Was violence between American Indian tribes worse than violence between whites and Indians?

Zip

Jan 2018
582
Comancheria
I'm using the same definition of genocide given by Raphael Lemkin over half a century ago. As for your examples, you are equating driving out invaders with genocide. This is like saying the Anglo-Saxons attempting to drive away the Vikings constitutes attempted genocide.
Look here, you asked for examples of Indians attempting genocide, the destruction of a people, and I gave them to you. I'm not equating them with anything. You however seem uncomfortable with wiping out invaders, which is odd. Just how do you think people went about that? Do you believe in genocide in a good cause? Or is that an uncomfortable notion? It should be.
 
Aug 2018
337
America
Look here, you asked for examples of Indians attempting genocide, the destruction of a people, and I gave them to you. I'm not equating them with anything. You however seem uncomfortable with wiping out invaders, which is odd. Just how do you think people went about that? Do you believe in genocide in a good cause? Or is that an uncomfortable notion? It should be.
Because they're not examples of "wiping out" invaders. Them defending themselves against English invaders and trying to recover their lands is no different than the Spaniards driving out Napoleon and the French, or the Anglo-Saxons trying to drive out the Vikings, or the French trying to drive out the Nazis. That is not wiping out, however.
 

Zip

Jan 2018
582
Comancheria
Because they're not examples of "wiping out" invaders. Them defending themselves against English invaders and trying to recover their lands is no different than the Spaniards driving out Napoleon and the French...
You argue by assertion and emotion and are unwilling to accept the reality that often when people repelled invaders, especially invaders who were a migrating people, not an army, they did it by destroying them. Wiping them out. Killing all or killing most of them and making slaves of and eventually assimilating the the rest.

Now the question you have to answer, to yourself at least, is such action justified? If you think it is you need not dance around it.
 
Aug 2018
337
America
You argue by assertion and emotion and are unwilling to accept the reality that often when people repelled invaders, especially invaders who were a migrating people, not an army, they did it by destroying them. Wiping them out. Killing all or killing most of them and making slaves of and eventually assimilating the the rest.

Now the question you have to answer, to yourself at least, is such action justified? If you think it is you need not dance around it.
No, it' not justified, but the thing is, the English settlers first came as an invading army. Only much later did non-combatant families came, after the first English had conquered sufficient land, no different than Spaniards. That's what is called settler colonialism if you didn't know that. In that case, you don't drive out the non-combatants. Still, you put examples that are not about wiping people out but about driving out invaders and recovering land. That is not genocide.

It's hilarious you tell me I argue for emotion when you start drawing crocodile tears over English colonists.
 

Zip

Jan 2018
582
Comancheria
No, it' not justified, but the thing is, the English settlers first came as an invading army. Only much later did non-combatant families came, after the first English had conquered sufficient land, no different than Spaniards. That's what is called settler colonialism if you didn't know that. In that case, you don't drive out the non-combatants. Still, you put examples that are not about wiping people out but about driving out invaders and recovering land. That is not genocide.

It's hilarious you tell me I argue for emotion when you start drawing crocodile tears over English colonists.
I don't give a damn about English colonists (who were not an invading army), what has me crying is your obstinate disregard for facts, twisting of words and goalpost moving. You think simply repeating yourself with increased vehemence is a cogent argument.

You're not a serious person and not worth the effort of engaging.
 
Aug 2018
337
America
I don't give a damn about English colonists (who were not an invading army), what has me crying is your obstinate disregard for facts, twisting of words and goalpost moving. You think simply repeating yourself with increased vehemence is a cogent argument.

You're not a serious person and not worth the effort of engaging.
I'm not twisting anything or goalpost moving. You put examples that are not attempted genocide, simple as that. The first English colonists do constitute an invading army and the English did conquer Native American lands and displace them to give room for their families. And yes, you're crying crocodile tears over English colonists given your ridiculous claim that Native Americans attempted genocide on them and trying to draw a false equivalence between invaders and defenders.
 

Edric Streona

Ad Honorem
Feb 2016
4,523
Japan
Anglo Saxons did attempt to genocide the Danes at one point, St Brices Day massacre...

Genocide gets banded about a lot I. These discussions with little regard for its meaning.
Motive for doing it does not prevent genocide from being genocide.
So attempts to wipe out white settlers, like it or not, fit the description of genocide when the express goal of the massacre was wiping them out for being settlers.

Taking Haiti as an example, clear cut case of genocide of French people. Not a genocide of Whites though as Polish, German, English were left alone.
 

Edric Streona

Ad Honorem
Feb 2016
4,523
Japan
The first English colonists in America do not constitute an army invasion.
At best they were explorers.. barely a 100 men in a tempory stockade.. stayed for a year and went home.

Both Roanoke and James town were settled by civillians and their families... soldiers were the minority.