Talk:Native American genocides

	This United States politics related article has not received a brainstar for quality. Please consider expanding the article appropriately. See RationalWiki:Article rating for more information.

Archives for this talk page:

<1>

, (new)

Detractors headline has no sources and should be removed

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

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...

@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

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)

Well, your rationalist approach and cogent points certainly make it clear that you live up to your name. Loving ya back.Field Dreamer (talk) 00:41, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

Intentional Buffalo Extermination

The US specifically targeted the Buffalo to starve the plains natives so they'd be more controllable. The private sector ended up helping IMMENSELY during this, but the intent to break the natives was there from the get go. I might do a write up on this when I have some free time.

Christopher Columbus

I feel like we should be a bit more skeptical of the claims around Christopher Columbus. The main primary sources that describe him as the brutal cannibal-rapist are mostly from court records, i.e., people claiming outlandish things in order to get more money out of him. There's the whole problem of the "black legend", basically a giant smear campaign against anything Spanish from way back when, that makes a lot of writings about Columbus highly suspect. Heck, if you go to wikipedia and look at the sources, a lot of it comes from Howard Zinn's People's History, which is absolutely despised by historians for not being properly sourced. CorruptUser 16:24, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

on renaming the article

a few years ago, the article was renamed. the only reason it took so long for me to move it back is because i took me that long to figure out how to move pages (plus, i didn't even notice the change until a few months later).

i'm not totally against renaming it, but given the mildly controversial political football behind the name, i figured we should discuss the merits of the change and come to an agreement here on the talk page beforehand (as some of our readers may not approve of the name change). The G (talk) 06:13, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

The fact that this was moved over three years ago and no one took issue with the new name shows that I don't think this is really an issue. We don't have do be officious bureaucrats about everything. Plutocow (talk) 06:26, 7 December 2024 (UTC)