You know that the Democrat party in the U.S.A. would be considered strongly conservative in a LOT of countries?

I didn't say "Democrats", I said "liberals". And in no way did I say that I consider the Democratic party representative of liberals or vice versa. So where are you taking this from?

As I've seen in a cartoon, "I'll stop being intolerant when these people will stop dressing like freaks and act like me".

If the cultural difference in question is "stone women <-> don't stone women", do you still insist on tolerance?

I'll stop being intolerant when these people will stop stoning women and hanging homosexuals.

I fear that some liberal cartoonists might not realise the seriousness of the situation. That's why they are pretending that the cultural differences that conservatives won't tolerate are about how to dress properly.

Or perhaps the cartoon would have been less funny with the catchphrase above?

(And again joeuser.com decided that I'll be posting as "Leauki" rather than "Andrew Brehm".)

http://www.college.ucla.edu/webproject/micro12/webpages/indianssmallpox.html

Amherst deliberatly used smallpox-infested blanket to spread european disease among the indians.

And when you simply walk in and constantly seize land of a people, what do you think will happen on the long run? So, yhea, I guess genocide wasn't the main intend, but it was a clear consequence.

I guess if drive over a walker accidently, it would not be drive-killing, since it wasn't my intention, right?

Have you even read the page you refer to? It says that these were stories and that many doubt them. The Wikipedia article on him says the following:

"Although Amherst's name is usually connected with this incident because he was the overall commander and because of his correspondence with Bouquet, evidence appears to indicate that the attempt was made without Amherst's prior knowledge. Whether or not the attempt was successful is unclear."

Your source says that it might have been accidental, Wikipedia says that nobody knows whether the attempt was successful, yet you call it a genocide?

I want to live in your world.




Genocide, like murder, implies intent.

And the question of land ownership is an interesting one. I don't see how all of North-America was "owned" by the people who lived there in 1492 just because they lived there.

Land can be used efficiently and inefficiently. And depending on one's opinion on humanity (should there be many of them or should there be few, should oneself be part of the many or part of those who have to die so that there only be few left), land should be owned either by people who use it efficiently or by people who use it inefficiently.

I like humanity and prefer efficient land use. And I don't care about the race or ethnicity of the people who live off the land.



It wouldn't be murder. I don't know if "killing" is the legal term.

If you believe all cultures are neither superior or inferior, then are you okay with their culture coming to America? If not, why not? I don't want people stoning adulterers or hanging homosexuals here. So I don't think it's okay over there either. The only reason it's a matter or perspective is because you're detached from it, so it's okay. If you were living there, would you still want that culture? Do you think the adulterers or the homosexuals there want that culture? If you don't think those are worthy of death, how can you say "Oh, it's just a different culture, we shouldn't be anti-their-culture."

Jythier,

My sentiments exactly. Thank you for the good summary.

Massacres aren't genocide. They're massacres. That's why we have words. Words carry meaning.

Forcing someone onto a reservation IS NOT genocide.

Rounding up everyone of a particular race and exterminating them with the explicit intent of making them disappear form the face of the earth IS genocide.

 

Good god, do you ever bother to look up anything before you spout off?

There are MORE native Americans in the United States than there are Jews in Europe.

Native Americans in USA: ~3 million (2000 census).

Jews in Europe: less than 1 million (source).

Apparently "genocide" in the US isn't very effective.

 

Draginol,

The word "genocide" has changed its meaning since WW2.

"A people can be subject to "genocide" even while losing no man and growing faster than all surrounding peoples. The left word "genocide" preserves merely the "bad thing" part of the English, but doesn't refer to remotely the same concept.

Rather left "genocide" refers not to attributes of the event but to characteristics of the perpetrator.

Usually Jews commit "genocide", sometimes Americans do. It has nothing to do with the number of people dying or why they died."

I love this. How fast people forget the Shoah. Just to make the "point" that Americans committed genocide some people are perfectly willing to ignore the plain fact that most Jews of Europe have been killed while most of the surviving fled, mostly to America (where, despite America's apparently violent and genocidal history, they obviously expected not to be murdered, even when a Republican administration forces itself on the country).

People remember the Shoah but don't seem to realise what it really meant and still means. That's why they can use the word "genocide" for so many things, because they don't remember (or want to remember) what it really is. It's more convenient to accuse America of genocide, of course. It's safe. America doesn't kill you for your opinions. The people the left defend, they do. Castro does. Bush does not. Yet liberals argue that George Bush is the closest to a dictatorship the US have ever been while Castro's chief executor is a hero of the people.

And no, I don't think many liberals look up anything. Whenever I am told that Israel's occupation of parts of Jordan is a "violation of international law", they seem to be unable to find that law written down anywhere. And interestingly enough many liberals believe that East-Jerusalem (including the temple mount) should be part of a "Palestinian state", despite the fact that Jerusalem was supposed to be an international city before Israel and Jordan invaded it in 1948. I assume Jordan's occupation of Jerusalem was not a violation of that same international law for some reason, or why exactly would the city now be "Palestinian"???

Exactly. What Armenian genocide?

I will never understand those who cannot see facts, and only see hyperbole. What Leauki is talking about was a struggle between opposing political doctrines, met by force on one side, and passive resistance on the other. I guess you can say that Mahatma Ghandi was using propaganda against the British as well.

Too bad people cannot understand the terms they use and the context in which they are used.

Forcing them into internment is not genocide (like Brad says, we have different words because there are different meanings). What happens after that can be genocide.

Did we exterminate the Japanese in WWII? Hardly. using a powerful term flippantly cheapens the impact and meaning of that term. So that people start calling unjust internment genocide. Not to say that an internment is a trip to summer camp, but it hardly compares to the Armenian, Tutsi, or Jewish Genocides.

Part of American "propaganda" at the time was their habit of not surrounding my home city with land mines.

The Soviets had the other habit.

And yes, that is part of the reason why I wanted to "join those peoples". I want to be on the side of those who are willing to help me.

No wonder the Iraqi army collected money to send to southern California. I understand their feelings.

Congratulation, you cleverly managed to left Israel out of your count, which counts about more than 4 millions jews.

Yhea, I take the time to look my numbers before I spout them. You just see what you want to see - as always -.