Please turn on javascript in your browser to play chess.
Debates Forum

Debates Forum

  1. Subscriber FMF
    a.k.a. John W Booth
    20 May '10 07:48
    Were the U.S.'s Indian Wars 1622–1918...

    (a) A foreign war and/or war of conquest;
    (b) A civil war;
    (c) a counter-insurgency;
    (d) A police action;
    (e) A long drawn out, but nevertheless systematic, genocide?
  2. 20 May '10 07:58
    United States, born 1776.
  3. Subscriber FMF
    a.k.a. John W Booth
    20 May '10 07:59
    Originally posted by zeeblebot
    United States, born 1776.
    With Indigenous Americans as citizens?

    What's your answer to the question?
  4. 20 May '10 08:00
    all but the last, looks like.
  5. 20 May '10 08:01
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indian_wars#Historiography

    Some historians now emphasize that to see the Indian wars as a racial war between Indians and White Americans simplifies the complex historical reality of the struggle. Indians and whites often fought alongside each other; Indians often fought against Indians. For example, although the Battle of Horseshoe Bend is often described as an "American victory" over the Creek Indians, the victors were a combined force of Cherokees, Creeks, and Tennessee militia led by Andrew Jackson. From a broad perspective, the Indian wars were about the conquest of Native American peoples by the United States; up close it was rarely quite as simple as that.

    In his book American Holocaust, David Stannard argues that the destruction of the aboriginal peoples of the Americas, in a "string of genocide campaigns" by Europeans and their descendants, was the most massive act of genocide in the history of the world.[50][51] The genocide debate is ongoing, with scholars on either side.[52][53][54]
  6. 20 May '10 08:02
    Originally posted by FMF
    With Indigenous Americans as citizens?

    What's your answer to the question?
    it seem likely, do you know the answer?
  7. Subscriber FMF
    a.k.a. John W Booth
    20 May '10 08:04
    According to posters here at RHP, do you think the U.S.'s Indian Wars 1776–1918 were...

    (a) A foreign war and/or war of conquest;
    (b) A civil war;
    (c) a counter-insurgency;
    (d) A police action;
    (e) A long drawn out, but nevertheless systematic, genocide?
  8. 20 May '10 08:13
    (a)
  9. Subscriber FMF
    a.k.a. John W Booth
    20 May '10 08:15
    Originally posted by KazetNagorra
    (a)
    "A foreign war and/or war of conquest" until 1918?
  10. 20 May '10 08:20
    Originally posted by FMF
    "A foreign war and/or war of conquest" until 1918?
    I don't know the details of what happened, but it seems most similar to e.g. the Hun invasion in Europe.
  11. 20 May '10 08:22
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mary_Rowlandson

    Mary (White) Rowlandson (c. 1637 – January 1710) was a colonial American woman who was captured by Native Americans during King Philip's War and endured eleven weeks of captivity before being ransomed. After her release, she wrote a book about her experience, The Sovereignty and Goodness of God: Being a Narrative of the Captivity and Restoration of Mrs. Mary Rowlandson, which is considered a seminal work in the American literary genre of captivity narratives.

    http://www.gutenberg.org/etext/851

    Narrative of the Captivity and Restoration of Mrs. Mary Rowlandson
  12. 20 May '10 09:09
    Originally posted by FMF
    Were the U.S.'s Indian Wars 1622–1918...

    (a) A foreign war and/or war of conquest;
    (b) A civil war;
    (c) a counter-insurgency;
    (d) A police action;
    (e) A long drawn out, but nevertheless systematic, genocide?
    I have never heard of any community engaged in 'genocide' providing reserved territory in which the survivors of an admittedly ferociously waged war on both sides could live in peace.
  13. Subscriber FMF
    a.k.a. John W Booth
    20 May '10 09:12 / 3 edits
    Originally posted by Sartor Resartus
    I have never heard of any community engaged in 'genocide' providing reserved territory in which the survivors of an admittedly ferociously waged war on both sides could live in peace.
    The Nazis allowed Jews to get on with their own thing in the Warsaw Ghetto for quite a while.

    There were plenty of others like at Piotrkow Trybunalski Ghetto, and Tuliszkow Ghetto, and Lodz Ghetto and Odrzywol Ghetto.

    And weren't the Native Americans on those reservations when some of them were deliberately given smallpox-infested blankets. Wasn't that genocidal?

    How many treaties with the Native Americans did the U.S. renage on/uphold?
  14. Subscriber no1marauder
    It's Nice to Be Nice
    20 May '10 12:26
    (a) always (c) sometimes.

    Perhaps you should define "genocide" as there isn't a universally accepted definition. If you mean a complete extermination I'd have to say "no"; that never seems to have been intended although at times the US made efforts to erase Native American cultures.
  15. Subscriber no1marauder
    It's Nice to Be Nice
    20 May '10 12:34 / 1 edit
    Originally posted by FMF
    The Nazis allowed Jews to get on with their own thing in the Warsaw Ghetto for quite a while.

    There were plenty of others like at Piotrkow Trybunalski Ghetto, and Tuliszkow Ghetto, and Lodz Ghetto and Odrzywol Ghetto.

    And weren't the Native Americans on those reservations when some of them were deliberately given smallpox-infested blankets. Wasn't that genocidal?

    How many treaties with the Native Americans did the U.S. renage on/uphold?
    The only example of deliberately attempting to give the Native Americans smallpox that I know of was attempted by Lord Amherst the commander of British forces in the French and Indian War.


    http://academic.udayton.edu/health/syllabi/bioterrorism/00intro02.htm

    The US pretty much reneged on every treaty with the Native Americans though that isn't terribly relevant to your original question.