Religious prejudice, not racism, main driver of intolerance towards asylum seekers

March 10, 2016 by Laura Soderlind
Religious prejudice, not racism, main driver of intolerance towards asylum seekers
False beliefs about Islam do not necessarily translate for broad support for current hardline immigration policies, report shows

Negative attitudes among Australian voters towards asylum seekers are driven by religious bigotry more than by racism or economic anxieties, according to a new University of Melbourne report released today.

But this does not translate to strong support for current hardline policies.

Although support for these policies is widespread, a broad spectrum of the community wants something more humane, while keeping control of Australia's borders. So support for current policies is conditional on there being nothing better.

The report, 'Islamisation' and other anxieties: Voter attitudes to was undertaken by Dr Denis Muller from the Centre for Advancing Journalism and is being launched today at the Melbourne Social Equity Institute.

Researchers spoke to focus groups in Melbourne, Ballarat, Sydney, Dubbo, Brisbane and Toowoomba about their attitudes towards asylum seekers. The groups were made up of voters from all ages, backgrounds and political leanings.

The report found that people opposing asylum seekers are largely driven by fears about the role of Islam in multicultural Australia and the 'watering down' of Christian institutions.

Dr Muller said some research participants were influenced by false beliefs, such as bans on singing Christmas carols and sending Christmas cards.

"There are assumptions that most, or all, asylum seekers are Muslims. People expressed fears that Muslims bring terrorism with them, and anxiety about the 'Islamisation' of Australia.

"These are the main drivers of prejudice against people seeking asylum," said Dr Muller.

Dr Muller said he found participants were largely ignorant of the treaties Australia has signed, pledging to welcome asylum seekers and not subject them to cruel or degrading treatment.

"Voters rely on politicians and the media for their information, but there is no narrative about our legal obligations as a nation."

"The use of terms like 'illegals' and 'queue jumpers' are widely accepted because people lack the knowledge with which to challenge them," Dr Muller added.

"While this research helps explain to asylum seekers, it also finds evidence that many Australians understand the desperation driving asylum seekers to flee danger and seek a safe, secure future for themselves and their children," Dr Muller said.

Explore further: Doctor calls on Australian government to lift threat of imprisonment from doctors

Related Stories

Research challenges boat turn–back policy

March 13, 2015

Research by The University of Queensland's Migrant Smuggling Working Group shows that Australia's policy to turn-back boats does little to combat migrant smuggling, violates international obligations and jeopardises the fragile ...

Human rights report card released

April 28, 2014

Real freedom, gender-based violence, terrorism laws, and asylum seekers' rights are all considered in a report released today on vital human rights issues in Australia and around the world.

Reception centres trap migrants seeking asylum

August 11, 2015

Reception centres for migrants seeking asylum trap the people seeking help through social disempowerment as they become increasingly dependent on so-called humanitarian government, according to research published in the International ...

Failed child asylum claims in the UK

June 5, 2014

Research from the University raises concerns that many young people who are refused asylum in the UK are not being advised appropriately and are not appealing against decisions even when they have an arguable case.

Recommended for you

'Pay to publish' schemes rampant in science journals

March 22, 2017

Dozens of scientific journals appointed a fictive scholar to their editorial boards on the strength of a bogus resume, researchers determined to expose "pay to publish" schemes reported Wednesday.

New study shakes the roots of the dinosaur family tree

March 22, 2017

More than a century of theory about the evolutionary history of dinosaurs has been turned on its head following the publication of new research from scientists at the University of Cambridge and Natural History Museum in ...

110 comments

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

Scarlett
3 / 5 (4) Mar 10, 2016
Uh, is this the same type of "asylum seekers" currently raping its way through Europe? Because I think I might know a reason Australians might not like them that DOESN'T HAVE ANYTHING TO DO with religion OR racism. :-\
Squirrel
5 / 5 (1) Mar 10, 2016
It's a prejudice against nonmelters. Australians value immigrants that will drop their past and replace it with something shared with those around them in Australia. Whether rightly or not they suspect Muslim asylum seekers and their children won't melt--due to their religion--into the Australian social fabric. The solution is for Australian Muslims to create a distinctive Islam with an Ozzy accent.
Noumenon
1.8 / 5 (5) Mar 10, 2016
According to liberals "diversity" is a good thing, and if you don't like it and would rather protect your countries cultural identity, you're a racist.

When immigrants refuse to assimilate it creates a thousand micro-borders instead of just one.

SoylentGrin
4.2 / 5 (5) Mar 10, 2016
if you don't like it and would rather protect your countries cultural identity, you're a racist.


I don't know. "Protecting cultural identity" sounds an awful lot like calls to maintain "purity". I'd say being a racist is the least of it.
Noumenon
2.3 / 5 (3) Mar 10, 2016
if you don't like it and would rather protect your countries cultural identity, you're a racist.


I don't know. "Protecting cultural identity" sounds an awful lot like calls to maintain "purity". I'd say being a racist is the least of it.


You don't seem to have an understanding of the difference between culture and race.

Typical though. It's not possible to have rational discussions about actual problems with a liberal without eventually being called a racist or a nazi.

greenonions
3.4 / 5 (5) Mar 10, 2016
Noumenon
According to liberals "diversity" is a good thing, and if you don't like it and would rather protect your countries cultural identity, you're a racist.
This statement would clearly say to me that you don't like diversity. I think that diversity is very important. I am a Brit. I see no conflict between recognizing my cultural heritage, and celebrating diversity - appreciating that others also have a cultural heritage, and that mine is not better or worse than theirs.
It's not possible to have rational discussions about actual problems with a liberal without eventually being called a racist or a nazi.
I think that the recognition of the connection between "Protecting cultural identity" - and maintaining "purity" was quite reasonable. Your tactic of insulting someone who was picking up on your dog whistles - is par for the course in terms of your discourse.
MrVibrating
4 / 5 (3) Mar 13, 2016
"Negative attitudes among Australian voters towards asylum seekers are driven by religious bigotry.."


..shouldn't that read "fear of religious bigotry" (ie. from a death cult that sanctifies it in almost every form)?

@Greenonions - Western civilisation and culture is vastly, immeasurably superior to Sharia. The Islamist mindset sees such ambivalence as yet another justification for its inevitable dominance - and to be fair, do we really deserve benefits we don't even appreciate? Pull youself together..
greenonions
5 / 5 (2) Mar 14, 2016
MrVibrating
Western civilisation and culture is vastly, immeasurably superior to Sharia

Nice straw man there. We were talking about the issue of diversity - and Noumenon's use of the term 'protect your countries cultural heritage.' I am guessing that you are either not aware of - or not concerned about the cultural genocides that have occurred throughout history. As an atheist - I have no time for any of the religionist world views - but I do recognize the importance of respecting others right to self determination - as long as they don't mess with mine. Of course I don't support Sharia law (I don't really know much about it) - but as an atheist - I don't want any religionist writing laws for me.
do we really deserve benefits we don't even appreciate? Pull youself together.
You know nothing about what I appreciate or not.
Noumenon
not rated yet Mar 14, 2016
So, you're thinking that I support cultural genocide? Is that a reasonable response?

Do you understand that a large proportion of muslims expect sharia law to take precedence over the constitution of the country they're immigrating to, and that of all cultures in the world, islamists are the least accepting of other cultures and religious beliefs? Do you know what they think of nonbelievers? Then there is the fact that there is a large enough percentage of them who look the other way or justify terrorist acts, that it is entirely reasonable to at least have immigration restrictions on them.

That is why I said a country should strive to protect its cultural identity.

greenonions
3.7 / 5 (3) Mar 14, 2016
So, you're thinking that I support cultural genocide? Is that a reasonable response?
You have most certainly been an opologist for genocide. On another thread - I talked about the genocide of the Native Americans. Here is your response "The native American culture was a failed one which is why it is extinct" So much to unpack - and no time. "failed" means they did not have guns - and the invading colonists did. Just a point - it is not extinct.
Noumenon
1 / 5 (1) Mar 15, 2016
So, you're thinking that I support cultural genocide? Is that a reasonable response?
You have most certainly been an opologist for genocide. On another thread - I talked about the genocide of the Native Americans. Here is your response "The native American culture was a failed one which is why it is extinct" So much to unpack - and no time. "failed" means they did not have guns - and the invading colonists did. Just a point - it is not extinct.


That is a dishonest misrepresentation of what I said, though entirely expected of you.

I said their Culture became extinct and not by force (as in that thread I disputed your claim that they were "exterminated" rather than just fought off just as they fought each other),... but, and I quote, "since no one wants to live like that now". No, not because they didn't have guns, but because "no one wants to live like that now". Their culture became extinct on account of competition of cultures.
Noumenon
2.3 / 5 (3) Mar 15, 2016
I never intended to say the Indians themselves as human beings should rightly become extinct,.... ONLY their failed culture as stated. Again, I even refuted you assertion that they were "exterminated".

....Not that I have much faith in you comprehending context or in vietvet fact checking you outrageous accusations before handing you a five.

viko_mx
1.8 / 5 (5) Mar 15, 2016
A man who wants to be liked by everyone can not stand behind the truth. Adequate people do not close their eyes before the facts in the name of careless illusions and fictional bright future.
viko_mx
1 / 5 (4) Mar 15, 2016
Long time ago when people began to build the tower of Babel as naive means for escape from one future divine punishment against the wicked, which became the symbol of rebbel against the God will and laws, He disturb their language and confused this work, then divided the nations and scatter them to the four corners of the Earth. There is no need to make the same mistake. Smart people are able to learn from the faults of others people and history events.
greenonions
3.7 / 5 (3) Mar 15, 2016
Noumenon
That is a dishonest misrepresentation of what I said, though entirely expected of you.
Again - it is a direct quote - and again - I quote you - and you accuse me of dishonesty. You said
The native American culture was a failed one which is why it is extinct
How can direct quoting someone be dishonest? This is an opologist perspective on the genocide of the Native Americans. How is it a "failed" culture? The Native Americans were systematically exterminated by the invading colonists How can you ignore this fact? Also - again - Native American culture is not extinct - there are many very proud Native Americans - keeping their culture alive - all over the U.S.
Noumenon
2.3 / 5 (3) Mar 15, 2016
you said...
[
The native American culture was a failed one which is why it is extinct

How can direct quoting someone be dishonest?


Your dishonesty is in what YOU added, your infantile "interpretations",..i.e. the implication that i'm an apologist for "cultural genocide" or "extermination of native Americans".

In that thread I made clear that the extinction of native American culture was due to competition of cultures,... and never advocated forced destruction of people except in defense.

The American Indians routinely slaughtered each others tribes, so blaming western culture for their failed culture and "plight" is just liberal bed-wetting gibberish.

greenonions
3 / 5 (2) Mar 15, 2016
Noumenon
the implication that i'm an apologist for "cultural genocide
Your statement clearly makes you an apologist for the genocide of the Native Americans. Let me repeat your statement for you
The native American culture was a failed one which is why it is extinct
You offer no acknowledgement of the part that cultural genocide played in the genocide of millions of Native Americans. You blame the Native Americans for having a "failed culture". Yes - this makes you an apologist. You never even try to define what you mean by "failed" - which is a very loaded term. Boy it is tiring when you say A - you get called on saying A - and you say "I never said A, how dare you be dishonest" You said A Noumenon - and it is clearly there to be seen.
Noumenon
1 / 5 (1) Mar 15, 2016
You're fundamentally dishonest or can't read,.... it can only be one or the other. You don't ask for clarification if need be, instead you cast aspersions without justification.

"The native American culture was a failed one which is why it is extinct". The word "extinct" does not imply forced through genocide. That, you made up. The word "extinct" implies by natural causes. I even stated in that thread that there were thousands of cultures that went extinct throughout human history for various reasons.

I stated clear enough the natural cause; two cultures interacting with one categorically more sophisticated in every conceivable way.

You're not entitled to decide what I say or mean. If I tell you that I'm not advocating for forced "cultural genocide" nor concerted "extermination",... words that YOU interjected here, not me,..... then you have no recourse but to accept that,... otherwise you come off as a lunatic attempting to tell me what I believe.

Noumenon
2.3 / 5 (3) Mar 15, 2016
When western culture (Western Europe) colonized the Americas they came upon ignorant savages who routinely slaughtered each other. Native American culture could never have been adopted en masse by Europeans, thus that backward culture became extinct with Indians eventually assimilating.

I don't agree with politically correct liberals who imply that it was in anyway wrong for western culture to colonize the Americas ... and sure as hell don't agree with invented idiot gibberish like "it was cultural genocide".

greenonions
3 / 5 (2) Mar 15, 2016
You're fundamentally dishonest or can't read,....
I can read perfectly well - let me show you what you SAID again.
The native American culture was a failed one which is why it is extinct
Now you move on
The word "extinct" implies by natural causes.
You of course continue to avoid the question of exactly what is meant by the term "failed". But let's look at the term "by natural causes." Define natural. Does natural include hunting native Americans like animals - and paying bounty for their scalps? This is what happened.
You're not entitled to decide what I say or mean.
No - I am entitled to tell you what you SAID.
When western culture (Western Europe) colonized the Americas they came upon ignorant savages who routinely slaughtered each other.
These are the words of a racist, and a historical revisionist. Do you not know that many western cultures systematically slaughtered each other? cont.
greenonions
3 / 5 (2) Mar 15, 2016
cont. Do you not know that many native cultures were in fact peaceful - non violent cultures? http://blogs.scie...owed-up/ In a previous post you accused me of not knowing history. I think you should do some reading yourself. Guns, Germs and Steel would be a good start. Maybe read some of the letters that Columbus wrote - detailing the atrocities committed against very peaceful tribes that greeted his men when the came to the Americas.
greenonions
3 / 5 (2) Mar 16, 2016
Noumenon - based on this statement -
When western culture (Western Europe) colonized the Americas they came upon ignorant savages who routinely slaughtered each other.
Would you agree that it is reasonable to say that you are setting up a narrative basically "Western culture good (or superior) - native cultures bad (or inferior)?" Have you ever read anything about western colonization of Africa (just for example)? Just an example - http://https://www.youtu...Sj1fhSso
Noumenon
2.3 / 5 (3) Mar 16, 2016
You of course continue to avoid the question of exactly what is meant by the term "failed"

No, it's rather that your reading comprehension is worthless, as I already explained that.
But let's look at the term "by natural causes." Define natural.

I already explained this. Your reading comprehension is worthless, and/or you only read what you want to read. This has been proven in other exchanges between us as well.

Natural, and failed,… are implied in the competition of cultures which naturally occurs whenever two cultures interact, and the subsequent historical results. The Americas, North and South, did not embrace native American culture. This is a fact, and is what is meant by "failed culture". Another meaning is when a subculture is destructive. I touched on this in the other thread.
Noumenon
2.3 / 5 (3) Mar 16, 2016
[…] came upon ignorant savages who routinely slaughtered each other.

These are the words of a racist, and a historical revisionist.


Do you even know what "racist" means? Typical of a liberal to toss that accusation around without understanding it's meaning.

I am stating a fact, which may not be compatible with your liberal spoon-fed PC narrative, but a fact nonetheless. Intellectually, the Europeans were light years beyond the native Americans, ….who were still dancing around in circles trying to make it rain.

Do you not know that many western cultures systematically slaughtered each other?

By your own logic, this comment would make YOU a racist.

The point was that the Indians were not some innocent peace loving sweethearts that the liberal PC narrative would rather people believe,…. that because they were no different than the Europeans in this regard, one is not entitled to portray them as innocent victims of an evil western culture.
Noumenon
3 / 5 (2) Mar 16, 2016
When western culture (Western Europe) colonized the Americas they came upon ignorant savages who routinely slaughtered each other.

Would you agree that it is reasonable to say that you are setting up a narrative basically "Western culture good (or superior) - native cultures bad (or inferior)?"


I would use the word's "superior" and "inferior" yes, absolutely.

I would not use the word's "good" and "bad", nor have I.

You are conflating good/bad with superior/inferior, and so are interjecting emotional subjective judgement here. I am not.

Btw, the vast majority of Native Americans deaths as the result of European colonialism**, occurred on account of the stronger immune system of Europeans. But, the Indians got us back by introducing us to tobacco.

** This term is not even really justified, as the Native Americans had no concept of a unified country or Sovereignty.
greenonions
3.7 / 5 (3) Mar 16, 2016
Your reading comprehension is worthless, and/or you only read what you want to read. This has been proven in other exchanges between us as well.
So why continue?

I am stating a fact,
No - you are showing your ignorance of history. Look at this statement -
When western culture (Western Europe) colonized the Americas they came upon ignorant savages who routinely slaughtered each other.
Which - as I tried to get you to acknowledge - but you of course refuse - sets up the narrative "western culture good (superior) - native culture bad (inferior). Well that narrative is a-historical. The western culture you want to spin as so wonderful - was just as capable of being savage, and I gave you just one example of that truth. So it is you who demonstrates ignorance of the facts. Yes you are a racist - because you refuse to study history - and want to create false narratives. It is nothing to do with liberals vs conservatives - more about your ignorance.
Noumenon
2.3 / 5 (3) Mar 16, 2016
Which - as I tried to get you to acknowledge - but you of course refuse - sets up the narrative "western culture good (superior) - native culture bad (inferior). Well that narrative is a-historical. The western culture you want to spin as so wonderful - was just as capable of being savage, and I gave you just one example of that truth. So it is you who demonstrates ignorance of the facts.


You invented that narrative YOURSELF, by deliberately conflating good/bad with superior/inferior and so interjecting moral judgement.

You asked me if that narrative would be reasonable and I answered negatively,… but yet you do not wait for the answer before replying, or have read my reply and yet continue anyway. Again, you come off as a lunatic or a fundamentally dishonest person, attempting to tell me what I believe.
Noumenon
5 / 5 (1) Mar 16, 2016
Yes you are a racist - because you refuse to study history - and want to create false narratives


That is not what "racist" means. It has nothing to do with whether one studies history or does not.

Racism, is the belief that each human race has intrinsic capacities and thus can be determined as superior or inferior, irrespective of historical circumstance.

I have never in my life believed this to be true, nor have I engaged in such discussions. I was not making racial judgements, no matter how much you try to dishonestly imply that.

I was obviously speaking about the relative superiority of cultures, which is demonstrable in terms of... relative knowledge, commerce, military, government, science, medicine, technology, literature, industry ......

I do study some history, though am not a historian. In fact i'm half-way between the twelve volume "New Cambridge Modern History" right now.

Yet another unfounded accusation by you.

Noumenon
1 / 5 (1) Mar 16, 2016
Again, the purpose of stating "Western Europe [..] came upon ignorant savages who routinely slaughtered each other" was to a) contrast the two cultures in terms of sophistication, knowledge, and b) point out that native Americans were not innocent peace loving sweethearts, and thus victims of evil Europeans.

Indian tribes slaughtered each other routinely in their history also, way before Europeans came.

greenonions
3.7 / 5 (3) Mar 17, 2016
Nou
Again, the purpose of stating "Western Europe [..] came upon ignorant savages who routinely slaughtered each other


IS racist. You are threading a narrative about 2 cultures - that is false (factually incorrect). Many of the Native Americans encountered by the Western Colonists - were peaceful, and not at all savage. Plenty of the Western Colonists engaged in great acts of savagery. Read Guns Germs and Steel - and you will see that there is great historical evidence to support these two statements (or learn to use google). The slave trade of course gives ample evidence of the savagery of Western Colonists. I am not saying ALL Native Americans were peaceful, or that ALL Western Colonists were savage. I am saying that your narrative is factually incorrect - and clearly an attempt at misrepresenting the facts - in favor of one culture - and to the condemnation of another.
greenonions
3.7 / 5 (3) Mar 17, 2016
Indian tribes slaughtered each other routinely in their history also, way before Europeans came.
Correct - some did - not ALL. Europeans routinely slaughtered each other throughout history. Perhaps you are not aware of the wars and massacres of Europe - going back to the Romans and beyond. Perhaps you did not watch the video I linked regarding King Ferdinand. So your racism is in the willingness to caste one culture a certain way (which is partially correct), and to ignore the facts regarding another culture. You assert (incorrectly) that Native American culture is extinct - and claim that this extinction demonstrates the superiority of Western culture. History shows a much more complex picture - and cultural genocide was a big part of that picture. How you can know that we hunted Native Americans - and put bounty on their scalps - and still hold such a skewed view of the facts - is interesting to say the least.
greenonions
3 / 5 (2) Mar 17, 2016
Nou
Not that I have much faith in you comprehending context or in vietvet fact checking you outrageous accusations before handing you a five.


At least vietvet is not a sock puppet (certainly not one I created). I see you have revived Erscheinung. Do you not hate yourself for all the self-demeaning inconsistencies you exhibit? Does it not bother you that you need to behave in such a childish manner? A debate is a debate - an examination of the facts of a situation. Creating a sock puppet is really pathetic. It certainly erodes any narrative you may be trying to construct regarding your honesty - or credibility.
Noumenon
not rated yet Mar 17, 2016
Indian tribes slaughtered each other routinely in their history also, way before Europeans came.

Correct - some did - not ALL. Europeans routinely slaughtered each other throughout history. Perhaps you are not aware of the wars and massacres of Europe - going back to the Romans and beyond. [….] So your racism is in the willingness to caste one culture a certain way (which is partially correct), and to ignore the facts regarding another culture.


OMG, what is wrong with you?!! Seriously, you must have a mental condition or are trolling here. You continue to INSIST that what I posted corresponds to your delusional and incompetent interpretations?

You can say "well, not all" to any statement that is conceivable about anything.
Noumenon
1 / 5 (2) Mar 17, 2016
Here is the exchange from the other thread where I first stated that "Indians routinely slaughtered each other".......

As would the Native Americans - who were systematically exterminated by your religion of capitalism. Those guys were pretty free until you f*cked them up. -greenonions


The native Americans routinely slaughtered each other. Routinely. They were ignorant savages in comparison to western culture...


.... As anyone can see it was in response to YOUR patently false narrative that native Americans were peaceful free people. That was the only purpose, to which you continue to dishonestly obscure with you inane interpretations.

Noumenon
1 / 5 (1) Mar 17, 2016
FACTS;

-Racism is not about cultures, you dolt.

-Western culture was demonstrably superior, in those aspects in which I enumerated, and thus generally with respect to knowledge, and thus were "ignorant" in comparison to Europeans.

- Europeans thought of the Native Americans as "savages", on account of the stark difference and behavior in their cultures, rightly so.

-I NEVER stated that Europeans never slaughtered each other in wars.
Noumenon
2.3 / 5 (3) Mar 17, 2016
At least vietvet is not a sock puppet (certainly not one I created). I see you have revived Erscheinung. […] A debate is a debate - an examination of the facts of a situation.

Actually it is not a debate if you INSIST upon your own interjected interpretations of what I posted or implied, EVEN AFTER you were corrected multiple times! That is the behavior of someone who is delusional.

Vietvet has troll rated me literally hundreds of times, maybe thousands, but has only ever actually engaged me in discussion ONCE that I can recall (and did so on false premises).

He has only rated my posts a 1 in this thread, and if he does not disagree, does not rate at all, instead of being consist and rating a 5 or 3. He is a member of the trolling-cabal (vietvet, Stumpy, Ira, Otto) who likely all know each other, and as anyone can verify routinely uprate each other irrespective of the content of the debate. His troll ratings are therefore considered invalid by me.
greenonions
3.7 / 5 (3) Mar 17, 2016
As anyone can see it was in response to YOUR patently false narrative that native Americans were peaceful free people.
I did not use the word peaceful. We were talking about capitalism in that debate - and again - I never used the word peaceful. What I was saying in that debate - was that capitalism has flaws. I used the word free. Stop lying. It is quite accurate to say that the Native Americans lived a very free life. Many of the tribes were nomadic. They lived a hunter gatherer existence. They were in the way of the Western Colonialists - who were happy to clear them out of the way. Perhaps you never heard of the trail of tears.

-Racism is not about cultures, you dolt.


Race and culture are intertwined - you dolt. If you put a bounty on the head of Native Americans - and hunt them down - you are committing cultural genocide. You are trying to wipe out a race of people - and their culture with them. You dolt.
greenonions
3.7 / 5 (3) Mar 17, 2016
-I NEVER stated that Europeans never slaughtered each other in wars
No - you indicted the Native Americans for their savagery, and conveniently overlooked the fact that Europeans are also capable of savagery. This is the ahistorical narrative you are driving - and it is racist.
Noumenon
2 / 5 (4) Mar 17, 2016
You were already told that I reject the mythological liberal narrative that there was systematic and concerted effort of "genocide" and "extermination" against the native Indians.

There WAS war with them and brutality, but not over and above what they themselves had engaged in among themselves, so they were no freer or peace loving than Europeans. There was also cooperation at times. The terms "extermination" and "genocide" are unjustified PC victim-hood industry exaggeration that evidently you have been spoon-fed.

You were already told that the vast majority of deaths of the Native Americans were caused by disease on account of their weaker immune system, and as your own reference confirms,... "kill[ed] an estimated 95 percent of the pre-Columbian Native American population".

This was not "genocide" because it was not intentional.

Noumenon
1 / 5 (2) Mar 17, 2016
Perhaps you never heard of the trail of tears.


That was in the nineteenth century.

While it ended up as a cluster-f'uk and tragedy,.... it was categorically NOT a "genocide", nor a "cultural genocide", nor "extermination".

It was originally based on a gov Indian Removal Act, that was intended to Negotiate the Exchange of land with native Indians....

"The Act provided the President with powers to exchange land with Native tribes [.....].. to pay for transportation costs to the West, should tribes choose to relocate. The law did not, however, allow the President to force tribes to move West without a mutually agreed-upon treaty."

Many tribal leaders ACCEPTED the deal by the American Government. They were given up to two years to relocate. Some chose to fight the relocation and were forced to do so eventually.

Noumenon
1 / 5 (1) Mar 17, 2016
-Debate for the above congressional act indicated that concern for the Indians was at least partly the motive,.... on one side of the debate, to move them to safer regions where there would be less violent conflict,..... and on the other side of the debate, objection on the grounds that the law was a land grab from the Indians.

-The government spent billions of dollars in today's equivalent sums, to relocate the Indians.

-"Voluminous records, including those of the Cherokee nation itself, show no loss approaching 4,000 (an actual figure of about 840 deaths was bad enough);"

-"The word "forced" insults the Cherokees because they conducted their own march, paid for by Washington;" [they were responsible for themselves and given adequate time and resources]

-"The phrase "Trail of Tears" was never used by a Cherokee in the 1830s, but came into existence under other circumstances some 70 years later."

Noumenon
1 / 5 (2) Mar 17, 2016
As would the Native Americans - who were systematically exterminated by your religion of capitalism. -greenonions


Capitalism generates nearly 30 billion dollars per year for Native American Tribes. They embrace capitalism.

And yet among Native American people there is still vast wealth and income inequalities, with many of them dependent on government handouts.

greenonions
3 / 5 (2) Mar 17, 2016
This was not "genocide" because it was not intentional.
It was genocide - because it was intentional. Look up Sands Creek. Look up the practice of putting bounty on people's heads. Read Guns Germs and Steel. Just because you do not know your history - does not make it truth. Yes you are a racist - wanting to misrepresent the facts of history.

The government spent billions of dollars in today's equivalent sums, to relocate the Indians.
And you see no problem with displacing native people's off of the land they inhabit - because foreigners want that land. You do not know history - and want to come on a science site - misrepresent facts - and push your racist ideology. Good job.
Noumenon
not rated yet Mar 17, 2016
You're an idiot who has been spoon-fed a liberal PC narrative, and like all half-wit liberals, must toss around accusations of "racism" despite not knowing what that even means. You have no clue what history I know or don't know. I posted facts above, while you posted accusations.

Like typical victims of PC propaganda, you toss around loaded terms like "extermination", "genocide", "cultural genocide", "racist",..... that are an exaggeration and outright fraud of historical facts, and as if you could possibly know what I believe. I just demonstrated one example.

I have never disputed that the European colonizations where not brutal events nor that they did not involve fighting, ....and yet you INSIST on enumerating various events to maintain your own invented strawman.

Fundamentally dishonest.

Noumenon
not rated yet Mar 17, 2016
I have not disputed that during war (all wars) there are atrocities committed,... but yet you dishonestly INSIST on manufacturing the impression that somewhere I stated that there was never any brutality against the Indians. That is patently false and a deliberate lie by you.

I only reject the notion that western European culture or the American government sponsored such atrocities as a concerted effort of "extermination", or "genocide", or "cultural genocide".

...
Noumenon
not rated yet Mar 17, 2016
Look up Sands Creek


It was an act NOT sponsored by the American government and thus not representative of the settlers nor western European culture.

After three investigations conducted by the American Government, it was concluded that…..
"As to Colonel Chivington, […] he deliberately planned and executed a foul and dastardly massacre which would have disgraced the veriest savage among those who were the victims of his cruelty. […] he surprised and murdered, in cold blood, the unsuspecting men, women, and children on Sand creek, who had every reason to believe they were under the protection of the United States authorities, […] should be at once taken to remove from office those who have thus disgraced the government by whom they are employed, and to punish, as their crimes deserve, those who have been guilty of these brutal and cowardly acts"

Noumenon
not rated yet Mar 17, 2016
So now you have given two examples,..... "trail of tears" and "Sands Creek",...... and I have shown in both cases, via historical facts that neither case was a concerted effort of "extermination", "genocide", or "cultural genocide" by any legal representative of American government and thus not representative of settlers and western culture.

greenonions
3 / 5 (2) Mar 17, 2016
neither case was a concerted effort of "extermination", "genocide", or "cultural genocide" by any legal representative of American government and thus not representative of settlers and western culture.
No you did not. Even if you had - so what? Show me where I stipulated that genocide has to be committed by a legal representative of the government? You just add all kinds of stupid stipulations - to muddy up the waters. Let me clarify. You are trying to promote a false, ahistoric narrative - that the Native Americans were savages. You engage in racist revisionism - by trying to spin the Native Americans as savages - and the Western Settlers as having the 'superior' culture. I called you on your racism - and demonstrated the false narrative you are trying to spread. I did this with examples of savagery carried out by Western Cultures. Yes - the 3 examples I gave - were acts of terrible Savagery. You are a racist.
Noumenon
2.3 / 5 (3) Mar 17, 2016
Because as you charged "The Native Americans were systematically exterminated by the invading colonists",.... "systematically" requires a concerted effort by the European culture, early American Culture, and sponsorship by their representative government. IOW some controlling body or central force to commission and execute the genocide.

I have proven to you for each example you gave, that that was not the case, that instead it was individual acts NOT advocated by western culture nor American culture, nor their representative government.

I am not making a racial statement when I say that European culture came onto native Americans who were ignorant savages,.... as 1) that is not a racial statement, but a statement of relative cultures, 2) it is a historical accurate statement as that is how the Europeans regarded the Indians, and 3) it is demonstrably factual wrt... general knowledge, commerce, military, government, science, medicine, technology, literature, industry ......
Noumenon
2.3 / 5 (3) Mar 17, 2016
You are a racist.


I am making factual statements, historically accurate. I have not made any statements about the intrinsic nature of Indians, therefore I am not a "racist". You're a divisive imbecile, who is better at making unfounded accusations than in general comprehension.

End.
Noumenon
2.3 / 5 (3) Mar 17, 2016
You don't know me personally and can't possibly know the totality of what I think wrt racial issues to justify accusing me of being a racist,..... but this fact usually does not deter one who is actively constructing their own narrative,... and such unfounded name calling and ad hominems are usually the last bastion of the intellectually defeated. You travel a worn path.

greenonions
3 / 5 (2) Mar 17, 2016
and sponsorship by their representative government.
You continue to say nothing of any merit. By systematic - I am referring to a pervasive pattern of. I never implied that it had to be sponsored by the government - although if you do any reading regarding examples like the trail of tears - you will see that the Governments often were very involved with the atrocities of colonialism. It is not ad hominem to call you a racist - it is clearly there in your pattern of posts.
greenonions
5 / 5 (1) Mar 17, 2016
Quote 1 from Noumenon
name calling and ad hominems are usually the last bastion of the intellectually defeated.


Quote 2 from Noumenon
You're a divisive imbecile, who is better at making unfounded accusations than in general comprehension.


I would suggest you try reading the 2 quotes - and trying to look hard at what the bizarre conflict of the statements means about yourself.
greenonions
5 / 5 (1) Mar 18, 2016
Noumenon
You travel a worn path.
You're very wrong on that one. I was raised in England - in a culture that fed us lies. God is watching you; the white man's burden; moral superiority of our culture; when you die, you go to heaven to be with Jesus; etc. etc. Massive swaths of truth were hidden from us - such as the history of European colonialism, the slave trade, and the violent dispossesing of native cultures around the world - by expanionist European cultures. We watched the news every night - but knew almost nothing of what was really happening in our world. I have recently begun to see through mist. It is not a worn path at all - but leaves one very angry, and very lonely. I am taken by your virulence - in wanting to defend the lies (and that of others like Ryggy). I am interested in truth - hence my interest in science. Native Americans were neither ALL savages, or ALL saints. Truth is messy. Their disposesion was extremely savage.
Vietvet
2.6 / 5 (5) Mar 19, 2016


Vietvet has troll rated me literally hundreds of times, maybe thousands, but has only ever actually engaged me in discussion ONCE that I can recall (and did so on false premises).

Talk about delusional.

https://sciencex....n/?v=act
https://sciencex....ml?v=act
https://sciencex....ml?v=act
https://sciencex....ml?v=act

I could go on but I think you get the point, I ignore the vast majority of your comments.
Actually I begin reading your comments hopeful I'll find something insightful but you have a knack for the sweeping generalities and tired stereotypes.

I'm only writing this now because I'm having a bad night, can't get to sleep, so all I want to add for now is: I get my share of "1"s , consider the source, chuckle and move on. A fragile ego is not among my problems.
Noumenon
3 / 5 (2) Mar 19, 2016
You travel a worn path.
You're very wrong on that one.

'Worn path' in terms of the knee-jerk reaction of playing the race card. The liberal left routinely abuse that charge and in so doing they dilute its meaning and disrespect that people actually suffered from actual racism.

Native Americans were neither ALL savages, or ALL saints. Truth is messy. Their disposesion was extremely savage.


Are you now agreeing that they were regarded as savage?

Where did I say that Native Americans were "ALL" savages? I said, in context, that that is how European culture regarded them ("came upon them"), and for good reason wrt relative knowledge as enumerated above,.... relative to western culture Indian culture was ignorant and savage. This not meant as a personal insult, but rather historically factual. That is how they were regarded and referred to,... of course the European settlers weren't afflicted with the illness of political correctness.

Vietvet
3.3 / 5 (7) Mar 19, 2016
Western "culture" is so superior it gave us the Holocaust.
Steelwolf
3 / 5 (2) Mar 19, 2016
Umm, Nou, I live on the West Coast, the Indian Wars are actually rather recent in history as even I have memories of First Nations Folk being shot while they fished on THEIR River, the one named after their tribe. Which one, it does not matter, there are many rivers and streams here that bear their Native Name. There are some Facts you are going to have to reconcile: Blankets infected with typhus and smallpox were given to Natives INTENTIONALLY, seeing as how the Natives were susceptible to plague. This is actually because they lived superior, cleaner lives, unlike the extremely dirty, extremely crowded Europeans, most of whom were sent to the Colonies as Prisoners if not slaves to a debt they could never repay. The Buffalo were exterminated specifically to deprive the Plains Tribes of Food in an effort to starve them out, the 'Christian Schools' tortured and enslaved the Natives, forcing them to give up their ways of life with threats of damnation they seemed able to deliver. (cont)
Uncle Ira
5 / 5 (5) Mar 19, 2016
Western "culture" is so superior it gave us the Holocaust.


My best wishes to you Cher for Vietnam Veteran''s Day. My father served in Vietnam before I was born and he carried those experiences in him until he passed a few years ago. I wish you all the good and peace that can come your way.
Steelwolf
5 / 5 (3) Mar 19, 2016
The Government, by way of The US Army, was guilty of Genocide in that they DID kill out entire peoples. To consider the Native Tribes as all one race is beyond ignorance, there is actually ample evidence, what has not been destroyed by unscrupulous early "researchers" who were so intent on proving how inferior the Natives were that they destroyed whole stone cities, or took them over and built with the existing walls and buildings. To say that the US Govt did not practice Genocide is a complete and utter fabrication. Many entire tribes were killed and people paid off for their "Good Work in Indian Territory". Clearly they Knew it was the Native's Land and Lives they were STEALING. History is very clear on this: It has been through the US Courts and the US Govt is now having to pay hundreds of billions in reparations to MOST of the Tribal Nations: Those that survived, in part.
(Cont)
Steelwolf
5 / 5 (3) Mar 19, 2016
I grew up with, Served in the Navy next to and worked with and when I ran my own business; I hired First Nations People. They are not all of a mold, just like Europeans, so very many different rich and vibrant cultures were devastated by a hodgepodge of people fleeing persecution for being religious zealots, as the Pilgrims were, and forcing their views on the Natives, to the Prisoners and Colonists who were told horror stories and often times killed out of fear, without even speaking or trying to speak to the Natives. Of course there were good folks as well, but spiritually and ecologically and even technology wise the Natives were ahead of the Europeans. The Norse/Rus had traded for centuries with the Natives and in the past 20 years it was found that the 'talent' molds for the hide-shaped ingots used since Egyptian copper age era were found in upper Michigan, closely matching the 'Phoenician' talents found on wrecks, carved in stone, found excavating an ancient mine bed. (cont)
Noumenon
2.3 / 5 (3) Mar 19, 2016
Massive swaths of truth were hidden from us - such as the history of European colonialism, the slave trade, and the violent dispossesing of native cultures around the world - by expanionist European cultures.


What!? None of that was hidden. It is a part of history and that history was always available to you.

What you regard as having been "hidden", was simply a lack of anti-colonial anti-capitalist subjective judgement revisionism of history by far leftist ideological narratives, which HAS NO PLACE IN OBJECTIVE HISTORY.

So, there was no history "hidden" from you,.... it's just that history proper does not include ideologically motivated subjective judgement designed for moral outrage and the victim industry.

Noumenon
2 / 5 (4) Mar 19, 2016
Western "culture" is so superior it gave us the Holocaust.


This is what you come up with after troll-ratting and then hiding under you desk?

Nazism was not representative of western culture, and was quickly annihilated by western culture.

Western culture gave humanity industry, exploration, commerce ... and eventually capitalism, the greatest force for economic prosperity in human history. We just don't agree on interpretational issues,.... I believe that western european colonialism overall was the greatest historical event for the betterment of humanity.

Steelwolf
3 / 5 (2) Mar 19, 2016
And a final point before I leave off, The First Nations Peoples had seen higher technology before, and they had seen the ecological damage that happens when technology such as ours is misused. They had been victims to that before as they have their own recorded histories. Yes they WERE Written Down, on gold and Yes, some of them survive to this day. Do you hear much about them? Do you Really think the First Nations People are Stupid? They kept their Culture the same way the Norse and the Celts did, by practicing it 'underground', as family, tribe and Nations, they Have survived. Not only is the Western Hemisphere Native Population what is left of an higher technology, but their laws required that nothing one did could harm anybody down to 7 generations, and if you did not KNOW what the consequences of a certain type of action were, you did not do it. This was not to stall tech, but to keep it from unintended consequences. Something the Europeans learned only relatively recently.
Vietvet
2.6 / 5 (5) Mar 19, 2016
".. I believe that western european colonialism overall was the greatest historical event for the betterment of humanity."

And that's why you are a naive idealog.
Steelwolf
3.7 / 5 (3) Mar 19, 2016
Nazism did not die with the German Army, it lives quite at home here in the USA it is called Fascism, and it is the end result of unchecked, corrupt capitalism brought on by over-rapid industrialization and the enslavement and exploitation of both mankind and our biosphere. Tragedy and decay, corruption, rot and warfare are what the Europeans exported to the rest of the world and tried to enforce that mold, the most Fascist in his time was King George III, as was Hitler, and so was GW Bush, and Mitt Romney, both extremely fascist in that they were Corporate Produced and Picked by the highest bidders amongst the Republican Party Donors, The Koch's and the Walton's. Remember, the Iraq War that the Republican Party started over lies about Who Did 911, when the BIG Question should have been "Why did Cheney Stop the Air Force from responding?" And the Last thing that the Repubs should talk about is Benghazi when 911 hangs over THEM like an axe since it was on Their Watch that 911 happened.
Noumenon
2 / 5 (4) Mar 19, 2016
".. I believe that western european colonialism overall was the greatest historical event for the betterment of humanity."

And that's why you are a naive idealog.


I'm a realist without an emotionally based narrative to maintain for a grievance industry. Far leftist liberals wish to interject emotionally based revisionist interpretations of history in order to support their particular ideology,.... because historically speaking their ideology has been a failed one.

With respect to the natural cultural evolution of humanity, the Native Americans for example, were 'in the way',... and like all extinctions, were up against stronger and superior forces.

Steelwolf
5 / 5 (3) Mar 19, 2016
The scariest thing, to me, in this election cycle, is that Trump is acting just like Fascists have, promising the same sorts of things, riling up the same kinds of angers and using divisiveness as a weapon almost exactly like Adolph Hitler did. He was Very Popular, talked to the common man, talked to their anger, to their economic situation, he blamed other groups for the Ills of his Nation when it was the very same rich fascists backing him with the big money for Radio, Film and Tours for their election. Remember, the Germans voted him into office because he was "One of The German Folk", and Family, or so the Media of the day portrayed him. Of course, it was the very bankers and businessmen that would get rich from war that controlled Hitler. He may have thought he was in control, but he still had to deal with the Banks, and they gave orders via availability of money or not to the German Government.
Those same banks exist today and still control Trump with a fascist iron fist.
Vietvet
3 / 5 (6) Mar 19, 2016
Not emotional? LMFAO!

You are without self awareness, a snobbish, racist elitist and badly undereducated.
Noumenon
2.3 / 5 (6) Mar 19, 2016
Go back under your desk.

Remember, the Iraq War that the Republican Party started over lies about Who Did 911, when the BIG Question should have been "Why did Cheney Stop the Air Force from responding?" And the Last thing that the Repubs should talk about is Benghazi when 911 hangs over THEM like an axe since it was on Their Watch that 911 happened


Are you suggesting that the Bush administration knew ahead of time about the 9/11 terrorist attacks?

Seems like all liberals operate in lock-step, .....if the accusation of "racism" doesn't work, then try the nazi card,... and as a last resort bring up the Iraq war and maybe a little conspiracy theory (?).

Noumenon
2.3 / 5 (3) Mar 19, 2016
@steelwolf, maybe you didn't read the whole thread, not that I would fault anyone for that.

Greenonions manufactured many interpretations of what I stated or meant. My opinions are far from being represented by his inane interpretations. He wet his pants because I said that Western European culture came upon Native Americans who were "ignorant savages", and that Native American culture was a "failed one". Greenonions appears to have mistakingly took these statements as subjective judgemental statements, when in fact I meant them as historical objective fact.

Greenonions claimed that there was "systematic" "cultural genocide" and even "extermination", presenting two examples,... both of which I addressed with facts to counter those revisionist lies and misuse of those terms, "genocide" and "extermination". He further abused the term "racist" with evident ignorance wrt it's meaning.
Steelwolf
2 / 5 (4) Mar 19, 2016
Sorry Nou, your lies dont fly here. And YES, the Bush Administration not only Knew about 911, they made damn sure that it DID happen. Why did Bush tell the CIA Agent who briefed him that 'the terrorists could use airplanes to strike the towers' "Ok, you have covered your a**, you may leave now"? Why did Cheney tell the Air Force to Stand Down and NOT activate the National Defensive Posture that would have downed any aircraft not responding to signals or was out of place. With our tech there is NO WAY that could have been done without Government and Military intervention and cooperation. On top of that, thousands of doctorates in engineering and structural engineering builders, firefighting and pilots associations and ALL attest that the twin towers were brought down by controlled demolition. Building 7, which was not touched by aircraft or fire until it was intentionally set, and then as recorded in audio, ordered to be dropped whereupon it was imploded perfectly.
Way too much proof!
Steelwolf
2.3 / 5 (3) Mar 19, 2016
Noumenon, there is no need to contrive "Conspiracy Theories" when the Facts of The Conspiracy are self evident. Where is the 3.2 TRILLION DOLLARS that Rumsfeld admitted on TV that the Military could not track it's spending, and then the very next day planes hit not only the mostly empty but heavily insured Iconic Twin Towers and the destruction set up there including the CIA Headquarters Building #7, which was most certainly, on tape, ordered destroyed. But, most tellingly, the Pentagon was hit, not by a plane, but by a bunker buster cruise missile (a plane could NOT fly that path) that left a small hole in the front, no plane parts, no fire, and it just happened to hit the section containing the computers and team tasked with tracking down that lost trillions. Consider that money, the Billions the towers were insured for, and the Trillions spent on the war, Cheney, Rummy and the Bushes made Bank. Worse, it was planned before the election farce, Scalia being involved personally.
Steelwolf
3 / 5 (4) Mar 19, 2016
It is also a matter of public record that GHW Bush's Father, Prescot Bush was a Collaborationist Banker for the Nazis under the name Scherff. Bush and Rummy were together in the CIA during Johnson-Nixon years, and under Ford and Carter he ran the CIA, and some say the White House as well. Certainly he did once he got The Great Actor to be President and then he took the reigns himself for a time before turning it over, as planned, to the Clintons, who happened to be Prime Republicans until they attended a seminar about becoming a 'Democrat' and getting control of the party from the inside, yet it would be still run by the Bush/Rothschild/Rodham/Clinton side of things. Bush SR is the worlds all time biggest secret drug dealer, everywhere the CIA went under Bush Sr, drugs took over the nearby locales. I saw that from the Police side and even Judges went to prison when they were caught tapping that money stream. Treason? Bush Sr. was born to it! 911 is on His Hands.
Noumenon
2.3 / 5 (3) Mar 19, 2016
I feel better about you not agreeing with my above posts, thank you.

Sorry Nou, your lies dont fly here. And YES, the Bush Administration not only Knew about 911, they made damn sure that it DID happen.


Conspiratorial nut-jobs go on my ignore-list. Good-bye.

Now, lets see if vietvet and greenonions who love to hand out 1's at the drop of a conservative-hat, will down rate one of their own liberal kind.

Steelwolf
3.7 / 5 (3) Mar 19, 2016
I apologize to the other readers on this article, but I would assume that perhaps you can get some idea of the mindset involved where individuals do not really know the true ideals and history of their own Nation, yet feel that it is their duty to spread their brand of direct ignorance and bigotry thinking that they are being "Patriotic" with their actions and words, not even knowing enough to realize that our forefathers would be embarrassed and aghast at their ignorance, but also seeing how far twisted their original words have come to be and how far the Nation they Founded has been twisted away from The People being THE Sole Power of this Nation to Money and Corporations being the Only Deciding Powers. That is Fascism, That is what Trump and the Republicans and half the Democrats espouse and sadly, that is not what either the American nor Australian Forefathers intended things to be. Nou has kindly acted as the cultural ignoramus and contrast, and for this we will thank him.
Noumenon
2.6 / 5 (5) Mar 19, 2016
You weren't supposed to drink ALL the cool-aide,....

You see, greenonions, you should stop drinking the leftist cool-aide before "that" happens to you.

Vietvet
3.4 / 5 (5) Mar 19, 2016
I feel better about you not agreeing with my above posts, thank you.



Now, lets see if vietvet and greenonions who love to hand out 1's at the drop of a conservative-hat, will down rate one of their own liberal kind.

Conspiracy nuts are nuts no matter their politics but most come from the right.
Noumenon
3 / 5 (2) Mar 19, 2016
Yes, they come from the right to the left.
greenonions
5 / 5 (3) Mar 19, 2016
Noumenon
What!? None of that was hidden. It is a part of history and that history was always available to you.
Not when you are a child - and you are trusting the adults in your world - to teach you about that world. Perhaps you went to a different school, and Church than I did. You are correct that it is available. You forget that I grew up long before computers, and internet. It seems odd to me that you demonstrate such a lack of knowledge regarding history - and then make the above comment.
Are you now agreeing that they were regarded as savage?
No. Once again you - show great ignorance of the facts of the issues. Here is an exert from a letter from Columbus
They manifest the greatest affection towards all of us, exchanging valuable things for trifles, content with the very least thing or nothing at all. . . .
Do some reading. Again - not ALL Native Americans were savages - and not ALL were saints.
greenonions
5 / 5 (3) Mar 19, 2016
Noumenon
I said that Western European culture came upon Native Americans who were "ignorant savages"
when in fact I meant them as historical objective fact.

But it is not a historical - or objective fact - as I have demonstrated, and as history demonstrates. Read Guns Germs and Steel. It is very reasonable to look at your referring to Native Americans as "ignorant savages", and to peg you as both a racist, and someone who is not interested in historical truths. You also totally discredit yourself with the childish contradictions that I highlighted above - expressing outrage at ad hominem attacks - and then engaging in personal - ad hominem attacks.
greenonions
5 / 5 (3) Mar 19, 2016
Noumenon
both of which I addressed with facts to counter those revisionist lies and misuse of those terms,
No you did not. You simply moved the bar - and claimed that because these events were not government sanctioned - they were not savage. This is patently false - as I pointed out to you. If you bothered to read any history - you would not that both events were carried out by U.S. troops. No one was ever held to account for what was done - but most importantly - both were acts of savagery - and that is the point being made. Western cultures can just as accurately be called savage - based on the facts of history - and I have provided examples - and knowledge of history totally supports this reality - not your racist narrative.
greenonions
5 / 5 (2) Mar 19, 2016
Noumenon
Where did I say that Native Americans were "ALL" savages? I said, in context, that that is how European culture regarded them ("came upon them"), and for good reason wrt relative knowledge as enumerated above,


You're a liar. You said this -
When western culture (Western Europe) colonized the Americas they came upon ignorant savages who routinely slaughtered each other.


You never said that was how they were 'regarded' - you said that is how they were. When you say "they came upon ignorant savages" - that language is clear and unambiguous. You are stating that the Native Americans were ignorant savages - not that they were 'regarded' as ignorant savages. Your games with language are childish.
greenonions
5 / 5 (3) Mar 20, 2016
Noumenon
will down rate one of their own liberal kind....stop drinking the leftist cool-aide

It is fascinating to me to see the childishness of your thoughts. For example - I will take a Rand Paul over a Hillary Clinton - any day of the week. But rather than address details and facts - you toss around simplistic words like liberal - always trying to insult people. I have explained to you how I grew up in a culture of lies, and now yearn to understand the truth of the world that I live in. You are the one who clearly reads the facts of history through a very simplistic filter - and then tosses around child like insults (after decrying the use of insults), at someone who is just trying to understand the truth. Science is about evidence, facts, and truths. So many on this board - including yourself - seem determined to make it about political labels - the truth be damned. cont.
greenonions
5 / 5 (3) Mar 20, 2016
Colonial expansion of the European powers was one of the most brutal, savage, genocidal events of world history. Just do some reading on the occupation of India by the Brits - http://yourstory....enocide/ Do you not understand that India did not belong to Britain. Britain had NO claim to this huge land - across the other side of the world. Yet you applaud this kind of slaughter - with this kind of child like thinking - " western european colonialism overall was the greatest historical event for the betterment of humanity." You seem to not understand a very basic principle - that it is immoral for one country - to invade another country - and then brutalize it's population - even if it is in the name of "progress." It seems so simple to me - India belonged to the people of India - not to the Brits (and this was finally established in 1947) after the death of perhaps as many as 1.8 billion human beings - https://sites.goo...uslimgen
Noumenon
3 / 5 (2) Mar 20, 2016
Where did I say that Native Americans were "ALL" savages? I said, in context, that that is how European culture regarded them ("came upon them") ...


You're a liar. You said this -
When western culture [...] colonized the Americas they came upon ignorant savages who routinely slaughtered each other


You never said that was how they were 'regarded' - you said that is how they were.


I said both unambiguously,... THEY, not Noumenon, THEY, 'came upon' ignorant savage.... I didn't come upon ignorant savage, western culture did. I ALSO confirmed that they were RIGHT objectively in regarding them as ignorant savages, and even enumerated reasons why, referencing relative knowledge.

The term "savage" is ubiquitous in early American and Western Europe in referencing indigenous people who's relative culture was not nearly as advanced. This is a fact. Your delicate sensibilities may be offended by this, but history isn't there to satisfy you.

Noumenon
2.3 / 5 (3) Mar 20, 2016
you demonstrate such a lack of knowledge


What lack of knowledge are you referring to that isn't IN FACT your own faulty interpretation of what I stated in context. I do read world history as pointed out, but no where do I see "systematic cultural genocide" mentioned in objective history about native Americans.

The reason is plainly and for which you will never understand, is that that is not objective history, but instead interpretational. Such interpretational revisionism is motivated by ideological bias and an a-priori sense of moral justice and a subjective sense of political outrage all designed to benefit the victim industry.

Noumenon
2.3 / 5 (3) Mar 20, 2016
You gave two examples of genocide or extermination, both of which I refuted as being "systematic" "cultural genocide" or "genocide", by use of historical facts. There was no concerted and concentrated effort of genocide or extermination,... for which those terms imply.

There was individual tragedies and there were individual acts of evil,... for which I have NOT denied.

You example of "trail of tears" was a tragedy in part caused by the tribal leaders themselves who AGREED to the exchange of land and at great expense from the American government were given resources for the migration. Some tribes choose to fight instead.

Your "Sands Creek" example was the illegal actions of a rogue military leader who was subsequently punished and denouced as quoted above.

The was no concerted and consciously orchestrates "systematic" "cultural genocide" of the Native Indians. There was a natural, as pointed out, extinction of cultures throughout the entirety

Noumenon
2.3 / 5 (3) Mar 20, 2016
The was no concerted and consciously orchestrated "systematic" "cultural genocide" in any objective sense, of the indigenous people. As pointed out, there was a natural extinction of such cultures throughout the entirety of human history on account of the migration and the expansion of other cultures.

Only a subjective revisionist with ulterior interpretational motives,.... for ideological moral outrage for the victim industry, .... would misuse such terms so blatantly.

You said the true history was hidden from you. What you are now reading is attempts to hide the truth behind a veil of artificial liberal social justice. The truth is, that it was the Nature of human cultural evolution and natural human cultural expansion.

Subjecting that natural process to such moralistic qualifications is not objective history, it is revisionist history proper, with loaded bias.

In contrast there WERE examples of "systematic genocide" that CAN be studied objectively.

Noumenon
2.3 / 5 (3) Mar 20, 2016
.... as in the third reich , Unganda, Mao, etc.

There is 'politically correct' history which carries interpretational baggage as in social justice or moral outrage, and there is objective history which deliberately leaves off such bias subjectivity. You are a victim of the former while the latter recognizes that the nature of cultural evolution of itself and its consequences (capitalism) can't be immoral per se.

We will just have to disagree .
greenonions
4 / 5 (4) Mar 20, 2016
Noumenon
I said both unambiguously
And the problem I have is with your narrative - that the Native Americans WERE savages. So - you now agree with me that this is what you said. And it has nothing to do with my sensibilities - but everything to do with your distortion of historical facts. I showed you - with examples - that Native Americans - encountered by Western Colonists - were peaceful people. This confronts your attempt at constructing a false narrative of - Westerners good, Natives savage. You are a racist to want to distort history in that way.
greenonions
5 / 5 (3) Mar 20, 2016
Noumenon
There was a natural, as pointed out, extinction of cultures throughout the entirety
You do not know history.
For hundreds of years a mixture of colonial conflict, disease, specific atrocities and policies of discrimination has devastated the Native American population. In the course of this time, it is estimated that over nine million Natives died from violent conflict or disease. For too long this history has been under-recognized and too little discussed.

From - http://endgenocid...ericans/
You are correct in that we disagree. I despise your constant childish use of terms like liberal. Your constant taunting of others - as well as your racist revisionism of history. You are wrong on your understanding of Colonialism - and I provided numerous resources that would correct your distortions. You seem uninterested in truth.
greenonions
5 / 5 (3) Mar 20, 2016
Your "Sands Creek" example was the illegal actions of a rogue military leader who was subsequently punished and denouced as quoted above.
2 points here. 1. I was using this as an example of savagery by Western Colonists. I keep repeating that savagery does NOT necessarily need to be endorsed by the government to be savagery. You keep ignoring the point being made - and are hiding behind an irrelevant fact. The Sands Creek Massacre was an example of savagery - and part of a systematic war against the Native Americans. 2. You are wrong - John Chivington was never punished - as you assert. There was a blue ribbon pannel that denounced him - but he had already retired. Think about that - you lead a band of 700 military soldiers - attack a peaceful village - killing 70 - 163 innocent people - and you are never held accountable. And Noumenon says that the Native American genocide was JUST NATURAL......
Noumenon
2.3 / 5 (3) Mar 20, 2016
Actually it is you who is distorting my posts through your incompetent interpretations of what was said and your insistence on that false narrative even after having been clarified.

Yes, they were objectively "savages" relative to western culture. This is demonstrably so given the difference in knowledge as I enumerated several times. You continue to state that "native Americans [...] were peaceful people" as if particular examples are generally representative of their nature. My point was in establishing that they were NO MORE PEACEFUL than western culture as they "routinely slaughtered each other". I never said they ALL did,... like you're seeming to imply that they were ALL peaceful in contrast to western culture colonialism,... and around in circles we go.

I never mentioned the country of India anywhere in this thread. The Brits did not "systematically" exterminate or cause genocide cultural or otherwise of 1.5 billion people.
Noumenon
3 / 5 (2) Mar 20, 2016
There was a natural, as pointed out, extinction of cultures throughout the entirety
You do not know history. [subjective interpretational history quote]


You're not in a position to make that determination when our differences are about interpretational history not about objective factual history.

You are wrong on your understanding of Colonialism - and I provided numerous resources that would correct your distortions. You seem uninterested in truth.


You're seem ignorant of the difference between objective history and interpretational history. Your sources are of the latter type only, actively conditioned for politically correct consumption.

Noumenon says that the Native American genocide was JUST NATURAL......


I never said any such thing. I refuted entirely the appropriateness of using the phrase "systematic" "genocide" in reference what to was rather on account of natural human cultural expansion.

greenonions
5 / 5 (2) Mar 20, 2016
Noumenon
The Brits did not "systematically" exterminate or cause genocide cultural or otherwise of 1.5 billion people.
I gave you a link - with extensive historical references that showed that they did. Where is your source? Links for you (and don't get hung up on specific numbers - no one was actually counting - so it is all the best estimates of historians)
http://fbreporter...indians/ http://yourstory....enocide/ https://sites.goo...olocaust http://www.larouc...4024.pdf
greenonions
5 / 5 (3) Mar 20, 2016
Noumenon
I never said any such thing.
Referring to my assertion that you claim the genocide against the Native Americans was just natural. But here is your quote.
As pointed out, there was a natural extinction of such cultures
In other words - you do not recognize the part played by the systematic war against the Native Americans by Colonials. You do not acknowledge the Sands Creek Massacre - the forced relocation of Native Americans off their lands, the use of Biological warfare by giving them diseased blankets, the placing of bounty on their heads - and then hunting them down. None of this is interpretation noumenon - it is fact. I do not interpret history - I read it. You can interpret it - and come up with your racist little narrative. You provide no links - just personal opinions.
Noumenon
2 / 5 (4) Mar 20, 2016
I keep repeating that savagery does NOT necessarily need to be endorsed by the government to be savagery.


You have not made this point, nor have I attempted to refute it. Your claim was of "systematic" "genocide" and "cultural genocide". THAT is what I refute, as being not objective but rather interpretational which requires an historically irrelevant social justice mentality.

You are wrong - John Chivington was never punished - as you assert.


I quoted historical documents,... how can THAT be wrong? The salient point was that the American government denounced that action as criminal and NOT REPRESENTATIVE of and "systematic" "genocide",.... i.e. it PROVES through factual historical records that that illegal action was a rogued event.

Noumenon
2 / 5 (4) Mar 20, 2016
Referring to my assertion that you claim the genocide against the Native Americans was just natural. But here is your quote.
As pointed out, there was a natural extinction of such cultures


Okay, so you just proved to yourself that you lied and/or proved to everyone else that you're incompetent at reading comprehension,... as clearly I never said genocide was natural in that quote, but said something else entirely.

if I refute the appropriateness the word "genocide" wrt colonialism then logic dictates that I'm not going to say "genocide against the Native Americans was just natural" either,... which I did not.

Most of this thread is just more examples of the above,... where you load assertions and accusations with misrepresentations and your own invented false interpretations .

greenonions
5 / 5 (3) Mar 20, 2016
You have not made this point
Yes I have - several times - and you questioned my use of the term systematic - and I clarified that I was referring to a pervasive pattern of... And I emphasized that it does not necessarily entail the sponsorship of the government. You are just a liar on that point.
it PROVES through factual historical records that that illegal action was a rogued event.
It does nothing of the sort - and it certainly does not prove that there was not a systematic war against the Native Americans. Historians actually debate whether we should use the term genocide. Books have been written on both sides of that issue. I am comfortable using the term genocide - but don't think we should get hung up on such details. There was systematic violence against the Native Americans - which was part of the process of decimation of the populations of the Americas. This is historical fact. You cannot interpret this out of history - it makes you a racist.
greenonions
5 / 5 (2) Mar 20, 2016
as clearly I never said genocide was natural in that quote, but said something else entirely.
What you are saying is that the decimation of the populations of the Americas was Natural. That is the topic we are discussing. You are just a liar. You are wanting to revise history with your own interpretation - you provide no support for you interpretation. How about the India example. Can you provide any support for wanting to dismiss the genocide against the people of India - by the British. Don't get hung up on specific numbers - you are dismissing this historic reality - that is heavily documented. Where is your support for this dismissal of history - racist.
Noumenon
2 / 5 (4) Mar 20, 2016
Historians actually debate whether we should use the term genocide. Books have been written on both sides of that issue. I am comfortable using the term genocide - but don't think we should get hung up on such details


FINALLY!

You have now capitulated what was the ENTIRE debate here, whether or not there was "cultural genocide" and/or "genocide" of native Americans,.... as I have NEVER REFUTED whether there was brutal violence against them. Never.

My entire argument was centered around YOUR choice of the words "genocide" in relation to western colonialism and that that choice was "subjective" and "interpretational".

The same in the other thread with your claim that an economic system [capitalism] that leads to poverty whilst some are inordinately rich, (inequalities) , is an "immoral system". I refuted that claim for the same reasons as above, as such terminology are subjectively bias and interpretational, besides selectively ignoring vast benefits.
Noumenon
1 / 5 (3) Mar 20, 2016
as clearly I never said genocide was natural in that quote, but said something else entirely.
What you are saying is that the decimation of the populations of the Americas was Natural. That is the topic we are discussing. You are just a liar.


First off, I decide, not you, of what I said. Again here you go claiming I said "decimation of the populations of the Americas was Natural". I never said any such thing. You keep inventing more and more interpretations because you can't quote me directly saying that.

I never used the word decimation in this thread. What I referenced as "natural" was the evolution of human cultures and the migration of cultures, and that the competition of cultures leads to some cultural extinction (not people extinctions).

greenonions
5 / 5 (3) Mar 20, 2016
My entire argument was centered around YOUR choice of the words "genocide
Total bullshit. The entire debate hinges on your need to weave a narrative of - Native Americans - savages, Western Colonists superior culture. That is the heart of this debate. And you are a racist in wanting to dismiss the fact that Western Colonial expansion - into both the Americas - and to other parts of the world such as India, and Africa - entailed sickening levels of violence and genocide against native peoples. I have provided historical support for this reality - and you provide no support for your interpretation. I come down on the side of using the term genocide regarding the Native Americans - but that is no the point. You want to white wash the brutality of western colonial expansion - calling it "the greatest historical event for the betterment of humanity." but dismissing the brutalization of Native Cultures. Racist much.
greenonions
5 / 5 (3) Mar 20, 2016
Noumenon
I never used the word decimation in this thread. What I referenced as "natural" was the evolution of human cultures and the migration of cultures, and that the competition of cultures leads to some cultural extinction (not people extinctions).
So the decimation of the Native American populations never happened? The systematic slaughter by practices such as forced relocation, war, placing bounty on peoples heads, deliberate use of spreading disease - these things all never happened - what happened in the Americas was just the "Natural" evolution of cultures. Nothing deliberate at all about the decimation of the Native Cultures. Again and again - you do not provide any support for your racist revisionism - just your personal "interpretation". I provided you multiple support all along the way for my refutation of your revisionism.
Noumenon
1 / 5 (2) Mar 20, 2016
I have never denied nor dismissed that there was violence and even atrocities you ding-bat,... I have only refuted that it was "genocide".

The entire debate hinges on your need to weave a narrative of - Native Americans - savages, Western Colonists superior culture.


As explained over and over again, that is not a moral judgement on my part nor a claim of the intrinsic nature of a race,... it is a FACT of history,... it is demonstratably true. I even provided a list if areas where it is factually true,... and "savage" it is how they were referred to.

You are now on ignore for continuing to call me a "racist" without even the decency of knowing what that charge means.

greenonions
5 / 5 (4) Mar 20, 2016
I have never denied nor dismissed that there was violence and even atrocities you ding-bat
That is the core of this debate. You refer to Native Americans as " ignorant savages who routinely slaughtered each other ". You praise the colonial expansion of the Western Europeans as " the greatest historical event for the betterment of humanity" You refer to the "extinction" of Native American culture as "natural". You have at no point recognized the savagery, brutality, and genocides - that occurred as a result of this phase of history. You make "interpretations" - and never provide support. I am clear about my use of the term racist - and it absolutely applies to you - and the revisionist narrative that you are trying to weave (without providing any support). Stop parsing words - and try to understand the wider context.

greenonions
5 / 5 (3) Mar 20, 2016
it is a FACT of history,... it is demonstratably true. I even provided a list if areas where it is factually true,...
It is not a fact of history - and you never provided any support for making such a claim. Please do put me on ignore. Just all part of the learning process for me - and one pattern that I see - is folks (who often self identify as on the right) - promoting a racist agenda (Ryggy and Obamasox are a couple of others who come to mind) - and then getting all self righteous and offended when someone takes the time to point out that they are racist. Your interaction style is to make statements - when called on those statements - deny what you said - hide behind false arguments - and go around and around in circles - parsing out the meaning of "consciousness" (for example). I am very intrigued by the need to not only be stuck in ideology - but the odd need to defend that ideology against truth.
kochevnik
1 / 5 (2) Apr 09, 2016
Western "culture" is so superior it gave us the Holocaust.
Which was eagerly supported by militant fucks as yourself. Of course Vietnam was no holocaust because no Jews were involved, right?
Captain Stumpy
3.7 / 5 (3) Apr 12, 2016
relative to western culture Indian culture was ignorant and savage. This not meant as a personal insult, but rather historically factual
@Nou
point being: they applied their mistaken cultural paradigm to one that was different and judged them based upon an arbitrary criteria which was motivated by greed

it was a subjective term that was coined to justify their hostility

the Lakota perspective
what is "savage" about caring so deeply for your family that you would die for them?
protect and feed them?
raising children to be respectful of elders and completely free?

the "chief" of a tribe was only there because he talked good ... and remembered good places to set up camp
he could not, as the Euro's call it, compel anyone to war or fight. it was completely individual decision based upon the individual beliefs (wrongly called "medicine" by Euro's out of ignorance)

won't even go into the "ignorant" label... considering the wolf knowledge alone

Please sign in to add a comment. Registration is free, and takes less than a minute. Read more

Click here to reset your password.
Sign in to get notified via email when new comments are made.