[geeks] FW: [rescue] UPS Recommendation

[Brian Dunbar]

vance at neurotica.com [mailto:vance at neurotica.com] Sent: Thursday, July 17,
2003 8:09 PM said;

On Thu, 17 Jul 2003, Brian Dunbar wrote:

> > > That's exactly what I meant. The word "defence" is poorly chosen. The
> > > word "genocide" might be more to the point.
> >
> > It's also wrong.  By and large, the people who moved West didn't want to
> > kill Indians.  They wanted the land, and to be left alone.  If the
> > Indians fought back, war was made until they got tired and moved to a
> > reservation. If they didn't fight, they were moved to a reservation.
> > They lost either way, I agree.
> >
> > You should save 'genocide' for situation truly deserving of the word.
> > It cheapens it if you don't.

> But the Native Peoples weren't one group.  If you say that there were no
> tribes whatsoever that were wiped out, you are also wrong.

Indeed I'm not, or rather I didn't intend to say that.  The only example I
have in mind, the Kawakawa, were deliberately destroyed because they made it
a practice of shunning contact, shooting first and eating (live) captives
later, and attracting attention to themselves.  The loudest nail gets
pounded first and hardest.

Interesting phraseology - genocide implies, in common usage at least,
organized action against A specific group of people identified as a group.
Which the whites certainly saw the Indians as.  But the Amerinds didn't
think they were a homogenous group, not at all.

History is a big messy complicated business indeed.

~brian