18 Year old burns flag and goes to court! Real american HERO or real american FOOL?

[HERESY]

Political Statements dont deserve violents, but disrespectful ones do...if you were black and the Ku Klux Klan lit a cross in your front yard, you wouldnt pop them in the jaw?

If a klansmen burned a cross on my yard he would deserve whatever I gave him. He would be trespassing and violating my property and security. You CANNOT compare flag burning with cross burning. PERIOD.

I cant think of America committing a genocide in the defined terms of that action, which most people describe as systematic destruction of a particular demographic of people who share the same race, religion or ethnicity. There are instances in American history that hold some characteristics of genocide such as supporting dictators, rebels, etc.

In your opinion the slave trade was not a systematic destruction of a particular demographic of people who share the same race, religion or ethnicity?

in the Cold War, but were indirect...one could say that the conflict with Native Americans was genocide and I could see where that would come from, but most historians/biologists, etc. agree that disease probably killed up to 80% of the native american population, not combat.

Your www.answers.com explanation is not accepted. You fail to realize the disease came from the europeans and the estimated 80% (which you've shown no proof of) may be attributed to displacement. Shuffled around by who? Europeans.It's also estimated by historians/biologists, etc that 50-75 million native americans died because of war, starvation and disease. Regardless of it being combat or disease the natives were killed by europeans who had a DIRECT involvement in the genocide (see displacement). Were the natives systematically killed in large numbers for land? Yes. How many people have to die by violence before it's genocide? 1 or 1 million?

besides that, there are very few countries in the world that havent committed genocide, the reason our appear so obvious because as one of the biggest and most internationally important actors our actions have been magnified

How many countries have spread genocide across several continents for several centuries? Americas actions have NOT been magnified. They have been swept under the rug and people like you behave as if it never happened.

very few nations especially developed and Western nations havent committed genocide...im not defending our policies which affected people for the worse but I have a difficult time calling it genocide.

Possibly because your history/culture/family were not affected by the actions of western nations in a NEGATIVE way. So of course you'll have a hard time calling it genocide but don't forget history. Millions of afrikans and natives have died by the hands of the white man. You don't call it genocide? Oh I get it you call it "luuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuv".

When has America Intervened: Spanish American War, World War I, World War II, Korea, Vietnam, Libya, Iraq, Panama, the Balkans, etc. For better or for worse. Whose fault was it when these things went wrong? Americas.

America had an interest in EACH of those cases. America did NOT intervene for the sake of humanity. It only intervened to fatten it's pockets and further it's influence. In some of the instances you listed america was a direct PROBLEM from the start, not some saviour of human rights.

Americas. Heres an example of when America didnt intervene: Rwanda...and then whose fault was it? Americas...even if we would have intervened and possibly made things worse like we did in the Balkans...btw, a lot of the racial division, covert operations between the Hutus and Tutsi's in Rwanda came from the French, but you dont hear anyone calling them Imperialists or accuse them of committing Genocide.

What did Rwanda have to offer america? Why would it had intervened? How do you know it would have been as worse as the Balkins? Here it is you have the leader of the "free world" who loves to spread "democracy" and "peace" not lifting a finger to stop a situation from spinning out of control. BTW the French government doesnt get a pass in "A Problem From Hell: America and the Age of Genocide"

I guess flawless would be referring to the strategy and outcomes of World War I and World War II when America pretty much tipped the scale towards victory for the free world and saved half of Europe...

Tipped the scale towards victory and saved half of europe? Saved from who? People it actually funded?

also the reconstruction efforts in Post World War II Germany and Japan, which were torn to shreds and have emerged as two of the richest countries in the world...also the Marshal Plan.

Two countries that have received some type of compensation from the american government. Two countries that are now part of the top five world economies because of the Bush, Roth, Morgan and Dupont family influence. GREAT! And the Marshall plan probably helped america more than the other countries it was designed to help. Who's economy gained over 13 billion (from 1947 to 1953) because of all the purchases and shipping of AMERICAN goods shipped by AMERICA?

And then theres the first Iraq war where we undertook a very successful police action and saved Kuwait.

Saved Kuwait from some evil mongrel who america actually placed in power? Save kuwait from the evil force that was approved for a $375 - 400 million purchase of tehcnical equipment A DAY BEFORE THE INVASION? Great. WHY DID AMERICA INTERVENE ON KUWAITS BEHALF?

As far as the flag being built on the bondage of minorites, I cant dispute history...

So why are you disputing flag burning? If someone looks at the flag, remember how their ancestors were wronged and proceeds to burn the flag because their ancestors have been murdered in the name of the flag how can you say it's wrong? That flag is a symbol of death and opresion to some. Remember that.

but then again I cant dispute the fact that most of us live here because they enjoy the lifestyle and quality of life...

This may be true for some. Others live here because they actually have no other place to go (or don't have the means to go).

including minorities who also put their life on the line for the flag even though they know this history.

I agree with this however many minorities who have served have a different opinion on serving in the millitary. Imho minorities shouldn't be in the armed forces. You won't earn any respect from white america for doing so. At the end of the day you'll still be a nigger, spic or chink. REALITY.

As far as voting, people need to stop blaming the system and start blaming themselves...you had a candidate in John Kerry who was not going to withdrawl from Iraq immediately because it would be a big mistake, but was prepared to phase things out much faster and also negotiate moving in an arab coalition of troops to help stabilize Baghdad...he was ready to handle N. Korea much differently and more politically correct, and was not going to draw us into another conflict. He was also domestically liberal and prepared to put more effort into changing things at home and raising taxes but only on the top 1 percent of tax payers...he was also committed to saving social security, no strings attached, and, given the age of a lot of the federal and supreme court justices, would have appointed a number of domestically left judges...so, there was really a lot on the table...if you want to argue that Kerry was a BAD candidate then this argument holds less weight, but if especially compared to the alternative, the fact that he did have a substantial base of support and that there werent a lot of other great candidates out there that holds some weight too. Personally if I were the dems I would have ran Wesly Clark or Obama even though he wasnt considered...but anyways...ask yourself these questions:

This is a total waste of bandwith and a cesspool of lunacy. WHEN YOU CAN TELL ME WHY I SHOULD VOTE FOR ONE MEMBER OF THE SKULL & BONES INSTEAD OF VOTING FOR ANOTHER MEMBER OF THE SKULL & BONES I'LL CONSIDER YOUR STATEMENT. THEY ARE BOTH MEMBERS OF THE TLC AND CFR. WHY VOTE FOR EITHER OF THEM?

How many more people voted this election than last election?
A: Roughly the same, 60% which means 40% didnt vote.

How many more people voted this election than last election?
A: Roughly the same, 60% which means 40% didnt vote.

How much more of the pie did Bush get than last time?
A: roughly 3 or 4 percent, in numbers over a million votes.

What minority group is the largest in the United States?
A: Latinos.

What political ideology do Latinos and most minority Americans identify with typically?
A: Liberal

Is Bush a Liberal:
A: No.

Did Latinos vote more for Bush this election than last election?
A: yes.

Did all the young people that were supposed to "Rock the Vote" show up?
A: No.

Did all the Black people who were supposed to "Rock the Vote" show up?
A: No.

Why do Republicans pray for bad weather on election day?
BECAUSE DEMOCRATS WONT VOTE!

MORE WASTE OF BANDWIDTH. THE AMERICAN VOTING SYSTEM DOES NOT OPERATE THE WAY YOU HAVE PRESENTED IT.


IF YOU BELIEVE THE GLOBAL ELITE WILL ALLOW THE COMMON MAN TO DECIDE THE LEADERSHIP OF THE RICHEST AND MOST ADVANCED COUNTRY ON THE GLOBE, BY PUNCHING A HOLE NEXT TO A NAME PRINTED ON A PIECE OF CARDBOARD YOU'RE AN IDIOT.

 

[XianeX]

My sentiment is this.

A flag aint shit. just like a pair of underwear. if burning a piece of cloth just because it has stars and stripes is more severe than burning a piece a cloth without them then the country is guilty of idolatry.

there goes the theroy of this being a "christian" nation. LOL

 

[MaddDogg]

If you cant see the comparison between burning a flag and burning a cross, thats your opinion...I think most would. The slave trade was not genocide. It was WRONG, but it wasnt genocide. Blacks captured blacks and sold them to whites, the intention wasnt to systematically destroy the race. Slavery is probly the WORST thing in American history, that doesnt make it genocide. Disease is not genocide unless it is being spread on purpose...there are instances where Americans did use disease to spread death among Native Americans, but the overwhelming majority of disease death was caused by contact between two groups of people...thats how Europe got the black plague...was that genocide? The fact that upto 80% of Indians died from disease is disputable, I dont have time to look that up but you seem to have a lot of time on your hands to cut and paste qoutes and make the same argument over and over so you look it up. A number of countries have had histories of genocide: China, Russia, West and East Europe, to an extent the Jews and the Arabs, the Kurds and the Turks, events in India, Pakistan and Bangledesh...no one has clean hands. Our actions ARE magnified because we hold the world stage and if you dont believe that you need to understand we are a subject in EVERY foreign affairs event since 1898. I never said America intervened for humanity, I said we intervened...and we did save Europe twice last time I checked...we did save Kuwaitt in 1991 last time I checked...and the Marshall plan did make the world a better place last time I checked...also...if I recall, the only well developed industrial zone in the world besides the United States was Europe...and, at least last time I checked with books, speakers, ph d.'s etc., it was blown to shits...so ya, the US probly benifited too, I never said they didnt! And your comment about Rwanda just proves my point, for everyone who says we could have made a huge impact there are others who point to the intervention disasters we have both pointed out...if we went into Rwanada and it went bad what would happen? If we lost a bunch of troops or had to rely on a UN force to back us up what would happen? Would America allow it? Would it be another Vietnam, another Somalia? Another disaster?

Like, I said, if you dont believe John Kerry fit your pick for president that argument holds little weight. However you hold very liberal views and maybe the majority would think your Presidential pick was an idiot. John Kerry was for the other dominant political party the alternative to George Bush...a pretty good alternative if you dont like George Bush. I wasnt presenting the voting system, just the results of the voting system...if not everybody votes, then of course it doesnt work...but you do have a choice to vote, and some people do it, and some dont...unfortunately, the people who hold your views dont do it as often as in the same numbers as others do...thats the truth, and I am not knocking your views becasue I think we probably are much more similar than you think...but if you dont get out and vote...obviously you dont see the results...look at the republicans, they are loyal and devoted to their party, and get out and vote in droves, and they always vote republican...weve only had 1 liberal president since world war 2...

A lot of people dont like the system...but if you dont like the system, what would you prefer? Some viable alternatives that failed miserably were anarchy and communism, mixed state run economies, dictatorships and juntas. Personally I think proportional voting would be interesting, where people vote by party and the party wins seats in parliment and appoints president, but a lot of people who have that dont like it either...is there a viable alternative?

 

[HERESY]

If you cant see the comparison between burning a flag and burning a cross, thats your opinion...I think most would.

Besides heat and fire I don't see a comparison. BURNING A CROSS IN SOMEONES YARD IN HOPES OF INSTILLING FEAR (WHICH BY THE WAY IS MOTIVATED BY HATRED) IS NOT THE SAME AS AMERICANS BURNING A FLAG TO MAKE A POLITICAL STATEMENT. FLAG BURNING BY WHITE AMERICANS IS NOT RACIALLY MOTIVATED. CROSS BURNING BY WHITE AMERICANS IS RACIALLY MOTIVATED. HOW CAN YOU COMPARE THE TWO?

The slave trade was not genocide. It was WRONG, but it wasnt genocide.

According to you "genocide" is a "systematic destruction of a particular demographic of people who share the same race, religion or ethnicity." It was WRONG, but it wasn't genocide.....tell that to the MILLIONS of afrikans who died because of the slave trades. Tell that to the HUNDREDS of tribes which NO LONGER EXIST because of the slave trade. People who usually make comments like yours are blind racists. How can you sit at your computer screen and say the afrikans were not systematically chosen and wronged based on ethnicity and potential financial gain? Afrikan culture/identity CEASED to exist because of slavery. If it isn't genocide what is it? Oh yeah according to you it's WRONG and you even capped it to make it look important. How charming.

Disease is not genocide unless it is being spread on purpose...there are instances where Americans did use disease to spread death among Native Americans

So how many people died from disease being spread on purpose? How many people need to die before you call it genocide?

but the overwhelming majority of disease death was caused by contact between two groups of people

You have provided no evidence to support your claim that the majority of native deaths were caused by sickness. So why call it "overwhelming majority"? Disease was caused by by contact between the two groups of people? Why have you not mentioned the deaths caused by displacement?

thats how Europe got the black plague was that genocide?

?!?!?! Thats how europe got the black plague? I'll allow you to clarify this statement before I go any further.

The fact that upto 80% of Indians died from disease is disputable

If it's FACT how can it be disputable? For the sake of arguement lets just say 80% of the native population did die from disease.

1.) What percentage of that 80% died due to disease being spread on purpose?

2.) What percentage of that 80% died due to systematic removal/displacement (Trail of tears for example)?

3.) If 80% of the native population died because of disease what is the percentage of those who died from war and how many people does that translate to?

I dont have time to look that up but you seem to have a lot of time on your hands to cut and paste qoutes and make the same argument over and over so you look it up.

1.) If you make statements such as yours you need to back them up. If not refrain from making such statements. You don't have time to look it up but you have time to type it?


2.) It doesn't take that much time to cut and paste. Several members of this board are cutting and pasting each other in this thread. It's good to cut and paste that way you aren't being misquoted nor are you misquoting others.

A number of countries have had histories of genocide: China, Russia, West and East Europe, to an extent the Jews and the Arabs, the Kurds and the Turks, events in India, Pakistan and Bangledesh...no one has clean hands. Our actions ARE magnified because we hold the world stage and if you dont believe that you need to understand we are a subject in EVERY foreign affairs event since 1898.

We are discussing americas involvement in genocide not the countries that you listed. You have countries that DO have clean hands however none of the ones you listed are clean. Americas actions are not magnified. They go unchecked and unpunished and have done so for hundreds of years. america was the subject of every foreign affair event since 1898? Why was this?

I never said America intervened for humanity, I said we intervened...

WHY DID AMERICA INTERVENE (kuwait for example)? WHEN AMERICA HAS INTERVENED HAS IT DONE SO BECAUSE OF HUMANITARIAN DUTY OR BECAUSE OF POTENTIAL MONETARY GAIN?

and we did save Europe twice last time I checked

And also funded the nazi party. YOUR POINT? America did NOT save europe. INTERNATIONAL BANKERS and ELITE FAMILIES saved europe.

we did save Kuwaitt in 1991 last time I checked

Saved kuwait from what? From some evil mongrel who america actually placed in power? Saved kuwait from the evil force that was approved for a $375 - 400 million purchase of tehcnical equipment A DAY BEFORE THE INVASION? WHY DID AMERICA INTERVENE ON KUWAITS BEHALF?

and the Marshall plan did make the world a better place last time I checked...also...if I recall, the only well developed industrial zone in the world besides the United States was Europe...and, at least last time I checked with books, speakers, ph d.'s etc.,

The Marshall plan probably helped america more than the other countries it was designed to help. Who's economy gained over 13 billion (from 1947 to 1953) because of all the purchases and shipping of AMERICAN goods shipped by AMERICA? Who are rgese speakers and ph d.'s you've checked with? What are the books you checked with?

so ya, the US probly benifited too, I never said they didnt!

So it's safe to say america intervenes when it suits the interest of america? Is that what you're saying?

And your comment about Rwanda just proves my point, for everyone who says we could have made a huge impact there are others who point to the intervention disasters we have both pointed out...if we went into Rwanada and it went bad what would happen? If we lost a bunch of troops or had to rely on a UN force to back us up what would happen? Would America allow it? Would it be another Vietnam, another Somalia? Another disaster?

My comment about Rwanda does not prove your point because you have no point. Who's to say america could not have made a huge impact? Who's to say america could not have pushed for sanctions? Who's to say america could not have talked to the rebels to ease tensions? America was in a position to reduce crimes against humanity but it didn't. What did Rwanda have to offer america? Why would it (america) intervene if they (rwanda) had nothing to offer in return?


How do you know it would have been as worse as the Balkins? What credible info do you have to back this claim?

Like, I said, if you dont believe John Kerry fit your pick for president that argument holds little weight.

Once again I'll ask the following questions for the second or third time.

WHY I SHOULD VOTE FOR ONE MEMBER OF THE SKULL & BONES INSTEAD OF VOTING FOR ANOTHER MEMBER OF THE SKULL & BONES? THEY ARE BOTH MEMBERS OF THE TLC AND CFR. WHY VOTE FOR EITHER OF THEM?

However you hold very liberal views and maybe the majority would think your Presidential pick was an idiot.

WHO IS MY PRESIDENTIAL PICK? THEY ARE BOTH MEMBERS OF THE TLC AND CFR. THEY ARE BOTH MEMBERS OF THE SKULL & BONES. WHY WOULD I VOTE FOR EITHER OF THEM?

John Kerry was for the other dominant political party the alternative to George Bush...a pretty good alternative if you dont like George Bush. I wasnt presenting the voting system, just the results of the voting system...if not everybody votes, then of course it doesnt work

THEY ARE BOTH MEMBERS OF THE TLC AND CFR. THEY ARE BOTH MEMBERS OF THE SKULL & BONES. WHY WOULD I VOTE FOR EITHER OF THEM? EVEN IF EVERYONE *DID* VOTE IT STILL WOULD NOT MATTER. PUNCHING A HOLE NEXT TO A NAME PRINTED ON RECYCLED NOW & LATER WRAPPERS HOLDS NO WEIGHT IN A COUNTRY RAN BY SPECIAL INTEREST GROUPS AND GLOBAL ELITE.

but you do have a choice to vote, and some people do it, and some dont...unfortunately, the people who hold your views dont do it as often as in the same numbers as others do.

A choice to vote? Ok I have the power to take part in a popularity contest where the winner has been placed in office by people of influence....not by me. Some choice....

unfortunately, the people who hold your views dont do it as often as in the same numbers as others do...thats the truth, and I am not knocking your views becasue I think we probably are much more similar than you think...but if you dont get out and vote...obviously you dont see the results...look at the republicans, they are loyal and devoted to their party, and get out and vote in droves, and they always vote republican...weve only had 1 liberal president since world war 2...

1.) WE DONT HAVE SIMILAR VIEWS. YOU'RE VIEWS ARE SIMILAR TO THE AVERAGE AMERICAN DUMMY. THE AVERAGE AMERICAN CONSUMER....THE "USELESS EATER".


2.) PARTAKING IN A SYSTEM WHICH HAS BEEN SHOWN TO NOT WORK DOESN'T INTEREST ME. CHANGING THE SYSTEM DOES INTEREST ME.


3. IT DOES NOT MATTER IF THE REPUBLICANS GET OUT AND VOTE FOR THEIR CANDIDATE OR PARTY ONLY. DID IT MATTER WHEN BUSH AND CLINTON WERE BOTH FUNDED BY THE ROTHSCHILDS? IF A REPUBLICAN VOTED FOR KERRY WHAT WOULD IT HAVE MATTERED? HE AND BUSH SERVE THE NEEDS OF THE SKULL & BONES AND GLOBAL ELITE. THEY BOTH HOLD MEMBERSHIP WITH THE CFR AND TLC. WHATS THE USE OF VOTING FOR EITHER WHEN THEY ARE TORN FROM THE SAME CLOTH?


I'll answer the rest tommorow.

 

[Mac Jesus]

I'm finding it unbelievably hard to believe you've even graduated high school. That you claim to not have the time to cite references gives you carte blanch to say whatever you want? And not have it questioned? Do you understand the principles of debate? Do you understand english? I didn't ask you to solve pi while doing a handstand. I asked you to provide a concrete example of malicious moral turpitude specifically towards the Latin American civilian population.

I ain't ashamed to let you know about my education - I did just barely make it through highschool, a year late even. Whatever. I didn't go to school often. Education doesn't necessarily make you smarter. You can fill a person full of facts and that person can still be the biggest dumbass ever. What does make you smarter is life, and through my life i've learned not to afford assholes to much of my time.. sure i'll poke at them and see how irate I can make them, because thats funny to me. I didn't say I don't have the time, what I meant is I don't want to take the time. Really I have all the time in teh world.

But since you insist, i'll tell you what.. i'm not going to write a big post saying this happened and this happened and site my sources, however if you want to learn you can start by looking up The U.S. intervention in Chile.. check out what happened in Guatemala with Jacobo Arbenz and the CIAs role.. even check out the deathsquads sponsered by reagan or learn a little about the School of Americas now called the western hemisiphere of something or other, it's all been posted about on this site many many times in the past.

I did. There are no instances of U.S. oppression.

If sponsering coup's in democratically elected governments isn't a slap in the face to the citizens who voted in that country and sponsering death squads isn't oppression then you're right.

But within each tribe the wealth was distributed equally.

Oh! So you went from arguing that there was no such "barter/trade thing" before the white man came to arguing that there WAS a barter/trade thing. Just that they distributed wealth.

Obviously I was wrong.. I didn't know if you wanted me to do a little song and dance about how I was wrong then re-tract my statements so instead I just went back and retracted my statements. When I learned about the Natives in school I didn't learn much about how the different tribes interacted.. I know sometimes they would fight each other, and I know they never stayed constant they were always moving around, it only seems natural that they would trade with each other as they passed by each other. But the thing is no one had to pay rent, because it was a collective society, no one was homeless, everyone was taken care of.

I can justify it because it's made first world nations out many nations, the foremost examples being Japan and Germany - who made it with less of a head start than China ever will. What natural resources has Japan EVER had besides fish?

How did paying a man less then he's worth bring Japan and Germany to where they are today.. honest question because I don't see the connection.

And the economy, along with the standard of living, has increased steadily since reform shifted away from total nationalization (socialism) in 1979. Was China more of an economic factory in the late 70's or now? In spite of the growing population, living standard is also increasing.

My question to you: Look at Japan. Look at China. One is profitable and enjoys a first world living standard. The other does not. How many die by starvation? Compare. The answer is one embraces free trade, and the other does not.

So are you saying that right now China is more and more embracing "free trade" .. this is just recently this is happening? How long in your opinion is it until China.. no longer needs to pay men less then they are worth then?

Well then just what in the hell was it? Baseball and apple pie capitalism? Was wealth forcefully redistributed in the name of the worker? Yes. The fact that it didn't work out exactly how Marx would have wanted it is a fucking excuse. Communism is tried over and over and over again, starting with only the best of intentions and ending only in failure. Each and every fucking time the excuse is "Well that wasn't communist," or "well that wasn't socialist."

What exactly does that tell you?

I've heard it called State Socialism, and I've also heard it called State Capitalism.. now remember you're talking to someone who barely made it through high school and doesn't know much about economics by the books.. so you're just going to have to figure out what those mean on your own.

 

[MaddDogg]

Like I said, if you dont see the comparison between flag burning and cross burning i cant change that. Fear is just one of several emotions flag burning can envoke...anyways...Hutus and Tutsi murdering each other in mass was genocide...The Balkans war was genocide. You want an example of American Genocide? Wounded Knee. Although it is significantly different than most genocidal affairs because it was one battle, involved a smaller number of perpetrators and victims, and wasnt a collective act. Slavery for exploitation and financial gain is not genocide.

Disease spread through contact is not genocide. The black plague was carried to Europe by East Asian animals carrying fleas. Disease spread through contact is not systematic, it is not intentional, and it is not based on the ethnicity, race, or beliefs of the persons who accquire the disease. If a group of Americans sent a blanket to a group of Indians dipped in small pox, that would be an act of genocide.

Trail of tears is an example of displacement, not genocide. Displacement is not genocide because it is not systematic, not meant to completely destroy, and not collective. The aim of displacement was to move the Indians westward to make room for Americans. Americans stole the Indians land. Stealing and displacement is not genocide.

YOU have continued to discuss America's genocide...my point is that almost every state ever in existence has committed genocide. 1898 was the begining of American empire, American hegemony, and America as an offshore balancer. Like any great power America was always considered for arms trade or the possibility of them entering an international conflict. Since 1898 and as demonstrated in WWI we were the dominant power in international affairs and cultural diffusion, thats why our actions our magnified. The fact that you have cited American intervention as events mainly in the interest of American society shows you must have read a book or taken a political science class. Bravo! NAME A STATE THAT DOESN'T! ISNT THE POINT OF A STATE TO PROTECT ITS PEOPLE AND THEIR INTEREST? IS THE POINT OF A STATE TO GO SPREAD MORALITY AND GOOD DEEDS FOR ALL THE WORLD!? No. My point about Rwanda is simply that if America went in and fucked shit up, wed be assholes. If America didnt go in...we'd be assholes. Pretty much, we're assholes either way, and that was the point of my first post. Why didnt other countries go in? Why didnt France and Belgium who colonized Rwanda and constantly intervened in their affairs not have an interest to see things pan out for the better? Why didnt all of Africa do something about it? Because most states act in their own self interest, and they dont see their self interest in sending thousands of their troops to die in Rwanda.

Your thinking about American WWII policy and aid is very one sided. If you believe America made $13 billion and rebuilt Europe just for money your wrong. If you think Europeans didnt benifit from it your wrong again...the same with Kuwaitt...its possible for both sides to benifit from an intervention, not just greedy, racist and self centered America.

Your point about the Presidential election and your point about American intervention seem to demonstrate one thing to me: it is not just America that pisses you off, but a world where the state is supreme actor...states act in hedonism like it or not....they behave in ways only to protect their citizens because there is no actor above a state. Would you agree that your problem isnt just with America, but with the current world system? And if so what world system would you prefer?

You have also demonstrated that Kerry and Bush come from similar backgrounds. I have demonstrated they have different platforms. There were a number of other people who tried to run for president, but none faired as well a Kerry against Bush, there were 9 other Dems trying to run, but unfortunately Kerry was the best choice. In a country where 1/2 the people love George Bush and will vote in his favor, it is nessecary that the other 1/2 votes for the other guy if you want change. More people in America wanted the status quo than wanted change...well wait, I shouldnt say that, because the people who did want change: the youth, the blacks, the democrats, didnt vote! And more latins voted for Bush this election than last election. Thats why democracy doesnt work...

 

[The Duke of Earl]

trail of tears could be considerd a genocide........

 

[Jae iLL]

Like I said, if you dont see the comparison between flag burning and cross burning i cant change that. Fear is just one of several emotions flag burning can envoke...anyways...Hutus and Tutsi murdering each other in mass was genocide...The Balkans war was genocide. You want an example of American Genocide? Wounded Knee. Although it is significantly different than most genocidal affairs because it was one battle, involved a smaller number of perpetrators and victims, and wasnt a collective act. Slavery for exploitation and financial gain is not genocide.

How can you seriously compare flag burning to cross burning. Do you not realize the INTENT when burning a cross on someone's yard? It's a DELIBERATE attempt to remind blacks of what they've been through while instilling fear. Usually, burning a cross on someone's yard is the pretense for a lynching. How does this equate with flag burning????

Disease spread through contact is not genocide. The black plague was carried to Europe by East Asian animals carrying fleas. Disease spread through contact is not systematic, it is not intentional, and it is not based on the ethnicity, race, or beliefs of the persons who accquire the disease. If a group of Americans sent a blanket to a group of Indians dipped in small pox, that would be an act of genocide.

Do you know that blankets were NOT dipped in small pox and sent to natives on purpose?

Trail of tears is an example of displacement, not genocide. Displacement is not genocide because it is not systematic, not meant to completely destroy, and not collective. The aim of displacement was to move the Indians westward to make room for Americans. Americans stole the Indians land. Stealing and displacement is not genocide.

Acts of displacement were a means of genocide. How many people died while being sent to other uninhabitable territories? How many people were massacred by the Europeans? Where does "mass murder" end and "genocide" begin?

YOU have continued to discuss America's genocide...my point is that almost every state ever in existence has committed genocide.

So for a couple of hundred years, America has done MORE wrong than most of these other countries who have been in existance for thousands of years. Doesn't this seem alarming to you?

Your thinking about American WWII policy and aid is very one sided. If you believe America made $13 billion and rebuilt Europe just for money your wrong. If you think Europeans didnt benifit from it your wrong again...the same with Kuwaitt...its possible for both sides to benifit from an intervention, not just greedy, racist and self centered America.

You're naive.

You have also demonstrated that Kerry and Bush come from similar backgrounds. I have demonstrated they have different platforms. There were a number of other people who tried to run for president, but none faired as well a Kerry against Bush, there were 9 other Dems trying to run, but unfortunately Kerry was the best choice. In a country where 1/2 the people love George Bush and will vote in his favor, it is nessecary that the other 1/2 votes for the other guy if you want change. More people in America wanted the status quo than wanted change...well wait, I shouldnt say that, because the people who did want change: the youth, the blacks, the democrats, didnt vote! And more latins voted for Bush this election than last election. Thats why democracy doesnt work...

What "different platforms" do Kerry and baby bush have? None "faired as well as Kerry against bush" if any other "Democratic" Candidate ran against baby bush would the outcome be any different? If any other "Democratic" Candidate won the election, would things be any different? Why is it "necessary" for the other half of the people to vote for the "other guy" in order for there to be change? Let's assume Kerry won the election, how would things be any different today? Do you really think you have a voice in a government where even the figureheads of government have little voice?

 

[XxtraMannish]

Trail of tears is an example of displacement, not genocide. Displacement is not genocide because it is not systematic, not meant to completely destroy, and not collective. The aim of displacement was to move the Indians westward to make room for Americans. Americans stole the Indians land. Stealing and displacement is not genocide.

.

You mean the trail of tears where the peckerwoods purposefully spread small pox to the indians?

 

[HERESY]

Like I said, if you dont see the comparison between flag burning and cross burning i cant change that.

The only comparison is they are both on fire. You have not provided any insight as to why they should be compared. Someone burning a cross on MY lawn and destroying MY property in the process is DIFFERENT from a person burning a flag to make a political statement.


It's stupidity on your part to even compare the two.

Fear is just one of several emotions flag burning can envoke...anyways

Fear? So far everyone against flag burning has been against it because it appears to be disrespectful. They speak of violence and harming others. Here are quote's from YOU:

Last time I checked though someone burning the flag isnt tryin to change much, just get punched out...something they would deserve...theres a lot more creative ways to change things then burning the symbolic pride of our country

AND

Political Statements dont deserve violents, but disrespectful ones do...

According to your own words flag burning is disrespectful and the various statements that have been made concerning flag burning support this view. Not ONE of them have suggested that flag burning instills fear:

i would kick the living shit out of them, and be tempted to burn thier house down. To many good men have died to protect it.

In Louisiana you can beat the shit out of a hippie flagburner for a $10-$100 fine. I'll pay for mine and yours, friend.

When flag burning is done by white americans who is it instilling fear in?

Slavery for exploitation and financial gain is not genocide.

When the explotation paves way for the following how is it not genocide? BOLD LETTERING WILL BE USED TO DENOTE EXAMPLES.

According to The Convention on the Prevention and
Punishment of the Crime of Genocide article two defines genocide as:

"any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnic, racial or religious group, as such:"

(a) Killing members of the group;

(shootings, beatings, starvation and stabbing of slaves)

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

(whippings, torture devices around the ankles of slaves, rape, racial slurs, not allowing them to learn, unclean living quarters)

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

(mixing tribes, seperating families, changing their language, not allowing them to read, mutilation, transporting them on slave ships)

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

(rape, forced abortion, castration of male slaves, no marriage,)

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

(breaking up tribes and families, selling children born into slavery to other plantations and slave owners)


All of the above has happened. It's still not genocide?


According to Genocide Watch genocide happens in eight stages:

1.CLASSIFICATION

Master/slave, White/nigger, Owner/property, Human/animal

2.SYMBOLIZATION

Removal of afrikan clothing, branding, "papers" (symbolization to instill fear;the american flag or rebel flag, the whip, white sheets, cross burning and chains)

3.DEHUMANIZATION

Slaves considered property and sub-human (chattel). Slaves were considred soul less and classified as animals. Afrikans were often considered as a "plague" or "black plague", regulation)

4.ORGANIZATION

Slave drivers, Owners, Posse, over seer, slave ships, american government.

5.POLARIZATION

House nigger v.s. field nigger, sambo's, mullatto etc.

6.IDENTIFICATION

Forced branding, segregation, confined to certain quarters and places. Limit on clothing that can be worn, "papers".

7.EXTERMINATION

Many afrikan tribes no longer exist because of slavery. Their language, religion and culture have become extinct as a result of being subjected to it.

8.DENIAL

Something the american government has done, something it has coerced the world to do and something YOU are doing right now.

 

[HERESY]

PART 2

Disease spread through contact is not genocide.

If the disease is spread as a direct OR indirect result of war and invasion OR as a result of displacement (and leads to death) what is it?

The black plague was carried to Europe by East Asian animals carrying fleas.

The europeans were not at war with the east when the black plague was spread to europe. They were not invading nor was the sickness spread because of HUMANS. It was spread because of ANIMALS.

Disease spread through contact is not systematic, it is not intentional, and it is not based on the ethnicity, race, or beliefs of the persons who accquire the disease.

Once again, If the disease is spread as a direct OR indirect result of war and invasion OR as a result of displacement (and leads to death) what is it?

If a group of Americans sent a blanket to a group of Indians dipped in small pox, that would be an act of genocide.

That happened with the Trail of Tears.

Trail of tears is an example of displacement, not genocide.

If americans gave natives tainted blankets you've contradicted yourself.

Displacement is not genocide because it is not systematic, not meant to completely destroy, and not collective. The aim of displacement was to move the Indians westward to make room for Americans. Americans stole the Indians land. Stealing and displacement is not genocide.

Please answer Jae Il's question:

Acts of displacement were a means of genocide. How many people died while being sent to other uninhabitable territories? How many people were massacred by the Europeans? Where does "mass murder" end and "genocide" begin?

Dance or answer?

1898 was the begining of American empire, American hegemony, and America as an offshore balancer. Like any great power America was always considered for arms trade or the possibility of them entering an international conflict. Since 1898 and as demonstrated in WWI we were the dominant power in international affairs and cultural diffusion, thats why our actions our magnified.

Americas actions have not been magnified. They have been justified in the eyes of people such as yourself and swept under the rug. They go unpunished and unchecked as a result of americas influence over the media and population. 1898 has NOTHING to do with america being the LEADER OF HYPOCRISY.

YOU have continued to discuss America's genocide...my point is that almost every state ever in existence has committed genocide.

Is it hard to stick to the subject? According to you almost every state ever in existance has commited genocide. AND? Where does that leave us?

NAME A STATE THAT DOESN'T! ISNT THE POINT OF A STATE TO PROTECT ITS PEOPLE AND THEIR INTEREST? IS THE POINT OF A STATE TO GO SPREAD MORALITY AND GOOD DEEDS FOR ALL THE WORLD!? No.

WHAT ABOUT ALL THE "FREE WORLD" REHETORIC THAT COMES FROM AMERICA? IT CONTRADICTS WHAT YOU HAVE STATED. I WOULD ACTUALLY GIVE YOU THE NAME OF SEVERAL COUNTRIES THAT HAVE INTERVENED IN CERTAIN SITUATIONS AND NOT RECEIVED COMPENSATION. IF YOU DIDN'T HAVE A SHABBY RECORD AT ANSWERING QUESTIONS THAT HAVE BEEN ASKED OF YOU I WOULD DO SO.

The fact that you have cited American intervention as events mainly in the interest of American society shows you must have read a book or taken a political science class. Bravo!

The fact that you have provided NOTHING to support your various claims, failed to answer questions and continue to type madness shows you NEED to read a book or take a political science class. If I did take a class or read a book so what? How is that relevent to our discussion? I'm attacking your statements, please stick to the subject and cease your feeble attempts at sarcasm and ridicule.

My point about Rwanda is simply that if America went in and fucked shit up, wed be assholes. If America didnt go in...we'd be assholes. Pretty much, we're assholes either way, and that was the point of my first post.

My point about Rwanda is you have no point. Where is your proof to support that america would have "fucked shit up" if it intervened? IF THIS, IF THAT....your point/arguement appears to be speculative.

Why didnt other countries go in? Why didnt France and Belgium who colonized Rwanda and constantly intervened in their affairs not have an interest to see things pan out for the better?

The answers can be found in the book I previously suggested. Did Rwanda ask them for help?

Why didnt all of Africa do something about it?Because most states act in their own self interest, and they dont see their self interest in sending thousands of their troops to die in Rwanda.

SEE THE ABOVE. Did all of Africa have the resources to help?

Your thinking about American WWII policy and aid is very one sided. If you believe America made $13 billion and rebuilt Europe just for money your wrong. If you think Europeans didnt benifit from it your wrong again...the same with Kuwaitt...its possible for both sides to benifit from an intervention, not just greedy, racist and self centered America.

Are you capable of answering questions or do you need wikipedia to survive? Can you STOP avoiding questions posed to you (which have been based on your statements) and answer them?

WHY DID AMERICA INTERVENE (kuwait for example)? WHEN AMERICA HAS INTERVENED HAS IT DONE SO BECAUSE OF HUMANITARIAN DUTY OR BECAUSE OF POTENTIAL MONETARY GAIN? Who's economy gained over 13 billion (from 1947 to 1953) because of all the purchases and shipping of AMERICAN goods shipped by AMERICA? Who are these speakers and ph d.'s you've checked with? What are the books you checked with?

Your point about the Presidential election and your point about American intervention seem to demonstrate one thing to me: it is not just America that pisses you off, but a world where the state is supreme actor...states act in hedonism like it or not....they behave in ways only to protect their citizens because there is no actor above a state. Would you agree that your problem isnt just with America, but with the current world system? And if so what world system would you prefer?

These are great questions but will go unanswered until you answer the questions that have been posed to you in other posts.

You have also demonstrated that Kerry and Bush come from similar backgrounds. I have demonstrated they have different platforms. There were a number of other people who tried to run for president, but none faired as well a Kerry against Bush, there were 9 other Dems trying to run, but unfortunately Kerry was the best choice. In a country where 1/2 the people love George Bush and will vote in his favor, it is nessecary that the other 1/2 votes for the other guy if you want change. More people in America wanted the status quo than wanted change...well wait, I shouldnt say that, because the people who did want change: the youth, the blacks, the democrats, didnt vote! And more latins voted for Bush this election than last election. Thats why democracy doesnt work...

It has nothing to do with anyone voting or not voting because whoever was chosen would still be a minion for the global elite. WHY IS THAT HARD FOR YOU TO GRASP? YOU KEEP MENTIONING VOTING AS IF IT WOULD MATTER/COUNT. Either choice would enforce the SAME regulations set forth by the C.F.R, T.L.C and BILDERBERGERS. IT'S BEEN PROVEN.


Now answer the questions previously posed to you:

You said:

The fact that upto 80% of Indians died from disease is disputable

If it's FACT how can it be disputable? For the sake of arguement lets just say 80% of the native population did die from disease. What percentage of that 80% died due to disease being spread on purpose? What percentage of that 80% died due to systematic removal/displacement (Trail of tears for example)? If 80% of the native population died because of disease what is the percentage of those who died from war and how many people does that translate to?


You have provided no evidence to support your claim that the majority of native deaths were caused by sickness. So why call it "overwhelming majority"? Disease was caused by by contact between the two groups of people? Why have you not mentioned the deaths caused by direct/indirect result from being moved from point A to point B?

WHY I SHOULD VOTE FOR ONE MEMBER OF THE SKULL & BONES INSTEAD OF VOTING FOR ANOTHER MEMBER OF THE SKULL & BONES? THEY ARE BOTH MEMBERS OF THE TLC AND CFR. WHY VOTE FOR EITHER OF THEM?

These questions were asked in response to several statements you need. Is it possible for you to answer them and give us clarification in the process?

 

[MaddDogg]

The definition you use is the definition under international law, which of course holds some weight. The unfortunate thing about it in my opinion is it is too broad, and also, even though its the UN definition, is not enforced to often by the UN...

Genocide can be defined in a number of ways. Here are some other definitions of genocide by sociologists and historians:

Frank Chalk and Kurt Jonassohn:
"Genocide is a form of one-sided mass killing in which a state or other authority intends to destroy a group, as that group and membership in it are defined by the perpetrator" (The History and Sociology of Genocide , 1990).

Israel W. Charny:
"Genocide in the generic sense is the mass killing of substantial numbers of human beings, when not in the course of military forces of an avowed enemy, under conditions of the essential defenselessness and helplessness of the victims". (in Genocide: Conceptual and Historical Dimensions ed. George Andreopoulos, 1994).

Helen Fein:
"Genocide is sustained purposeful action by a perpetrator to physically destroy a collectivity directly or indirectly, through interdiction of the biological and social reproduction of group members, sustained regardless of the surrender or lack of threat offered by the victim". (Genocide: A Sociological Perspective, 1993/1990).

Barbara Harff and Ted R. Gurr:
"By our definition, genocides and politicides are the promotion and execution of policies by a state or its agents which result in the deaths of a substantial portion of a group. The difference between genocides and politicides is in the characteristics by which members of the group are identified by the state. In genocides the victimized groups are defined primarily in terms of their communal characteristics, i.e., ethnicity, religion or nationality. In politicides the victim groups are defined primarily in terms of their hierarchical position or political opposition to the regime and dominant groups" ("Toward empirical theory of genocides and politicides," International Studies Quarterly 37, 3 [1988]).

Steven T. Katz:
"the concept of genocide applies only when there is an actualized intent, however successfully carried out, to physically destroy an entire group (as such a group is defined by the perpetrators)" (The Holocaust in Historical Perspective, Vol. 1, 1994).

I see where you definition of genocide comes from. My definition of genocide would include the worlds systematic destruction, of a race, religion, ethnic group, also intentional, and consensus- that is, a large proportion of the public sanctions it, and the state reinforces it. It also is not an act of genocide until it reaches a certain level of destruction, which also usually takes time and takes place over a number of years. Genocide is not genocide until people are being killed. The people killed in genocide do not fight back, they are victims.

In either case, you will still disagree that the native american and African slave conflicts were not genocide. You have your opinion and I have mine. In my opinion there was not systematic destruction, nor intentional destruction. When there was, they were sporadic, and accompanied by other variables (war, punishment, spread of disease by contact, displacement) and were often the acts of isolated segments of the population, not a consensus. I see it my way, you see it your way.

 

[MaddDogg]

By the way, Let's get a few things straight here.
1. Disease spread through contact is disease spread through contact. Slavery is slavery. Acts of displacement are acts of displacement.
2. My comment about the blanket scheme has never contradicted anything I have said previously. I have never said Americans have not committed genocide, merely that acts of American genocide are not typical instance deemed genocidal. Nor have I justified America's actions, I have merely that slavery on the whole and Native American conflict on the whole were not genocide. Nor have I denied that Americans speak idealistically, merely that their actions function as realism.
3. 1898 has quite a bit to do with America becoming the leader of hypocrisy, if you want to argue that America's actions aren't magnified thats fine. You have your opinion and I have mine. Just remember all over the world there are American news stations, national news stations reporting American news, pro American news, Anti-American news, American inventions, American troops, American tourists, American culture. Americanization occurs more an more everyday, and its no wonder that people pay a great deal of attention to our acts, more so than any other nation...

he point with Rwanda is that American policy makers had a choice: did they want to intervene in another bloody conflict which America had no strategic interest in? Have Americans faired well in their history of intervention, whether in countries in Americas interest or not? Is the American public, one year removed from the Somalia intervention, ready to brigade its troops into the middle of another civil war? The Clinton administration decided not to. I have never justified this, but this is the reasoning. Also, the reasoning is, sometime foreign intervention makes things worse, as in the Balkans, when the majority of the genocides and killings happened after the US bombing campagin begin. The American police action is hailed by the people in power now, but not by the losers and the people who lost whole families...so basically, unless an American intervention goes flawless, it breeds backlash, and backlash can come to bite you in the ass pretty hard as we now now. We didnt know about the Balkans in 1994, but the possibility had to be considered in any case that that could happen. And, mind you, I dont justify America's policy in Rwanda...just giving an example where America is looked at critically for not going in, also the Balkans and example where America is looked at critically for going in.

You continue to speak of the TLC, CFR and Skull and Bones like they are the only criteria you would chose in your vote for president. I agree that they both may be global elite, I agree that they wouldnt be serving my whole interest, and I agree that there were probly better candidates out there. But, as I have repeated over and over again, I agree that one guy is better than the other, and I voted for that one guy, and he didnt win...plenty of people knew they were both global elites, and still chose to vote, and still chose to vote for the other guy who is more elite. I was not happy with either candidate, but nonetheless I still chose to vote, because not voting or remaining neutral would still have implications as they had different platforms. Im not an idiot, as youd like to think since I dont share your point of view on genocide or democracy, obviously these two guys came from the top of the ladder, but that did not mean they would do things the same. Therefore I did all I could to change the process by voting. What did you do? Or even better, what is your grand strategy to operate outside the democratic system that I have asked you about 3 times now?

 

[HERESY]

The definition you use is the definition under international law, which of course holds some weight. The unfortunate thing about it in my opinion is it is too broad, and also, even though its the UN definition, is not enforced to often by the UN...

I gave examples in bold. Will you please stop using wikipedia and come with your own views?

Genocide can be defined in a number of ways. Here are some other definitions of genocide by sociologists and historians:

Frank Chalk and Kurt Jonassohn:
"Genocide is a form of one-sided mass killing in which a state or other authority intends to destroy a group, as that group and membership in it are defined by the perpetrator" (The History and Sociology of Genocide , 1990).

Israel W. Charny:
"Genocide in the generic sense is the mass killing of substantial numbers of human beings, when not in the course of military forces of an avowed enemy, under conditions of the essential defenselessness and helplessness of the victims". (in Genocide: Conceptual and Historical Dimensions ed. George Andreopoulos, 1994).

Helen Fein:
"Genocide is sustained purposeful action by a perpetrator to physically destroy a collectivity directly or indirectly, through interdiction of the biological and social reproduction of group members, sustained regardless of the surrender or lack of threat offered by the victim". (Genocide: A Sociological Perspective, 1993/1990).


Barbara Harff and Ted R. Gurr:
"By our definition, genocides and politicides are the promotion and execution of policies by a state or its agents which result in the deaths of a substantial portion of a group. The difference between genocides and politicides is in the characteristics by which members of the group are identified by the state. In genocides the victimized groups are defined primarily in terms of their communal characteristics, i.e., ethnicity, religion or nationality. In politicides the victim groups are defined primarily in terms of their hierarchical position or political opposition to the regime and dominant groups" ("Toward empirical theory of genocides and politicides," International Studies Quarterly 37, 3 [1988]).

Steven T. Katz:
"the concept of genocide applies only when there is an actualized intent, however successfully carried out, to physically destroy an entire group (as such a group is defined by the perpetrators)" (The Holocaust in Historical Perspective, Vol. 1, 1994).

I'm sorry but everything in bold can be applied to the slave trade of afrikans.

I see where you definition of genocide comes from. My definition of genocide would include the worlds systematic destruction, of a race, religion, ethnic group, also intentional, and consensus- that is, a large proportion of the public sanctions it, and the state reinforces it.

The united states government endorsed and promoted the legalization of slavery and deemed slaves as property. The united states sanctioned it AND enforced it with numerous slave laws. The Irish and Chinese were NOT captured from their countries and sold in america as slaves. You had ships sailing back and fourth from europe and america with the intent to take a afrikans as slaves. Thats not systematic?

The slave trades led to the destruction of many afrikan tribes that no longer exist. They would exist if slavery were not supported by the united states and the leaders of europe.

It also is not an act of genocide until it reaches a certain level of destruction, which also usually takes time and takes place over a number of years.

The kidnapping of afrikans took place for a number of years and left many infrastructures in shambles. How much destruction has to occur?

Genocide is not genocide until people are being killed. The people killed in genocide do not fight back, they are victims.

How many people must die before it's considered genocide? The afrikans were the victims how many of them actually had a chance to fight back?

In either case, you will still disagree that the native american and African slave conflicts were not genocide.

I have no reason to shun history and agree with you.

You have your opinion and I have mine. In my opinion there was not systematic destruction, nor intentional destruction.

I've given info to support my claims. The only thing you've done is quoted someone else and give us wikipedia definitions. Good job. You are entitled to your opinion and it's useless for me to entertain someone who turns a blidn eye to historical fact. If you don't believe the criminals of slavery caused systematic or intentional destruction thats on you. History is against you.

have mine. In my opinion there was not systematic destruction, nor intentional destruction. When there was, they were sporadic, and accompanied by other variables (war, punishment, spread of disease by contact, displacement) and were often the acts of isolated segments of the population, not a consensus. I see it my way, you see it your way.

see the above.

 

[MaddDogg]

Ive used a search engine to prove there are seperate definitions of Genocide. You have chosen to use the definition of an international organization who choses only to periodically apply the term and will not punish offenders without the help of the country you claim is one of the worst offenders. If you would like more definitions I could go to the library and do some research, but using a search engine is quite user friendly and has provided more than enough examples, along with the credibility of the source of your definition, that there is not a universal definition. Of course you could fit slavery and native american conflict into my definition like fitting a square peg into a round hole, as I could fit gang violence into your example.

CLASSIFICATION:
"us and them"

SYMBOLIZATION:
We name people "Jews" or "Gypsies", or distinguish them by colors or dress; and apply them to members of groups. Classification and symbolization are universally human and do not necessarily result in genocide unless they lead to the next stage, dehumanization. When combined with hatred, symbols may be forced upon unwilling members of pariah groups


DEHUMANIZATION:
denies the humanity of the other group. Members of it are equated with animals, vermin, insects or diseases. Dehumanization overcomes the normal human revulsion against murder.

At this stage, hate propaganda in print and on hate radios is used to vilify the victim group.

ORGANIZATION:
Special army units or militias are often trained and armed. Plans are made for genocidal killings.

POLARIZATION
Extremists drive the groups apart. Hate groups broadcast polarizing propaganda. Laws may forbid intermarriage or social interaction. Extremist terrorism targets moderates, intimidating and silencing the center. Assets of extremists may be seized, and visas for international travel denied to them.

PREPERATION
Victims are identified and separated out because of their ethnic or religious identity. Death lists are drawn up. Members of victim groups are forced to wear identifying symbols.


It is "extermination" to the killers because they do not believe their victims to be fully human. Sometimes the genocide results in revenge killings by groups against each other, creating the downward whirlpool-like cycle of bilateral genocide

DENIAL
try to cover up the evidence and intimidate the witnesses. They deny that they committed any crimes, and often blame what happened on the victims. They block investigations of the crimes, and continue to govern until driven from power by force, when they flee into exile.

In any case, I see it my way and you see it yours. Obiviously theres a gray area when it comes to genocide and we sit on the opposite spectrum when it comes to the slavery and native american conflicts as a whole.

 

[HERESY]

By the way, Let's get a few things straight here.
1. Disease spread through contact is disease spread through contact. Slavery is slavery. Acts of displacement are acts of displacement.

If disease is spread as a result of displacement what is it? If it's spread as a DIRECT or INDIRECT result of a specific group killing another group or shipping them to another zone what is it?

2. My comment about the blanket scheme has never contradicted anything I have said previously.

LMAO! Let's have a look shall we?

If a group of Americans sent a blanket to a group of Indians dipped in small pox, that would be an act of genocide.

This is EXACTLY what happend to those who died from The Trail of Tears. According to you it's genocide.

However you later say:

Trail of tears is an example of displacement, not genocide.

You don't see your statements as contradictory? One minute you're saying it's genocide if you give tainted blankets to natives, but the next minute you're not calling it genocide or addressing it. :dead:

I have never said Americans have not committed genocide, merely that acts of American genocide are not typical instance deemed genocidal.

What is the "typical instance deemed genocidal"? Is that the guideline set by the Convention or something YOU came with?

Nor have I justified America's actions, I have merely that slavery on the whole and Native American conflict on the whole were not genocide. Nor have I denied that Americans speak idealistically, merely that their actions function as realism.

Jargon.

1898 has quite a bit to do with America becoming the leader of hypocrisy, if you want to argue that America's actions aren't magnified thats fine. You have your opinion and I have mine. Just remember all over the world there are American news stations, national news stations reporting American news, pro American news, Anti-American news, American inventions, American troops, American tourists, American culture. Americanization occurs more an more everyday, and its no wonder that people pay a great deal of attention to our acts, more so than any other nation...

And I can gurantee you the majority of american news stations, national news stations, pro American news and even Anti-american news stations are OWNED AND CONTROLLED BY MEMBERS OF THE C.F.R and T.L.C


This is FACT.


With that being said they have the power to paint america as a perfect white lily or black cloud.

he point with Rwanda is that American policy makers had a choice: did they want to intervene in another bloody conflict which America had no strategic interest in? Have Americans faired well in their history of intervention, whether in countries in Americas interest or not?

No strategic interest or no financial interest? Has america faired well in their history of intervention? When the intervention helps america on a financial level yes. When america has actually been the problem (indirectly) or a major player in creating the need for intervention, yes.

Is the American public, one year removed from the Somalia intervention, ready to brigade its troops into the middle of another civil war? The Clinton administration decided not to. I have never justified this, but this is the reasoning. Also, the reasoning is, sometime foreign intervention makes things worse, as in the Balkans, when the majority of the genocides and killings happened after the US bombing campagin begin.

Once again your arguement is speculative at best.

The American police action is hailed by the people in power now, but not by the losers and the people who lost whole families...so basically, unless an American intervention goes flawless, it breeds backlash, and backlash can come to bite you in the ass pretty hard as we now now.

You will have tragedy on both sides but when do you stand up for whats right? When do you stop looking for financial compensation and simply do it because its RIGHT and the people need HELP? How do you know america would have received backlash if it had intervened? YOU DON'T. Neither do I, but we will NEVER know because america never lifted a finger to stop it.

We didnt know about the Balkans in 1994, but the possibility had to be considered in any case that that could happen. And, mind you, I dont justify America's policy in Rwanda...just giving an example where America is looked at critically for not going in, also the Balkans and example where America is looked at critically for going in.

What happened in the Balkans was not an act of genocide. Rwanda was. America went in for it's own purposes.

You continue to speak of the TLC, CFR and Skull and Bones like they are the only criteria you would chose in your vote for president.

I have no reason to take part in something that isn't realistic and has proven to be a sham/scam. The groups I've mentioned have an agenda that does NOT have my best interest in mind. With that being said I would NEVER support ANYONE belonging to those groups. ANYONE who willingly does so is either with them or blind.

But, as I have repeated over and over again, I agree that one guy is better than the other, and I voted for that one guy, and he didnt win...plenty of people knew they were both global elites, and still chose to vote, and still chose to vote for the other guy who is more elite.

How is one guy better than the other? They both do the bidding of their superiors. Whatever scraps that fall from the table are NOT worth it. Plenty of people knew they were global elite and still voted? LOL! ok.

I was not happy with either candidate, but nonetheless I still chose to vote, because not voting or remaining neutral would still have implications as they had different platforms. Im not an idiot, as youd like to think since I dont share your point of view on genocide or democracy, obviously these two guys came from the top of the ladder, but that did not mean they would do things the same. Therefore I did all I could to change the process by voting.

They do not have different platforms. On the surface they may appear to be different but when it's all said and done they have the exact same agenda. Serve the global elite. By voting you did all you could to change the process? Your vote does not matter in the process so how could it have an impact?

What did you do? Or even better, what is your grand strategy to operate outside the democratic system that I have asked you about 3 times now?

I chose not to partake in the obvious fraud and manipulation of the american people. I chose not to punch holes next to names printed on recycled candy wrappers. I would answer teh second part of your question if you would answer the question I've asked you at least 5 times now.


Will you answer any questions posed to you or will you continue to avoid and side step?

 

[HERESY]

Ive used a search engine to prove there are seperate definitions of Genocide.

WOW! Thats on the level of atomic fusion!

You have chosen to use the definition of an international organization who choses only to periodically apply the term and will not punish offenders without the help of the country you claim is one of the worst offenders.

Who are you referring to? Genocide Watch or The Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide?

If you would like more definitions I could go to the library and do some research,

I've asked you to answer questions and clarify your blatent contradictions. If you can't do that why would I suggest or trust your research?

but using a search engine is quite user friendly and has provided more than enough examples, along with the credibility of the source of your definition, that there is not a universal definition. Of course you could fit slavery and native american conflict into my definition like fitting a square peg into a round hole, as I could fit gang violence into your example.

This is coming from the genius who equates flag burning with cross burning. Smart!

What you listed can't be applied to "gang violence" unless one of the gangs has superior numbers and influence. Yes I can fit slavery and native american conflict in your definition and I just might.

In any case, I see it my way and you see it yours. Obiviously theres a gray area when it comes to genocide and we sit on the opposite spectrum when it comes to the slavery and native american conflicts as a whole.

See the above.

 

[Jae iLL]

What "different platforms" do Kerry and baby bush have? None "faired as well as Kerry against bush" if any other "Democratic" Candidate ran against baby bush would the outcome be any different? If any other "Democratic" Candidate won the election, would things be any different? Why is it "necessary" for the other half of the people to vote for the "other guy" in order for there to be change? Let's assume Kerry won the election, how would things be any different today? Do you really think you have a voice in a government where even the figureheads of government have little voice?

I'd like to know what made Kerry any different than baby bush...

 

[MaddDogg]

Regarding the 80% of Indians dying from disease

Here are the results of my search for the 80% figure on Indians dying of disease:

Wikipedia
Europeans also brought diseases against which the Native Americans had no immunity. Chicken pox and measles, though common and rarely fatal among Europeans, often proved fatal to Native Americans, and more dangerous diseases such as smallpox were especially deadly to Native American populations. It is difficult to estimate the total percentage of the Native American population killed by these diseases. Epidemics often immediately followed European exploration, sometimes destroying entire villages. Some historians estimate that up to 80% of some Native populations may have died due to European diseases.

You dont like Wikipedia though so heres more:

ENCARTA
Beginning in 1492, Columbus’s voyages to the New World, as Europeans soon called the Americas, initiated the first waves of epidemics for Native Americans. The Taíno (also known as the Island Arawak) and the Island Carib of the Caribbean were the first Native Americans to be nearly exterminated by European contact.
As Spanish conquistadores (conquerors) explored the Americas, Native American communities suffered. In the American Southeast, many large, densely populated Indian villages soon disintegrated following Spanish contact. Their concentrated communities and the humid, temperate climates created ripe and deadly conditions for disease. Scholars estimate that nearly 90 percent of some pre-contact Southeastern populations were gone by 1600. Similar population declines occurred throughout the Northeast, along the St. Lawrence River, and in the mid-Atlantic and coastal regions. In the arid Southwest, Spanish diseases were not as traumatic as elsewhere. But, generally, as Europeans encountered native populations, death and disease ensued.

Article by Guenter Lewy which I will post:
About all this there is no essential disagreement. The most hideous enemy of native Americans was not the white man and his weaponry, concludes Alfred Crosby, "but the invisible killers which those men brought in their blood and breath." It is thought that between 75 to 90 percent of all Indian deaths resulted from these killers.

ALTERNET
http://www.alternet.org/story/4391/
What did the Europeans give in return? Within 20 years European disease and treachery had decimated the Wampanoags. Most diseases then came from animals that Europeans had domesticated. Cowpox from cows led to smallpox, one of the great killers of our people, spread through gifts of blankets used by infected Europeans. Some estimate that diseases accounted for a death toll reaching 90 percent in some Native American communities. By 1623, Mather the elder, a Pilgrim leader, was giving thanks to his God for destroying the heathen savages to make way "for a better growth," meaning his people.

 

[MaddDogg]

Also, can you explain when Indians were given infected blankets at Trail of Tears? In the research I did today I found 2 examples of alleged blanket infections, and neither involved the Trail of Tears? 1 involved Britain. The other instance cited by Ward Churchill, A professor at Colorado currently under investigation for plagirism. Here is an article by another professor, Thomas Brown, citing the lack of consistency in Churchill's story vs. the sources he had used:

Did the U.S. military ever carry out a genocidal assault on American Indian peoples by means of biological warfare—i.e., distributing infected smallpox blankets? Few historians would dispute that during the Plains Indian wars, selected U.S. military forces did perpetuate massacres that can easily be construed as genocidal in intent. Furthermore, it is well-established that the British general Lord Amherst at least considered distributing smallpox-infected goods to Indians in 1763—with explicitly genocidal intent—and that his plan was carried out independently by his subordinate, Captain Ecuyer.

But did the U.S. military ever deploy smallpox blankets? Ward Churchill says they did. In a series of essays written during the 1990s, Churchill gradually elaborates his version of the origins of the smallpox epidemic that broke out on the northern plains in 1837, which probably killed twenty to thirty thousand people. Churchill charges the U.S. Army with infecting the Mandan tribe with gifts of smallpox-laden blankets, withholding treatment, and thus causing an epidemic that Churchill says killed more than 125,000 people.

Ward Churchill was previously accused of plagiarism and fabricating evidence in two published articles by University of New Mexico law Professor John Lavelle.[1] Churchill’s tale of the Mandan genocide would, unfortunately, appear to fit the pattern that LaVelle first laid out. The goal of this essay will be to situate Churchill’s version of events in an historiographical analysis of the 1837 smallpox epidemic.

Ward Churchill’s Version of the Smallpox Outbreak among the Mandans

Churchill first advanced his tale of the Mandan genocide in 1992, in the context of “a brief supporting a motion to dismiss charges” against Churchill and other activists, who were being tried for having disrupted a Columbus Day parade in Denver the year before. In Churchill’s trial brief, reprinted in his book Indians R Us (1994), he claimed immunity from the state laws under which he was being prosecuted. Churchill made the argument that protesting the parade was tantamount to combating genocide, and was thus his legal duty under international law. Towards that end, in his trial brief Churchill described several historical examples of genocide against Indians, including this one:[2]

At Fort Clark on the upper Missouri River…the U.S. Army distributed smallpox-laden blankets as gifts among the Mandan. The blankets had been gathered from a military infirmary in St. Louis where troops infected with the disease were quarantined. Although the medical practice of the day required the precise opposite procedure, army doctors ordered the Mandans to disperse once they exhibited symptoms of infection. The result was a pandemic among the Plains Indian nations which claimed at least 125,000 lives, and may have reached a toll several times that number.[3]

The only source that Churchill cites in support of this contention is Russell Thornton.[4] It is enlightening to compare Thornton’s rendition with Churchill’s. Thornton locates the origins of the epidemic in “a steamboat traveling the Missouri River” (94):

Steamboats had been traveling the upper Missouri River for years before 1837, dispatched by Saint Louis fur companies for trade with the Mandan and other Indians. At 3:00 P.M. on June 19, 1837, the American Fur Company steamboat St. Peter’s arrived at the Mandan villages after stopping at Fort Clark just downstream. Some aboard the steamer had smallpox when the boat docked. It soon was spread to the Mandan, perhaps by deckhands who unloaded merchandise, perhaps by chiefs who went aboard a few days later, or perhaps by women and children who went aboard at the same time.[5]

Note the discrepancies between Churchill and Thornton. Thornton locates the site of infection at the Mandan village, not at Fort Clark. Nowhere does Thornton mention the U.S. Army. Nowhere does Thornton mention “a military infirmary in St. Louis where troops infected with the disease were quarantined.” Nowhere does Thornton mention the distribution of “smallpox-laden blankets as gifts.” On the contrary—Thornton clearly hypothesizes the origins of the epidemic as being entirely accidental.

Citing Thornton, Churchill holds that “the pandemic claimed at least 125,000 lives, and may have reached a toll several times that number.” But Thornton counts only 20,400 dead from a variety of tribes, plus “many Osage”, and “three fifths of the north-central California Indians (probably an exaggeration)”. In other words, Thornton counts no more than 30,000 dead at most.[6]

Thornton disagrees with the conclusions of genocide that Churchill attributes to him, telling the Los Angeles Times: “If Churchill has sources that say otherwise, I’d like to see them. But right now I’m his source for this, and it’s wrong.”[7] Speaking on the Churchill controversy to InsideHigherEd, Thornton remarked that: “The history is bad enough—there’s no need to embellish it.”[8]

In 1998, Churchill revised his accusations against the Army in a new collection of essays, A Little Matter of Genocide. Churchill addresses the Lord Amherst affair of 1763, in which British colonial forces may have indeed distributed smallpox-infected goods to Indians in New England. Churchill argues that Amherst:

…was by no means a singular incident, although it is the best documented. Only slightly more ambiguous was the U.S. Army’s dispensing of ‘trade blankets’ to Mandans and other Indians gathered at Fort Clark, on the Missouri River in present-day North Dakota, beginning on June 20, 1837. Far from being trade goods, the blankets had been taken from a military infirmary in St. Louis quarantined for smallpox, and brought upriver aboard the steamboat St. Peter’s. When the first Indians showed symptoms of the disease on July 14, the post surgeon advised those camped near the post to scatter and seek ‘sanctuary’ in the villages of healthy relatives…there is no conclusive figure as to how many Indians died…but estimates run as high as 100,000.[9]

In this new version, Churchill elaborates on his previous essay, adding new details. A new character appears: the post surgeon. Churchill implies that this character strategically encouraged the Indians to scatter and thus spread the disease. Churchill has also downgraded his outside estimate of the number of victims to only “as high as 100,000.”

What Happened in 1837?

Churchill’s tale of genocide by means of biological warfare is shocking, but other historians disagree that it ever happened. It is well-established that a smallpox outbreak did occur in 1837, and that it was probably carried into the region on board the steamboat St. Peter.[10]

None of the sources that Churchill cites make any mention of “a military infirmary…quarantined for smallpox.” None of the sources Churchill cites make any mention of U.S. Army soldiers even being in the area of the pandemic, much less being involved with it in any way. Churchill’s sources—in particular a journal kept by the fur trader Francis Chardon—make it clear that Fort Clark was not an Army garrison. It was a remote trading outpost that was privately owned and built by the American Fur Company, and manned by a handful of white traders.[11] It was not an Army fort, nor did it contain soldiers. Not being an Army fort, it did not contain a “post surgeon” who told Indians to “scatter” and spread the disease.

The only government employee who can be documented as present in the vicinity of the trading post was the local Indian Agent, who according to Chardon did not distribute blankets or anything else at the time of the pandemic, “as he has nothing to give his red children.”[12] The government agent functioned to serve the interests of the trading company, and had no independent incentive to infect the Indians.[13]