Jump to content

Talk:Genocide of indigenous peoples/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5

RfC: Should the article include mention of claims of deliberate use of disease against Native Americans?

Closing per request at WP:ANRFC. While I read some of the post-survey discussion below, I did not feel compelled to read all of it as it seemed to circle around expectations of what constitutes a reliable source on genocide, which is probably better directed here for better feedback rather than on this talk page. As for the proposals, consensus from editors favored:
  • B. "That disease was used deliberately by US agents and private persons against indigenous populations" is a notable mainstream view found in reliable sources.
  • C. "Mann's 2009 argument that the Choctaw were marched deliberately through the Vicksburg Cholera epidemic" is well substantiated and notable.
These were best supported by evidence in the texts under the "extended content" section of this RfC and failure to conclude that that Mann's and others' claims, while perhaps not mainstream, are also not fringe theories. I, JethroBT drop me a line 20:59, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

This RfC asks:

Question 1. Should the article include mention of the claim that disease was used deliberately by US agents and private persons against indigenous populations?

A. No the claim is WP:Fringe, and including it would be undue weight.
B. Yes, the claim is a notable mainstream view found in reliable sources.

Question 2. Should the article specifically mention Mann's 2009 argument that the Choctaw were marched deliberately through the Vicksburg Cholera epidemic?

C. Yes, the claim is well substantiated and notable.
D No, they claim is not accepted in the general literature and it would be undue weight to include it.

Survey

  • B and C The claim is repeated in many reliably published sources and is a notable claim in the literature on Genocide against Indigenous Americans. Counter claims can be presented as well when they are sourced to sources of equal reliability. Specifically Mann's 2009 claim that the Choctaw were subjected to deliberate routing through the Cholera epidemic of Vicksburg is new in the literature and so has not been widely accepted, but it is well substantiated with evidence in the book, and the book as been generally favorably reviewed. It is however not the only source that makes the claim that disease was used deliberately. User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 15:33, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • A Mann's odd claim is not repeated in any reliably published sources I know about (not one was presented), and especially not in any encyclopedia (including even elsewhere on Wikipedia). Nothing on the Choctaw website (except claims totally to the contrary), nothing on the gvt memorial website, nothing in state encyclopedias, nothing in Encyclopedia of American Indian Removal, nothing anywhere. --Niemti (talk) 15:38, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • B and C - The first is a no brainier...just have to read a book over playing video games. As for the Choctaw Nation experience they do consider it a genocide as seen above by the sources - it makes it on the lists every time in reference works for the study of history and social studies in academic settings like the "Encyclopedia of American Indian Removal" despite what is said above -- Moxy (talk) 16:57, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Daniel F. Littlefield, Jr.; James W. Parins (2011). Encyclopedia of American Indian Removal. ABC-CLIO. p. 49. ISBN 978-0-313-36041-1.
Samuel Totten; Paul Robert Bartrop (2008). Dictionary of Genocide: A-L. ABC-CLIO. p. 208. ISBN 978-0-313-34642-2.
  • B and C. At this point, the sources provided make both beyond dispute. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:01, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • B and C. Both claims are mainstream beliefs believed by a majority of scholars on the issue. GregJackP Boomer! 21:41, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • B and C. On the first, per: Finzsch quoted in Jones' Genocide: An Introduction. Pretty much the most mainstream you can get. For the second, the review of the book in American Indian Quarterly obviously shows it is not a 'fringe' theory--although the claim should have in-text attribution to Mann. AbstractIllusions (talk) 22:11, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neither - The question assumes either truth or fiction regarding this...instead, it might be worthwhile to note "controversy" in this question, that there are reliable sources that state it to be true, and others that say not so much...in either case it's a common thing that people think happened, so they would come here to find out. We should present that we don't know, and that various reliable sources don't know, either; or that they think they know one way or the other. Hires an editor (talk) 22:23, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I am sorry but that misrepresents the question, which clearly does not suggest that either view should be taken as gospel - it says "a mainstream view" (i.e. not fringe), not "THE mainstream view". User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 22:25, 28 August 2013 (UTC)on is about mentioning both view or excluding one.[reply]
Um, no it doesn't. The question says it's a "mainstream claim", and I dispute that wording of the question, and I dispute the choice of responses. This is more complex than that. It's a "frequent" claim, and it is noted by mainstream historians, as either truth, untruth, or unknown...or it's a "disputed" claim. But in any case, it should be noted that reputable historians think that it did or didn't happen, or that they can't verify with any certainty that it did or didn't happen...The way the question is even worded assumes a certainty that we don't really have. Hires an editor (talk) 23:38, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It most certainly assumes no such thing.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 00:47, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
We will have to agree to disagree, but I gotta tell ya, getting the last word here like this is not cool, and not appreciated. In fact, arguing with my opinion like this in the first place is certainly not getting along or coming to a consensus. I put my opinion, what I felt about the question, and my proposed remedies to it. You are then free to "let it be" instead of fighting me on it. You are being argumentative here. Hires an editor (talk) 00:24, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • B and D. One source suggests the possibility of intentional exposure to cholera. Were there multiple sources backing up the assertion, it would then be something to consider. However, intentionally exposing people one is force marching to cholera would be counterproductive, as movement would be greatly slowed or even stopped due to the high number of prostrate victims. The first question is a bit defective though, as it wasn't US agents, but British agents who intentionally exposed indigenous people to smallpox, frequently via blankets previously used by those infected with smallpox. That was done while there was no US, only British colonies.Wzrd1 (talk) 01:57, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • B and C - We shouldn't present C as unquestioned fact, but we should certainly note the sources which present that argument. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 02:00, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • B and D. Markewilliams (talk) 02:23, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Separated comments:
  • Question 1: 'B' is suggested by numerous amassed sources and seemingly denied by few or none. First: it seems that all are in agreement that smallpox blankets were used, at minimum, at Fort Pitt. Additionally: a search for "smallpox blanket myth" on Google Scholar turns up mostly articles in reputable journals which confirm that these blankets were used as a form of biological warfare. Other searches yield similar results. I did find this article published by Thomas Brown in Plagiary attacking Ward Churchill's scholarship regarding the Mandan in 1837. I see that this article is currently used here. While it may be worth mentioning, it would not seem to trump sources that are (a) some convincing combination of more credible, better sourced, and more recent, and/or (b) about a different event. Brown's article does not seem to be cited in further scholarship. Meanwhile, this article by Elizabeth Fenn (reproduced from the Journal of American History) seems to acknowledge the existence of some disputes, but argue convincingly that we must accept "smallpox blanket" as a generally recognized tactic of colonial warfare.
  • Question 2: The claim that the Choctaw were deliberately exposed to cholera is asserted strongly by Mann. Mann provides evidence, which seems robust, that the US military hierarchy intentionally routed the Choctaw into a cholera epidemic. Although the epidemic may have broken out without foreknowledge, it seems that the military denied requests to re-route the journey, as part of its policy of harsh treatment. Niemti's position that Mann's position contradicts choctawnation.com seems like weak original research; hardly the smoking gun implied by their tone. (I am inferring an argument that the spread of cholera was accidental and that Vicksburg had been chosen as a destination before the outbreak became obvious. Niemti, please let me know if you meant this or something different. Stepping back to look at the big picture on this source, an article by Len Green, it is pretty clear that Green intends to describe a genocidal situation.) Other sources do not go into the same depth as Mann, but do also describe the cholera epidemic as part of a deliberately genocidal situation: example. The Encyclopedia of Indian Removal is probably the best source implying (here) that cholera infection was not deliberate, but again this would be a bit of an inference. IMO, cholera infection as an individualized tactic of biological warfare should not foregrounded as part of the discussion about genocide of the Choctaw. Mann's argument might be mentioned and then discussed in more depth at Choctaw Trail of Tears.
  • On a side note, I want to extend some very sincere gratitude to those folks, particularly Darkness Shines and Maunus/ʍaunus/snunɐw, who are doing the difficult but important work of constructing this article. groupuscule (talk) 03:43, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
User:Groupuscule: A group of some one/third was rerouted (talking about "rerouting") to Memphis, which was dangerous gambit because there was no alternate route was prepared, and so there was no food and no ships waiting for them there. There's actually no word of "cholera" (or "Vicksburg", for that matter) at all in the page you linked to [1] in your preferred source, it's only in on another page: [2] (where it says they were "dodged by sickness" and generally "suffered dreadfully from cholera" citing the acount of their friend agent Armstrong who decided to get them through Memphis, and how the rumours of cholera caused the hired wagon drivers to flee in Memphis further complicating the already grave situation) - why did you claim it does also describe the cholera epidemic as part of a deliberately genocidal situation when this is totally untrue, and this page you linked doesn't even mention cholera (or even any disease at all)? It's just another book with not a trace of Mann's claims, of course (like apparently about 99.9% of the literature and 100% of encyclopedias), contrary to what you just stated. And if Green "intends to describe a genocidal situation", he would write about "a genocidal situation". Stop coming here with a confirmation bias, actively looking for something instead of just checking the literature and then forming an opinion, and assuming what someone "intended" yet didn't write. Also, colonial warfare: I don't even try to dispute the Ft. Pitt incident, but it had nothing to do whatsoever with the subject of "United States colonization and westward expansion" (it was British colonialism). I stated this repeatedly so. --Niemti (talk) 09:59, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Niemti, I agree with you on Question 2 that we don't have enough sources at this time to foreground Mann's argument about deliberate infection with cholera. However, there does seem to be enough evidence to describe the whole of Indian Removal as a genocidal process—Choctaw Trail of Tears included. Regarding the issue of Britain or the U.S., the underlying issue is genocide committed by Ango-American settlers and their descendents. Typically Wikipedians seem OK with including British settlement as part of the pre-history of the U.S. (See United States and History of the United States.) The purpose being to describe an essentially continuous historical process. But if you feel we need to change the title of the section that may be possible. groupuscule (talk) 15:26, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
And in history of Mexico you've got stuff from thousands of years before even an arrival of Columbus, even as the country of Mexico didn't exist until centuries and even millenia later, does it mean the Mexican government is guilty of human sacrafices? It's not "United States colonization and westward expansion". It was British military, that the Americans later fought and defeat to create their own country (which only then started to expand, because prior to that it didn't exist). I mean, so obviously. --Niemti (talk) 10:00, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
          • Sorry if the placement of my answer makes this suvey harder to tally. I just want to specifically endose Niemti's point above. Thank you for taking the time to look at what the source actually says. Wikipedia has the very real ability to change history (or atleast how it is commonly understood) Thank you for your research into what the actual source says. It make a difference. As for the first question. I vote B. Elmmapleoakpine (talk) 00:32, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Threaded discussion II

List of sources making the claim
  1. 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
  2. Mark Wheelis. 2004. A Short History of Biological Warfare and Weapons. The Implementation of Legally Binding Measures to Strengthen the Biological and Toxin Weapons Convention NATO Science Series II: Mathematics, Physics and Chemistry Volume 150, 2004, pp 15-31; )
  3. Mayor, Adrienne (1995). "The Nessus Shirt in the New World: Smallpox Blankets in History and Legend". The Journal of American Folklore 108 (427): 56."That garments containing deadly, viable smallpox virus were actually given—sometimes intentionally—by Europeans to Native Americans is undeniable and well documented."
  4. 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."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."
  5. Washburn, Kevin K. (2006). "American Indians, Crime, and the Law". Michigan Law Review 104 (4): 735."Its reputation was formed by the actions of government officials who used gifts of smallpox-infected blankets to destroy tribal communities. . . ."
  6. 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."In the Revolutionary War the British did not use [smallpox] infected blankets as British Commander Jeffery Amherst had against the Indians in 1763. . . ."
  7. Knollenberg, Bernhard (1954). "General Amherst and Germ Warfare". The Mississippi Valley Historical Review 41 (3): 489–494.
  8. Gessler, J. E. (2013). Smallpox: A History. Jefferson, North Carolina: MacFarland. pp. 27–30. ISBN 9780786493272.
  9. Foster, George T. (2006). Focus on Bioterrorism. Hauppauge, New York: Nova. pp. 47, 59. ISBN 9781600211850.
  10. Mann, Barbara Alice (2009). The Tainted Gift: The Disease Method of Frontier Expansion. Santa Barbara, California: ABC-CLIO. p. 41

"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."

  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.

3Totten, Samuel (2011). Genocide of indigenous Peoples. Transaction Publishers. ISBN 9781412844550.

  1. French, Laurence (2003). Native American Justice. Rowman & Littlefield. ISBN 9780830415755.
  2. Marder, William (2005). Indians in the Americas: The Untold Story. Book Tree. ISBN 9781585091041.

This random list is false and misleading. --Niemti (talk) 15:45, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have a source that states any of those sources are false or misleading? If there is a question on the reliability of any or all of the sources, feel free to take it to WP:RSN. GregJackP Boomer! 23:40, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Proof of non-existing sources (other than Mann's 'revelations'):

Case closed. --Niemti (talk) 15:49, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In what way is the list 'random', 'false' or 'misleading'? If you are accusing Maunus of misrepresenting sources, you'd better have some pretty strong evidence... AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:51, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I did add some sources presented by User:GregJackP which I have not myself read, and so I do not vouch for all of those sources myself. Luckily most of his sources are equipped with quotes from the text.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 15:57, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I presented evidence the "deliberately rerouted to the cholera" a claim by Mann's and Mann alone (in the books and encylopedias). --94.246.154.130 (talk) 16:11, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Source (1) checks out, in as much as the abstract states that "...Native Americans were victims of what was probably one of the earliest episodes of biological warfare". [3] AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:07, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The only documented incident is from the Colonial times (Siege of Fort Pitt), nothing to the with the USA because it didn't even exist. --94.246.154.130 (talk) 16:11, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Source (2) states that "It was a matter of frequent observation on the American frontier that disease outbreaks, particularly of smallpox, were devastating to Native Americans. Some of these outbreaks might have been deliberately instigated. There are sporadic records of attempts to do so over 300 years of nearly continuous frontier warfare" (p.16 - the sources cited for this statement are unfortunately not visible via Google books). [4] AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:15, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
An Excerpt from source (4) can be found here: [5]. It states that "Smallpox blankets and the Supreme Court's Indian law cases are inseparable from historical relationships between the American Indian sovereigns 3 and Euro-Americans. These specific objects and decisions are a result of the historical relationship. Smallpox blankets infected American Indians as the result of intentional acts where the donor knew of the deadly microbes.".
At this point, I suggest that Niemti retracts the assertion that the list is "random" or "false and misleading", and stops wasting everyone's time. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:24, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
And where's any mention of Mann's Choctow cholera allegations in all of these random quotes? --Niemti (talk) 08:59, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It is about the first, and secondarily about the second.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 16:29, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"they teach everyone". Reality: "Since I teach on an Indian Reservation and more than half of my students are Native Americans, I would like to create a unit based on their history." Nice man(n)ipulation, man. --Niemti (talk) 09:54, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Conclusion of review of Mann 2009 by Margaret Bruchac (American Indian Quarterly, vol 35, iss 1, 1011) "Overall, Mann's work is provocative, informed, and refreshing. She provides crucial historical evidence that effectively answers the charge (by some modern scholars) that disease epidemics were largely accidental and that complaints of genocide are merely polemical. She stresses the need for meticulous research to establish clear lines of accountability. Most important, she makes it clear that the intentional spread of disease abetted a general discourse of destruction that promoted death (by whatever means) as an appropriate "final solution" to the Indian problem. That toxic dream informed the vision of manifest destiny, resonates in American popular culture, and continues to threaten Indigenous survival today."User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 16:35, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Also: Review "Barbara Mann has done it again. Abundantly documented, lucidly written and, best of all, utterly unequivocal in its conclusions, this is quite simply the best book ever written on the topic" Ward Churchill, author of A Little Matter of Genocide (also printed on the back cover). A different book, same stuff from the same circle. Oh, and her dedication of The Tainted Gift: "for Ward Churchill" (page 6, the only text there). It wasn't just dedicated for Ward Churchill, it was dedicated for Ward Churchill only - and then some people here try to argue she's unrelated to "that Indian wannabe nutcase" (to quote one of the users here) and it's a "mainstream" view. Maybe you want me to lose my little remaining faith in Wikipedia. --Niemti (talk) 08:59, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
So what? The main difference is as follows:
Churchill did not provide any footnotes to support his claims with the Mandan tribe being infected, with neither primary nor secondary sources (using the academic, not Wikipedia definition of those sources). When confronted, Churchill claimed that he used "oral story-telling" as sources, but could not provide any supporting interviews, tapes, etc. to support this.
Mann provided both primary (documents written within six months of the event) and secondary sources (documents from after six months) to provide support for her work. Mann refuses to use oral story-telling except under two conditions: 1) it is from her tribe, or 2) she has explicit permission to use the material from the involved persons and tribe. If she uses oral story-telling, it is identified as such and supporting documentation provided. (BTW, this is shown in her book, if you would read it).
You are taking general material and coming to a conclusion that is not stated in the source - which is original research. We don't base articles on OR in Wikipedia. GregJackP Boomer! 11:48, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment All you people. Few things that you forgot, or maybe didn't know in first place:
  • You can't have a genocide by private individuals. It's being a serial killer or mass killer. (And in these areas there was often no law enforcement at all.) For example: a skinhead gang murdering dozens of minorities in systematic attacks in Moscow is not a genocide (even when they had a support among some members of local OMON who gave them an access to their gym among other things) - you'd need a deliberate program by the city authorities to "clean the streets" by dispatching death sqads for that.
  • <removed BLP violation> And, to repeat myself again: her all of sudden, a new revelation "they were deliberately rerouted into the cholera!" claim is not repeated in any books by other authors, let alone featured in any encyclopedias (even elsewhere in Wikipedia). So mainstream.
  • There were, of course, acts of genocide (Chivington's Sand Creek massacre being arguably the most known, and most odious - and he did have many supporters among the public and local authorities, but the army and congressional investigations condemned the incident in strongest terms) and quite possibly also genocidal policies/programs regarding Indians in the United States. I don't even try to dispute it. But nothing to with diseases, and regarding this issue the federal gvt even actually vaccinated tens of thousands of Indians so they wouldn't die off of the smallpox (already in the 1820s).

If you want to make a travesty of an article, go on. It will be another reason why Wikipedia can't be trusted. In that case, I'll wash my hands of it any further and stop caring anymore. --Niemti (talk) 09:29, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

To answer your claims which are based on nothing but POV nonsense. 1. Genocide can be by private entities. This will be kinda a major point when the Irian Jaya content is added--you'll learn something neat. 2. A reputable historian and non-reputable polemicist may reach the same conclusions about events; our question is about method. Mann's method puts her in the mainstream--just because Churchill likes the conclusions doesn't mean jack. 3. The "U.S. agents have been alleged to have used biological agents to destroy the Native American population" is a claim made frequently in the literature on the topic. As a National Research Council publication (pg. 34) summarized the academic literature (without referencing either Mann or Churchill by the way): "During the 1800s, U.S. government agents were alleged to have deliberately infected the Plains Indians by giving them trading blankets infected with the deadly disease, decimating the population." AbstractIllusions (talk) 12:17, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, "were alleged". By Ward F. Churchill. That's not A FACT. And the FACT is: the only such documented incidents involved the British military (it's unknown whether it worked or not, but the intent was there, and it is the intent that counts - BUT the incdent was completely unrelated to "United States colonization, westward expansion, and Indian Removal" and "Indian removal and trail of tears", it was the British colonisalism). It's a ciclejerk of "POV nonsense" activist "researchers" all suddenly coming up with sensationalist "revelations" regarding events from over 100 years ago (despite the previous research by thousands of people over more than a century - how strange everyone was mistaken all the time). Churchill used to be celebrated and cited (36,600 Google Books results!) before his 9/11 comments (yes, a whole aticle) put him into national spotlight and subsequently exposed him as a psychopathically self-hating white man he is, and apparently Mann cites him in her books too (plus Churchill also wrote featured reviews for her, a foreword for one book, and so on, they're so closely associated), that's also facts. I admit I've never heard about this Irian Jaya person/place/nation/whatever it is, the article's telling me "This section requires expansion. (August 2013)", very informative, thank you very much. --Niemti (talk) 15:51, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Guilt by association fallacy.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 15:54, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, and Churchill's lies were not lies when Mann said they were "all true", and if all the "reviously unknown" stuff is in her books (dedicated to him) then it's okay, and they're facts, and even "mainstream", and all the other research by the thousands of others who somehow all the time didn't know about her "mainstream facts" doesn't count. OK. And Marcus Whitman surely "poisoned about 200 Cayuse Indians" - not allegedly, not maybe, not rumored, and absolutely he wasn't a victim of a false accusation by the other whites leading to his brutal murder and a massacre of a dozen other people by superstitious people - it's just indisputable, because Mann or someone else claimed so, and so it's a fact. Great thinking, folks. --Niemti (talk) 16:13, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
And so "You have the case of Dr. Marcus Whitman, who poisoned about 200 Cayuse Indians" (quoting you guys) just because one source said so 112 years ago, while most sources (including encyclopedias, ad that's including even Wikipedia) say he was most probably an inncent victim of a brutal (mass) murder. Sure, if one uses such unquestioning approach to selected sources (while compltely ignoring and refusing to acknowledge all the other sources and positions even if they're prevailing, and presenting unproven allegations and rumors as "mainstream" facts), you will find "genocides" everywhere you want for a confirmation bias. That's just so... dishonest, you know? Like with this "they teach everyone" false claim, and all the other dishonesty on this page. That's really a shame. --Niemti (talk) 16:35, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Your accusation of "unquestioning acceptance" is laughable given that you haven't read the sources you are seeking to refute with recourse to evidence from wikipedia articles and "common knowledge". The way an article about genocide is written is by finding the events that are described as such in the literature and including them AND any arguments to the contrary which is what we are doing in this article. The article would by now be much more advanced in terms of including a nuanced discussion of different viewpoints if we hadn't had to waste so many valuable hours on your ridiculous opinionated opposition and IDHT style argumentation.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 16:44, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You are laugahble given how you present improbable rumors and allegations as facts ("You have the case of Dr. Marcus Whitman, who poisoned about 200 Cayuse Indians" - where is "rumored case" or "allegedly poisoned", or anything?). And all while you outright reject the clear and noncontroversial cases like this of Oskar Dirlewanger and his merry men, not even after I showed you many sources say the victims were "indigenous" and they fit Wikipedia's definitions - the very defintions that were championed by you and then you refused to elaborate on it after I quoted them here and it all fit. And all of your ostantiously dimsissive and insulting approach, calling me "a simple troll" and all, I don't know why I even bother. --Niemti (talk) 16:59, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You have shown no such thing as the clear majority of contributors involved in this discussion can attest. You have wasted a lot of peoples time by failing to listen to other peoples arguments, by contradicting literature and by providing no literature in support of your own opinions, in a way very similar to disruptive trolling. If it is such a bother to you to waste our time, then please dont bother anymore. User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 17:14, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
BS. I showed a plenty of literature, you disregarded it, wanted something else, I gave you, you still disregarded it. And from you people I get unlikely rumors presented as facts (example: Whitman, and here's the literature and about the rumor behind his murder in particular), dishonesty, selective sourcing for a confirmation bias, and more. You yourself wrote, in the article: "The Choctaw were deliberately marched through zones where a cholera epidemic was raging causing many to die from disease.", which you stated like a proven fact, without a shadow of doubt, based on a single recent "revelation" book that is dedicated "for Ward Churchill" (out of all literature on the subject - over 9,000 books), despite this unproven allegation not being presented as fact or at all in any other book, encyclopedia, or a reliable website, which I showed you and you refused to acknowledge, and you continue to deny that I even did). Contrary to popular opinion, Wikipedia is not a propaganda forum. Well, in theory, at least. I always strive for NPOV on Wikipedia even on the subject I have a very strong popular opinion myself. You should be ashamed of yourself. --Niemti (talk) 17:45, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Niemti, your original research via Google is of no relevance whatsoever. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:51, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
My "original research"? I didn't write any of these ~9,189 books not dedicated "for Ward Churchill". Maunus asked me to provide literature on the subject, and I did. Of these, I could present 10, 100, 1000 books that don't confirtm her claims. Ealrier, I showed you no one in the whole world wrote about the Chocwa being exposing "deliberately" (or "knowingly") or "rerouted" - out of 9,000 books discussing the Chcotaw in the context of cholera, or 2,850 books in the context of Choctaw removal precisely and the cholera, but some users want to selectiovely use claims for only the single one (1) book "for Ward Churchill", ignoring all the rest as inconvinent. Examples of the mainstream view: the book entire on the subject, The Removal of the Choctaw Indian; the encyclopedia, Encyclopedia of American Indian Removal; The Trail of Tears; Indian Removal: The Emigration of the Five Civilized Tribes of Indians; The Rise and Fall of the Choctaw Republic and so on, and on, and on - nearly 2 centuries of research by thousands of authors, all to be ignored in favor of 'sensational rebelations' fedicated "for Warch Churchill". --Niemti (talk) 23:14, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"Google result counts are a meaningless metric". [6] AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:24, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Cool, you can start discrediting these books I showed you, or to find ny trace of a support for the claims of a deliberate exposure to cholera to destroy the Choctaw Indians during the removal. Some more: [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] [16] [17] [18] and enough. I heard something about "providing no literature in support of your own opinions", here you go, some (and might give you more easily). Or maybe - you give me some other than Mann, because I heard hers is a mainstream position and there's a lot of literature not contradicting her. Or maybe it isn't? --Niemti (talk) 23:37, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed some of the more flagellant BLP violations that Niemti inserted about Mann and have warned him on his talk page. If he continues to make unsupported allegations of academic misconduct about her, or misrepresenting sources to that effect, I will start an RfC/U on the issue. Niemti, you need to stop and look around. Consensus is clearly against your position and this is rapidly becoming a situation of WP:IDHT, to the point that it is becoming disruptive. You've made your point, you don't agree. We understand, but we do not agree with your position. You need to drop the WP:STICK and back away from the dead horse. GregJackP Boomer! 23:16, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think you forgot to remove your own "flagellant BLP violations" when you called the living person (and Mann's hero) Ward Churchill "that Indian wannabe nutcase". --Niemti (talk) 23:27, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You're right. I should have listed sources. Here they are:
  1. "Self-nominated Indian wannabe and academic charlatan Ward Churchill. . . ." Buggeigh, Orson (14 April 2009). "A Tale of Two Appointments". PoliGazette. Newstex LLC. Retrieved 29 August 2013. (via Lexis Advance)
  2. "people might have noticed he's crazier than the love child of David Duke and Ward Churchill (America-hating fake Indian)" Gavin, Patrick (20 September 2012). "Coulter's new book on racial issues". Politico.com. Capitol News Company. Retrieved 29 August 2013. (via Lexis Advance)
  3. "Ward Churchill was another phony Indian. . . ." "The Week". National Review. National Review. 11 June 2012. Retrieved 29 August 2013. (via Lexis Advance)
  4. "Notorious "fake Indian" Ward Churchill is wondering why he didn't think of this alibi first before the University of Colorado at Boulder fired him for academic fraud." Malkin, Michelle (4 May 2012). "'Sacaja-Whiner': Elizabeth Warren and the Oppression Olympics". The Augusta Chronicle (Georgia). p. A6.
  5. "Ward Churchill? No, he's the nutcase University of Colorado professor who suggested that the victims of 9/11 were fascists." Zasloff, J (14 January 2008). "Biggest Gaffe of the Campaign So Far". Newstex. Newstex LLC. Retrieved 29 August 2013. (via Lexis Advance)
Thanks for pointing that out. GregJackP Boomer! 00:07, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Cool, man. So, what do you think about choosing allegations precisely from a book "for Ward Churchill" (academic charlatan, academic fraud, America-hating fake Indian) while ignoring thousands of books on the subject that are all not only not dedicated to Ward Churchill but also not containing such allegations, then writing about it as if it was an indisputed fact,[19] then pretending it's a mainstream position when it's not? --Niemti (talk) 00:38, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Questions Niemti? I find it odd your the only one here with your point of view. Your so adamant that there must be some reason behind this. The books you link to seem to say the opposite of what your saying... so lets break this down. What exactly are you contesting - the fact Natives died of cholera? or the fact its called a genocide or the fact a government body was the one that implement the moves or the fact they were marched deliberately through epidemic areas? -- Moxy (talk) 23:36, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I also find it odd. Where did you guys all come from, all of sudden? I'm contesting this claim: "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. "American Holocaust" - totally NPOV book, sure. By David Stannard - according to Wikipedia: "Stannard's perspective has been joined by scholars Kirkpatrick Sale, Ben Kiernan, Lenore A. Stiffarm, Phil Lane, Jr., and Ward Churchill." (yeah, Churchill being a "scholar", and not a "nutcase" as in GregJackP's "flagellant BLP violation"). Stannard was also incidentally the other person who gave the back cover featured review to Mann's earlier book, the other other being Churchill. So, maybe someone other of Stannard-Churchill-Mann circle? Also not "Kirkpatrick Sale, Ben Kiernan, Lenore A. Stiffarm, Phil Lane, Jr". Maybe someone out of literally housands of other authors? Maybe some books specifically about the Choctow (there are many), and even about just their removal? And where's the Choctows own support for those claims? I didn't see anything about it on their official website, like I didn't see anything about it in any encyclopedia (and I checked several, from different state encyclopedias, to Britannica, to the Encyclopedia of American Indian Removal) - why? --Niemti (talk) 23:56, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Also, nice manipulation again (for the second time from you): or the fact its called a genocide (really, it talks about the removal's results of "cultural genocide, tribal ghettoization, and politcial-economic marginalization" which has nothing to do with Mann's cholera allegations) - and here some people dare to say it's me who's "misrepresenting sources". Just hilarious. Oh, and because you chose this book yourself, and it's on the subject (titled Choctaws at the Crossroads) and even very critical of the gvt policies (this quote above), let's see what does it have to say regarding cholera: [20] - ah, again not a trace of the "mainstream beliefs believed by a majority of scholars on the issue" allegations (says the Choctaw just "experienced" it), of course. Like basically everywhere. --Niemti (talk) 00:05, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(ec)Ok I think I understand what your concern is - since you were thinking people are misrepresenting sources I am concluding your points aren't clear on what your talking about, thus we are showing you the wrong things. I understand your frustration i also have the same problem getting my point across many times. So to be clear your only clamming that the phrase "the Choctaw, they were deliberately marched into cholera..." is the problem right? Not that it did happen to others or that the Native experiences is called a genocide be it cultural of fiscal right? I ask because I have been working on the fact you voted "A" meaning you think the whole article is fringe. I would agree to the fact "marched deliberately through the Vicksburg Cholera epidemic" is a bit strong and has been contested. For those of us that know about this we know that many went through the swap to bypass Vicksburg and the crowded boats beyond. But this does not change the fact the were moved during the outbreak and thus exposed without care for there being. I would agree to a wording change like " Were forced to migrate during the cholera epidemic of the 1830s resulting in many deaths."-- Moxy (talk) 00:50, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
There was a care. The 2 main agents went with them and exposed themselves to a deadly disease (and I don't really think it was some sort of a suicide attack). There, they found the ships abandoned by their crews, but did not flee themselves. The route was predetermined in the original plan, the only rerouting was AWAY of Vicksburg by agent Armstrong (and it was a lucky gambit, because the alternate route was unprepared, they were lucky he managed to commandeer a random ship, pack them into it, and that the supplies were found at the end of river journey), the epydemic was completely unexcepted and the deaths were accidental - not any more deliberate than the later mass deaths of halpless army conscripts camped at Vicksburg during the civil war and also due to cholera[21] (most of the American civil war deaths were from disease, not from combat). It was of course all a tragedy and they shouldn't have been removed to begin with, but what the article claimed was a dishonest manipulation based on the allegation not present in the mainstream sources (outside of the Stannard-Churchill-Mann circle), that is in thousands of other books and in every single encyclopedia in existance. But thanks for understanding. --Niemti (talk) 01:17, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I see no valid reason to take your opinion (or that of a blog, or of the journalist who wrote the piece on the Choctaw website twenty years ago) over the words of historians who have read and critically evaluated the actual sources.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 01:27, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It's a valid reason to value thousands of books, and all encyclopedias (like Wikipedia supposed to be an encylopedia, too), over a small circle of authors with extremistic views. And especially in the way you opresented allegations as facts. I don't think the Choctaws had a website 20 years ago, and anyway I think it's being updated, so I don't know what stopped them to sharing these revelations after Mann suddenly enlightened them on their own history of what had happened nearly 200 years ago and they didn't know all the time. I also don't know why no one else cared for these revelations in general, while Churchill's own prior allegations of similar manner became so well known (in a popular urban legend) - I can see only the wacky separatists of the "Republic of Lakotah" citing her, along with Churchill (in their .doc "Ward Churchill provides Examples of Genocide"). If no one did, why Wikipedia? --Niemti (talk) 02:12, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Niemti has argued vociferouly that a. all mentions of deliberate use of disease against native americans except for the Fort Pitt incident are fabrications and falsifications only believed by Ward Churchill and his fringe supporters. 2. that the view that Native Americans were subjected to genocide is itself a fringe claim that should not be included in the article. The view that the march through vickburg was a deliberate attempt to subject the Choctaw to cholera is proposed both by Stannard and by Mann and is as such a notable view which should be included in the article TOGETHER with the opposing view that the route was coincidental.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 00:58, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I told you to stop speaking for myself. --Niemti (talk) 01:17, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I told you to stop wasting our time. You did argue this, now you are trying to make it seem as if you have been arguing a nuanced position when in fact you havent, but have been rejecting any attempt at arriving at a nuanced position by misrepresenting sources and other editors arguments.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 01:27, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I never, ever, misrepresented any source anywhere on Wikipedia. Now you're just lying. Stop that too. --Niemti (talk) 01:51, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, you have when you cited the RaceToTheBottom blog. You left out "Dr. Mann is an eminent historian, teacher and writer at the University of Toledo."; "Dr. Mann’s testimony displayed her very personal, detailed and intimate knowledge of the smallpox epidemic."; "Further, in Dr. Mann’s view, oral history must be treated carefully."; and "Dr. Mann is a repository of minute detail about those events." All of that from the exact page that you cited claiming it proved that she was just a shill for Churchill. The next page on the blog had more - "Professor Mann replied several times that she had not seen primary and secondary sources supporting Professor Churchill’s proposition that smallpox blankets were dispersed to the American Indians."; later explaining that she wasn't saying that they didn't exist, but just that she had not seen the sources. That's a far cry from what you represented the source as stating, and was clear misrepresentation. GregJackP Boomer! 20:39, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I used a pro-Mann source to show how she was publicly defending Churchill's lies (which she did - Consequently, she completely backed up all of Churchill’s claims and refuted the findings of the investigative committee.), and you're still compaining? There are many other sources about this debacle (btw, it seems she's actually English professor, not of history). Also, Churchill's website about Mann about Churchill: http://archived.wardchurchill.net/s17-BarbaraMann.pdf (Ward Churchill is renowned for his leadership in the discipline of Native American Studies, not only in his forthright presentation of Native history, but also for his unflinching review of the lingering effects of European colonialism on North America. Over my several years as a practicing scholar of Native American Studies, I have had countless occasions to note Churchill’s citations. In tracking down points referenced by him, I have always found that what he said was there, was there, exactly where and as he said it was. [...] I am also disturbed by the blatantly racial content of ad hominem attacks I have seen on Churchill. It is bad enough to smear the man, instead of considering his work, but to slur an individual on racial grounds can in no way enhance public discourse. I am old enough to remember Dr. Martin Luther King and the racist vituperation heaped on his head - I guess Martin Luther King was actually just a white man in blackface, then.) --Niemti (talk) 17:14, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Where did she claim it was "true" in that source? She stated that there was a "reasonable basis" for his claims, not that they were true, and when you take her entire testimony in context, she clearly stated that she had not seen the sources. You have misrepresented the source as saying something that it did not say. You also omit to mention that her position was endorsed by the American Association of University Professors (Eron, Don (2012). "Report on the Termination of Ward Churchill" (PDF). AAUP Journal of Academic Freedom. 3 (1): 6. ISSN 2153-8492. Retrieved 1 September 2013. {{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)), or that the Investigating Committee itself stated:

"We do not find academic misconduct with respect to his general claim that the U.S. Army deliberately spread smallpox to Mandan Indians at Fort Clark in 1837, using infected blankets. Early accounts of what was said by Indians involved in that situation and certain native oral traditions provide some basis for that interpretation."(Ibid. at 83.)

In other words, Mann said the exact same thing that the university's committee said as regards the 1837 smallpox incident, but in your eyes, Mann supported "lies" and the committee exposed them? You need to step back and look at this clearly, not from a point of view of discrediting someone with sources that you are misrepresenting. GregJackP Boomer! 17:53, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You're really playing devil's advocate now. Anyway, the historical truth, reality not mere allegations (by Churchill, Mann & co) is that, for example, upwards of 40,000 Indians were vaccinated by the federal government already in the 1820s, as ordered by the Congress (there were also further vaccination programs later). They weren't forced or even asked by anyone (except by their own agencies), not by public opinion (if there was a referendum it probably wouldn't pass), not by international community, not by any conventions (there weren't really any humanitarian laws back then at all, I know), it was just good will towards people who weren't citizens (citizens who also were dying en masse of disease, civilians and soldiers alike - on the scale so great that more Civil War soldiers died of disease than in combat). This was at least well over 5 times more than "7,193 people [who] died from atrocities perpetrated by whites" in documented cases 1511-1890 (when also "9,156 people died from atrocities perpetrated by Native Americans"). Instead some Wikipedia editors here really want to various unproven allegations and rumors - even dishonestly presented as facts - and as "evidence" of what they really want to be genocide. That's really...tiresome. --Niemti (talk) 18:20, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
So far the only one misrepresenting facts and sources is you. Racetothebottom is first, not a reliable source (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_145 see here), and second, doesn't even say what you allege it says. As to your comment on Mann's position as an English professor? So what? Native American Studies is an interdisciplinary field. One of the foremost scholars in the general area was Gretchen Bataille, whose field is literature. She was involved in the general Native American Studies field for years, and was the president of a major university, and no one seems to question her bona fides. GregJackP Boomer! 18:38, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Gretchen Bataille, let's see: okay. Is there anyone else you would recommend? You know, from among all the authors not assocaited with Ward Churchill. --Niemti (talk) 19:01, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Ive seen some stupid and irrelevant argumentum ad googlinem fallacies in my day, but this one takes the price. You may not think you are trolling, but for someone outside of your head it is not easy to see the difference.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 19:06, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Also: So far the only one misrepresenting facts and sources is you. Ah. Explain/defend each of these (samples): (article edit, Mann's allegations of genocidal intent and conspiracy presented as an undisputed fact); your own You have the case of Dr. Marcus Whitman, who poisoned about 200 Cayuse Indians (about the false accusation rumor that led to the Whitman massacre); [things they teach everyone in grade 10? Grade Level: 10th grade U. S. History]. Go. --Niemti (talk) 19:18, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Also, scroll down for more Mann-Maunus extravaganza in another Wikipedia article. --Niemti (talk) 19:57, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I read a little bit of the Mann book about smallpox, and its tone makes it suspect, in that it's breathless, and shrill, rather than neutral and academic in tone. It doesn't just list fact, it reports an opinion and attitude - I haven't found anything in my brief searches that says Mann is other than an academic, or whether or not she is mainstream in her research, approach, or thought process. All of this, to me, calls in to question the use of the source material as reported by Mann. The publisher seems legit, but the slant in the book makes me wonder who vetted this material in the first place, which again makes the author seem less than unbiased in reporting historical fact in a neutral way, and therefore less than trustworthy. JMHO. Hires an editor (talk) 00:39, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I think you will find very few academic authors writing about genocide in a neutral tone, regardless of what side they are on. Your requirement would mean that most literature on colonialism, racism and imperialism wouldnt be considered reliable sources. Stannard 1987 makes the same claim as Mann, and also writes in an accusatory tone, as do most Native Americans scholars writing about the issue such as Vine Deloria. I wonder if Jewish holocaust scholars are also required to write dispassionately about the holocaust to be considered a reliable source? User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 00:43, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You mean, writing like that, for example? It's written in such way I've even seen some reviewer wondering if Littell was just a ghostwriter for a real former SS-mann (once fanatical and now unapologetic). It's a novel, yes, but extremely well researched (see Beevor's opinion in the reception, for example). Oh, and even The Turner Diaries was published by a Jew. And so on. But speaking of Native Americans, and the Choctaws precisely, so why are they not alleging anything likethat anywhere on their website? --Niemti (talk) 00:57, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
If all we have is to evaluate an author's credibility by their tone or the book jacket (which wasn't even made by the author but by a publisher trying to sell books), then we are asking the wrong questions. Was her book published in an academic series on the topic (hence evaluated by at least three academic reviewers)? Yes. Have there been any academic or RS challenges to the research or conclusion? No. Then it gets included. Maybe we decide to add that it is an allegation by a specific scholar (which I said originally), but there has been nothing mentioned at all which would warrant removing the claim entirely from the article. Done.AbstractIllusions (talk) 01:13, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's funny. It took me no time at all to find a source that said that the Hudson Bay company injected strychnine into Whitman's medicine, or that a white man (Rogers) told the tribe that Whitman intended to poison them. GregJackP Boomer! 22:48, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That's funny indeed, because it's not facts. And you "forgot" to link to "a source", which is also funny. There are tens of thousands of books about it, tell me how many contain these allegations, and not as unproven rumors and/or false accusations to incite murder. --Niemti (talk) 09:29, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Are statements by Generals relevant?

An IP removed statements made by a general, stating it was not relevant unless he actually committed genocide. I reverted, since that type of statement proves intent. GregJackP Boomer! 19:06, 5 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Intent of what? Needs examples of actual genocide. Needs context. The words are not serious military commands. It is an alleged remark in response to an Indian. The words could be a joke etc. And may not even be true. It is far too thin to be regarded as concrete evidence of "genocide" or even intent to commit "genocide". It is also synthesis. It is quite simply not important enough. "His approach was encapsulated" is also OR and lacks context. Was his approach genocide, shoot first, being brutal, tough handed etc. It could mean a number of thing not just specific genocidal intent. Your taking his words to heart other than fact the quote is not important enough and not necessarily real.88.104.219.76 (talk) 19:19, 5 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You would find similar styled statements regarding Japanese, Vietnames etc but it really doesn't mean genocidal intent unless in the correct context.Cite error: There are <ref> tags on this page without content in them (see the help page). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.104.219.76 (talk) 19:42, 5 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]


(edit conflict)We don't do revisionist history here.
"The willfully planned and ruthlessly executed destruction of Native American peoples needed its battle slogan, a ready-made catch phrase that could help the perpetrators justify the inhumane treatment of their victims. The proverb that gained currency at the time and that can still be heard today is "The only good Indian is a dead Indian." It was indeed a devilish stroke of genius that created this dangerous slur. Its multisemanticity is grotesque to say the least: on the literal level it justified the actual mass slaughter of Indians by the military, and, on a more figurative level, it promoted the belief that Indians could only be "good" persons if they became Christians and took on the civilization of their white oppressors. Then they might be "good," but as far as their native Indian culture was concerned, they would, in fact, be dead. Be it by physical or spiritual death, Native Americans were doomed victims of perpetrators who acted in the name of manifest destiny while so-called innocent bystanders did nothing to prevent the holocaust of Native Americans." (emphasis added) Mieder, Wolfgang (Winter 1993). ""The Only Good Indian Is a Dead Indian": History and Meaning of a Proverbial Stereotype". The Journal of American Folklore. 106 (419). University of Illinois Press: 38–60. ISSN 0021-8715.
Scholars don't think the words were jokes. We can always do an RfC, but we know how that will come out, don't we? GregJackP Boomer! 19:52, 5 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I was not challenging the existence of atrocities merely the relevance of the specific words. I am not remotely being revisionist.88.104.219.76 (talk) 20:02, 5 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Lewy as reference

I'm concerned that we are using WP:FRINGE material in this article. Lewy is a well-known genocide denier, see Tony Barta, With intent to deny: on colonial intentions and genocide denial, 10 J. of Genocide Research 111 (2008); Norbert Finzsch, If it looks like a duck, if it walks like a duck, if it quacks like a duck, 10 J. of Genocide Research 119 (2008); David Stannard, De ́ja` vu all over again, 10 J. of Genocide Research 127 (2008). We need to pull his material from the article. GregJackP Boomer! 19:32, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Further info on Lewy, cross-posted from Talk:Genocides in history. OK, let's look at these comments on Lewy:

  1. Gypsies (Roma) were not subjected to genocide in World War II, David B. MacDonald, Identity Politics in the Age of Genocide: The Holocaust and Historical Representation 33 (reprint 2007).
  2. Actively "peddles" denial of Armenian genocide. MacDonald, at 128.
  3. "Very much in a class by himself", he denies Armenian genocide, American Indian genocide, and Roma genocide. MacDonald, at 139.
  4. "Controversial revisionist account", Donald W. Beachler, The Genocide Debate: Politicians, Academics, and Victims 142-43 (2011).
  5. "Rejecting its classification as genocide", Bartolomé Clavero, Genocide Or Ethnocide, 1933-2007: How to Make, Unmake, and Remake Law with Words 179, n.200 (2008).
  6. "[T]he denialist position is associated with Lewy. Adam Jones, 137 m.74 (2010).
  7. "Armenian Genocide denier Guenter Lewy (2005) earlier rejected accusations of U.S. war crimes in Vietnam, such as the use of ‘‘free-fire zones,’’", Henry C. Theriault, Genocidal Mutation and the Challenge of Definition 41 Metaphilosophy 481 (2010).

It is fairly clear cut that he is a denier and fringe. GregJackP Boomer! 02:20, 8 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • I dont think Lewy or the denialist position he voices is fringe, it is in fact unfortunately common. The position he voices is that the Jewish holocaust was exceptional in history - this position is mentioned in all summaries of the indigenous genocide debate. The his view is certainly notable and mentioned in many sources that discuss indigenous genocide. It should not receive undue weight of course, but I think it is hard to claim that it does by being mentioned once. User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 18:03, 8 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

RfC: Scope of this article

Closing per request at WP:ANRFC. After about a 1-1/2 months of discussion, consensus was with option B, that the current article should focus on a specific definition of "indigenous peoples" based on international law (and, as mentioned in comments, on academic sources as well). This position was most strongly supported by agreement that the literature uses the term in a narrower sense in relation to discussions of genocide and is therefore the most appropriate way to conceptualize the topic in this article. Alternative Option C proposals that called for various exceptions or removals were not sufficiently supported. I, JethroBT drop me a line 16:58, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

This RfC asks what should be the scope of this article? Should the article either

A. have a broad scope and include all genocides perpetrated against a people on their own home territory so that the genocide against Poles, Rwandans, Croats, Irish, etc. as well as historical acts of genocide such as the Roman genocide against the Carthaginians are included.

or

B. should the scope be narrowly defined to the international legal definition of Indigenous peoples that only include cultural minorities marginalized by colonial expansion or by the establishment of a nation state dominated by another majority ethnic group, excluding those groups who have or have later achieved their own ethnic nation state?

or

C. ?


Survey

Threaded discussion

would cause the article to overlap almost fully with the general article on Genocide only perhaps excluding the Holocaust against Jews in so far as they are considered not to be indigenous to Europe. - What a silly and absurd (again) claim. But let's see. For example, the already mentioned by me above, the WWII genocide of the ethnic Serbs (relatively recent arrivals) in eastern Croatia - by the indigenous Croats (namely the Ustasha). Or, speaking of the Poles, and WWII, the genocide of the Polish colonialist population in Volhynia, at the hands of the indigenous Ukrainians (namely the UON).

Or, speaking of Ukrainians, and Jews, the slaughter of Jews during the Khmelnytsky Uprising - but just maybe, because it's debatale (and I'd also once again tell you the very basics of the subject):

  • "Is there not a difference in nature between Hitler's extermination of three million Polish Jews between 1939 and 1945 because he wanted every Jew dead and the mass murder 1648-49 of 100,000 Polish Jews by General Bogdan Chmielnicki because he wanted to end Polish rule in the Ukraine and was prepared to use Cossack terrorism to kill Jews in the process? The genre of the crime is not contingent on artithmetic; it is intent which differentiates." (Colin Martin Tatz, With Intent to Destroy: Reflections on Genocide)

And yeah, the "sources" saying that even completely accidental and even unavoidable outbreaks of disease among free-living populations were genocidal are complete and utter idiots - or "simple trolls", literally and professionaly. --Niemti (talk) 01:27, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Could you please add an option C to the RfC wording so that people know what you are voting in favor of and so that other people can also choose to support that option?User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 01:32, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
What is it you claim to be an expert in exactly? When you claim that the Hutus and Tutsis are not distinct ethnic groups what are you claiming exactly? YThat the so-called Rwandan genocide cannot be properly called a genocide but a civil war, or ethno-suicide? I don't understand how you would define the scope of this article so please add your formulation of an option C so that the survey becomes "valid" in your eyes.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 01:48, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'd have to think about it in detail, but in another example, Cambodia 1975-79 would probably not be included (even the massacres of the Vietnamese villagers during the incursion into Vietnam were in the "ancient Khmer" lands, or so they said), unless in the case of some still existing pre-Khmer ethnic group, and they were targeting every minority including even the Chinese (China being their ally) so it's actually quite possible. In Poland (pre-war borders): by Germans yes, by Ukrainians not. Croatia 1940s yes, but Bosnia 1990s - not (Serb and Croat presence well predates introduction of Islam to the region, and the Bosniaks are basically the Croats and Serbs who became Muslims). Chechnya-Ingushetia 1944 - absolutely yes, Zanzibar 1963 - probably not. (Some cases are totally obvious, others less so.)

It's not my claim, it's Wikipedia's, and it's you who's holding Wikipedia in such high regard, anyway it was clearly not a case of indigenous people vs invaders/occupiers/colonizers (genocidal violence going either way, colonizers can be on receiving end as well, but it's not a subject of this article) - also the "Rwandans" or rather the Tutsi and Hutu in Rwanda AND other the countries in the region have repeatedly commited genocide against each other (depending who was at power while afraid of the other side prevailing, or angry and seeking revenge), "the" genocide was just the largest one and supposed to be total (locally, not in the region). --Niemti (talk) 02:10, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It seems to me that your proposed definition is so individual to your own personal understanding of what is and isn't genocide and what is and isn't an indigenous people that it is a clear example of OR. Even if it weren't OR or if OR was not prohibited I don't see how a consistent definition of the scope of the article would be possible following your reasoning.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 02:18, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Instead of your personal understanding, like somehow projecting this "Rwandans" silyness on me, or maybe you were just constructing a strawman argument. Btw (User:The Bushranger), the Potato Famine wasn't genocide at all, of course, it was a natural disaster only made worse by criminal neglect and mismanagement that turned it into a humanitarian disaster. (The Great Leap Forward also wasn't genocide.) Good night. --Niemti (talk) 02:39, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I don't have a personal definition. The addition of Rwandans was not an attempt to project anything onto you but a result of your case being incoherently argued so that I had no way of knowing which genocides would or would not qualify according to you. I still don't understand by what criterion you can include Poles and exclude Rwandans - since both groups are indigenous in the sense of living in their ancestral territories. I also don't understand how you can pretend to categorically say what historical events are and aren't genocide when historians and human rights scholars continue to debate so many of those cases.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 05:33, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"Rwandans" (really Hutu and Tutsi tribes in the extended region, consisting of Rwanda, Burundi and DR Congo) are both indigenous to their territories alright, so it's a texbook cse of NOT a case of outsiders-on-natives genocide (possibly except in the case of Congo, where the local Tutsi rebels worked hand-in-hand with the invading Rwandan army and the victims included local Hutu villagers as well as refugees from Rwanda). Do you think I'm being "coherent" enough, yet? And I never even mentioned Rwanda that you somehow chose for constructing your strawman argument by making my position look absurd. I mentioned the Roman Empire's various genocidal actions, the Mongol deluge, and the Hitlerist genocidal policies and long-term plans in the east that were other the Holocaust/Shoah (which was WWII genocide of Jews, nothing more or less). --Niemti (talk) 12:10, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Niemti- I understand your argument and actually think it is strong in many respects. If I were making a list of genocides against indigenous people myself, I'd probably be convinced by most of your cases (I think I might even go along with excluding unintentional acts--but that requires more thought). But there is a definite literature on "Genocide of Indigenous Peoples" that I need to respect first before my own decisions come into play for this article. That literature is quite solid, quite important (directly leading to U.S. and int'l court cases), and has a clear focus of attention (typically those groups identified as indigenous by national or international law). I think we need that literature to be the basis of the article, no matter how much better we could make the examples. Listing cases and finding quotes identifying groups as indigenous does not place an ethnic group in the academic or legal discussion of "Genocide of Indigenous People" and is not convincing to me. What I would find most convincing (short of identifying the groups in the actual literature) would be if you could give me a persuasive answer to: why should we depart from the literature and include other cases in the article which are not within the scope of the primary academic and legal treatment of the subject? AbstractIllusions (talk) 03:05, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
If you understand his argument perhaps you can summarize it for me, because frankly I don't see how it coheres at all. Regarding unintentional acts, there is certainly a debate in the literature about whether they qualify - I see no such debate regarding the Polish or Rwandan genocides. His argument about Hutus and Tutsis not being distinct ethnic groups seems to me to be ethnologically naive and seems to hinge on an misapprehended semi-racialist understanding of what "ethnicity" means. User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 05:39, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I never said about "why should we depart from the literature", when I asked I provided a plenty of sample examples of literature saying the Poles were indigenous to the areas of their unfinished genocide by Germany during WWII (and just anyone can easily find many more, including the use of term "genocide" or "genocidal" about these policies and long-term plans). It was also not limited to the Polish people, or only Poland. Articles about it here on Wikipedia: New Order (Nazism), Generalplan Ost, Racial policy of Nazi Germany, Hunger Plan, Nazi crimes against Soviet POWs, Lebensraum, Planned destruction of Warsaw, and many more. --Niemti (talk) 12:10, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
All fine points. But A. Poles are indigenous, B. Poles are people, and C. Poles suffered genocide does not equal D. 'genocide of indigenous peoples'. I know it might not make logical sense--but the literature has a clear focus (subnational minorities who persist in their unique cultural practices) and the best editing option it seems to me is to follow that literature until the page is more filled. After that, we may decide we want to include genocide of other groups to improve content. But let's get the basics down first, look at the article, then work on what else might be added. AbstractIllusions (talk) 12:46, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
But that same syllogism leads to "Hutus and Tutsis are people, Hutus and Tutsis are indigenous to Rwanda, Hutus and Tutsis suffered genocide", which Niemti denies. This is why I don't see any coherence in his proposed scope, it seems simply he maintains that he by using logical reasoning is able to decide on a case by case basis whether a particular genocide applies, though apparently the reasoning of most experts on the subject contradicts his.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 13:00, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
WTF. I DID SAY THEY DID SUFFER GENOCIDE (very clearly so, even noting that they did it repeatedly, against each other, and not only in Rwanda). I say THEY WERE NOT KILLED BY OUTSIDERS (INVADERS/OCCUPIERS/COLONIZERS). It's like, to compare with individuals, domestic violence, instead of a home invasion (foreign invasion, obviously) or a landlord being murdered by the guy who rented a flat (natives vs newcomers). Why do you keep totally misrepresenting what I say while constructing absurd strawman arguments in order to ridicule my positions? You know what, I can talk for myself. I don't need any more of your bullshit. Stop doing that. You want to counter my sources (and all the others I didn't cite but anyone can find), go and find sources precisely claiming that the Slavs are in fact not indigenous to Eastern Europe (claiming just that, not simply not mentioning that fact) and/or somehow there were no genocidal policies, acts and plans towards them from the invading, occupying and colonising Germans from Germany who took the idea of Drang nach Osten to the extreme (just like they did with antisemitism). --Niemti (talk) 15:12, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You misread me, I say you deny that the syllogism works for the Rwandan case because claim that since both groups are equally indigenous they don't qualify - i.e. you add an additional criterion namely that the perpetrator not be indigenous.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 15:25, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that the article currently has undue weight on Bangladesh, but this will be taken care of during the coming expansion. Regarding disease the article currently includes both viewpoints, as it should. Genocide by disease is not as you claim a fringe viewpoint advanced by Ward Churchill but is supported by other sources such as Stannard and Todorov and mentioned as a possible view in several of the review articles. User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 13:21, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I think Circassian genocide in Russia (19th century) should be included. In addition, Population transfer in the Soviet Union included cleansings of many ethnic minorities noted in article Indigenous people, Operation Lentil (Caucasus) was one of the operations. My very best wishes (talk) 04:27, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The Circassian's are not mentioned in the primary literature on the topic and are not active in the UN Indigenous Peoples forum. So, they shouldn't get included. Other indigenous groups in Russia and the former Soviet Union may deserve inclusion. AbstractIllusions (talk) 13:59, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I looked at a few sources and didn't find mention of the Adyghe/Circassians, but I could be convinced by other sources.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 14:12, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Who is active on UN forum is irrelevant. It only matters what reliable sources tell. Yes, the UN list is one of the sources, and Circassians (for example) appear in article Indigenous people. My very best wishes (talk) 18:40, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Indonesian examples

A less contentious discussion is always good for a talk page. Anyway, I added the content for the two Indonesian examples (West Papua and East Timor). But would just like someone who did more of the meta-construction of the page to comment on the organization to make sure it is the best it can be. The contemporary examples section is organized primarily by Country, the only exception being Irian Jaya/West Papua. Question for comment/help: Should the West Papua and East Timor remain separate or be combined into an 'Indonesia' section? I have no opinion one way or the other--just figured it was a question worthy of some attention. AbstractIllusions (talk) 02:59, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Genocide_of_indigenous_peoples/Archive_2&oldid=1233654617"