Genocide Convention 1948

The definitional article included in the 1948 convention stipulates:

Article II

In the present Convention, genocide means any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnically, racial or religious group, as such:

(a) Killing members of the group;

(b) Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group;

© Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part;

(d) Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group;

(e) Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.

The critical element is the presence of an "intent to destroy", which can be either "in whole or in part", groups defined in terms of nationality, ethnicity, race or religion.

 

Article d and e we did for sure. We have took children and transferred them from groups and tried to teach them the right way. You can say by that article that is what we did to the Indians for sure. But I guess since they fought each other that was OK. Since we have had a civil war and fought each other, should we do that again?

But they got casino gambling, that cures all of a societies ills.

 

It does seem to be a way for some people to make much money while they use a lower economically group of people to work there. That way they can say look we are providing jobs for this group of people. That seems to be the case in the casino gambling on the Indian Reservations.

You have to remember in the time we are talking about there was little government and people were able to go and take land if another "American Citizen" did not have claim to it. So yes the did have much to do with it.

 

I think you are mistaken. Ever hear of General Custer? Trail of Tears? Are you saying that both these instances involved nothing more than common citizens?

Article d and e we did for sure. We have took children and transferred them from groups and tried to teach them the right way. You can say by that article that is what we did to the Indians for sure. But I guess since they fought each other that was OK. Since we have had a civil war and fought each other, should we do that again?

I still don't think there was an "intent" to destroy. I'm not saying that we did not do considerable harm to the Indian nations. I just don't think that it was official policy to wipe out the Indian people.

I think you are mistaken. Ever hear of General Custer? Trail of Tears? Are you saying that both these instances involved nothing more than common citizens?

 

I did not say on all accounts were they citizens. But didn't what Custer do an act of genecide. He left noone.

I still don't think there was an "intent" to destroy. I'm not saying that we did not do considerable harm to the Indian nations. I just don't think that it was official policy to wipe out the Indian people.

 

WE sterlized Native Americans during the late 1800's and early 1900's that is an act of genecide and that was on purpose. WE just disagree on this.

Actually Custer was the one that wasn't left. And no, private citizens in no way are responsible for what happened to the Indians. In any instance! Blankets laced with smallpox? Citizens had means to do this then?? Come on. It was the government.

Actually Custer was the one that wasn't left. And no, private citizens in no way are responsible for what happened to the Indians. In any instance! Blankets laced with smallpox? Citizens had means to do this then?? Come on. It was the government.

 

So the government committed genecide on these people??

Absolutely

It happened, but your sure not gonna read about it in any history book's around here.

 

It's something that's happened throughout history though. It seems to be significant only when the people being persecuted are more "like us".

 

Sad but true.

I will say that what happened was inevitable. Right? No. They were a beautiful people, who didn't want or need the very things that are bringing this world to an end.

On September 8, 2000, the head of the Bureau of Indian Affairs formally apologized for the agency’s participation in the "ethnic cleansing" of the Western Native American nations.

On September 8, 2000, the head of the Bureau of Indian Affairs formally apologized for the agency’s participation in the "ethnic cleansing" of the Western Native American nations.

 

That's really sad, and I wish there was I could say without it getting me suspended.

I still don't think there was an "intent" to destroy. I'm not saying that we did not do considerable harm to the Indian nations. I just don't think that it was official policy to wipe out the Indian people.

 

I see what you are saying, but one could argue that our country's efforts to "Americanize" the native Americans was at least a direct intent to destroy their way of life, and an indirect attempt to wipe them out via assimilation.

 

I will say this: It's kind of nice to come from immigrant stock second and third generation. Pretty much absolves me of any and all blame and/or guilt over our country's poor treatment of non-whites pre-1900. Hope all you DAR-types can sleep OK at night.

I see what you are saying, but one could argue that our country's efforts to "Americanize" the native Americans was at least a direct intent to destroy their way of life, and an indirect attempt to wipe them out via assimilation.

 

I will say this: It's kind of nice to come from immigrant stock second and third generation. Pretty much absolves me of any and all blame and/or guilt over our country's poor treatment of non-whites pre-1900. Hope all you DAR-types can sleep OK at night.

 

That is funny right there I don't care who you are. :laugh: