Jump to content

Talk:Genocide of indigenous peoples/Archive 3

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5→Archive 8

Non neutral point of view

This article is full of non neutral points of view, where accusations are made an not balance is given. For example take the entry for "British Empire" "The death of the 3,000–15,000 Aboriginal Tasmanians has been called an act of genocide" and where is the counter POV (which is well documented esle where on Wikipeia)? -- PBS (talk) 14:51, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Can you tell me where? Be happy to add that. Darkness Shines (talk) 15:53, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Well you could start with the Genocides in history article and follow the links from there. -- PBS (talk) 17:18, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The point is that that is just one example of many in this article. -- PBS (talk) 17:20, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed merge

Original research

This article is full of original research, and it starts in the very first sentence

Genocide of indigenous peoples is the genocidal destruction of indigenous peoples, understood as ethnic minorities whose territory has been occupied by colonial expansion or the formation of a nation state, by a dominant political group such as a colonial power or a nation state.

That is not a definition of genocide because genocide has a specific meaning and simple "destruction" is not an adequate definition (there has to be intent to destroy a group).

If that is the definition used:

  1. who's definition is it?
  2. If that definition is being used why is there content like "The Moriori people were nearly exterminated after Chatham Islands were invaded by Māori tribes in the 1830s." because the Moriori people were not in a nation state nor where they a colonial power.

Just because something looks like genocide in the opinion of an editor does not make it so. There should be no entries on this page other than those were an authoritative reliable sources states that an event was a genocide. For example "Congo Free State" is not considered to be a genocide by any serious historian.-- PBS (talk) 14:51, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That came from the RFC above titled RfC: Scope of this article. Darkness Shines (talk) 15:55, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry I am confused are you saying that the definition is OR? -- PBS (talk) 17:15, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry for not being clearer, I meant the definition in the article arose from the RFC, you may wish to ping the guy who wrote that part. I have no idea who added the stuff about the Māori. Darkness Shines (talk) 18:24, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Content fork

As far as I can tell this is a content fork from Genocides in history. What was the reason for the creation of this article? How does it differ from genocides in history? -- PBS (talk) 14:51, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Because this is about indigenous groups? Darkness Shines (talk) 15:52, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
What specific definition in this article is being used for an indigenous group? -- PBS (talk) 17:14, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The one in the RFC I linked in the section below. Darkness Shines (talk) 18:25, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
@Darkness Shines then if if is from an RfC without a citation to a reliable source then it is OR. -- PBS (talk) 13:31, 6 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Shaka Zulu's conquests

Lots of nasty things happen but is is not up to Wikiepdia editors to categories those events as a genocide, crime against humanity, or a war crime. It is up to editors to cite reliable sources that state that an event was a genocide, etc, and it is necessary to show that this is the legal or common academic view if the claimant is not to be attributed inline.

@Tobby72: you have just made edit, where in the sources cited are the events described as a genocide? -- PBS (talk) 13:11, 6 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Tobby72: To qualify that further: the introduction state "Genocide of indigenous peoples is the genocidal destruction of indigenous peoples, understood as ethnic minorities whose territory has been occupied by colonial expansion or the formation of a nation state". Who claims that this was a "genocide of indigenous peoples" during the formation of a nation state? -- PBS (talk) 13:28, 6 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"It was Shaka's single-minded ambition and determination that took this small and obscure tribe and made it the most powerful nation in southern Africa."[1]
"He did not invent genocide, but he certainly used it to increase his power. Enemy tribes were reduced in battle, and then the remnants were absorbed into the Zulu nation."[2] -- Tobby72 (talk) 13:52, 6 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
But what is the evidence suggesting that the victims fall under the category "indigenous peoples". In the sense that the victims of Shakas genocides were indigenous so was Shaka. And that sense is not the one used in this article. There has always been genocide, also among indigenous peoples themselves. But that is not what this article is about. The same is the case for the Maori Chatham genocide. It falls outside of the scope of this article, but within the scope of a general article on the history of genocide.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 13:57, 6 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Tainos

I thought your objections were with the reference to "systematic anhilation". Most sources cite disease as the cause of Taino collapse. This useful context since it contextualises the population collapse Casas's refers to. Why dont you think this should be mentioned?Stumink (talk) 20:32, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I object to the removal of any reference to genocide in favor of the POV language of "population decline." Your edit denies that any of it could be caused by genocidal actions, while even the Smithsonian points to the enslavement of the population, the prevention of Taino agriculture, starvation by the Spanish, Taino committing suicide to avoid subjugation, or falling while fighting the Spanish invaders. Calling it population decline due to disease is disingenuous and inaccurate, in addition to been POV. GregJackP Boomer! 21:08, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I did not remove any sources. It is obvously not POV to state that the population decline was primarily caused by infectious disease epidemics because this backed by reliable sources. The enslavement and violence against Tainos is presently mentioned and the first sentence of the paragraph references the "systemic anhilation" of Tainos so the factors you mention are all there. Perhaps famine caused by the Spaniards among other causes should also be mentioned. My version does not obfuscate any of this. Stumink (talk) 21:19, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Disease is mentioned in the first sentence, to come back and add additional information about disease is WP:UNDUE, and would require addition of the well-documented enslavement of the Taino people, their subsequent systematic starvation by the Spaniards, burning them at the stake, hacking them up for sport and for dog food, etc. I can add all of that if you wish. There are plenty of sources for this, Becoming Evil: How Ordinary People Commit Genocide and Mass Killing by James E. Waller; Encyclopedia of Slave Resistance and Rebellion, Volume 2, by Junius P. Rodriguez; and so on. Even the tourism books on the area speak of the genocide and the atrocities. GregJackP Boomer! 21:37, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Then add more specific mentions of slavery, brutality and famine. Im fine with that. The fact that the decline was principally caused by disease is necessary too. It would be misleading to talk of population decline and not specifically say what the cause is. Yes the first line mentions disease in relation to all of Latin America but it does not specifcally relate to the Tainos so it is not WP:UNDUE to have more info. Stumink (talk) 21:49, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I reverted since your first reference at p. 160 says absolutely nothing about diseases and the second reference at p. 205 states that the reliability of the population decline estimates "vary significantly in their reliability." It is still undue, but without references, it is not even verifiable. GregJackP Boomer! 22:32, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The second source mentions the disease decline on page 204. A number of sources mention that disease was either important or the main reason. These include:

http://gsp.yale.edu/case-studies/colonial-genocides-project/puerto-rico

http://gsp.yale.edu/case-studies/colonial-genocides-project/hispaniola

http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=_PFSc4kCyxcC&pg=PA41&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q&f=false

Guns, Germs, and Steel: The Fates of Human Societies by Jared Diamond

In reference to it being undue, it is well established that disease was important and at present there are no mentions of disease being important. If you think it is undue becuase there are no specific mentions of slavery etc then please add it but it is misleading to not mention disease at all in reference to the population decline. The present mention of disease is in reference to the whole of the Spanish conquest. Stumink (talk) 23:01, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I know that the second source mentions the role of disease on p. 204, right before it says on p. 205 that the estimates are not reliable. Disease is already mentioned in the first sentence, there is no need to go further in an article covering all indigenous peoples. That calls for a short summary of each genocide, not an in-depth examination. However, if you wish to do so, I would recommend that you create an article on the Tainos genocide and go into detail there. It also does not explain what the purpose of citing your first source was for, since it had nothing to do with disease at all. GregJackP Boomer! 00:29, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Cambodian genocide

Certain genocides are listed under Pre world war 1 when they happened after, I am not good enough to change them just thought I would bring it up.
ex: Cambodian genocide was in the 70's but listed pre world war 1 also Rwanda isnt on there at all and Vietnam is in the wrong time slow as well — Preceding unsigned comment added by Quadfish (talk • contribs) 03:39, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
You are correct that the Cambodian Genocide occurred after WWI- I'll take a look to see how this is presented in the article. More importantly, however, this particular section of the talk page is about the topic I outlined in my opening paragraph above. If you feel the article has other issues, feel free to use the "New Section" tab to create a new section regarding that issue. JordanGero (talk) 04:59, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Jeffrey Amherst in wrong section.

Jeffrey Ahmherst, the British general suspected of having authorized the distribution of smallpox infected blankets to Native Americans is listed under 'United States and westward expansion' which kind of makes it seem like this happened within the United States, or least by US colonizers, but in reality it occurred before the US even existed. Amherst was born, raised, and died in England, and was working as a member of the British military. I think he should be moved to the 'British Empire' section. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chrono85 (talk • contribs) 22:49, 28 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

why is US section so small?

it was the biggest genocide in history--Crossswords (talk) 04:45, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

BS. Genocide is the intentional destruction of a people. Vast majority of Native Americans were in South/Central America, so US wasn't involved. Plus their deaths were caused mostly through disease. It's not genocide, it's ethnic cleansing. Genocide is intentional. By claiming that the deaths of Native Americans through foreign diseases in a 400 year period is similar to the intentional killing of Jews, Cambodians, Armenians, etc., you trivialize genocide. That's like saying the black death was a Mongolian genocide on Europeans. --Monochrome_Monitor 18:54, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
That is stupid since Native Americans are not a single people. The US have been involved in genocidal and ethnocidal policies and practices against many people in their territory. The fact that other colonial powers in Latin America have been just as bad does not mean that that excuses the US. Also the fact that the majority of depopulation was due to disease is in fact irrelevant because policies and actions with genocidal and ethnocidal intent are well documented. So no, your argument is like saying that it would excuse the Nazis if it were shown that most Jews died to malnourishment and typhoid fever in the concentration camps rather than being actively massacred. (I.e. I am not saying that that is the case, just to make sure, but showing that your analogy is wrong, because Genocide is not only actively succeeding in destroying a people, but also in simply intending and attempting to do so). But no, I dont think the US genocide against its indigenous peoples should have much more space in the article, unfortunately there are so many other terrible genocides on the same scale as the US one that also need space in the article. But it might not be a bad idea to make a separate article on Genocide and ethnocide of Indigenous peoples in the US. User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 19:50, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
it's the south American indian who was killed by disease not the Indians in the US. Indians in the US was not killed by disease but directly killed by Americans. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.51.36.234 (talk) 18:44, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Categorically false; the majority of Native American deaths in what is now the United States were the direct result of various virgin soil epidemics, particularly smallpox, typhus, etc. You can read about it here [3]JordanGero (talk) 20:20, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
There's a difference between indirect and direct killing. Some Jews did die of disease (though primarily by gassing and secondly by shooting), but that's because they were rounded up and put in camps and starved. Native Americans died of diseases because they had no immunity whatsoever, not because they were injected with typhus or starved. Though the death toll of Natives was large, and the destruction of their culture tragic, this was over hundreds of years and mostly indirect deaths. I agree that America engaged in ethnic cleansing, but most scholars do not consider it a "genocide". Genocide implies intent. Though American policy was racist towards Native Americans, there has never been evidence that the US intended to destroy them as a people. --Monochrome_Monitor 01:40, 4 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I think you are mistaken in what most scholars believe, genocidal intent was very clearly expressed by many American state officials.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 18:20, 4 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
There needs to be a lot more information on the Armenian genocide, considering its massive scale. A genocide with 1.5 million deaths should not be given the same weight as one with 20,000 deaths. Personally, I think there should be a category for "controversial" genocides, ie ones usually not considered genocides. Ie Mao's Great Leap Forward (famine was not genocide though it was created artificially through communist policy), Stalin's gulag's (more aptly considered politicide), and colonization of the Americas. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Monochrome Monitor (talk • contribs) 01:45, 4 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
That would require some sources describing Armenians as an indigenous people. I think the case could be made that they were/are an indigenous people in Turkey, but they do not generally appear as such in the literature. Again the argument that most deaths were indirect is irrelevant, because evidence of genocidal intent and massacres of specific ethnic groups abounds. One thing is the question of whether the decline of the native population was due to genocide, but even it if was not that does not mean that the round-valley war, the destruction of the Natchez, the trail of tears or the Apache wars were not genocidal. Ethnocidal (cultural genocide) policies have been standard up untill the mid 1950s in American indigenous policy. User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 18:20, 4 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The U.S. section appears proportional. In reply to the other posters, there are disputes about the definition of genocide, which could exclude the mass murder of indigenous peoples, since unlike for example the Holocaust, forced assimilation and deportation were also used. However, that is an issue about what the topic should be named, not whether the U.S. should be included. The victims mentioned by Monochrome Monitor are not considered "indigenous peoples." The term is mainly used to refer to peoples in countries colonized by Europeans, although there are some exceptions. TFD (talk) 02:15, 4 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to call the general holocaust of Native Americans across both continents from the time of Columbus' arrival, then it would certainly be the largest genocide in history. However, if we are talking about the total number of Native Americans killed or misplaced by the US government in territory that was or is under US jurisdiction, then it doesn't even come close to the amount of people killed in some other genocides. The European powers had been colonizing the Americas for nearly three centuries for the United States came into existence. During this time, they had already decimated the initial population numbers at the time of Columbus' arrival through wars, disease, and misplacement. When the British colonies rebelled and formed the nation-state that is the United States of America, the initial population of Native Americans on both continents had already dwindled to a fraction of what it was upon initial European contact. So no, the United States as a nation-state is not responsible for the deaths of millions of Native Americans that happened at the hands of disease and the European colonial powers. The US government did commit genocide against the Native population within its borders and conquered territory, but the numbers don't come close to the Nazi holocaust of 6+ million. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chrono85 (talk • contribs) 22:55, 28 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Neutrality

A quick word search shows that the Russians were the only ones who "savagely" "slaughtered" the natives during its conquests. Everyone else must have carried out their genocides with the utmost respect and candor, eh? The overuse of emotive language in that section (not to mention the disputed neutrality of its sources, including some odd ones such as "Inside the Ropes: Sportswriters Get Their Game On") needs to be sorted out. --Jacobfrid (talk) 10:58, 23 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That whole section was recetly copypasted from a different article and it has a lot of problems. I have tried to prune it a little, but really it should be rewritten from scratch.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 11:28, 23 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Smallpox Blankets

Is there any credible historical source that the U.S. army or government officials distributed smallpox blankets to Native Americans in 1837? The article or the sources doesn't mention any specific tribe or area or really any details at all (which by itself should be problematic). If it's referring to the claims of Ward Churchill that the U.S. army gave out smallpox blankets to the Mandan in 1837, those have been debunked. That was even mentioned in a past version of this article but it was removed for some reason. --Clintville (talk) 05:13, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Are you asking about what started the 1837 Great Plains smallpox epidemic? I believe it was the Mandans that were hardest hit. As for "claims of Ward Churchill", I don't think he's old enough to have been there in 1837, so whatever "claims" he repeated weren't his to "debunk". Did you mean to say that Native American claims about responsibility for the smallpox epidemic were debunked? Xenophrenic (talk) 16:02, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The claims of Ward Churchill regarding the US distributing smallpox blankets to the Mandan have been debunked ((Redacted)).[4] As it stands I can find no credible source regarding US authorities distributing smallpox blankets to Native Americans. The only historical mention of this is in the context of Pontiac's War where a British military official (Amherst) authorized the use of biological warfare against Native American combatants who were performing a siege on Fort Pitt.JordanGero (talk) 20:26, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
That is incorrect, on both counts. Churchill's citing of the 1837 smallpox epidemic was never "debunked", and Churchill never claimed to have "fabricated" it. In fact, a University investigation determined: Our investigation has found that there is some evidence in written accounts of Indian reactions in 1837 and in native oral traditions that would allow a reasonable scholar who relies heavily on such sources to reach Professor Churchill’s interpretation that smallpox was introduced deliberately among Mandan Indians near Fort Clark by the U.S. Army, using infected blankets. His sourcing was sloppy, however. And it's not "his claim", as others have documented it before Churchill. As for Amherst, any native who defended their land from Amherst's encroachment was a "combatant", including women, children and elderly - so I fail to see your point. And I don't see which sources you are citing. When it comes to the genocidal wiping out of a people from the "New World", Amherst says it best: You will Do well to try to Innoculate the Indians by means of Blanketts, as well as to try Every other method that can serve to Extirpate this Execreble Race. Xenophrenic (talk) 07:00, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
You are incorrect on both subjects. This is the University of Michigan study's abstract regarding Churchill's claims of the US Army distributing blankets infected with smallpox in 1837 to the Mandan: In this analysis of the genocide rhetoric employed over the years by Ward Churchill, an ethnic studies professor at the University of Colorado, a "distressing" conclusion is reached: Churchill has habitually committed multiple counts of research misconduct—specifically, fabrication and falsification. While acknowledging the "politicization" of the topic and evidence of other outrages committed against Native American tribes in times past, this study examines the different versions of the "smallpox blankets" episode published by Churchill between 1994 and 2003. The "preponderance of evidence" standard of proof strongly indicates that Churchill fabricated events that never occurred—namely the U.S. Army's alleged distribution of smallpox infested blankets to the Mandan Indians in 1837. The analysis additionally reveals that Churchill falsified sources to support his fabricated version of events, and also concealed evidence in his cited sources that actually disconfirms, rather than substantiates, his allegations of genocide.
In response, Churchill is specifically quoted saying So, I glad-handed things a bit. Mea culpa., a direct admission of fabrication. You can read the full study, abstract and all, here. I'm not sure whether you were being serious out of ignorance or attempting a gross minimization of Churchill's academic dishonesty when you said "his sourcing was sloppy"; the study concluded that the preponderance of evidence shows that the events Churchill spoke of never happened, and Churchill himself admitted to fabricating evidence in support of these events.
Secondly, your statements regarding Amherst also prove misleading and are in direct contradiction to the context of his discussion of smallpox blankets, that context being "Pontiac's War"; the "disaffected" tribes Amherst spoke of were the confederation that participated in the rebellion, and his quotation on the "Execreble Race" was in reply to a subordinate informing Amherst on his plan to use biological warfare in the form of smallpox blankets against the rebelling tribes. See this summary for more information [5]. The article in question here is specifically about genocidal intent, and military strategy encompassing biological warfare against rebelling tribal communities does not meet that definition, regardless of how vitriolic and repugnant the language is.
Lastly, given that the sources provided do not support the information presented, there is no further need for me to provide you with "others available." If you wish to provide reputable sources that meet Wikipedia's policies and support the deleted statements, I would be more than happy to evaluate them. While you're at it, I would love to know who the "others that have documented" Churchill's claims are. As I stated previously, I can find no credible source supporting the distribution of smallpox blankets to Native Americans by the United States government. Can you please share your wisdom on these "others" who have "documented" these events?JordanGero (talk) 07:58, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I've already read Thomas Brown's essay (Not a "University of Michigan study", by the way), many times - and so has the University of Colorado, before issuing their findings. There was no "debunking".
In response, Churchill is specifically quoted saying So, I glad-handed things a bit. Mea culpa., a direct admission of fabrication.
Incorrect. Please read Churchill's statement more carefully this time (Brown links to it), including what he really said "mea culpa" to, without Brown's (and now your) misrepresentation, and you'll see that not only did he not admit fabrication, but he reiterated that he was correct about the 1837 event all along. Get your facts straight, please.
your statements regarding Amherst also prove misleading and are in direct contradiction to the context of his discussion of smallpox blankets.
Which statement of mine, exactly, is misleading or a direct contradiction? Please be specific.
given that the sources provided do not support the information presented
But they do, and you've provided no evidence to the contrary. Amherst did so order the use of pox-laden blankets against the natives, and that's what the sources say. Now your personal interpretation that Amherst's genocidal intent was somehow justified because he was "at war" with them, so it doesn't belong in this article, well, that's your personal opinion, and you seem reluctant to provide sources to support it. On the otherhand, the existing cited sources note:
Several other letters from the summer of 1763 show the smallpox idea was not an anomaly. The letters are filled with comments that indicate a genocidal intent, with phrases such as:
•"...that Vermine ... have forfeited all claim to the rights of humanity" (Bouquet to Amherst, 25 June)
•"I would rather chuse the liberty to kill any Savage...." (Bouquet to Amherst, 25 June)
•"...Measures to be taken as would Bring about the Total Extirpation of those Indian Nations" (Amherst to Sir William Johnson, Superintendent of the Northern Indian Department, 9 July)
•"...their Total Extirpation is scarce sufficient Attonement...." (Amherst to George Croghan, Deputy Agent for Indian Affairs, 7 August)
•"...put a most Effectual Stop to their very Being" (Amherst to Johnson, 27 August; emphasis in original).
Indian leaders defied British logic and proved effective against a string of British forts; these were the enemy that nearly succeeded in driving the British out, and became the target for British genocide.
I would love to know who the "others that have documented" Churchill's claims are...
That's not a quote of mine. Re-read, then rephrase your question, perhaps?
Xenophrenic (talk) 09:21, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I provided you with a direct source regarding Churchill's fabrications, including his admission of said fabrication. For your convenience, and to spare you the added exertion of shifting your eyeballs two inches upward, I will insert the relevant material here as well:
"In this analysis of the genocide rhetoric employed over the years by Ward Churchill, an ethnic studies professor at the University of Colorado, a "distressing" conclusion is reached: Churchill has habitually committed multiple counts of research misconduct—specifically, fabrication and falsification. While acknowledging the "politicization" of the topic and evidence of other outrages committed against Native American tribes in times past, this study examines the different versions of the "smallpox blankets" episode published by Churchill between 1994 and 2003. The "preponderance of evidence" standard of proof strongly indicates that Churchill fabricated events that never occurred—namely the U.S. Army's alleged distribution of smallpox infested blankets to the Mandan Indians in 1837. The analysis additionally reveals that Churchill falsified sources to support his fabricated version of events, and also concealed evidence in his cited sources that actually disconfirms, rather than substantiates, his allegations of genocide."
In response, Churchill is specifically quoted saying

"So, I glad-handed things a bit. Mea culpa.
, (Redacted). Instead of addressing it this, you simply discounted it and reaffirmed your previous thesis, which was categorically demonstrated as incorrect. Again, a detailed study of Churchill's publications found that Churchill fabricated and falsified data, including omitting data to the contrary, regarding the US Army distributing smallpox blankets to the Mandan in 1837, an event that likely never occurred, i.e., it was debunked. Given that you failed to address the evidence I presented against your position substantively, you have conceded this point. Moving on. If you would like to reengage on this question, I again invite you to provide me with the "others" you mentioned that have "documented" Churchill's claims before Churchill did.
(Redacted) following the investigation of his publications on the smallpox blankets; his attempt at minimizing his extreme academic dishonesty by characterizing it as "glad-handling" does not change this fact. I suggest you take your own advice and read Churchill's statements, along with the University of Michigan study, before you continue (Personal attack removed). If you had indeed read Brown's essay, you would have found that he concluded that Churchill indeed fabricated support for his "genocidal rhetoric"; were you aware that the study I cited was written by Brown?
It should be well apparent to you which statements of yours regarding Amherst are misleading, therefore your call for greater specificity here is unwarranted. Out of courtesy, I will refresh your memory: you intentionally decontextualized Amherst's quote, implying that he intended the smallpox blankets to be used for purpose of perpetrating a genocide against Amerindian communities; this is false. The quotation, when read in context, makes clear that the discussion regards use of biological warfare against rebellious tribal communities during Pontiac's War. Do you understand now (Personal attack removed)?
No, the sources provided do not support the content in the article that was deleted (recently restored, pending consensus in the talk page). This article is about genocidal intent, and engaging in biological warfare through blankets plagued with smallpox against enemy combatants does not definitionally qualify for genocide. This is not a personal interpretation in the slightest- it accords to the common meaning of the words "genocide" and "combatants". I understand that you have your own personal interpretation of this being genocide, but that alone is not enough to overcome the prevailing definitions of words, and neither is your attempt at painting your interlocutor as supporting a "personal opinion" successful at deflecting from your own subjectivity. As far as the quotations you posted are concerned, I already addressed this in my previous response: regardless of the vitriol or repugnance of the language, the fact remains that Amherst's statements were levied against indigenous combatants during Pontiac's War, with any use of biological warfare intended against the rebelling tribes. Still waiting on support for the US Army distributing smallpox blankets to the Mandan, preferably support that has not been discredited as being falsified.
I paraphrased your statements, with the meaning preserved; your deflection here is amusing, however. You mentioned that Churchill's claims were documented by "others". Again, can you perhaps provide sources for these "others"? Perhaps you would like it if I asked you a third time so you can get another chance to ignore answering the request? =DJordanGero (talk) 09:53, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your personal opinions. Xenophrenic (talk) 15:57, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for conceding the argument with a standard deflection. I quoted you a direct and reputable source regarding Churchill's fabrication and admission, as well as explaining your misleading characterization of Amherst's statements. In response, you erroneously accuse me of subjectivity (Personal attack removed). I consider the matter closed and will revert the article accordingly; thank you for your participation in this debate. You can continue to observe in "embarrassed silence", given how you appear fond of that expression on your talk page. JordanGero (talk) 17:57, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Reverting again would be a mistake on your part. Ward Churchill is a red herring here, there are plenty of other scholars who have written about the Amhersts' role in the smallpox incident at the Siege of Fort Pitt and about the 1837 Mandan smallpox epidemic.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 18:10, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
No, it would not be a mistake if the information presented was indeed unsupported by the sourced material or otherwise in violation of various Wikipedian policies (e.g., neutrality). However, I read your recent edits and find them satisfactory given their wording and cited support; thank you for rephrasing the content on the Mandan smallpox epidemic so that it does not reflect Churchill's fabrications (see above); I never contested that the epidemic itself occurred, only that Churchill's account of it has been debunked as a fabrication (again- see above). Xenophrenic apparently did not comprehend this, even going to the lengths of citing support for Churchill from the very same essay that debunked his thesis (Brown's essay). JordanGero (talk) 18:29, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I've edited a section in the article ("United States colonization and westward expansion") regarding the US distributing smallpox blankets to various Native American tribes, as well as the "authorization" of use of biological warfare in the form of smallpox blankets against "indigenous populations." According to the presented sources and others available, I cannot find credible support regarding the US distributing smallpox blankets to Amerindians, and the "authorization" spoken of by Jeffrey Amherst appears to have been in the context of Pontiac's War where biological warfare against indigenous combatants, not "indigenous populations", seems to have been granted. If there is error in these statements based on available and reputable sources, I invite those interested to discuss. JordanGero (talk) 20:32, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not seeing the error in the present sources. Can you be more specific? And you refer to "presented sources and others available", it would be great if you could provide these "others available" if they would help to clarify your concern. Regards, Xenophrenic (talk) 07:00, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
See discussion above in this subsection. Again, the sources given for the deleted material did not support its content; if you care to explain how or where such support may be found, you are free to do so. JordanGero (talk) 08:01, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I checked again, just to be sure. The content is well and properly sourced. Regards, Xenophrenic (talk) 09:21, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The content is now well and properly sourced, thanks to .·maunus's recent edits that removed content following Churchill's thesis (which has been debunked and discredited- see discussion above for links to Brown's essay and (Redacted) regarding the US Army distributing smallpox blankets in 1837), as well as moving the Amherst incident towards a more objective description. I see that you have taken the opportunity to save face by agreeing with .·maunus's edits, despite the fact that they are consistent with my position above and inconsistent with your own stance of the previous content being "well and properly sourced". It was not "well and properly sourced", which is why ·maunus deleted the mention regarding the US Army distributing smallpox blankets to the Mandan in 1837 (as stated, this has been debunked as a fabrication by Churchill in Brown's essay above, which I cited to you). Funny how you now "agree" with ·maunus's edits removing this content, yet argued the opposite against me above and in stating that the sources were "well and proper". (Personal attack removed) This has indeed been a productive discussion!JordanGero (talk) 18:32, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Barbara Mann has a chapter on this in the Tainted Gift. As long as the wording is cautiously sourced - noting that there is some disagreement about whether this occurred, then the sources absolutely support it, and indeed it would be odd not to mention it. The population/combatant distinction makes no sense here, since smallpox makes no such distinction when it spreads - furthermore Amhersts own statements clearly make no such distinction either, but is adamant of the necessity to "extirpate this execrable race" - demonstrating genocidal intent (see e.g. the quoted passages from the correspondence between Amherst and Bouquethere).·maunus · snunɐɯ· 14:29, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agree with Maunus on both points. We can't convey in Wikipedia's voice that all accounts are in agreement, but we can state that "some accounts" indicate genocide involving the US, and only mention the likelihood rather than present it as uncontested fact, per the cited sources. I've seen the "combatant" line of apologetics before, nothing new there, and is a misapplied argument in this situation. Xenophrenic (talk) 15:57, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Mann also has a chapter on the 1837 epidemic among the Mandans, but being away from a library I cannot access this chapter on google books. It could be enough to reinstate a passage on that episode as well.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 16:04, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Despite Mann not being one of the provided sources for the content in question, I am actually satisfied with ·maunus's latest editing of the contested information, namely because it is objectively worded and accords with the cited support (most notably it does not rehash Churchill's fabrications that were exposed in Thomas Brown's essay, cited above). The "combatant" argument I've employed here is a testament to both the subtlety that genocidal categorization turns on and contextualization of the issue in question, as opposed to apologetics (accusing someone of apologetics to avoid substantive argumentation is a form of ad hominem- fairly typical response to shut down discussion). Amherst's comments on use of pox-laden blankets were in the context of discussing modes of military response against rebelling indigenous tribes in Pontiac's War; his vitriolic and repugnant language does not change the fact that his intentions were prompted by a military conflict, as opposed to the implication of the article's wording prior to ·maunus's edits (i.e., that Amherst simply up and decided to distribute infected blankets to indigenous populations without specific provocation; the distinction is significant enough to be presented to the reader who can then judge Amherst's words, which indeed appear to have a genocidal bent in them, with all the facts present). The fact that smallpox itself makes no distinction as to who it infects is irrelevant to the classification of genocidal intent of the individual's employing it as a biological weapon. That is why the incident has significant ambiguity, ambiguity which ·maunus's latest edit incorporates and thus brings the contested content closer to being neutral, along with removing unsupported claims about smallpox blanket distribution for which Xenophrenic refused to cite support, despite being asked numerous times. (Personal attack removed) JordanGero (talk) 18:22, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I have a few problems with accusations of genocide by biological warfare by distributing smallpox infected blankets to native people. First, it's not really technically feasible to distribute smallpox by this method, and it is an urban myth that it can be. Although it was extremely contagious, smallpox was almost always spread by direct face-to-face contact. Contaminated blankets could be somewhat of a risk for hospital laundry staff, but laundering or even drying the blankets in the sun would kill the smallpox virus. Second, smallpox as a biological weapon is a double-edged sword. Yes, it appears to have had an 80-90% fatality rate among native people, but it also had a 30% fatality rate among Europeans, so trying to kill natives without killing Europeans would be extremely difficult. Third, the germ theory of disease had not been invented at the time of the earliest accusations, so the Europeans did not actually know what caused smallpox. It would be germ warfare by people who didn't know anything about germs. Apparently, at the time there was a myth that it could be spread by infected blankets, (and apparently there is still such a myth among modern people), but it wouldn't have worked even if they had tried it, and if it had, it could have infected the people carrying the blankets. And, it appears from the evidence that the natives who got the blankets were still alive for the next talks. So, it appears from the evidence that the soldiers and settlers brought smallpox to the war zones, and the natives got infected, but it had nothing to do with deliberate intent. If natives simply talked to soldiers or settlers, face-to-face, they could have gotten smallpox from them. That is most likely what happened. Blankets had nothing to do with it.RockyMtnGuy (talk) 18:05, 28 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that OR, you should publish it somewhere.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 21:01, 28 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Maunus; that is a lot of fine speculation and personal musing, but the salient facts relevant to this article about genocide are: (1) The actors knew smallpox was contagious and deadly to the native population, (2) they expressed the intent to do harm to a race of people - "extirpate the race" in fact - and (3) they acted on that intent. All of that is from high-quality reliable sources. How successful their efforts ultimately were is of no consequence here. There is no requirement in any definition of "genocide" that says perpetrators must have technical proficiency in, or expert knowledge of, their methods or even that they be completely successful in their actions. (And by the way, its certainly no "myth" that smallpox can be spread via contaminated blankets or other cloth items. They knew it then, and the CDC knows it now.) Xenophrenic (talk) 22:16, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Canadian indigenous schools

I added a section on the Canadian schools and Child Welfare Services. While it has been categorized as "genocide" or "genocidal" by many sources, does it meet the scope of the article? Xenophrenic (talk) 22:16, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Spanish colonization of the Americas

I don't think it is at all serious to talk about a "genocide through the introduction of disease", as it is done in the last lines of the section, if the introduction of the disease was unintentional. The section misses any reference to all the Crown laws protective of the indigenous populations that were enacted from 1518 on (plus Queen Isabella already giving orders for the protection of the indigenous population and against slavery already in 1493, as soon as Columbus came back from the first voyage), which make any claim for a genocide (i.e. intentional and planned) invalid. The section should either be removed or be moved into a section of wrongly attributed genocides.--Diotime (talk) 12:07, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't yet reviewed the cited source, but I suspect it doesn't cite unintentional introduction of disease as genocidal. As for the assertion that the description of genocide was "wrongly attributed", may I ask which reliable source you are referring to which says that? Xenophrenic (talk) 21:51, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Well you just have to read the article Black Legend in this encyclopaedia. Even if the section of this article may invite to think that such Black Legend is true, given the way it is written, it was actually a centuries-old propaganda campaign against the Spanish empire. Plus, a genocide is something planned to culturally or physically eradicate people. The accidental introduction of diseases in the American continent cannot be considered as such, the same way as the millions of deaths by tobacco or syphilis are not a genocide committed by Native Americans towards the rest of the world.--Diotime (talk) 08:14, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
No, I just have to read your reliable sources you are referring to which say the description of genocide was "wrongly attributed". And our Wikipedia articles don't claim that accidental introduction of disease is genocide. Regards, Xenophrenic (talk) 15:20, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think you're getting the point of what I'm trying to say. The whole article Black Legend, which is adequately sourced, is about a supposed genocide wrongly attributed to the Spanish Crown of that time. And yes, our Wikipedia articles don't claim that accidental introduction of disease is genocide. However, the current version of the section that this discussion is about now reads "was marked by [...] genocide through the introduction of disease" at its end.
Other than that, the supposed annihilation of Arawak people (in the Caribbean, omitting that there are actually Arawak elsewhere nowadays) is put into question by genetic analyses of the current population (as shown [6], [7] or [8], with data already incorporated in our Wikipedia articles on e.g. Puerto Rico or the Dominican Republic). But that's a more complex debate, as the brutality of colonization was certainly much greater in the Caribbean where the protective regulations from the Crown may have arrived too late.
The thing is, all in all, the quality of the section is pretty low for what at least I expect from our Wikipedia.
Regards,--Diotime (talk) 20:29, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Supposed Lemkin opinion

I have deleted "Holocaust lawyer Raphael Lemkin, the originator of the term "genocide", claimed that settler colonialism was inherently genocidal. He specifically referred to the replacement of Native Americans by English and later British colonists as genocide" This had this ref [9]. Firstly it is the author of the source, John Docker, that is making various claims about the content of Lemkin's writings, it is not Lemkin since the material from which the claims are derived are unpublished works by Lemkin. Nor does John Docker's text even claim "inherently genocidal" as a phrase used or claim made by Lemkin, it is actually a phrase used in the title of a work by Docker, who cites it as being Ward Churchill’s contention (the same Ward Churchill who, if I can borrow from an earlier discussion here, "has habitually committed multiple counts of research misconduct—specifically, fabrication and falsification"). Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 17:48, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Well spotted. I have reworded that part to remove any reference to settler colonialism and simply say Lemkin described the replacement of Native Americans as genocide in his unpublished work. Does that seem like an improvement?--Quality posts here (talk) 06:01, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I think you should probably reinsert that with a better source. Such as this: McDonnell, M. A., & Moses, A. D. (2005). Raphael Lemkin as historian of genocide in the Americas. Journal of Genocide Research, 7(4), 501-529.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 06:09, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I've tagged the section that has been added. Its a classic example of WP:OR and WP:SYN, leading to an agenda dictated piece of writing that carefully selects its sources based on a a priori agenda. Its used attribution to add POV laden terms such as genocide, which really don't apply in the cases cited. Yes there are things that we should be including but definitely not in the way its been done here. WCMemail 08:32, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Genocide is not a loaded term when it is used in Lemkin's definition and supported by reasoned arguments for why it applies to a specific historical context. It seems your comment is specifically about the British empire section which I agree is written in a way that is not neutral in that it claims the genocide as fact, when it needs to be described as an argument made by specific historians.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 08:56, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
There is no original research in the section. Nor are synthetic conclusions made that are not already made in the sources. Please assume good faith cast aspersions about my motives in editing Wikipedia. I have extensively searched google and google scholar for articles on this subject. I did not find a single one arguing that what happened to the aborigines was not genocide. For example in this book one author concludes that the settler treatment of aborigines was a genocide, while the other fails to make a conclusion. Those are the only two positions I have been able to find in any work. A former Australian Prime Minister once claimed that the Stolen Generation was not a genocide, but it is not described as a genocide in this article. Only the massive reduction in the Aboriginal population a century before is called a genocide. Instead of claiming I couldn't find them because I'm biased, perhaps you could show me some reliable sources that argue against the genocide claim?--Quality posts here (talk) 09:52, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Maunus concerning attribution. There are still multiple examples of [WP:OR]] and WP:SYN in this new section. WP:OPINION is presented as WP:FACT throughout the new section, e.g. one authors opinion that the British are racist. In addition, the section specifically on the British Empire is duplicating material already in the article concerning Australia and Canada, whilst confusing the acts of the USA in dealing with their indigenous peoples as part of the British Empire. In fact it seems like the whole section was introduced to enable the author to shoe horn as many of their own personal views as possible, dressing them up by reference to authors whose views they share, presenting them as the "truth". In addition as the OP noted, its based on authors already known for problems with their research and whilst there has been an attempt to use alternatives, its now become an example of confirmation bias in finding cites to support material that was already there - hence it no longer reflects the range of views in the literature. And that is what is fundamentally wrong here, its not representative of the range of views. Its a classic example of editing by editor who sees that Wikipedia exists to right WP:GREATWRONGS. Further, the POV issue has not been addressed and I politely request that you restore that tag please. WCMemail 14:02, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding original research and synthesis, can you give one example of that from the section? Every statement seems to be sourced, I can't see any conclusion that wasn't made in the sources.
I couldn't find any articles that argue the events described weren't a genocide. Perhaps you could share some with me?
There is no academic debate about whether the British Empire was racist. It is universally acknowledged that it was, with the worst tide of racism around the 1870-1920 era. The deniers have about as much representation among literature as flat Earthers. The British Empire being racist is a fact and not an opinion
Great wrongs is about adding original research to articles. I haven't added any.
I don't see any mentions of crimes that were actually committed by the USA.--Quality posts here (talk) 14:17, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The OR that I deleted was in two parts, some unacceptable OR in the wording of the content, and unidentified OR by John Docker. I don't know anything about John Docker, but if he is RS then his OR is acceptable - but he has to be identified as the source of the claim. So it should not be "Lemkin, the originator of the term "genocide", referred to the replacement of Native Americans by English and later British colonists as genocide", it is "Docker writes that Lemkin, in unpublished papers, referred to ....". There is no such thing as a "Holocaust lawyer", so I don't know why that is there. Lemkin is also Wikilinked here to his article, so I don't think there is a need for the "originator of the term genocide" bit. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 16:25, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I have also deleted this. [10], an extreme and unsourced claim. Due to its location it was also appearing to imply that the reason for an 84% decline in the Aboriginal population was a result of that alleged "violent expansionism and racial beliefs" - that is editorializing. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 16:40, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It is acceptable for the topic sentence to make unsourced claims so long as they are sourced later in the paragraph. It's job is to summarize the paragraph, after all. I have inserted another proposal for topic sentence of that paragraph.--Quality posts here (talk) 04:39, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
No its not acceptable to make unsourced claims or to present an opinion of one author as if it were fact. And its important to present the range of opinions in the literature, thanks to Tiptoethrutheminefield and Maunus for moderating and improving the text. However, there are still problems remaining e.g. the use of WP:SPS e.g. [11], which may be justified on the basis of the provision for experts but should be used with caution as it is an advocacy website. And the edits are still problematic by duplicating material and repeating the same content in multiple places. Shoe horning this in has damaged article flow and logic. WCMemail 08:31, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Quality posts here, what we had in that deleted material was a very extreme and also unsourced opinion that "violent expansionism and racial beliefs of the British Empire had a severely negative impact on the indigenous population" and it was tagged onto content in a way that implied evidence for that opinion: a decline in the aboriginal population of Australia. However, the source for that population decline data says nothing at all about "violent expansionism and racial beliefs of the British Empire" being a reason for that decline. That deleted content was pure OR editorializing. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 16:40, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Genocide of indigenous peoples. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:12, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "http://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=Talk:Genocide_of_indigenous_peoples/Archive_3&oldid=1233654622"