Jump to content

Talk:Genocide of indigenous peoples/Archive 6

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1←Archive 4Archive 5Archive 6Archive 7Archive 8

Aligning with historical consensus on Spanish Empire

@C.J Griffin please seek consensus on concerns above as per WP:OWN. There are clear concerns which have not been addressed or engaged with.Harlyn35 (talk) 23:01, 29 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

C.J. Griffin I'm not sure what the editor above is on about. Hoping you can make some sense of it. Lupin VII (talk) 23:06, 29 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

::Lupin VII you can make use of basic courtesy and ask me directly. There is a bunch of archived complaints and provided sources archived in the talk page of this article which have been unaddressed, shut down and ignored in a very WP:OWN fashion. I find it surprising that my edit was reverted within 15 seconds of making it which also smells of a somewhat pathological WP:OWN mindset here. Wikipedia is built on discussion and consensus.Harlyn35 (talk) 23:16, 29 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Harlyn35 Can you at least cite these sources, and discussions? Constantly bleating that your edits are being denied due to an ownership issue while not supplying any links or diffs is getting dangerously close to being considered gaming the system. At least do the courtesy of pinging the editor you're claiming has an ownership issue so it can be worked out. (talk) 00:21, 30 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The onus is on those seeking to remove notable and reliably sourced materials to find consensus to do so. Claims of WP:OWN are groundless, as there were multiple editors in that discussion and only one was in favor of removing sourced materials, largely because the editor didn't agree with what the sources say, so there was no consensus to remove the material in question, quite the opposite in fact. That particular editor had a habit of posting walls of irrelevant text and often didn't cite reliable sources to back up his claims. Not only that, but the material you removed wasn't even part of the discussion. Not only that, but I see you didn't question the source you removed, obviously because of its reliability and notability, including coverage in mainstream media such as The Los Angeles Times, which is cited in the article. Your deletions appear to me to be a case of WP:IDONTLIKEIT.--C.J. Griffin (talk) 04:37, 30 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

::Its not an issue of WP:IDONTLIKEIT the issue is that there is a historical consensus is that the overwhelming majority of deaths in Spanish territories was from disease. If you can point to a specific instance of genocide in Spanish America, then we should include it. If you can't you can't just say Spaniards committed a genocide of "millions". They quite simply didn't. If there is none but a general condemnation of the Spanish America and speculations on "millions of deaths" due to "genocide" by a professor from Hawaii, then it should not be included. Genocides generally involve historical records of mass murder. They exist in the Americas by the hundreds. Just predominantly outside Spanish territories. If we have an article on a specific genocide of X people - lets include it. We simply need to find it. You can chose the cut-off for genocide yourself - 50 people, 100 people whatever. Just keep it consistent. We can start with the Jaragua massacre of 1503 for example. We can also include the Acoma massacre of 1599. There you go. I'm giving you examples of massacres committed by Spaniards. So that you don't accuse me of bias. If we have a generalized condemnation of Spanish American "genocide" with no examples and silence on the (ethnically cleansed and very white) English-speaking world then we evidently have extreme bias in the article. Harlyn35 (talk) 14:45, 30 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This is an attempt to exclude scholarship that you don't agree with based on the false assertion that what they say isn't true. This is kind of the point of scholarship, to challenge consensus if new evidence comes to light. There are actually several scholars cited in the text, not just "a professor from Hawaii". (Your arguments mirror those of the editor in the archived discussion, which I find interesting). And I have yet to see any sources produced that assert your view is the definitive consensus view, and others should be marginalized and excluded.--C.J. Griffin (talk) 17:45, 30 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

::::: The article does not reflect historical consensus and the vast body of which it is composed. Until it does, it is suffering from false bias between WP:FRINGE views and mainstream ones. The idea that the Spanish empire involved genocide (as per the definition of the term) is a fringe view. Harlyn35 (talk) 13:08, 3 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

These are not fringe views, but the scholarship of notable academics whose works are published by mainstream or academic publishing houses. And you have yet to provide evidence to back up your claims. But as of now this is largely moot, as there is clearly no consensus to remove reliably sourced material.--C.J. Griffin (talk) 13:17, 3 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Its not about removing material. We can keep this fringe view as long as the vast body of opposing views are also included. No issue for me including them one by one. I'll start compiling them and add them over the next few days. Harlyn35 (talk) 13:45, 3 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed in this edit you added a line ("The encomienda system...") but did not add a source. That line is not supported by the inline citation. Please provide sources for all additions. It is not acceptable to add or modify content and present it as coming from a pre-existing reference which does not verify it. This is particularly problematic when it is done to push a POV, such as you did here. Hrodvarsson (talk) 02:02, 4 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

:Hrodvarsson It links to an entire article on the abolition of the encomienda. You want it in a separate sentence to avoid confusion. I am not pushing a "POV". Saying World War II ended in 1945 in an article on the holocaust is not pushing a pov. Its just basic historical facts which should be mentioned here. Harlyn35 (talk) 20:07, 4 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Harlyn35: Wikipedia is not a reliable source, so linking to a Wikipedia article is not a suitable reference, see WP:WINARS and WP:CIRC. In the second diff I linked above you contradicted the source, thus adding unsourced POV. Please read WP:NPOV and WP:V. Also read WP:COPYWITHIN as you copied material, including a reference to a comic book website, from scalping without stating so. That paragraph is also of dubious relevance to this article, as it does not discuss genocide. Hrodvarsson (talk) 22:48, 5 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
You are absolutely POV-pushing and have been called out several times for your reverts and edits. Your arguments and editing style are very similar to User:Filologo2 (in the archived discussion mentioned above) to the point I'm wondering of you two are the same person.--C.J. Griffin (talk) 22:54, 5 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

:::I am POV Pushing? What is the definition of the Black Legend, C.J. Griffin? Is it, as you seem to be trying to push here a "description" of Spanish atrocities in the Americas? Let me know the exact definition of the concept, according to you. Give me a sourced answer. Harlyn35 (talk) 16:21, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I merely restored neutral language that has been present in the article for some time, and not language that I added originally. You've already been reverted by other editors for removing this NPOV wording and adding blatant POV. You are POV pushing, and apparently you have been doing this for some time, as there is an SPI case on you. I was made aware of this after I questioned whether or not you and User:Filologo2 are the same individual, as you make the exact same arguments and have a similar editing style.--C.J. Griffin (talk) 16:28, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

:::::Do not evade the question nor try to divert it to personal attacks, C.J. Griffin. What is your definition of Black Legend. What is your source? Is it neutral language to claim the Black Legend is a "description" of Spanish atrocities?Harlyn35 (talk) 16:40, 6 October 2019 (UTC) I rolled back the article to an earlier version prior to the additions of Harlyn35, who has been blocked as a suspected sock. If I erased another editors contributions in this action please restore them.--C.J. Griffin (talk) 05:24, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

And I've struck through their edits. Doug Weller talk 11:28, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks!--C.J. Griffin (talk) 12:25, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I find it interesting that an anonymous IP with only one edit has reverted my deletion of the contributions by suspected sock puppet Harlyn35 who is now banned. I suspect this is the banned editor in question restoring his own edits but I can't confirm this. Should these additions by a banned suspected sock puppet be restored ? I'll leave it here for discussion and not revert back to the previous version where the banned editors additions were removed.--C.J. Griffin (talk) 14:01, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Article might need semi-protection. Another anonymous IP has restored the edits after another editor removed them.--C.J. Griffin (talk) 16:39, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I've removed this again. I understand there's a debate here, but the text gives the impression that Stannard's work is widely criticized. That characterization doesn't seem supported by the sources cited. Nblund talk 17:33, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nblund Stannard's work has been criticized by historians of weight according to the sourced text. I am fine with removing the term "widely" although that is what it says in the source itself, by what I see. If removing the term "widely" leads to a stable version, then no issue. But it is a lot of sources to remove over one adjective. 176.85.220.159 (talk) 17:42, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
There's really a bunch of additional problems here. The text cites John Elliot (a disambiguation page), but the author of the linked source is someone totally different. The paragraph about the estimates of pre-Columbian populations is not supported by a source at all. The content, taken as a whole, is not consistent with the citations, and it appears to be heavily slanted toward the POV of the disruptive editor who wrote it. Nblund talk 17:57, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

cocoliztli

Cocliztli should possibly have a subsection here, since it may have involved millions of deaths. It also is a separate event from the initial smallpox empidemic. Perhaps sensible to separate in two sub-sections on Caribbean conquest and the subsequent expansion into Mexico to avoid confusing two different periods. 83.41.122.35 (talk) 17:56, 31 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You are combining sources to form a synthesis which is not allowed here. Forsythe did not list Cocoliztli as a European disease spread by European contact. Nobody is completely certain what it was. Binksternet (talk) 17:19, 2 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Understood. I have left out any reference to the cocolitzli for now and simply moved the initial sentence on the millions who died to a new sub-section stub on demographic collapse. The logic is not conflating the Caribbean with Mexico/Peru since they were two very different time-periods.83.41.122.35 (talk) 19:56, 2 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 10:08, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Aren't all genocide victims indigenous?

I think most genocides that have occurred have always involved people who were indigenous to the land. But that is not how the term is used in scholarly works. The chapter on "Genocides of Indigenous People's"in this book only categorizes the genocides in Americas and Australia as such. I would propose defining this article more narrowly so it doesn't become a catch all.VR talk 14:48, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Bias in the article

There is clearly a favorable bias if the perpetrators of the genocides are Anglo-saxon in origin, lets look at two descriptions, one for the Spanish empire, the other for the British empire:

About Spanish colonization:

"It is estimated that during the initial Spanish conquest of the Americas up to eight million indigenous people died, primarily through the spread of Afro-Eurasian diseases.,[30] in a series of events that have been described as the first large-scale act of genocide of the modern era.[31]"

About British colonization:

"In places like the United States, Australia, New Zealand, and Canada, settler colonialism was carried out by the British.Foreign land viewed as attractive for settlement was declared as terra nullius or "nobody's land"...Widespread population decline occurred following conquest principally from introduction of infectious disease."

The same fact is called the first large-scale act of genocide for ones and just a cause of "widespread population decline" for others. This article needs clearly a much more neutral approach, with facts and evidence treated equal independently of the perpetrator. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.188.142.2 (talk) 14:13, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Our content is determined by what the reliable sources that we summarise say. Are there reliable sources that have describe the settler colonialism as genocide? I don't know the answer to that question; if there are, we could consider adding something about it. GirthSummit (blether) 14:21, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Absolutely there are. From historian David Stannard's American Holocaust in 1992, already cited on the page, to historian Jeff Ostler's Surviving Genocide just last year. I agree with the original commenter that this needs to be changed. Settler Colonialism that allowed for the U.S. to form was based on the genocide of Indigenous Peoples, and there are also many scholarly articles that argue, convincingly in my opinion, that the disease settlers brought with them was a tool of that genocide. The conditions that Native peoples were forced to live in through forced removal, relocation, death marches (there were multiple trails of tears), away from their medicines, potable water, food sources, etc. allowed disease to spread much more rapidly and easily. Essentially, the scholarship is there to show that settler colonialism in North America, in many, many ways, was and is genocidal.--Hobomok (talk) 18:52, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Genocides in Western Asia

Should we add genocides that occurred in Western Asia (i.e. Armenian, Assyrian, Greek, etc) genocides?2605:6000:1526:450B:5515:50D1:5E9F:1DF9 (talk) 03:29, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

They already have their own articles and are part of the larger "genocide" series. I don't think it is sufficiently related to this particular niche.DivineReality (talk) 22:51, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sami Genocide

Can someone add a section to this article on the genocide of the Sami people in Norway, Denmark, and Sweden? DivineReality (talk) 22:52, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Genocides everywhere

This article has become a kind of repository for anyone with a political agenda anywhere in the world to accuse X of genocide with very weak sources. Anyone who points this out is accused of being a sock. There was no "genocide" in the Chittagong hill tracks of Bangladesh, there was no genocide in Xinjiang and there was no genocide in Tibet. "Genocide" is a loaded word and everyone wants to have it as a political weapon for their cause.

The term genocide should be reserved for actual genocides otherwise the term loses its meaning and is insulting to people who suffered it. In the Chittagong hill tracks conflict 757 Bengali and 795 indigenous civilians (mostly Chakma) lost their lives. Where on earth is the genocide? What is going on here?? 95.122.136.229 (talk) 08:29, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Edit warring and improper accusations

Hobomok, Php2000 and the IP editor/s, can I ask that you use this talk page to discuss your issues here? IP editor, I cannot see an edit summary where Hobomok says you reverted them at all, let alone where they are referring to a revert by you of Php2000. To allege socking is a serious accusation, and can be considered a WP:PA if not accompanied by evidence; even with evidence, it should be made at WP:SPI, not in an edit summary at an article. Please either retract it, or provide evidence at the proper venue. GirthSummit (blether) 16:06, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

GirthSummit I think you are mistaking me with another editor. I have not been involved in this article. Php2000 (talk) 16:54, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Php2000, erm - the article's history, and your contributions history, indicate that you edited this article yesterday. GirthSummit (blether) 18:18, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
GirthSummit Aha I see I have one edit on this article I barely recall making. No need to drag me into this, though! --Php2000 (talk) 18:39, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Php2000, you made two edits, removing about 8,000 bytes of content, yesterday. You dragged yourself into this, if you are going to make significant changes you should be willing to discuss them. GirthSummit (blether) 19:11, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
GirthSummit I did not respond when my edits were reverted hence I am not involved in an edit conflict on this article.Php2000 (talk) 19:41, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Php2000, you reverted someone else's edits, so you were involved in a dispute. If you choose to disengage at this point, that's absolutely fine. Best GirthSummit (blether) 19:59, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
GirthSummit I'm not going to say anything about these other editors--I do not know their motivations nor do I know them. I edit from this account and this account only, and accusations of socking are ridiculous.
Here is what I've done, past and present, on the issues of settler-colonialism and Indigenous genocide on Wikipedia as a whole and this page specifically (although ip user claims I have not made any edits to this page previously, which is false), which are reflected in my edit history and this page's edit history:
  1. Edited Yazoo lands r/t Indigenous genocide on 12 February 2019
  2. Edited Last of the Mohicans to include scholarly studies r/t Indigenous genocide and settler colonialism on 27 July 2019 (I've edited this page since then with context and sources r/t settler colonialism and Indigenous genocide, although the ip user first began editing the page recently)
  3. Edited Anthropocene r/t Indigenous genocide and colonization of the Americas multiple times, but most recently on 16 September 2020
  4. Edited this page first on 24 August 2020 r/t the section on "'Extermination' of the Pequot." I've also been active on this talk page previously in the "Bias in the article" section, where you'll see that I made suggestions about large additions instead of just deciding to make large additions to the article
Re my most recent edits that the ip user is referencing to accuse socking, here are the changes I made:
  1. 03:52, 26 October 2020: Separate ip address eliminated a previously written section in Spanish colonization subheading regarding relation between Indigenous genocide and natural resource extraction. This was an unnecessary deletion of long-standing material, and Indigenous genocide in South America goes hand-in-hand with extractivism, per the source that was cited. It was an unnecessary removal that I reverted.
  2. 03:53, 26 October 2020: Removed unnecessary qualifier: ip address making accusations added "widely" to "Genocide debate section." This is an unnecessary adverb, so I removed it.
  3. 03:57, 26 October 2020: Removed section sourced from the news source "Byline Times." This is not WP:RS.
  4. 04:02, 26 October 2020: This edit was a mistake--my visual editor was showing that the linked sources were sources elsewhere in the article and did not belong where they were. I was simply trying to clean up sources on new material, and at no point did I wholesale revert these edits aside from removing the "Byline times" source.
I apologize for the final edit, but to make the accusation that it is edit-warring and socking is a huge leap, and pretty contentious behavior from the ip user just because I was copyediting new additions to the article. Massive additions to the article (ip address) and major reverting of them (Php2000) may indeed fall under the umbrella of the edit warring and belong on the talk page before they appear on the main page, but I had no place in those interactions nor do I know either editor. Also, at no point did I claim that revisions were reverted, which the ip user is also accusing me of.
I'll see myself out now. Hobomok (talk) 20:03, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I am sorry, I wasn't aware accusing of socking counts as a personal attack, I thought that only includes insults like name calling and all, anyway won't do again, just a suspicion. Php2000 did indeed make destructive edits, whitewashing/blanking well sourced and reliable and accurate contents that fits the genocidal definition of the article (and you can see his talk page history, he received multiple warnings for such behavior), and I apologize to Hobomok whose edits were however good faith, but nowhere is Byline Times listed an unreliable source, it is a reliable newspaper, not some unreliable blog or anything, it for its WP:RS, I think the current version of the article is the best. Peace. 103.230.107.8 (talk) 22:53, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
What are you on about, Anonymous IP? I have only edited this article once, I have not received any warnings nor interacted with anyone. Please open an account if you are going to edit wikipedia and stop tagging me. Php2000 (talk) 23:08, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
IP user, you'll see that I once again added resource extraction to Spanish Colonization of the Americas, which was removed by another anonymous IP in the middle of this whole debacle, so it's not between you and me. Please do not change it again without some sort of conversation on this talk page, as it was a long-standing piece of the article. I'm not touching the use of unnecessary qualifier "widely" in "Genocide Debate" section, the nature of Byline Times trustworthiness, nor the broken links in the Uyghur Genocide section that IP user added. Another editor can do that if they wish, because I'm refusing to engage in an unnecessary edit war. Hobomok (talk) 23:37, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Resource extraction is going on right now everywhere in the world. Its central to the world economy and has no moral implications. 95.122.136.229 (talk) 08:29, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
If you want to dispute that, create a new section. Chances are it's going on around the world because most of the world, and its economies, was/were built on colonialism which is often inherently genocidal. To think extractivism has no moral implications is either incredibly dense or willfully ignorant. There is a LARGE swath of research that disagrees with you (SEE: Macarena Gomez-Barris, Nick Estes, Kyle Powys Whyte, etc.). However, based on the number of recent edits you've made to multiple sections of this page, I don't really think any research or work matters to you. Hobomok (talk) 15:42, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

My edits on Bangladesh and them being reverted

I find all of this odd because I'm pretty sure User:Materialscientist is not a 15 year old Bangladeshi nationalist but alas, my attempts at fixing this article have been reverted - twice.

The section refers to the Chittagong_Hill_Tracts_conflict which was not a genocide on either side. It was a very low level insurgency with few civilian casualties. However we have it as a major "genocide" with language such as "bhuddist terrorist separatists". This has been written by god-knows-who but not by someone who is trying to make wikipedia better. The worst thing is that there is no mention of the actual genocide in Bangladesh which occurred in 1971 and has a very extensive wikipedia article here: 1971 Bangladesh genocide. I assume at some point someone deleted the section in replaced it with this nonsense. And NO ONE noticed.

Technically I am fixing what is very blatant vandalism which no one has picked up on here - and I don't use the word lightly. A lot of activity on this talk page, a lot of accusations flying around but no one focusing on the serious issues. If you are not capable of doing so, I suggest unfollowing this article and leaving it to people who have a basic grasp of world history.

It's as if someone referred to the Troubles in the mid 20th century as the Irish genocide or the Basque conflict as the Basque genocide or the Italian mafia as the "Sicilian genocide". Yes, its that ridiculous. Please, someone sane or educated should intervene here. 95.122.136.229 (talk) 10:49, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If there are WP:RS which states its a genocide should stay though, but I never heard major international organizations like the UN or Amnesty International calling it a genocide. 95.122.136.229, and its Wikipedia policy. 103.230.106.29 (talk) 10:58, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Aha! It seems our Bengali teenager has appeared! I knew you were somewhere. 95.122.136.229 (talk) 11:36, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Your attempts to fix this article are not specific to the section on Bangladesh. You've made sweeping edits to the section on the colonization of Spain and America, re: natural resource extraction in Spain (see above), using one historian's interview to call into question genocide during early colonization there, and reverting previous edits about the attempted extermination of the Pequot in the Northeast corner of North America. The people reverting these edits are not South or North American teenagers, I am sure. If someone disagrees with you here, and in your case it is multiple editors, that does not necessarily mean they have some bias against you or against what you're writing. However, the contentious way you've gone about editing multiple sections of this page isn't helpful whatsoever. It's unclear why you're trying to make so many changes to so many different sections of this page. Hobomok (talk) 16:09, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hobomok please do not delete sourced statements from this article. Especially from historians as well known as Henry Kamen, one of the world's most respected historians on Latin American colonial history.95.122.136.229 (talk) 19:01, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hobomok I understand you probably are quite young, or possibly new to Wikipedia, but just because you disagree with Henry Kamen doesn't mean you can censor him on wikipedia. I am afraid that your personal opinions do not take precendence over historians. That is how wikipedia works. Sorry if this causes some kind of cognitive dissonance but that's just how this project works. --95.122.136.229 (talk) 19:05, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not going to wade into the mire of personal attacks here. I do hope that another editor will intervene here or revert the edit(s) you continue to make, as I'm not going to engage in an edit war with you. What I will say (again) is that you've been active on this page for about a week, from the section on Bangladesh to North America to Spanish colonization of South and Central America. A short, three question interview with a historian on the subject of genocide does not make a noteworthy source or quote, in my opinion, especially compared to the other sources on this page (Stannard above him, for example). The substance of the source you introduced especially comes into question for me when this exchange takes place:
(Interviewer): "Is there really something that can be called genocide in America?" (Kamen): "From one point of view, the word "genocide" has no meaning or justification. There was no intention, on the part of the colonizers, to eliminate the indigenous population, so the word is totally inappropriate, because it is not about massacres but other factors such as epidemics intervene."
First of all, the colonizers absolutely intended to eliminate the Indigenous peoples there, whether through spectacular violence or through generational assimilation and cultural erasure. That it hinges on the virgin soil argument, which hinges on inadvertent introduction of new disease, is even worse, as that concept has seen an influx of research contradicting its main claims in the years before and following this interview, so while Mr. Kamen's written a lot of books, he may want to check the most recent literature. For example, from historian Jeff Ostler:
"The timing of disease and its intersection with other forces of destruction varied from region to region within the Americas. In what became the southeastern United States, as historian Paul Kelton has shown, Ponce de León’s 1513 expedition and subsequent Spanish explorations did not introduce new diseases into the region, though disruptions from these expeditions created conditions for already existing pathogens like syphilis and yaws to spread. It was not until the late seventeenth century that the classic killer smallpox appeared. When it did its spread was closely connected to the British colonial project of exploiting existing indigenous practices of captive taking to create markets both for slaves outside Indian country and for European goods (manufacturers, alcohol, clothing) within it. The slave trade directly contributed to the depopulation of many Indian communities, but its most damaging consequence was the creation of conditions for the transmission of epidemic disease. When smallpox broke out in Virginia in 1696 it spread rapidly along networks of human contact that had been shaped by violence, deracination, and deprivation, destroying Indian communities from the Carolinas to the Gulf Coast and up the Mississippi River to Illinois. It was only now, two hundred years after the first European set foot in the Southeast, that Native populations experienced the catastrophic population declines usually associated with initial contact epidemics. As in the Caribbean, when smallpox struck, it was a consequence of European economic pursuits." (Ostler, and Paul Kelton, whom Ostler draws from for that section of the paper.
Your introduction of a three question interview with a historian who continues a tired narrative that other historians are currently writing against, in peer reviewed material that I've cited and has been cited in the article above your addition, alongside your multiple edit wars over the last few days, and your contentious engagement with other editors on this talk page, really makes me question your motives here. Regarding your above argument that "Genocide" is being overused on this page, I provide two more sources, one from Ostler and one from historian Ben Kiernan. I do hope that another editor steps into this debate in order to remove the Kamen quote that doesn't hold up to the sources preceding it in the article or the section of the article it has been placed in. I also hope that another editor steps into this talk page in general, because these debates are quickly becoming antagonistic and superfluous.Hobomok (talk) 20:44, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hobomok Look, its fine. You can add Ostler, Kiernan and Kelton (even if they are pretty lightweight and obscure individuals from third rate institutions in the Midwest). There is a relevant section for them in this article called Indigenous peoples of the Americas (pre-1948) (i.e. the main body of section 2). Just don't delete a statement from a world class historian like Henry Kamen because you disagree with him and find his views "tired" . This is a very overt expression of simply not liking his point of view and contrary to Wikipedia rules.
Remember, also when dealing with specific events which may or may not be considered genocide, they should have their own subheading. An entire empire (be it the British, the French, the Spanish or the Ottoman, should generally not be referred to as "genocidal" in nature, since this is not supported by any serious academic of the 21st century. Specific occurrences should be referred to with subheadings naming the genocides. Incidentally, I suggest you read the changes I have made to the Bangladesh genocide section. You might understand why it was so outrageous. --95.122.136.229 (talk) 21:07, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Two of the professors are endowed chairs, one at Yale, another in the Pacific Northwest. At any rate, I'm not going to argue with you about other peoples' qualifications. This isn't constructive or productive, and if you want to continue to edit-war after multiple people have reverted your edits, and no one else steps in, I'm going to go to a third party/arbitration. If it continues and I do, I'll let you know on your talk page.Hobomok (talk) 21:24, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Arbitration is fine with me if its about whether it is correct for you to delete a sourced statement by a historian because you consider his arguments "tired". Again I am not stopping you from adding more sourced material, regardless of whether I agree with it or not. That's how things are. We need to be accept diversity of opinion rather than rule whose opinion is worthy based on our own views and prejudices. If you want I'll open an account for this purpose. 95.122.136.229 (talk) 22:13, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
More than anything else I've taken umbrage with you taking it upon yourself to decide that this whole page needs to be redone, and then doing so over the course of three days, and further, not listening to any other editors when they tell you to take additions to the talk page. Following that, your dismissive and condescending attitude on the talk page isn't helpful or constructive. Your addition of Kamen (in a three question interview, not a peer-reviewed source or book), for example, was simply posted with no talk page discussion, as are a lot of your other edits. That's not how any of this is supposed to be done, as many editors have told you upon reverting your edits. Again, I'm waiting for someone else to weigh-in here, because you've been doing this for three days now.Hobomok (talk) 22:46, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I am actually siding with 95.122.136.229 on this one, by claiming that the user is "not listening to everyone" Hobomok is only describing himself, I have yet to see anyone else disagree to the changes that that editor has made and the edits comply with WP:RS and I fully agree the Chittagong Hill Tracts conflict cannot be classified as a genocide, no WP:RS states so, it was a guerrilla warfare with equal casualty on both side that ended with a peace treaty on 2nd December 1997, no different from the Sri Lankan Civil War involving the Sei Lankan Army and the ethnic Tamil warriors. On the other hand the 1971 Bangladesh genocide which is universally agreed with countless WP:RS was not included, and 95.122.136.229 just added it, and I myself added the Genocide of Yazidis by ISIL. If anyone is acting like owning the article its Hobomok, telling other editors that other editors do not agree with them, when he is the only one disagreeing, he does not speak on behalf of anyone, and its not WP:OR or personal views that should guide an article, its WP:RS which we are doing. I have seen Hobomok make a lot of amazing edits here and I really respect him, he has an experienced year of 3 years, but please do not say that others are not agreeing with someone else when you are the only one who disagrees. Thank you. 103.230.105.49 (talk) 23:39, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
New anonymous ip, please check the edit history of this main article and you will see what I am talking about. I am not wading into discussion of the Bangladesh Genocide. I have no expertise in this area. Go back three days and look at the other edits, revisions, and reversions and you'll see what I'm talking about. Since I have no knowledge about genocide in this area, I am not discussing it nor am I wading into discussion of it. I am instead talking about genocide in the Americas and other anonymous ip's edits to those sections over the last three days. I'm not going to discuss tone or personal attacks any further. Hobomok (talk) 23:53, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hobomok Oh i am not aware of the changes he made on genocide in the Americas, if thats what you are discussing about, please pardon me, good day to all parties involved, am out (btw my ip is dynamic, but its always in 103 range geolocated to BD). Thanks. 103.230.106.59 (talk) 00:28, 29 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
You see Hobomok I also dislike citations here such as Clifford Trafzer, just under Kamen's. Did you see me delete it? He is a Museum curator for the Arizona Historical Society who graduated from North Arizona University and earned a PhD in "American History" from Oklahoma State. I'm going to sound a little elitist here, but his opinion is as valid as my gardener's. Yet I accept Wikipedia elevating him to an expert on Latin American history on the level of John Lynch, Raymond Carr, Henry Kamen or Stanley Payne.
For the sake of not being confrontational, I don't try to fight the mediocre and ignorant quarters of the US littering wikipedia by deleting such awful sources. I accept that the project is inherently flawed and such people cannot be censored unless with a very good reason. You should do likewise with high-level academics. A citation from Kamen in a major newspaper directly addressing the issue does not need to be "peer-reviewed". This is a very contrived attempt to find a reason to get rid of a source which you have openly expressed you dislike because it runs contrary to your personal opinion. This means openly violating Wikipedia policy. 95.122.136.229 (talk) 12:52, 29 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Restoring Clifford Trafzer's Verified Status on Spanish Colonization Section

Recently the veracity of a paraphrased source has been called into question. I provide two quotes here from Clifford Trafzer's Exterminate Them! in order to show its introduction is indeed paraphrased correctly:

A brief overview on page five: "In order to fortify that region from Russian control, Galvez dispatched a major expedition in 1769 led by Gaspar de Portola and Father Junipero Serra. The priest set out to establish Catholic missions throughout upper California and convert the Indians to Christianity. He brought religious materials to achieve those ends as well as seeds and vegetables to instruct the Native Americans regarding European agricultural methods. Although Serra and other priests may have possessed what they considered to be honorable intentions in converting the Indians to Christianity, their presence introduced devastating diseases, widespread despair, and genocide among California's native peoples."

Further on page six: "Spaniards never intended for California's Indian people to be equals to Spaniards born in Spain or Mexico. They were not even to be equals with mestizos. California's Indians were seen as a labor force within and outside of the mission system. They were to be the laborers who would allow Spain to reshape California into a bulwark against intrusion by other European powers. Spain sought to accomplish this by founding missions, presidios, and pueblos. These three institutions set in motion Indian cultural decline and resulted in the physical demise of at least one hundred thousand California Native Americans-perhaps more." The introduction goes into further detail, but I won't expand. That said, I've removed the verification tag, and I'm not sure why it was added in the first place.

In light of removed verification tag, perhaps another source about the violence of missionization in contemporary California should be added? Maybe Deborah A. Miranda's Bad Indians: A Tribal Memoir? --Hobomok (talk) 00:16, 5 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

My mistake. I removed tag. Frijolesconqueso (talk) 00:24, 5 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Frijolesconqueso No problem at all--we all make mistakes! Hobomok (talk) 00:26, 5 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Where is Irish genocide?

I'm surprised there is no reference to the Potato famine which a number of authors certainly consider genocide committed against the native people of Ireland. Alexanderderek (talk) 11:38, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Unless anyone disagrees, I will add a section on the Irish genocide since multiple sources refer to it as genocide and they are a people indigenous to Ireland.Alexanderderek (talk) 12:11, 19 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
There already is a short bit on it near the end of the British Empire (pre-1945) section, and it's covered in quite a bit of detail at Great Famine (Ireland)#Genocide question. Be mindful that the idea that the potato famine was a genocide is not a majority view (see WP:WEIGHT). Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 16:37, 19 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 16:32, 20 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Why No Section Regarding Genocide Before Europeans Arrived In The Americas?

Don't you think it is rather disingenuous to have a section regarding the European conquest of the Americas without discussing the rampant genocide that occurred with regard to warring factions of existing tribes over other tribes, those tribes either being more peaceful, or in some cases also warring but not nearly as strong? Hopefully the reason isn't because someone feels that wars between different indian tribes don't amount to genocide because both are "indigenous", it should be reminded that most tribes came from somewhere else, at what point do you regard the time frame to what they are "indigenous" or "invading", especially with regard to moving into an area they are simply not indigenous to?

The Americas before Europeans arrived was just as deadly, if not more so, for many tribes that existed. It would go a long way to providing an honest and accurate portrayal of the Americas before Europeans got there. But of course this doesn't fit much of the current "narrative" with regard to revisionist history, now does it?2600:8804:80:2280:65B8:FBB:7AF:9A3A (talk) 03:34, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

New additions under Canada sub-heading

Hello all, I am just adding some context and examples and pictures under the Canada sub-heading. Aefmra (talk) 18:04, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, why adding birth rate facts in China under China/Uyghur section was reverted

I recently tried to add some additional birth rate facts under China/Uyghur section, where birth rate drop of around 30% in 2018 is used as a reason of genocide against Uyghur (the birth rate numbers come from Chinese government, and CNN news got confirmation from Chinese government). However, the change was reverted for Original Research reason. However, I provided links to the birth rate numbers in 2017 and 2018, which are the original Chinese government’s statistics.

The fact is the birth rates dropped in many provinces in China in 2018. Certain province like Shandong even saw 24% drop. The province consists mainly of ethnic Han people (the dominant ethnic group in China). If there was genocide against Uyghur based on birth rate drop, by the same reasoning, there was also genocide against Han group in the same year? The sources of the birth rates are the same so if we trust CNN’s number (actually based on Chinese government’s numbers), we should also trust the numbers from the Chinese government.

In summary, there could be potentially different explanations on the birth rates drop in China. But the additional facts need to be listed so people can make their own judgement. We don’t want biased facts to mislead people.

For reference, here is the 2017 birth rates for different provinces, in Chinese: [1]

Here is the 2018 birth rates for different provinces, in Chinese:

[2]

TheRockWiki (talk) 03:38, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I would recommend also providing the CNN report in addition to the Chinese Govt.‘s report—how is it treated in the CNN piece you reference? For context, here is how birthrates you mention are treated by the Associated press (the piece concentrates on decline over a number of years, not just 2017/2018): https://apnews.com/article/269b3de1af34e17c1941a514f78d764c . —Hobomok (talk) 15:33, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ http://www.stats.gov.cn/tjsj/ndsj/2018/html/CH0208.jpg
  2. ^ http://www.stats.gov.cn/tjsj/ndsj/2019/html/C0210.jpg

Protected edit request on 16 April 2021

You have mentioned that 'encyclopedic content must be verifiable' yet this article contains example of genocide to Uyghurs by Chinese government, which statement is not verifiable. Please delete the example for the sake of Wikipedia's own reputation 114.5.110.3 (talk) 07:10, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done those statements have multiple references already, can you expand upon what part of those statements you do not think are supported by those references? — xaosflux Talk 17:46, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Canada genocide

@Moxy: You don't think that the fact that the first Prime Minister (government top figure, and official authority) promoted residential schools and cultural genocide, deserves a mention in the section about the second largest country on Earth by area?

This is what you deleted with no discussion:

The first prime minister of Canada John A. Macdonald has come under criticism for federal policies towards Indigenous peoples, including his actions during the North-West Rebellion and the development of the residential school system designed to assimilate Indigenous children. Magonz (talk) 13:17, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

An article about genocide should mention him? why?.--Moxy- 01:57, 26 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Moxy: Read above, that is why. Lesser actors in the history of genocide are mentioned throughout the article. Are you going to delete those mentions too?Magonz (talk) 13:22, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Title of article to be plural "Genocides" not "Genocide", and should be indigenous "nations", not indigenous "peoples"

There were a series of genocides of different indigenous nations over centuries, not a single genocide. Thus the article should be named Genocides of indigenous peoples (plural). Suppose for example that in Asia there were a number of genocides. We would not call it genocide of Asian people. The genocides took place in different centuries, to different indigenous groups or nations, in different parts of the world. There is no single Asia. There is no single 'indigenous peoples'. Magonz (talk) 22:06, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The article is clear on the points you made and the title does not imply differently. The plural form would be awkward in the title. These things are clear to readers if they read the article and not just the title and first line. Fettlemap (talk) 02:26, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
David Stannard the author of 'American Holocaust' has publicly stated in numerous occasions that he should have named his book American Holocausts (plural). (See his Youtube lecture titled 'American Holocaust: The Destruction of America's Native Peoples' minute 95:40) Perhaps the editors should listen to a published expert on the topic.Magonz (talk) 12:12, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
We would not call it genocide of Asian people We would, actually. And note that Stannard's subtitle is not "The Destructions ..." -- not that his personal view of what he should have called his book is relevant to matters of grammar at Wikipedia. -- Jibal (talk) 18:11, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
This is not a question of grammar or spelling. It is a question of meaning. There were many indigenous distinct nations. There were multiple genocides. Not singular. Plural. Sigh. Magonz (talk) 20:23, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
In any case, Stannard's personal view of what he should have called his book is not relevant to what title should be used for this Wikipedia article. Invoking Stannard here is a fallacious argument from authority ... while he may be an expert on holocausts and genocide, he is not an expert on English grammar and word usage, and he didn't even weigh in on the issue at hand ... "holocaust" and "genocide" are quite different words; notably, one can refer to holocausts, but not "holocaust of" or "holocausts of". There were many indigenous distinct nations -- yes, as the title reflects with the word "peoples". Personally, I think that the word "genocides" obscures the commonality, as if they were independent events rather than a consequence of colonialism wherever it occurs. (And the same applies to Stannard ... he got it right the first time, IMO.) -- Jibal (talk) 07:06, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Following these semantics, Brazil has won five FIFA World Cup title, not five FIFA World Cup titles. Sigh. Magonz (talk) 13:35, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I’m not going to weigh in on the semantics of “genocide” vs “genocides,” but the recent change to this section, that it should read “Indigenous Nations” instead of “indigenous peoples,” is incorrect. Number one, in the fields of native and indigenous studies, Nations needs to be and is used in specific contexts, for a number of reasons (did Indigenous groups see themselves as nations? Which ones? Did they see themselves through the contemporary definition or “nation” prior to colonization? If so, which ones? How is nation defined by each nation? Etc.). Being deliberate about the words used in these discussions is extremely important, and just using “Nation” without clear and deliberate thought and reasoning is dangerous. Number two, at least in what is known today as the U.S. and Canada, most early colonial wars of genocide (the ones represented here, rather than ongoing settler colonial genocide) targeted indigenous peoples in general, or at least the plan was, under the settler colonial logic of erasure, to eventually destroy all indigenous peoples in one way or another, even if the colonial state was allied with some groups at one time or another. This page needs a ton of work, why the focus on this language?Hobomok (talk) 15:37, 11 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Raphael Lemkin who coined the term genocide, defined genocide talking about national groups. All indigenous peoples do not share language, ethnicity, culture, or many other central identities. Lemkin defined genocide as follows:

New conceptions require new terms. By "genocide" we mean the destruction of a nation or of an ethnic group. This new word, coined by the author to denote an old practice in its modern development, is made from the ancient Greek word genos (race, tribe) and the Latin cide (killing), thus corresponding in its formation to such words as tyrannicide, homicide, infanticide, etc. Generally speaking, genocide does not necessarily mean the immediate destruction of a nation, except when accomplished by mass killings of all members of a nation. It is intended rather to signify a coordinated plan of different actions aiming at the destruction of essential foundations of the life of national groups, with the aim of annihilating the groups themselves. The objectives of such a plan would be disintegration of the political and social institutions, of culture, language, national feelings, religion, and the economic existence of national groups, and the destruction of the personal security, liberty, health, dignity, and even the lives of the individuals belonging to such groups. Genocide is directed against the national group as an entity, and the actions involved are directed against individuals, not in their individual capacity, but as members of the national group.

Magonz (talk) 20:22, 11 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"Indigenous peoples of the Americas (pre-1948)" first 8 paragraphs need work

I tried tagging this as {{cleanup|section|reason=Too many block quotes, should be changed to prose that summarizes the main ideas. Persuasive tone (trying to persuade the reader that this was in fact a genocide) instead of talking about the details of the genocide.|date=September 2021}}, but got reverted. Interestingly, persuasive tone is basically another way of saying "this is not NPOV", and the edit summary removing my tag was also not NPOV: the single issue that may be the death knell of Wikipedia. Anyway, please see my essay problems with quotes for my thinking on why the use of many block quotes isn't good. I still think this section needs work, and I may take a stab at rewriting it when I get some time, if I can get some support for it here. My motivation is that I clicked on a link to that specific section from another article, and I was expecting a concise summary of the below sub-sections that summarized what genocidal things occurred (Europeans brought over X number of deadly diseases, conquistadors waged war and killed Y natives, Americans during manifest destiny and the American Indian Wars killed Z natives, etc.) but instead got this essay trying to persuade me that this was in fact a genocide. Thanks. –Novem Linguae (talk) 19:06, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It occurred to me that I could just make the genocide essay a sub-section, and begin writing a "lead" for this section. I did it in this diff. I think this addresses some of the issues I was concerned with, without deleting anything, which should be a good compromise for now. I encourage expansion of the one paragraph I added. Expansion that concisely summarizes the below sub-sections. –Novem Linguae (talk) 19:06, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I think a more concise lead in this section could be useful, but it needs to be done correctly, and it needs to use the right sources. Some of the sources used are currently kind of a mess because of numerous sock accounts coming in and disrupting the page, trying to argue that genocide didn't occur (see the most recent archived talk pages). I also think this is why it's written persuasively right now--editors were making a case for genocide against one or two users who, for whatever reason, were trying to argue that genocide never happened. The L'Histoire article is one of the questionable sources that the socks insisted on using as they edited this and other articles, as it argues that disease is separate from colonization--it's outdated and it isn't even a live link. I think, to create a lead here, it would be best to base the information on current scholarly sources relevant to the subject matter, much of which is treated on the page. Some helpful sources that I think should provide good grounding for a rewrite, and are already represented here in some way:
  1. Jeffrey Ostler's Surviving Genocide
  2. Roxanne Dunbar-Ortiz's An Indigenous People's History of the United States
  3. Andres Resendez's The Other Slavery
  4. The Pratt and McKenna book, I would also say, is reputable and clear

Each one of these books makes a pretty clear case that disease did indeed play a huge role in depopulation in the Western Hemisphere, but it was colonial violence and displacement, removal from traditional homelands, medicine, and societal structures that allowed introduced diseases to flourish. So, while disease was a major factor in colonial genocide, those diseases would not have taken the toll they did had Native peoples had access to their land, their societies, and their medicine. It's important to note that in the lead and whenever disease is discussed. Also, it might be helpful to note that there were multiple trails of tears which would contribute to genocide. Ostler explains this in his book, but there's a shorter version here.

Also, do we need the information from Maslin and Lewis/the info on Leif Erikson? The Maslin and Lewis study may fit, but its inclusion could be rewritten and streamlined, I think. I'm not sure any of the information on Erikson is necessary.

Finally, once this section's lead is rewritten, I think it might be helpful to go through the various sections and provide some clearer geographical specifics. Linking to British Colonization of the Americas, for example, doesn't provide much information--the page has no information on British role in the genocide of Native Americans. The Spanish colonization section is kind of a mess because of sock puppet activity, but I've been hesitant to touch that because I was heavily involved in battles with the socks in question previously and I just don't want to deal with it again. The Indian Removal and Trail of Tears section should reflect the idea that there were multiple trails of tears and many, many instances of removal, although those pages themselves need work for those reasons too. Finally, there's no discussion of Alaska or Hawai'i, but good work on settler colonial violence in those regions abound (Shari Huhndorf's Going Native Indians in the American Cultural Imagination or Sheila Watt-Cloutier's The Right to Be Cold for Alaska, and Haunani Kay Trask's From a Native Daughter would be a good starting point for Hawai'i).
I've gone long here, but my whole point is that yes, this lead should be rewritten in a concise manner, albeit correctly and with the correct sources, and then each section could benefit from some streamlining with reputable sources, and then some sections could be expanded.Hobomok (talk) 23:25, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Lack of mentions of Portugal

Is the reason why there's no mention of Portugal because it's known there was no genocide in parts of Africa and South America under its rule, or because no one has documented them on that page? If the former, shouldn't that get a mention, as this would make it a notable exception among European countries? The Crab Who Played With The Sea (talk) 03:51, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Rwanda

Any reason not to add the Rwanda genocide to the Examples section? The Crab Who Played With The Sea (talk) 12:33, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Splitting the Africa+Asia section?

Is there any reason why Africa and Asia should be in the same section? The Crab Who Played With The Sea (talk) 12:21, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Seconded, separate (new) pages for the Americas, Asia, Africa would be good. -Artanisen (talk) 19:40, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Create page about Genocide of Indigenous People in America

There should be a dedicated page specifically about the ethnic/cultural genocide of indigenous people in North-America or the Americas (North and South America) since the arrival of European colonists. It can link to all the related articles. This would give readers an easy overview of what happened in chronological order. Now there are numerous articles about specific incidents and this page has content that is not about the Americas which obscures it. -Artanisen (talk) 08:42, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I think the closest thing to the page that you suggest currently is Population history of Indigenous peoples of the Americas. However, there are a number of people watching that page who insist on putting up a fight related to the question of genocide broadly, colonialism's role in the death of Indigenous peoples in the Americas, and Indigenous resistance to colonialism on that page (see the page's talk page currently for examples). The page needs a lot of work, especially the later sections (for example, see what's written under "Displacement and Disruption" there, and the source that's used for the two sentences). I would definitely be willing to work on a lot of that page's shortcomings with other editors, but right now there's a lot to take on and I'm met with a heavy amount of pushback for trying to simply reflect current scholarly work r/t disease on the page, so it's hard to even move beyond that area.--Hobomok (talk) 22:06, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
There's always resistance to controversial topics. "Population history" sounds less negative than "genocide". If there's a separate page we can highlight the wars, exploitation, massacres, displacements, plagues etc. The traditional lifestyles, culture and languages of the indigenous peoples are not taught in US schools afaik. They're being restricted in Indian reservations in less appealing areas. They didn't get an independent state as compensation for the European colonization of North America. There is the Republic of Lakotah proposal which unsurprisingly is being ignored by the US and UN. If someone makes a start with a few references then other contributors can add to it. It's a lot of work, and I don't have the time to contribute much, but it's a decent idea to do more justice for these people who lost so much in the last few centuries. -Artanisen (talk) 09:26, 30 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
"Indigenous resistance to colonialism" Don't you think that this is well out of scope for a genocide article? What you describe sounds like a parent article of the American Indian Wars, which already tries to cover 315 years of war in a single article. Dimadick (talk) 12:40, 30 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Most students don’t get that information in the U.S. until they arrive at post-secondary institutions, and even then they have to select the necessary classes, and some of them have been so influenced by negative depictions of Native peoples though their early lives that it’s hard for them to wrap their head around the history and culture of Indigenous peoples in the Americas that hasn’t come from high school textbooks. Technically each Nation is an independent sovereign, as long as they’re recognized by the U.S. govt., which doesn’t always happen, and the treaty-trust relationship is rarely honored by the United States (see current pipeline disputes for key example).
If you’d like to start a page with this history beyond the population history page, I recommend:
1. Nick Estes book: Our History is the Future: Standing Rock Versus the Dakota Access Pipeline, and the Long Tradition of Indigenous Resistance
2. Roxanne Dunbar-Ortiz: An Indigenous Peoples’ History of the United States
3. Jeff Ostler: Surviving Genocide: Native Nations and the United States from the American Revolution to Bleeding Kansas
4. Thomas King: The Inconvenient Indian: A Curious Account of Native People in North America and The Truth About Stories: A Native Narrative
5. Dina Gilio-Whitaker: As Long as Grass Grows: The Indigenous Fight for Environmental Justice, from Colonization to Standing Rock
6. Most of Kyle Powys Whyte’s work, all available here (https://kylewhyte.seas.umich.edu/articles/). “ The Dakota Access Pipeline, Environmental Injustice, and US Settler Colonialism” might work especially well.
7. Robert Berkhofer: The White Man's Indian: Images of the American Indian from Columbus to the Present
David Stannard’s American Holocaust gets cited a lot on Wikipedia, and you could include it, but the stuff above is more recent and careful research. Hobomok (talk) 15:40, 30 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
As far as resistance to genocide, on the page about genocide, it’s important to represent that the genocide, in a lot of cases, was resisted and wasn’t complete. Otherwise it ends up reinforcing the ideas that Native peoples were simply acted upon by “superior” colonial forces and had no agency, and that they have disappeared and no longer exist/don’t continue to exist as Indigenous Nations presently. Resistance isn’t necessarily physical action in the presence of physical violence (resistance to war). It also includes continued practice of culture, teaching, simply existing and refusing to be defined by or recognized by, in this case, the United States on the United States’ terms and conditions. Without representation of resistance to genocide it isn’t the complete story of that genocide. See, for example, a lot of the books listed above, but on the topic of telling the history of resistance to genocide, see specifically the Estes book, the Kyle Powys Whyte piece mentioned, and the other Whyte article available on his website repository, “Our Ancestors’ Dystopia Now.” On the topic of resistance through continued cultural practice, see Glen Coulthard’s Red Skin, White Masks: Rejecting the Colonial Politics of Recognition, Leanne Simpson’s As We Have Always Done: Indigenous Freedom Through Radical Resistance, and Audra Simpson’s Mohawk Interruptus: Political Life Across the Borders of Settler States. Hobomok (talk) 15:49, 30 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Genocide_of_indigenous_peoples/Archive_6&oldid=1233654630"