Black Racial Violence against Whites.

[Argus]

Historically? Of course they have.

Genocide and ethnic cleansing? When?

And don't bring up the natives. I'll grant you there might have been the intent, but it never happened, witness the proliferation of natives today.

[Black Dog]

Genocide and ethnic cleansing? When?

And don't bring up the natives. I'll grant you there might have been the intent, but it never happened, witness the proliferation of natives today.

By that standard, the Holocaust wasn't a genocide since there are still Jews today. Come on.

[Argus]

By that standard, the Holocaust wasn't a genocide since there are still Jews today. Come on.

The query was why haven't brits and Americans been charged with war crimes et al. It's an inane question if you use natives because the most objectionable behaviour in that direction took place centuries ago.

As to your comparison with the Holocaust, the Nazis were stopped physically, from completing their genocide. Nobody stopped the Americans from annihilating natives. They simply chose not to do so. Accusing them of trying to commit genocide when they clearly had that capacity but didn't do it lacks common sense.

Edited May 27, 2015 by Argus

[Bonam]

As to your comparison with the Holocaust, the Nazis were stopped physically, from completing their genocide. Nobody stopped the Americans from annihilating natives. They simply chose not to do so. Accusing them of trying to commit genocide when they clearly had that capacity but didn't do it lacks common sense.

Killing 100% of a population isn't necessary to achieve the goals of a genocide campaign (clear previously populated areas for settlement, destroy the will/ability to fight back, alter the demographics of a region, get rid of a competing culture/religion/ideology). Oftentimes, just killing 90-99% will do. And that was certainly accomplished in North America. That being said, genocide was par for the course at the time. It's only in the 20th century that genocide has become generally unacceptable in the minds of most people around the world.

[Black Dog]

The query was why haven't brits and Americans been charged with war crimes et al. It's an inane question if you use natives because the most objectionable behaviour in that direction took place centuries ago.

I agree it's an inane question. But the fact is the Brits and Americans have been involved in historical acts of genocide and ethnic cleansing.

As to your comparison with the Holocaust, the Nazis were stopped physically, from completing their genocide. Nobody stopped the Americans from annihilating natives. They simply chose not to do so. Accusing them of trying to commit genocide when they clearly had that capacity but didn't do it lacks common sense.

Ridiculous logic. That's like saying forcible sex isn't rape if the a rapist doesn't get off at the end. Regardless of how or why a genocide was interrupted, the actions up to that point constitute genocide by any meaningful definition of the word.

[Black Dog]

Killing 100% of a population isn't necessary to achieve the goals of a genocide campaign (clear previously populated areas for settlement, destroy the will/ability to fight back, alter the demographics of a region, get rid of a competing culture/religion/ideology). Oftentimes, just killing 90-99% will do. And that was certainly accomplished in North America. That being said, genocide was par for the course at the time. It's only in the 20th century that genocide has become generally unacceptable in the minds of most people around the world.

It's only in the 20th century that we came up with a word for it.

Also, one can only consider the genocide of NA Indians incomplete if you look at the entire population of indigenous people as a single entity and not as a disparate set of culturally and ethnically distinct groups, some of whom were either completely or mostly extinguished.

Raphael Lemkin, the guy who coined the term genocide in 1944, described it as “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." By that definition, and that established by the 1948 UN Genocide Convention, U.S. and British/Canadian policies towards Native populations, including military conquest/massacres, forced relocation, forced adoption, sterilization, cultural suppression, etc. would certainly fit the bill.

[Bonam]

It's only in the 20th century that we came up with a word for it.

Also, one can only consider the genocide of NA Indians incomplete if you look at the entire population of indigenous people as a single entity and not as a disparate set of culturally and ethnically distinct groups, some of whom were either completely or mostly extinguished.

Raphael Lemkin, the guy who coined the term genocide in 1944, described it as “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." By that definition, and that established by the 1948 UN Genocide Convention, U.S. and British/Canadian policies towards Native populations, including military conquest/massacres, forced relocation, forced adoption, sterilization, cultural suppression, etc. would certainly fit the bill.

I agree.

[cybercoma]

Dunno what that means, but I do know how to spell "wasted". I also know that survival of the strongest is a poor descriptor for evolution by natural selection.

You mean "fittest" and "strongest" are two different words? Get the hell out of here.