Information icon.svg Nominations and campaigning for the RationalWiki 2020 Moderator Election are completed. Voting is live now, until 20:00 UTC, 1 December!

Talk:American Indian genocides

From RationalWiki
Jump to: navigation, search
Icon politics USA.svg

This United States politics related article has been assessed as SIGNIFICANTLY PROBLEMATIC in one or more ways. See RationalWiki:Article rating for more information.

Jellybrain.png
This article requires attention for the following reason(s):
This page is automatically archived by Archiver
Archives for this talk page: <1>

Blood Quantum Laws[edit]

I reverted these edits for the time being. While I do know that the sentiments expressed in the paragraph are very common I am also well aware most American Indians tend to take a different view of Blood Quatum laws than the one that was presented in the paragraph Rand0 wrote. Therefore it may be preferable to discuss how we should apporach that topic before actually writing stuff about it into the article. Alsto003 (talk) 14:29, 8 May 2015 (UTC) Alex

If the blood quantum is 1/16, every last redneck is a Cherokee. CorruptUser (talk) 14:57, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

Holocaust or Genocide?[edit]

Should we really be using the term "Holocaust"? The term Holocaust was applied to the genocide under the Nazis since the term refers to burning. Wouldn't simply "genocide" be a better title for this article? Asarelah (talk) 14:50, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

One crucial aspect is missing[edit]

Genocides usually involve some form of "plan" to make people die. Usually with a timescale of a decade or less. In the case of Rwanda or the Armenian genocide it was only months.

In the case of what happened to Native Americans we are talking about centuries and there was - as far as I can tell - never a plan. Yes, there were atrocities and some of them were probably planned in advance. But - as this article correctly points out - acts of genocide are not the same as a genocide. This should be made clearer. Plus, this article lacks sources. Pizzameister (talk) 21:36, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

This is true. There never was an actual plan formed by any of the European colonial powers in the New World, nor any of their successor states (of which there are literally dozens) to conduct against the American Indians what we today would call a "genocide." The "Denialism" section is problematic for failing to address the fact that most mainstream historical scholarship says that 90% of the Indian population died of unintentional transmission of Old World diseases.

--SaneConservative52 (talk) 23:25, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

Detractors headline has no sources and should be removed[edit]

If this is a wiki that takes itself seriously, then it should consider removing this section because it looks like it is purely based off subjective reasoning rather than creditable sources. If you do not know what credible sources are, surely you would like to do a quick Google search and educate yourself. A blog or low-ranked article does not count as a credible source. — Unsigned, by: ‎76.73.137.72 / talk / contribs

While unsourced, these are things that conservatives have said. Feel free to help out by hunting down and adding sources. CorruptUser (talk) 07:24, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

Plagiarism[edit]

A lot of this article is copy and pasted from other sources. —ClickerClock💾 talk.txt 13:05, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

Bugger! I might have known it was too good to be true. Some BoN comes along and turns a short page lacking in good references to a very long and well referenced one single handed. And now it turns out that it was just a copypaste job. So what do we do now? Restore the article as it was on April 9, 2018 before said BoN came along? Spud (talk) 14:27, 14 July 2018 (UTC)
@Spud Good idea! Please proceed. Alternatively, you can rewrite those sections if you have the time and interest. Nerd (talk) 14:36, 14 July 2018 (UTC)
With a heavy heart, I have restored the version of this page that existed on April 9, 2018. I really don't have the time or energy to rewrite this myself. I have left a message explaining what I did on the BoN's talk page. So now we have a version of the page that's a bit crap. But at least it's our crap. Spud (talk) 14:59, 14 July 2018 (UTC)
@Spud Don't worry about it. In fact, there is a little card that says to check out the less biased version on Wikipedia. Ha ha ha ha! (Let's be honest here. All sides committed atrocities.) Nerd (talk) 15:02, 14 July 2018 (UTC)
@Nerd There was but I just replaced it with the Wpa template that doesn't mention bias. In fact, when I do get the time and energy, I'd like to hunt down and destroy every one of those annoying Wikipedia bouncy ball templates. Spud (talk) 15:08, 14 July 2018 (UTC)
@Spud Why do you hate them so much? How do you justify their massacre? Bouncy balls' lives matter! Nerd (talk) 15:19, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

Here we go again...[edit]

@ClickerClock @Bongolian The same BoN has carried on editing this page without responding in any way to the message I left on his/her talk page. I don't think the BoN even noticed that I reverted the page back to how it was on April 9 and has just carried on adding the stuff he or she was going to add any way. I hope the newly added text isn't all plagiarized this time. But I rather doubt it. Spud (talk) 11:14, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

@Spud If you want we could simply lock the page until the editor in question either responds or leaves. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 12:46, 30 July 2018 (UTC)
@GrammarCommie Sadly, I think that's what we have to do. Spud (talk) 13:03, 30 July 2018 (UTC)
@Spud I've locked the page at the autoconfirmed level. I've also directed complaints to this talkpage. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 14:05, 30 July 2018 (UTC)
Yes, I agree. Bongolian (talk) 17:43, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

Denialism Section[edit]

I'm going to have to get this out of the way, aren't I? The tragic, cruel oppression of the American Indian was truly despicable, and the atrocities committed by European colonizers sicken anyone with a conscience. No sane person does or should deny this.

However, in the "Denialism" section, the quote from Michael Medved (who's definitely quite an... interesting character) is presented as "denialism." There's just one problem: It isn't wrong. Denialism, by definition, is factually wrong. This is, in fact, the consensus among reputable historians. 90% of American Indians were accidentally wiped out by the completely unintentional introduction of Old World diseases. When the European colonizers first landed, they had no way of knowing how diseases spread. They thought it was caused by the "evil eye" or "the Devil." (Epidemiology as a science doesn't come about until the 1830s or 1840s.) Sneezing on somebody or their crops 300+ years before anyone knew that causes bad things does not make someone the equivalent of Hitler.

Furthermore, the UN definition of genocide says that there has to be a deliberate policy of extermination (e.g. the Holocaust as perpetrated by Nazi Germany.) California was a genocide because there was a deliberate policy of extermination and said policy was enacted with that goal in mind. The rest of the country? Nope. There has never been any federal policy ordering or implying the desirability of the extermination of the Indians. No order from President Grant or General Sherman/General Sheridan, no Act of Congress, nothing. No evidence is offered by this article to the contrary.

That whole section needs to be renamed because of this issue. I'd rename it: "Debate over Terminology," something to that effect. I'd also include legitimate sources (NOT Michael Medved or the repulsive Stefan Molyneux) that dispute whether or not the term "genocide" is applicable. Using those two as examples to support your argument is just blatant nutpicking. I don't think you need to rename the article completely, but in the intro, get rid of that asinine line about "deniers of genocide" for the same reasons.

As an aside, I'd (briefly) discuss the successor states of the various empires and their Indian policies, since, to my knowledge, the dozens of successor states each had their own Indian policy. Hell, you felt the need to mention Columbus.


Love as always, SaneConservative52 (talk) 00:47, 4 January 2020 (UTC)