the destruction of the Polish culture during World War II were an a part of the campaign of genocide even if it wasn't exterminatory.) --Niemti (talk) 13:50, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

I am not interested in arguing with you about what was and wasnt genocide. We will just follow the sources and describe the various POVs.14:44, 25 August 2013 (UTC)User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw·

AN notice

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard#Genocide_of_indigenous_peoples --Niemti (talk) 20:30, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

Early History

Please don't reinsert the swection with Roman and classical material as they are not described in the sources as instances of genocide against INDIGENOUS PEOPLES. Maybury Lewis mentions Carthage, but as a general example of the antiquity of genocide, but explicity not as an example of genocide against idnigenous peoples which only occur in the context of imperialist colonialism. The inclusion misrepresents his article and muddles the question of the topic of this article.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 19:08, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

Here I insert the section I removed.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 19:20, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

The Roman Empire carried out acts of genocide during the Gallic Wars. The Gauls, led by Vercingetorix having defeated and massacred the Romans at Cenabum, led Julius Caesar to lay siege to one of the largest cities in the Gallic Confederacy, Avaricum. When the city fell, the Romans put 40,000 people to death, and, according to Caesar's own reports, his legions had killed 1,192,000 men, women and children during the conflict. This has been described as proportionally one of the worst genocides in history. Earlier, the Roman conquest of Carthage has also been described as genocide, and Lemkin cited it as an early example of genocide. Director of the Genocide Studies Program at Yale University, Ben Kiernan, believes that one of the most well known examples of inciting genocide was uttered by Cato. Following every speech at the Roman Senate he would end with "Delenda est Carthago" (Carthage must be destroyed). The Third Punic War began in 149 and, before Cato died, Rome had laid siege to Carthage. In 146, the city walls were breached and what has been described by Kiernan as "the first genocide" began, as an estimated 145,000 had been killed out of a population of about 200,000. Following the surrender of the city, the survivors, estimated at 55,000 (which included 25,000 women), were sold into slavery. The Athenian attack of the Isle of Melos during the Peloponnesian War, when upon taking the island the Athenian forces put to death every male they captured, has been described as an act of genocide. There were many acts of genocide by Genghis Khan during his campaigns, the destruction of the Khwarazmian empire has been cited as an example. Tamarlane also carried out genocidal actions.

Kiernan's mention of Carthage is as "the first genocide", not the first genocide against an indigenous people. Maybury-Lewis writes:

"Genocide committed against indigenous populations was a particularly nasty aspect of the European seizure of empires from the fifteenth to the nineteenth centuries, but it was neither invented nor practiced solely by European imperialists. Genocide is in fact a new name, invented in 1944 by Raphael Lemkin, for a very old outrage, namely the massacre or attempted massacre of an entire people. Such annihilations took place in antiquity, such as when the Romans destroyed Carthage and sowed its fields with salt. They were later carried on by conquering peoples such as the Huns and the Mongols and countless others. European imperialism and the massacres of indigenous peoples to which it gave rise added a bloody chapter to the history of genocide, which began much earlier and is unfortunately not yet finished."

Note how he uses Carthage as an example of genocide and contrasts it with genocide against indigenous peoples which only arose much later with European imperialism.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 19:25, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

I have to disagree with you there, he is talking about indigenous populations, and then says "for a very old outrage, namely the massacre or attempted massacre of an entire people" and cites Carthage and the others as examples, it are obvious he means that these are an indigenous people, and given the Carthaginians supplanted the Berbers (memory may be washy here) but as a city state stood for around 300 odd years they would have been the indigenous population at that time. I will go reread my history, but am sure that is quite close. In the meantime, any chance when you remove content you can remove the cites from the bibliography as it has caused a load of ref errors. Darkness Shines (talk) 21:59, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

Your reading is clearly wrong, and based on both a misreading of the text and a misunderstanding of how Maybury-Lewis defines "indigenous peoples" - to be indigenous means to be an ethnic and political minority within a state. You cannot be an indigenous group and the dominant group within a state at the same time. What he writes is that Lemkin supplied the name genocide for a very old outrage namely the massacre of entire peoples - carthage was an early example of this outrage. Genocides against indigenous peoples arose only with European imperialism and added a new chapter to the history of genocide. I will remove the citations meanwhile.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 22:07, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

You can be a dominant group within a state, be an indigenous people and still suffer from a genocide, ask the Irish. Darkness Shines (talk) 22:12, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

The Irish are not an indigenous people, perhaps they were before independence when they were not in charge of a state (and perhaps they still are in Northern Ireland under one particular analysis that sees religion as defining Irishness), but they are not generally defined as such no. Not under international law, and not by Maybury-Lewis and other scholars. The FAQ at Talk:Indigenous peoples specifically mention the Irish as not being an indigenous people under the definition used.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 22:17, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

I will take offense to that, the Celts are most certainly the indigenous people of Ireland, and the Irish are funnily enough, Celts. Being Irish I obviously know this, but here is a cite , shall we go with Stannard? "The English treatment of Ireland's native people" American Holocaust: The Conquest of the New World OUP (damn good read) (ec) For gods sake, do not cite a bloody Wiki article to prove me wrong, you know better than that. Darkness Shines (talk) 22:30, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

Take all the offense you like, the Irish are not an indigenous people under the definition used in international law or in scholarship on indigenous peoples. Neither are the celts. Native people is not the same as "indigenous people". Everyone is native to somewhere, and that definition would make the concept meaningless. Bretons, Manx, Welsh, Scots may be considered indigenous peoples although I have never seen them referred to as such in the literature. The wikipage reflects the consensus of a very large group of editors who actually know what "indigenous peoples" means and how it is used in the literature. If you are not willing to read the article and understand the basis for that decision then you have no business editing pages about Indigenous peoples. User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 22:36, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

The consensus of Wiki editors also said the 2002 Gujarat article was accurate as well pulease. Look, I will admit I am on new ground with regards to the definitions of an indigenous population, I sure as hell do know my shit on human rights and genocide however. Look to my response on my talk page, I have no issues with learning, nor being wrong. Darkness Shines (talk) 22:51, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

As you do like human rights editing maybe you should start by reading the declaration of rights of indigenous peoples and find some sources suggesting that the Irish (or Poles, or Germans or Danes) fall under the provisions of that declaration. Also this short explanation[4] is good.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 22:55, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

Interesting, another, completely different attempt at definition after first championing and then ignoring the "wikipage" definition: now to be indigenous means to be an ethnic and political minority within a state. So maybe now tell me how, according to you, were the ethnic Poles somehow NOT an ethnic and political minority within the national borders of Germany (including after the expansion by partial annexation)? Here are the policies (according to a "wikipage [that] reflects the consensus of a very large group of editors", and which I never even edited at all): Polish areas annexed by Nazi Germany#Expulsion and genocide of Poles and Jews, Polish areas annexed by Nazi Germany#Reducing biological growth of Polish population, Polish areas annexed by Nazi Germany#Kidnapping and murder of Polish children. --Niemti (talk) 23:02, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

There is an easy way out of this (and it is one that Maunus proposed above), we don't have to define "indigenous" or "genocide" precisely and then fill the examples from the overlap of these definitions. That would be OR and the discussion should take place on those pages. Instead, the question is: What does the mainstream literature related to "Genocide of Indigenous Peoples" give as examples? And include those. If there is a literature on the Celts as indigenous people who are victims of genocide, then they get included. If there is a literature on the Columbian exchange diseases being genocide of Amerindian, then they get included. The rest of the discussion is unhelpful and going beyond the lines of the literature. The page should not include every genocide and it should not include every ethnic group which lived in the area and experienced genocide. It should focus on "indigenous peoples" as defined by the literature (and where relevant by international law). I cannot see a literature that discusses the Poles or Irish as particular "indigenous peoples" who suffered genocide, if you have that literature please post those sources and we'll evaluate whether they are reliable or not. Otherwise, they don't belong. AbstractIllusions (talk) 00:11, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Exactly. I have reviewed three different articles titled "Genocide of Indigenous peoples" today, and none of them mention Poles, Irish or Carthaginians as examples of this topic.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 00:14, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

SIMPLE TROLLING

Now I'm just angry at the continued open insults, so I'm going to just prove the obvious with few examples:

• "The 13th century also witnessed ethnic conflict between indigenous Poles and foreign Germans, who had proved expansive and did not respect Polish church customs." (Zofia Kaleta, The Surname as a Cultural Value and an Ethnic Heritage)

• "Having failed to secure the political loyalty of Poles to the German state, and having failed to assimilate them to German language and culture, Prussian and German policy toward the indigenous Poles became increasingly 'dissimilationist.'" (Rogers Brubaker, Citizenship and Nationhood in France and Germany)

• "In Silesia, where the landowners were Germans and the peasantry indigenous Poles, the Prussian government was less liberal and the peasants did not get land with their freedom." (Edward Henry Lewinski Corwin, The Political History of Poland)

• "They not only seized the grounds and houses of the indigenous Poles, but they also secured a position that turned them into fairly prosperous residents." (Rosa Lehmann, Symbiosis and Ambivalence: Poles and Jews in a Small Galician Town)

• "Polish refugees as well as most of the indigenous Poles in the region refused to recognize the new political reality." (Omer Bartov, ‎Eric D. Weitz, Shatterzone of Empires: Coexistence and Violence in the German, Habsburg, Russian, and Ottoman Borderlands)

• "Publicists pointed out that as a result of age-long German influence the indigenous Poles, even those who had not succumbed to Germanisation, had qualities which were completely different from those of the Poles in Poland." (Polish Western Affairs - Volumes 31-32)

• "The indigenous Polish residents were expelled, and German nationals as well as ethnic Germans had moved in to replace them" (Betty Lauer, Hiding in Plain Sight: The Incredible True Story of a German-Jewish Teenager's Struggle to Survive in Nazi-occupied Poland)

• "Their role was to form a security barrier protecting ethnic Germans and absorbing any hostility from the remaining indigenous Poles." (John Hiden, ‎Martyn Housden, Neighbours Or Enemies?: Germans, the Baltic and Beyond)

• "Himmler outlined the fate of the indigenous Polish population in a key memorandum entitled 'Some Thoughts on the Treatment of the Alien Populations in the East'." (Koenraad Elst, The Saffron Swastika)

• "His aim was to turn the Warthegau into a model Gau (district). He expressed contempt for the indigenous Poles and took care to implement seriously the detailed criteria the Nazis used to determine which of the Poles could be Germanized and which could not." (Laurence Rees, Nazis: A Warning from History)

• "To create living space for Volksdeutsche, who were to be resettled on territories of western Poland annexed by Germany, approximately one million indigenous Poles and Polish Jews were deported to the General Government" (Holocaust Memorial Museum, In Pursuit of Justice: Examining the Evidence of the Holocaust)

• "When the Recovered Territories returned to Poland in 1945 there were over one million indigenous Poles and a complete ruin of cultural centres." (Bohdan Gruchman, Polish Western Territories)

• "Together with the one million indigenous Poles, who had not yielded to the centuries of Germanization (the largest centres were in the Opole region, Upper Silesia and Olsztyn Province, they totalled 65 per cent of the pre-war population of these regions." (Stanisław Arnold, ‎Marian Żychowski, Outline History of Poland: From the Beginning of State to the Present Time)

• "Verification conducted by Polish authorities in 1945—48, with the strong support of local civic bodies, established the fact that more than 1.2 million indigenous Poles — had survived on the regained area." (Edmund Męclewski, The Economic Development of Poland's Western and Northern Regions)

• "During the time of Governor General Frank's rule, terror and brutality reigned, not only against the Jews but also directed towards the indigenous Polish population." (Aubrey Diem, H is for Holocaust)

• "Himmler's death squad were once again free to roam the occupied areas, bringing death and destruction as they drove the indigenous Polish and Jewish populations from their homes and replaced them with racially acceptable Volksdeutsche settlers." (Gordon Williamson, The SS: Hitler's Instrument of Terror)

• "Nazi colonialism led to two genocides in Poland and Ukraine respectively: one against the Jews, and another against the indigenous Poles and Ukrainians." (A. Dirk Moses, Empire, Colony, Genocide: Conquest, Occupation, and Subaltern Resistance in World History)

I could go on and on with that.

But of course. --Niemti (talk) 00:21, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

You could, but it would be futile since none of them contradict what I have been saying. Poles are indigenous to Polandto be sure but they are not an indigenous people, and none of your sources say otherwise.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 00:24, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Sure thing, "subhuman" =/= "people" alright. Now answer my question and tell me how your own so fiercely approved definitions from the Wikipedia articles somehow don't apply in this case - cite the exact fragments of these definitions (I cited them for you in their entirity above), and elaborate. --Niemti (talk) 00:34, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Niemti, they don't apply because not a single source suggests that they apply. Poles are never discussed as an indigenous people in the literature on indigenous peoples, and none of the sources on genocides on indigenous peoples consider the genocide against poles as a genocide against indigenous peoples. You have presented no source to the contrary, and untill you do there is no discussion about this.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 00:36, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Oh, it doesn;t because you say so. And really? Never?

• "The 'General Plan for the East' (Generalplan Ost) ruthlessly disregarded the indigenous people of Poland, the Ukraine and Russia, and completely ignored their human rights" (Prem Poddar, Rajeev Shridhar Patke, Lars Jensen, A Historical Companion to Postcolonial Literatures: Continental Europe and Its Empires)

Oh no. Trolling intensifies. --Niemti (talk) 00:38, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

It doesn't because I am quite familiar with the literature on Indigenous peoples. That source at least uses the term "indigenous people", but it is not using it in the established definition (it would have been "peoples" if it were) and it is not a source about "indigenous peoples" and so not part of the literature. If you like we can have an RfC on whether The Polish genocide should be included in the article or not. If the consensus there sides with you then so it will be. User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 00:41, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

And "the people" were Slavs, of course. --Niemti (talk) 00:55, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Speaking of which:

• "This was far less likely to be the case in eastern Europe where the prime Nazi objective was to create Lebensraum (“living space”) for the expansion of the German race and to crush the indigenous Slavic population." (Tom Buchanan, Europe's Troubled Peace: 1945 to the Present)

• "Nazis linked this “new, utopian vision of an Aryan-dominated Europe” to the destruction of indigenous, Slavic peoples, whose survivors would be reduced to undifferentiated workers and slaves" (Peter Fritzsche, Life and death in the Third Reich)

• "As part of this objective, the Germans began during the war (initially in Poland and then in Russia) enslaving, displacing, or murdering indigenous Slavs, whom the Germans counted as racial subhumans." (Donald M. McKalem, Hitler's Shadow War: The Holocaust and World War II)

And so on.

Trolling overdrive. --Niemti (talk) 01:04, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Yes, that is also irrelevant. I have started an RfC below and advertised it broadly to wikiprojects related to Indigenous peoples and human rights. If I have missed some wikiprojects feel free to advertise it there.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 01:06, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

"genocide through the introduction of disease"

Wasn't contraction of diseases from the Spanish expeditions an accidntal occurence that just happened due to a first contact transmission? Like Coronado's doomed Eldorado search led to a series of devastating epydemics in today's USA (and he himself died of a disease upon return). --Niemti (talk) 08:59, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

There's only 1 documented (possible) incident of such biological warfare in America, and it was a British fort commander, whose plan was approved but it's not even sure if it was carried out successfully. (Siege of Fort Pitt) --Niemti (talk) 09:12, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

There are many documented cases of this happening during settler colonialism in South America, particularly in the Amazon.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 15:00, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

This article[5] describes the fort Pitt event as simply the best documented case and describes others. User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 15:08, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

This article(Patterson, Kristine B. MD; Runge, Thomas. 2002. Smallpox and the Native American: Review. American Journal of the Medical Sciences: April 2002 - Volume 323 - Issue 4 - pp 216-222) describe it Native Americans as "the victims of what was probably one of the earliest episodes of biological warfare".User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 15:17, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

So we're going to with a speculative comment from journal that doesn't document that it was in fact biological warfare, but just that it went from here to there unintentionally? Hires an editor (talk) 01:38, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

Actually I listed a whole series of articles and books that provide support for the intentional introduction of disease to the Native American population, from General Amherst's actions with smallpox infected blankets to the Choctaw Trail of Tears intentional routing through a cholera epidemic, all from either peer-reviewed scholarly journals (available via JSTOR) or from books published by academic publishers. See the list a couple of sections below. And no, it does not include anything by Churchill, who as far as I'm concerned is not a reliable source. GregJackP Boomer! 01:46, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

A review article in American Journal of Mecical Sciences is about as reliable a source as they come. GregJackP has shown a large handful of other sources making the same claim. Whether we believe it or not is irrelevant, it is an existing non-fringe viewpoint.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 01:41, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

They may be reliable scientists, but as for reliable historians, I might take a pass. And for what it's worth, are these ideas noted that it was non-historians (and therefore non-experts) making these claims? That, in spite of the fact that they are "mainstream" people making these claims, it shows in the article this way? Somehow I think not. In addition, I've noticed that you don't really address the concerns of others by actually proving your point with "chapter and verse" as it were, of your sources to show the validity and correctness of your points. Hires an editor (talk) 01:50, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

Several of the sources I listed are historical journals. There are some law journals too. GregJackP Boomer! 01:51, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

And the superfluous content about Bangladesh should be moved to Chittagong Hill Tracts conflict. --Niemti (talk) 09:19, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

It does not matter if the introduction of disease was accidental, the sources describe it as genocidal. The content on Bangladesh is staying, so stop going on about it. Darkness Shines (talk) 09:26, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

Nope, it isn't. Unless you provide reliable sources describing all of these incidents as specifically acts of genocide (like in the case of court rulings for Srebenica massacre and Halabja attack). Like there was a plenty of massacres of Romans (captured soldiers, settlers in the colonies, even of the Citizens in Italy itself via 'barbarian' invasions or rebellng slaves), but they were not victims of genocide. And of course it does matter if it was accidental, you don't get "whoops genocide" incidents, it has to be planned and organised, they would had to be knowlingly and deliberately spreading the diseases with a specific intent to destroy the native populations. --Niemti (talk) 09:43, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

Yes, it is. The sources call the actions in the CHT genocide. Darkness Shines (talk) 10:23, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

Really? Cite/link them to me, and especially tell me exactly who are "the sources" (let's check credibility of the claims). --Niemti (talk) 10:40, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

Bangladesh-East Pakistan has a four page entry in the Encyclopedia of Genocide and Crimes Against humanity by Dinah Shelton.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 10:50, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

Crimes against humanity =/= genocide. Who's Dinah Shelton and what exactly it says regarding these random massacres that are allegedly so important they need to be detailed in an otherise short and laconic article about the history of the world? --Niemti (talk) 12:30, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

She is a professor of Law at George Washington University, and president of the Inter-American Commission of Human Rights. I think she is quite aware that genocide and crimes against humanity is not the same. Which probably explains why she included both words in the title of the encyclopedia she edited. I don't know what the entry on Bangladesh says as I havent read it. The short laconic article is currently undergoing expansion.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 12:37, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

I do think the current section focuses too much on rape and not enough on showing who argues that the treatment of the Chittagong Hill tribes is genocidal and what the arguments for and against might be.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 12:44, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

• The article should have a better discussion of what genocide is and how it is often an open discussion whether something is genocide or not, even among academics. For example Alfred Cave's chapter on Genocide in the America's in Dan Stone's The Historiography of Genocide discusses at length how different scholars have argued that even though most of the Native Americans died due to disease many still consider it to be genocidal, especially because it was exacerbated by violence and by settler racism.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 10:54, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

I was thinking along the same lines and have begun a section for the debates over the American genocides. Will go read Cave now. Darkness Shines (talk) 11:25, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

But it wasn't "genocide through the introduction of disease" (maybe except the Ft. Pitt incident). And in case of the United States, there were even XIXth century vaccinations by the government (which is incidentally almost unknown, unlike the urban myth of the American soldiers deliberately spreading diseases, invented by the fake "Indian" white man named Ward Churchill). --Niemti (talk) 14:36, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

Disease was introduced, people died, a lot of them, it has been called genocide. Argument over. Darkness Shines (talk) 14:46, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

Lol. I guess Spain is also responsible for huge "genocide" all over the world in the XXth century, eh? --Niemti (talk) 15:07, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

I consider this a highly inappropriate comment.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 15:10, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

And I consider "Argument over." a highly inappropriate comment. If me or you accidentally transmit a disease on another person who dies, it's an accident and nothing else. Back at this time, people didn't even really understand diseases, and how they are being transmitted (no knowledge of germs and viruses). Oh, and also: WP:FRINGE. --Niemti (talk) 15:19, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

Just follow the sources, Your insistence on simply opining without backing your opinions with sources is becoming disruptive.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 15:23, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

What sources? Exactly? Ward Chuchill and fellow travellers? Outlandish claims are WP:FRINGE. Labeling totally accidental and unpreventable deaths of natural causes as "genocide" makes all of this article totally wrothless, and Wikipedia a laughingstock. --Niemti (talk) 15:29, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

The people of the early colonial era didn't know diseases, didn't know how to prevent transmission, how to contain outbreaks, often even how to treat the victims with normal immunological resistance (not to mention they weren't even anywhere around and didn't even know about anything happening somewhere). They had no more real knowledge of things like smallpox than they had of magic (and for them it was often actually magic, see the witch panics over outbreaks). To make completely accidental and unpreventable random deaths labeled "genocide" is just beyond ridiculous and a travesty of encyclopedia. --Niemti (talk) 15:49, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

Continously making categorical claims based on opinion and not on sources is ridiculous and a travesty of encyclopedia. You do not decide what is and isn't genocide, sources do. User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 16:03, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

Retarded claims by pseudo-historians and politcial charlatans = WP:FRINGE. Deal with it. --Niemti (talk) 17:54, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

Oh, and also don't 'forget' to point out to me which of these points in your own favourite definition allegedly don't apply to the ethnic Slavic people in former Poland during early 1940s. (A 'reminder' for you: There is no single, universally accepted definition of the term "indigenous peoples"; however, the four most often invoked elements are:[7] a priority in time[ambiguous]; the voluntary perpetuation of cultural distinctiveness; an experience of subjugation, marginalisation and dispossession; and self-identification.) --Niemti (talk) 17:57, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

At this point there is nothing to "deal with". If you begin to include materials about Poles that is not backed by reliable sources discussing it specifically as a case of genocide against an indigenous people then I will deal with it according to policy, which means removing it.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 18:02, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

Come and tell me what makes the planned total destruction and wholesale massacre and deportation of Carthage (discussed in this article) okay but not the planned total destruction and wholesale massacre (ordered on the highest levels of power, actually limited in scale by the otherwise genocidal field commander) and deportation of Warsaw. Tell me this alleged fundamental difference between the German colonialism's racist and genocidal policies in Africa before WWI (discussed in this article) and in Eastern Europe during WWII. And tell me why did you insist so much that I should read this Wikipedia definition of 'indigenous peoples' but now, when I cit:ed it and it does apply, you suddenly avoid the subject instead of admitting you were wrong. --Niemti (talk) 18:12, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

The definition does not apply to Poles and you have provided no source to suggest otherwise. Including Carthage is only OK if it is discussed as a case of genocide against an indigenous people (which I doubt it is). Just present sources, your attempts to mount an OR argument about the inclusion of all kinds of genocides that are not against Indigenous Peoples as defined by scholars and in international legislation. The reason I insist on following policy is because that is what we have policy for. If your next comment does not include support by reliable sources I will consider you a simple troll and proceed to ignore you. User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 18:23, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

Elaborate on how it allegedly "does not apply to Poles" - starting on which exactly of these 4 points, and why. And you also "provided no source to suggest otherwise". Yes, Carthage is in the article (complete with an illustration). And so are the Mongol invasions (to which you also objected). No, I added neither of them. (I added nothing to this article, only made it it a bit less horrible through general cleanup and copyediting: original state.) --Niemti (talk) 18:32, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

Also a cool personal attack ("a simple troll"). If your next comment anywhere on this page does not include an apology I'm going to report you. --Niemti (talk) 18:42, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

For fucks sake, Carthage is discussed in the sources used as an genocide of indigenous peoples, I would not have added it otherwise. Everything I expanded the article with does. If Niemti has a source which discusses the genocide of indigenous peoples in Poland lets see them, otherwise this is a waste of time. Darkness Shines (talk) 18:58, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

It is not, DS. There is no source suggesting that carthaginians were an indigenous people. They were a state. And Maybury-Lewis clearly does not suggest that they were. The exmaple may be apt in a general article on the history of genocide but not in this one.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 19:09, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

Fringe claims

• @GregJackP: the article's already FRINGE (accidental transmission of disease as "genocide") and UNDUE (Bangladesh). --Niemti (talk) 12:18, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Actually, there is peer-reviewed scholastic support for the intentional transmission of disease to American Indians, per the following sources:

1. "That garments containing deadly, viable smallpox virus were actually given—sometimes intentionally—by Europeans to Native Americans is undeniable and well documented." Mayor, Adrienne (1995). "The Nessus Shirt in the New World: Smallpox Blankets in History and Legend". The Journal of American Folklore. 108 (427): 56.
2. "Military officers, traders, and settlers advocated the use of smallpox blankets when inconvenienced by tribes who insisted on possessing and exercising authority over their lands." Valencia-Weber, Gloria (2003). "Native Americans and the Constitution: The Supreme Court's Indian Law Decisions: Deviations from Constitutional Principles and the Crafting Of Judicial Smallpox Blankets". University of Pennsylvania Journal of Constitutional Law. 5: 408.
3. "Its reputation was formed by the actions of government officials who used gifts of smallpox-infected blankets to destroy tribal communities. . . ." Washburn, Kevin K. (2006). "American Indians, Crime, and the Law". Michigan Law Review. 104 (4): 735.
4. "In the Revolutionary War the British did not use [smallpox] infected blankets as British Commander Jeffery Amherst had against the Indians in 1763. . . ." Byerly, Carol R. (2002). "Of Smallpox and Empire: Pox Americana: The Great Smallpox Epidemic of 1775-82 by Elizabeth Anne Fenn". Reviews in American History. 30 (2): 207.
5. Knollenberg, Bernhard (1954). "General Amherst and Germ Warfare". The Mississippi Valley Historical Review. 41 (3): 489–494.

And books written on the subject, per:

1. Gessler, J. E. (2013). Smallpox: A History. Jefferson, North Carolina: MacFarland. pp. 27–30. ISBN 9780786493272.
2. Foster, George T. (2006). Focus on Bioterrorism. Hauppauge, New York: Nova. pp. 47, 59. ISBN 9781600211850.
3. "In the case of the Choctaw, they were deliberately marched into cholera . . . and even rerouted to ensure that they would be dragged through the heart of the epidemic." Mann, Barbara Alice (2009). The Tainted Gift: The Disease Method of Frontier Expansion. Santa Barbara, California: ABC-CLIO. p. 41. ISBN 9780313353383.

I could go on, but there is plenty of academic support for the intentional infection of indigenous peoples by Europeans, the Amherst case being documented by the general's own letters and those of his co-conspirators. There is nothing WP:FRINGE about that information. Regards, GregJackP Boomer! 01:20, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

"The Journal of American Folklore"? That's right, "American folklore" indeed. Not only there was no biological warfare by the United States, but between 40-50,000 Indians were even vacinated for smallpox by the federal government already in 1832 (founded by the Congress after lobbying by Isaac McCoy, who wanted them out, but kept alive). --Niemti (talk) 10:06, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

And this what the Choctaw themselves state about the cholera oubreak on their website: see here" So please, spare me and everybody the BS from Ward Churchill and other extremist charlatans. OK? Those people are mainstream, this guy is fringe. --Niemti (talk) 10:12, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

You are doing a pretty bad job at arguing here Niemti, we have shown approximately 15 sources, none of them written by Ward Churchill, that argue that the US at different times made deliberate use of disease to decimate indigenous populations. You haven't read any of those sources and have made no sign of even knowing who they are written by or what arguments they use - yet you keep rejecting them as fringe and associated with Churchill. It is clearly not a fringe view but a prominent view in the literature, and as such it will be included in the article. User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 12:00, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

Really? Let me quote: "In the case of the Choctaw, they were deliberately marched into cholera . . . and even rerouted to ensure that they would be dragged through the heart of the epidemic." Not according to the Choctaw. They say they were not deliberately "marched into cholera" and regarding rerouting, they say they were rerouted away to ensure that they would not be "dragged through the heart of the epidemic" (which was the original route). They say the deaths were accidental ("natural, of course"), and that the agents in charge did their best to keep the deportees alive (while themselves exposed to the outbreak, which killed "several hundred" whites), and one even became a "hero". Some genocide. So, what now? You have the word of Barbara Alice Mann vs. the Choctaw nation, two absolutely incompatible narratives. Which one version is fringe? --Niemti (talk) 13:07, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

I think if you care to read our policy on reliable sources and weight you will be able to answer that question yourself. Also just because two viewpoints contradict eachother that does not mean that one is necessarily fringe. You are also misrepresenting the source and your failure to read Mann makes you fail to notice that she elaborates on the account given by Len Green: Armstrong fired Colqouhoun the responsible for diverting the Choctaw and the 1000 Choctaw he had saved were deliberately marched back into the epidemic.... User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 13:11, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

Really? Let's see: "see here" Show me (quote) which part is compatible with her and now also your claim that "Armstrong was fired for diverting the Choctaw and the 1000 Choctaw he had saved were deliberately marched back into the epidemic...." and tell me more about Gaines being allegedly so 'genocidal' in general (speaking of "weak arguments", and fringe claims). --Niemti (talk) 13:35, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

Niemti, Len Greeen who wrote that in 1995 is a journalist, Mann is a historian and the book based on recent research conducted is academically published (not that it matters but incidentally she is also a member of the Seneca Nation).User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 14:19, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

And http://www.choctawnation.com is not a private website of Len Greeen. Here's about the removal: http://www.choctawnation.com/history/choctaw-nation-history/removal/removal/ Also, here's from the Encylopedia of Arkansas: http://www.encyclopediaofarkansas.net/encyclopedia/entry-detail.aspx?entryID=2294 ("Supplies of food, fodder, and firewood were arranged along the way by the military, private contractors, or tribal leaders. Even with physicians assigned to most removal groups, many died from infectious diseases such as cholera, dysentery, measles, and smallpox.") Wikipedia article: Choctaw Trail of Tears. Encyclopedia of American Indian Removal: [6] Official website of "A Journey of Injustice": http://www.nps.gov/trte/index.htm Nowhere not a trace of her fringe claims. --Niemti (talk) 14:44, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict)@Niemti - please show me one reference that I cited that was by Ward Churchill. You can't, because I did not cite that Indian wannabe nutcase. Unless you have proof that all of the academic sources are fringe, I would suggest that you rethink your position of denial. As an example, the Amherst case is very well documented and accepted as fact by the majority of historians. Mann's work on the Choctaw and cholera is similarly well regarded academically, with over 800 footnotes, most to primary documents showing the intentional infection of the tribes by whites. You have the case of Dr. Marcus Whitman, who poisoned about 200 Cayuse Indians (Curtis, Edward S. (1911). The North American Indian. Volume 8 - The Nez Perces. Wallawalla. Umatilla. Cayuse. The Chinookan tribes (2007 reprint ed.). Classic Books. pp. 81–82. ISBN 9780742698086.). You can also look at the following (non-Churchill) sources:

1. Lindsey, Brendan C. (2012). Murder State: California's Native American Genocide, 1846-1873. U. of Nebraska Press. ISBN 9780803240216.
2. Thorton, Russell (1987). American Indian Holocaust and Survival: A Population History Since 1492 (1990 reprint ed.). University of Oklahoma Press. ISBN 9780806122205.
3. Totten, Samuel (2011). Genocide of indigenous Peoples. Transaction Publishers. ISBN 9781412844550.
4. French, Laurence (2003). Native American Justice. Rowman & Littlefield. ISBN 9780830415755.
5. Marder, William (2005). Indians in the Americas: The Untold Story. Book Tree. ISBN 9781585091041.

It is clear that the fact of Native American genocide is accepted in the mainstream historical community. You need to accept this, or it becomes a case of WP:IDHT. It is not a case of all sources having to agree, even tribal sources. Regards, GregJackP Boomer! 13:23, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

Marcus Whitman was just an alleged serial killer working on his own - if it was even true. You see, the Whitman massacre article here on Wikipedia is actually about the murder of Whitman (and his wife). To quote it (the Wikipedia article): "Among the many new white arrivals at Waiilatpu in 1847 was Joe Lewis. Bitter from what he perceived to be maltreatment received in the East, Lewis attempted to spread discontent among the local Cayuse, hoping to create a situation in which he could ransack the Whitman Mission. He told the Cayuse that Dr. Whitman, who was attempting to treat them during a measles epidemic for which they lacked immunity, was, in fact, not trying to save them but instead was deliberately poisoning them. A common practice among the Columbia Plateau tribes was that the doctor, or shaman, could be killed in retribution if patients died. It is probable that the Cayuse and Umatilla held Dr. Whitman responsible for the numerous deaths and therefore felt justification to take his life as per their custom. Other factors that may have contributed to the massacre were outbreaks of cholera, conflict between the Protestant missionaries and local Catholic priests, resentment over missionaries' attempts to transform the Indians' lifestyle and the killing of a Walla Walla chief's son. It was also claimed by anti-catholic ministers, including Henry Spalding, that Roman Catholic priests may have told the Cayuse that Whitman was the cause of the disease and incited the Cayuse to attack. Their motivation was portrayed as a desire to take over his Protestant station, which he had refused to sell to them. Priests named in various versions of this theory include Pierre-Jean De Smet, Jean-Baptiste Brouillet and Joseph Cataldo." So, Whitman could as well be a humanitarian and a victim of a false accusation (and now a black legend, in some circles). And then you say "all sources having to agree"? Seriously? --Niemti (talk) 13:50, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

It is becoming increasingly futile to discuss with you when you keep countering sources with opinion and refusing to even read them.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 14:03, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

It is becoming increasingly futile to discuss with you when you're still unable to admit you were wrong. You also still forgot to explain how anything claimed by this woman and yours (to remind you: "In the case of the Choctaw, they were deliberately marched into cholera . . . and even rerouted to ensure that they would be dragged through the heart of the epidemic." followed by "Armstrong fired Colqouhoun the responsible for diverting the Choctaw and the 1000 Choctaw he had saved were deliberately marched back into the epidemic....") might be compatible in a slightest with the account presented by the Choctaw. --Niemti (talk) 14:13, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

And you say that based on what exactly? BAsed on not having read her work? And what about the other 15 scholars are they also "another Churchill"User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 14:22, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

Based on what you wrote, apparently citing her. Are you now saying you've misunderstood/misquoted her or something? Feel free to cite "the other 15 scholars", now I've got two claims, one that I quickly proved fringe and apparently completely false (the Choctaw) and another's unproven at very least and even of it was true (probably not) it was just one private person (Whitman), so let's see about these 13 others. --Niemti (talk) 14:29, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

I think this discussion is over. I am not wasting any more time on your nonsense. There clearly is neither consensus nor sources nor policy in support of your claims and arguments.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 14:33, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

I accept your uncoditional surrender. --Niemti (talk) 14:46, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

And here about it according to Portland State University's Oregon Encylopedia: see here --Niemti (talk) 14:19, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

I have removed material from this talkpage that does not comply with our policy on the biographies of living persons. Biographical material must always be referenced from reliable sources, especially negative material. Negative material that does not comply with that must be immediately removed. Note that the removal does not imply that the information is either true or false.

Please do not reinsert this material unless you can provide reliable citations, and can ensure it is written in a neutral tone. Please review the relevant policies before editing in this regard. GregJackP Boomer! 10:32, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

United States not listed here?

I have no sources to offer, just passing through, but I'm struck by the omission of the USA here. Why is the Spanish empire is the only one listed? The land grabs and reservations and massacres and the Trail of Tears took place over a longer period of time, but the forced relocation to unarable land and the holocaust-like levels of deaths and reduction of population can hardly be overlooked? Ukrpickaxe (talk) 06:07, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

I agree with you. Massacres against the Native Americans in the territory of the United States is a recurrent theme among public life. --Norden1990 (talk) 21:33, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

America will be the next section, I need to expand the one on the British Empire first. Darkness Shines (talk) 18:17, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

“To identify the class of events that the atrocity prevention community wishes to prevent.” --- I paraphrase Scott Straus in on the Committee on Conscience, US Holocaust Memorial Museum, and a professor of political science at U. of Wisconsin, Madison. Indentifying genocide and related forms of mass atrocity – an effort to develop a conceptual standard. (p. 25)

Genocide is a form of extensive, group-selective violence whose purpose is the destruction of that group in a territory under the control of a perpetrator. (p.4-5). Genocide has a logic of group destruction apart from the political violence which conforms to a coercive logic: political violence is designed to change the behavior of specific audiences. Group destruction implies a different causal logic, namely, that from the perpetrator’s perspective the targeted group cannot be negotiated with, tamed, or repressed (p.10-11).

Mass atrocity is emerging as the dominant alternative, broader standard than genocide. Christian Gerlach defines mass violence as “widespread physical violence against noncombatants, that is, outside of immediate fighting between military or paramilitary personnel. Mass violence includes killings, but also forced removal or expulsion, enforced hunger or undersupply, forced labor, collective rape, strategic bombing, and excessive imprisonment”. Unlike genocide, mass violence is not necessarily group-selective (p.21-22).

For the USA apart from the Indian Wars on combatants of declared enemy nations, military allies of the British, etc., we should use “mass violence” to describe the violence perpetrated by local regulators and state militias, Army commands and sutlers, and Interior Department agents and commissaries, against Native American civilians over the centuries of US history. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 11:26, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

No, we should call it what the sources indicate it was, which was genocide. GregJackP Boomer! 11:39, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

Well, there is debate in the sources about whether it was or wasn't genocide and that debate should be represented here.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 12:04, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

WP editors deriving an intuition as to what sources may indicate is Original Research. No original research. Reliable resources are not broadsides, they make distinctions, which is why I have a scholarly reference on how to make use of the word "genocide" and how it is too narrow to describe a suttler not fulfilling his contract with the US Army to supply food in a timely manner in quantity on the Trail of Tears, for instance. I want to call it what it was, mass violence perpetrated on the Cherokee in both "voluntary" and coerced removal-migrations.

Okay, recalling that "all sources say" is not a source, ( 1 ) What is the source that says the USA controlled some land under discussion and had adopted a policy of extermination of a noncombatant ethnic group there by systematic, sustained, state-sponsored means, in that place? That is "genocide" by Scott Straus of the US Holocaust Memorial Museum. Okay, ( 2 ) What other scholarly source of the definitions should we entertain? TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 09:07, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

In response: ( 1 ) There are a number of sources, about 15-20, listed below, that support the use of the term 'genocide.' These include statements by white political and military leaders that their goal was extermination of Native Americans. ( 2 ) The most common definitions in use today and the sources either quote or closely tract the UN definition. GregJackP Boomer! 23:27, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

1. 'All sources say', '20-30 sources say' are no sources. You are back to your inferences of indicators of “mass violence” in references without a scholarly citation to define --- what agency of the USG --- perpetrates the eight elements of UN definition in state-sponsored activity “substantial, systematic and widespread over a period of time”.

2. Eight elements in the UN definition of genocide. 1) racial discrimination. 2) lack of legislative protection, independent judiciary, 3) illegal killing agents sponsored by the government, 4) Motivation of leading actors, 5) A long term plan of extermination, 6) Acts of mass violence. 7) Hate speech. 8) Triggering factors.

These --- by UN criteria --- must be substantial, systematic and widespread over a period of time by the USG to qualify at sometime for some period as committing genocide to some specifically named group. Sources below do not ascribe “genocide” to the USG. For the most part the actors are states militias, extralegal local regulators or rogue actors later court martialled, each episodically perpetrating a kind of atrocity properly called, “mass violence”, but not “genocide”. The idea here is to properly label mass atrocities so that they can be more clearly objected to in the past and then form broad coalitions to oppose them, in every degree, for the future of humanity. This is my last post for this section. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 12:31, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

The legal definition of genocide, in the first paragraph of the document you cite, states (my comments in italics):

"any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such:

killing members of the group; (no question on this, look at the numerous massacres of Indians)

causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group; (ditto)

deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part; (forcing the groups into concentration camps called "reservations" without adequate supplies, food, or water)

imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group; [and] (blood quantum laws)

forcibly transferring children of the group to another group." (Indian boarding schools, a practice of removing Indian children for adoption)

All of the elements of the definition are met, and the sources refer to it at genocide. Case closed. GregJackP Boomer! 16:44, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

I think the only aspect that is seriously discussed is the question of intent.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 17:07, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

That's obvious too. Comments made by political and military leaders all through U.S. history support intent.

• 1779, Major James Norris: "Civilization or death to all American savages." Quoted in Mieder, Wolfgang (1993). "The Only Good Indian Is a Dead Indian": History and Meaning of a Proverbial Stereotype". The Journal of American Folklore. 106 (419): 38–60, 39. Retrieved 31 August 2013. {{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)
• 1875, Superintendent of Indian Affairs, Alfred B. Meacham: "They are Indians and three-fourths of the people of the United States believe and say that the 'best Indians are all under the ground." Ibid. at 41 (emphasis in original).
• 1868, during Congressional debate, Rep. James M. Cavanaugh (Mont.): "I have never in my life seen a good Indian (and I have seen thousands) except when I have seen a dead Indian . . . I believe in the policy that exterminates Indians. . . ." Ibid. at 42.

That's three, from one source, in 10 minutes. There are plenty more out there, including the famous quote by Sheridan. There is overwhelming evidence of intent. GregJackP Boomer! 18:47, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

There are literally a mountain of sources that call the US treatment of Native Americans genocide. There are also sources that dispute this. Both points of view will be in the article. The UN criteria are only relevant in so far as the sources use them, but they tend not to because no one is suggesting bringing the US for the international court. User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 13:02, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

In a spirit of collaboration, let me see if, I can, one last time, help here. No source says Norris, Meacham, or Cananaugh were in a position to command the murder thousands of a targeted group under USG control systematically, substantially, across a widespread area, over a sustained period of time, which is "genocide". No scholar calls the spouting of one Congressman "genocide". You are left with no sources: 'all sources', '20-30 sources', 'mountains of sources' -- are no source.

More episodic cases during war, outside USG control, against USG law, or by actors found guilty in USG courts cannot be construed as USG genocide -- so incidently, you have no reliable source to say so for 1779, 1868, nor 1875. None say the USG has been guilty of genocide at all times, in all places for everyone Native-American. You are not a reliable source as you are not published in a reputable peer-reviewed journal independent of WP.

While Virginia has state reservations and over a dozen federally recognized tribes, many Native American communities have been preserved only by USG interference with those states militias and extralegal vigilantes, imposing federal reservations within their territory. Please object to mass violence in a way that gains near universal condemnation, instead of merely embarrassing yourself by a failure to use sources according to WP policy. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 09:59, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

Your definition of genocide is not the same as the one used by most genocide scholars. Genocide does not require a government decision to exterminate in any definitions I know of. Although, yes, many sources do consider the US to have made a genocidal decision to remove and confine Indians, and in the 20th century to disintegrate then as coherent ethnic groups. Many scholars argue that not even intent is required, only the genocidal effects of discriminatory polices or actions by states or civilian groups. It is of course true that there has not been one single sustained genocide with intent to destroy by the USG, but that genocidal events and processes have been sporadic and combined with attempts to help (some of which also had dire consequences). The point of this article is not to mount an international court case indicting the US or any othr nation for genocide. The point is to summarize the literature on genocide against indigenous peoples, and the US treatmnt of its indigenous populations is a part of this literature.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 12:17, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

Governments are competent of substantial, systematic, sustained, widespread, targeted murder; little else is. The Hatfields and the McCoys family feud are not defined as 'genocide' by scholars. Still there are no sources on your part; ‘mountains’, ‘many’ and ‘most’ are no source. For a definition of genocide I have 1) Scott Straus in on the Committee on Conscience, US Holocaust Memorial Museum, at U. of Wisconsin, Madison. Indentifying genocide and related forms of mass atrocity – and

2) Eight elements in the UN definition of genocide, which is referenced without a link and ignored in discussion. Again, page 3, note 5: “Efforts should be made to gather information on a sufficient number of incidents to determine whether the abuses were substantial, systematic and widespread over a period of time.“ Editors will not take the time to make such a demonstration for the USG in their original research, nor can they find a scholar who has published in a reliable publication to source broadstroke USG namecalling. On the other hand, there are serious mass atrocities to describe in a scholarly, inimpeachable way without using the word 'genocide' indiscriminantly. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 11:14, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

Actually there are five elements (which I listed above), and eight factors to be considered to determine if the five elements have been met. You have to have the elements, you don't have to have the factors present, as the paper you linked to notes. But in the interest of fairness, let's address the factors anyway.

1. Relations between the dominant group and the indigenous group as far as power and economic relations. The tribes have no power, never did. The Cherokees won a case at SCOTUS to keep their land in the southeastern U.S. and President Jackson moved them to the Indian Territory anyway. Tribes have repeatedly had to go to court over monies that the U.S. held in "trust" but never provided to the tribes. The illegal (as determined by SCOTUS) taking of Lakota/Dakota lands (the Black Hill case). Past and present discriminatory practices, excluding the minority from positions of power. For example, there have only been three Indian Federal judges - ever. Indians weren't even U.S. citizens and couldn't vote until 1924. Denial that genocide ever happened.
2. Effective access to structures to protect their rights - yeah, right. The tribes lose 80% of the cases that get to SCOTUS. Patterns of impunity and lack of accountability. Check.
3. Presence of armed groups. Not now, but they have historically been present throughout U.S. history.
4. Motivation to target the group and separate it from the dominant society. Really? What do you call removal to concentration camps (reservations) guarded by the army? Or allotment?
5. Introduction of statutes to limit the tribes authority. Major Crimes Act, Indian Reorganization Act, etc. Prolonged conflict - the Indian Wars. Propaganda, check.
6. Less obvious methods. The denial of water rights for western reservations. Forcible removal of children (Baby Veronica anyone?), the Indian schools (Haskel, Carlisle) where they build the man by destroying the Indian (paraphrase from Col. Pratt).
7. Hate speech by those involved - clearly met. Displacement - how many tribes are still in their original lands? Atrocities - scalping, etc, which was started by whites (there was a bounty paid for each scalp). Destruction of cultural and religious symbols - Black Hills, peyote, etc. Targeted elimination of leaders? Sure, imprison them and send them to a malarial swamp in Florida, the U.S. has been there, done that.
8. Elections - federal interference in issues, such as the Freedmen / Cherokee issues. Termination of the Menominee and Klamath tribes in the 1960-70s.

I could list more and provide cites for all of them. And no where in the factors does it limit genocide to being directed by members of the government. Regards, GregJackP Boomer! 02:12, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

At this point it becomes relevant to reiterate that it doesn't matter what we as wikipedia editors think is or isn't genocide. It matters what reliable sources say. I think this discussion is interesting, but unless it is based on sources and explicitly aimed at improving this article it should probably run it course on either of your individual talkpages. User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 02:28, 7 September 2013 (UTC)