I was browsing a forum topic where the author asked if the Americans can be formally accused of genocide against the Native Americans. They were guilty by OUR standards, although perhaps it’s not fair to judge a past society by our modern examples, or else that would mean the entirety of the Western world, in a bit less than the last 200 years (the relatively recent time it has managed to dominate the globe), have accumulated so much sin on itself even an eternity in the Avici Hell would not absolve it, or her white people.
Although we cannot say for sure that the Americans of that time can be charged as ‘guilty’, they are clearly responsible, and what’s more they continue to uphold themselves, along with the Anglo race, as the highest ideal of morality and human existence. Interesting quotes from the thread: “The US balked at signing the UN Genocide Treaty for something like 40 years, one primary reason being the concern that we had already violated it.
Genocide isn’t only the elimination of a race or ethnic group, it is also the elimination of a culture. White Americans did, in fact, deliberately set out to eliminate the culture of many indigenous tribes. The hunting of buffalo to near extinction wasn’t just to feed railroad workers, it was to starve out the Souix.
Yes. The American government of the 19th century is guilty of attempting genocide, and could, in fact, be considered to have succeeded.”
In 1779, George Washington sent instructions to Major General John Sullivan, in Alexander Hamilton’s handwriting, that Sullivan was to “lay waste to all the [Iroquois] settlements around, with instructions to do it in the most effectual manner, that the country may not be merely overrun but destroyed.” He continued, “You will not by any means, listen to any overture of peace before the total ruin of their settlements is effected.”
Quotes from John C. Fitzpatrick, ed. of The Writings of George Washington from the original manuscript sources, 1745-1799; prepared under the direction of the United States George Washington bicentennial commission and published by authority of Congress, Government Printing Office, 1931-44, vol. 15, 189-193.
This policy was the official and unofficial manner that the U.S. used to deal with the “Indian problem”. The policy became more bloody during the expansion westward, justified by “manifest destiny” and the resulting “American-Indian” wars.
Another forum participant has suggested (and I agree) that Anglos have historically, and many still do, entertained mythical pretensions of moral impeccability. The difference has to do with Anglos themselves, and the fantasy that they are the paragon of democracy and humans rights, and thus no genocide or national sin can possibly lie in their illustrious past…and thus 9/11 is most definitely a monstrosity, but Hiroshima and Nagasaki most definitely virtuous and worthwhile.
Be wary of your rulers, for they are not teachers nor counselors (people who actually give rather than take), but rulers. They might not even be true leaders (can you call Bush Jr. a real leader?)! Rulers will act in accordance with their desires and power. To be loyal to them is to be disappointed – easily and frequently!
“Another forum participant has suggested (and I agree) that Anglos have historically, and many still do, entertained mythical pretensions of moral impeccability. The difference has to do with Anglos themselves, and the fantasy that they are the paragon of democracy and humans rights, and thus no genocide or national sin can possibly lie in their illustrious past…and thus 9/11 is most definitely a monstrosity, but Hiroshima and Nagasaki most definitely virtuous and worthwhile.”
——————————————————————————-
I think this is due in large part to how the western world has come to practice christianity. There is something very divisive and judgmental in it. It seems like atrocities against non-Christian peoples have been seen as permissible, even necessary.
In part, yes, but bear in mind that George Washington (if I’m not mistaken) was a deist and wanted Christianity to play no part in the governing of America.
But I find that historically and currently Westerners (and other people in positions of visible economic, political, military power like the Communist Chinese) are very fond of justifying themselves. It doesn’t matter if their justification for their crimes is a lame one, as long as they can empty their bowels via their mouth and speech any justification will do.
Hey Ray,
If you look at the passage I quoted you’ll see I was not referring to Washington, but more to the mindset that Hiroshima was justified, or that believes the United States is locked in a spiritual war against Islam.
It is true that Washington did advocate for a separation between church and state. I was not trying to imply that Christianity was to blame for whatever transgressions he committed, but to say religious intolerance and ethnic/racial bigotry are a major cause of what horrors have been committed by the Western world.
For what it’s worth the incident you are describing did occur during the American Revolution, and the Iroquois were British allies. So this does align with the example of Hiroshima and Nagasaki — The idea that total war and annihilation is justified against foreign cultures, because they are seen as subhuman; there is a great deal of racism involved here and religion is often used as an excuse for this.
You are right to point out that the West and Anglos however to not have a monopoly on this sort of thinking or behavior.
I simply think that any religion or philosophy that splits the world up into separate camps of “Us and Them”, or “God’s People vs. Sinners” is very dangerous because it supports a great deal of hate and can easily be used to justify violence.
Oh, fair deal. Should read more carefully.
No I should have written more carefully the first time.