Another response to Genocide by Any Other Name...:

>> Shmidt---The Natives weren't subjected based on their ethnicity but on the fact they held land the Americans coveted, same thing happened to Canadians, Spaniards and Mexicans who held land we wanted (of course we failed in Canada). Your reasoning would lead to almost all wars of conquest being called genocide, then we'd need a new word for what the Germans did to the Jews. <<

My reasoning, as you call it, is to define "genocide" the way the dictionary defines it: "The systematic, planned annihilation of a racial, political, or cultural group." If you think genocide is solely about annihilating racial or ethnic groups, you're sadly mistaken.

I'm not saying the first Europeans to arrive in America planned to "off" the natives. But by the time we reach the present, we reach a different conclusion. Along the way, European and American regimes planned the annihilation of Native groups. The word "genocide" fits.

In contrast, the US didn't wipe out 90% or 95% of the Canadians, Mexicans, or Spaniards whom we fought. Defeating opponents in battle is not the same as systematically trying to exterminate them. The difference is clear to me, if not to you.

Rob

Join our Native/pop culture blog and comment   Sign up to receive our FREE newsletter via e-mail   See the latest Native American stereotypes in the media   Political and social developments ripped from the headlines

. . .