US founded on genocide, slavery

[rosenewock21]

I honestly don't know how I feel about this. On one hand Michael Moore is a professional shit stirrer. On the other, this time he's fairly on the money, despite what the derogatory article claims.

http://news.yahoo.com/michael-moore-u-founded-genocide-built-backs-slaves-064932116.html

“It’s not envy, it’s war, it is a class war, it’s a war that’s been perpetrated by the rich on to everyone else. The class war is one they started. The mistake they made to deal with the racial part of this, is, um, their boots have been on the necks of people of color since we began. This is a nation founded on genocide and built on the backs of slaves, alright, so we started with a racial problem.”

I see nothing wrong with pointing out that some of the early US farming industry industry relied on slave labor. The thirteen English colonies that merged to start this country didn't even like to think of the Spanish as people and they looked similar. It should come as no surprise that those people thought it was okay to exploit those they viewed as less than human.

As to the charges of genocide, that becomes a bit trickier as we do not have an exact number of native inhabitants pre-Columbus.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Population_history_of_indigenous_peoples_of_the_Americas

Most scholars writing at the end of the 19th century estimated the pre-Columbian population at about 10 million; by the end of the 20th century the scholarly consensus had shifted to about 50 million, with some arguing for 100 million or more.

Today Native Americans make up 1.37% of the population of the United States.[citation needed] (the US census listed around 4.5 million people of native heritage in 2006.) No conclusive evidence exists to determine how many native people lived in North America before the arrival of Columbus.[1][2] David Stannard notes that more conservative demographers cite a figure of about 7 or 8 million inhabitants.[3] The Library of Congress uses 900,000 as the total number in its educational article "Destroying the Native American Cultures".[4] By 1800, the native population of the present-day United States had declined to approximately 600,000, and only 250,000 Native Americans remained in the 1890s.[5]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indian_Wars The highlight is mine.

So we forced them off their land (multiple times), we introduced new and deadly infectious diseases that may have killed upwards of 80-90% of the populations it came in contact with, we purposely tried to starve them out by destroying their food sources in many areas, and when they stood up for themselves we went to war against them. What part of this doesn't sound like genocide?

[Lt. Fred]

A large part of the reason the South got involved in the Revolutionary war in first place was that they could see the way the wind was blowing in Britain in terms of slavery, and wanted to avoid any potential legislation against their 'peculiar institution'.

[lighthorseman]

Yep, genocide and slavery. Every successful power in the history of the world has relied on them at some point. Other than American exceptionalism, no reason to think the US any different.

And yes, EVERY successful power.

[lighthorseman]

A large part of the reason the South got involved in the Revolutionary war in first place was that they could see the way the wind was blowing in Britain in terms of slavery, and wanted to avoid any potential legislation against their 'peculiar institution'.

Um, the South, largely, didn't exist during the revolutionary war, there was only sort of Virginia, Georgia, and the Carolinas. I don't think they constituted anything remotely approaching what we think of as "the South" when we use the term now...

[DasFuchs]

I don't think it's genocide, honestly, because the US did the same to anyone on what we now know as the US. It doesn't matter if there was one race or thousands, the US would have still done the exact same.
Maybe genocide in it's rawest form, that the US did it to that one culture as much as they did. But certainly not as used in "The US was a genocidal maniac" type sense.
Course we also did the same to the poor and downtrodden, the irish, the blacks, the Spaniards, the Mexicans, the "South", and on a non governmental role, homesteaders, cattle drivers, gold miners, religious cults, etc.

[rosenewock21]

The Bureau of Indian Affairs issued this speech on September 8th, 2000. Any emphasis is most likely mine.

http://www.tahtonka.com/apology.html

As the nation looked to the West for more land, this agency participated in the ethnic cleansing that befell the western tribes.

Yet in these more enlightened times, it must be acknowledged that the deliberate spread of disease, the decimation of the mighty bison herds, the use of the poison alcohol to destroy mind and body, and the cowardly killing of women and children made for tragedy on a scale so ghastly that it cannot be dismissed as merely the inevitable consequence of the clash of competing ways of life.

Forgive me if I'm mistaken, but I have always associated the phrase "ethnic cleansing" with genocide.

[Meshakhad]

I think that the difference between ethnic cleansing and genocide is that with ethnic cleansing, you may simply be driving people out. With genocide, you specifically try to exterminate them. I don't believe the US intentionally tried to wipe out the Native Americans. And the infectious diseases? Not intentional (with a couple of exceptions).

That said, ethnic cleansing and slavery are part of our history. I think we've done a good job remembering the slavery bit. Not as good on the ethnic cleansing.

[Vene]

I honestly don't know how I feel about this. On one hand Michael Moore is a professional shit stirrer. On the other, this time he's fairly on the money, despite what the derogatory article claims.

For being called a shit stirrer and the derision he gets from the left and the right, Moore actually does a pretty good job making sure his arguments are founded in fact and does put quite a bit of effort into fact checking.

I don't think it's genocide, honestly, because the US did the same to anyone on what we now know as the US. It doesn't matter if there was one race or thousands, the US would have still done the exact same.

This is absolutely irrelevant to whether or not something is genocide. Wanting to kill off one people or everybody but your own people is a matter of degree not of kind.

Maybe genocide in it's rawest form, that the US did it to that one culture as much as they did. But certainly not as used in "The US was a genocidal maniac" type sense.
Course we also did the same to the poor and downtrodden, the irish, the blacks, the Spaniards, the Mexicans, the "South", and on a non governmental role, homesteaders, cattle drivers, gold miners, religious cults, etc.

I fail to see how indiscriminate hate is better than focused hate, if anything you have provided an argument for saying "The US was a genocidal maniac."

[rosenewock21]

I honestly don't know how I feel about this. On one hand Michael Moore is a professional shit stirrer. On the other, this time he's fairly on the money, despite what the derogatory article claims.

For being called a shit stirrer and the derision he gets from the left and the right, Moore actually does a pretty good job making sure his arguments are founded in fact and does put quite a bit of effort into fact checking.

I'm sorry for not coming off clearly. I love that he stirs things up and count "Bowling For Columbine" as one of my favorite movies. The "shit" part was mainly because he's generally abrasive and because of that people don't take him, or people who agree with him, seriously.

"I would like to apologize for referring to George W. Bush as a 'deserter.' What I meant to say is that George W. Bush is a deserter, an election thief, a drunk driver, a WMD liar, and a functional illiterate. And he poops his pants"

This was made of win until that very last part. He was killing it and then couldn't help himself from tacking on that one childish joke that ruins the whole thing for me.

[DasFuchs]

I honestly don't know how I feel about this. On one hand Michael Moore is a professional shit stirrer. On the other, this time he's fairly on the money, despite what the derogatory article claims.

For being called a shit stirrer and the derision he gets from the left and the right, Moore actually does a pretty good job making sure his arguments are founded in fact and does put quite a bit of effort into fact checking.

I don't think it's genocide, honestly, because the US did the same to anyone on what we now know as the US. It doesn't matter if there was one race or thousands, the US would have still done the exact same.

This is absolutely irrelevant to whether or not something is genocide. Wanting to kill off one people or everybody but your own people is a matter of degree not of kind.

Maybe genocide in it's rawest form, that the US did it to that one culture as much as they did. But certainly not as used in "The US was a genocidal maniac" type sense.
Course we also did the same to the poor and downtrodden, the irish, the blacks, the Spaniards, the Mexicans, the "South", and on a non governmental role, homesteaders, cattle drivers, gold miners, religious cults, etc.

I fail to see how indiscriminate hate is better than focused hate, if anything you have provided an argument for saying "The US was a genocidal maniac."

Just was saying, because whether Moore wanted to go in that direction, or that people went in that direction from his standpoint, it's not really all that accurate to say a group of people or a nation was genocidal because they wiped out a people based on wanting their territory more than "just because they're different".
to use myself as sort of an example, I'm not genocidal towards mice, I just don't want them in my house, so I kill them. That's kinda the same the US outlook towards the indians was. We want their land, they don't give it up, time to push them off it by any means required.

[Sigmaleph]

Genocide is a matter of who (and how many) you kill, not why you kill them.

[Eniliad]

Yeah, we were a bunch of genocidal pricks. It was horrible, and I wish we had never done it. I also wish we had never taken slaves of Africans. We have a rather ugly past, and there's no point in denying it.

I will point out, though, that I don't think it was the same as other genocides we (unfortunately) see in more modern times, where the express goal is to totally wipe out the target in question. I believe we wanted to usurp the land, pure and simple, and anyone who got in our way was simply killed or worse.

For parallels to our situation, look at two of the most famous conquistadors in history: Hernan Cortes (killed the majority of the Aztecs trying to get rich), and Franciso Pizzaro (nearly annihilated the Inca for the same reason). Where modern genocidal events occur as a result of wrath, for these two groups and our American ancestors the motivation was pure greed.

Not that there wasn't plenty of racism to go around, naturally...

[Lt. Fred]

A large part of the reason the South got involved in the Revolutionary war in first place was that they could see the way the wind was blowing in Britain in terms of slavery, and wanted to avoid any potential legislation against their 'peculiar institution'.

Um, the South, largely, didn't exist during the revolutionary war, there was only sort of Virginia, Georgia, and the Carolinas. I don't think they constituted anything remotely approaching what we think of as "the South" when we use the term now...

Virginia, the Carolinas, Georgia and Maryland. The Carolinas in particular were very keen on slavery.

[Osama bin Bambi]

Yeah, America was pretty much founded on genocide and slavery.

[Lt. Fred]

The Bureau of Indian Affairs issued this speech on September 8th, 2000. Any emphasis is most likely mine.

http://www.tahtonka.com/apology.html

As the nation looked to the West for more land, this agency participated in the ethnic cleansing that befell the western tribes.

Yet in these more enlightened times, it must be acknowledged that the deliberate spread of disease, the decimation of the mighty bison herds, the use of the poison alcohol to destroy mind and body, and the cowardly killing of women and children made for tragedy on a scale so ghastly that it cannot be dismissed as merely the inevitable consequence of the clash of competing ways of life.

Forgive me if I'm mistaken, but I have always associated the phrase "ethnic cleansing" with genocide.

Ethnic cleansing is forcing people off an area of ground ('cleansing' it) through violence or similar. Genocide is killing them where they stand. The US did both.