Talk:Genocide of Indigenous peoples/Archive 4

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

"Cultural Genocide" is not "Genocide"

Latest comment: 7 years ago27 comments4 people in discussion

Lemkin's idea that "cultural genocide" or "ethnocide" should be included in legislation concerning genocide does not mean that cultural genocide is now a type of genocide. Even if Lemkin's recommendation had been taken up. Lemkin never argued that Genocide and Cultural Genocide are the same phenomenon nor did he argue that they are morally equivalent (even if he argued they should be legally equivalent).

The Canadian entry is an instance of Cultural Genocide, not Genocide and so is wrongfully placed on this list. It has been removed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JamesStanley (talk • contribs) 12:57, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

See my edit summary. I have replaced the section. Mass graves have been found at the schools. Many children's trips to the schools were one way tickets. Bodies are still being found. The genocide perpetrated by the residential school system was not "just" cultural. If it needs more sourcing, let's add it. But there is absolutely no reason to cut the section. - CorbieV ^☊ ☼ 17:53, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

We need some sources referring to it as genocide (not cultural genocide which we don't include in the other sections) and then we need to attribute the view to those specific sources.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 18:14, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

The issue here isn't whether there is reason to cut, but whether there is a reason to include it. I can provide sources that explicitly state that it was not a genocide, but the burden of proof is not on me. Is there I reason I shouldn't reinstate my change? JamesStanley (talk) 12:42, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

Your "reason" seems to be WP:IDONTHEARYOU. The residential schools are a longstanding component of the genocide. Your belief that they are not is WP:FRINGE. - CorbieV ^☊ ☼ 19:21, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

No, the reason is lack of sources. Provide some sources that support the claim and write a section that includes those claims as well as any pertinent counter claims and then the material can of course be included. If the view you claim is mainstream is indeed mainstream then finding some solid reliable sources that state so should be easy.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 19:29, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

The Final Report of the TRC expressly identifies the system as physical, biological and cultural genocide. To argue that information about the schools doesn't belong on this page because it is not "Genocide" is as disingenuous as it is revisionist. The raised concern amounts to splitting hairs about semantics. Almost the entirety of JamesStanley edit history is about this specific point calling into question the good faith of the 'problem' being raised. --Dnllnd (talk) 11:59, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

This is not true. The TRC expressly says that the event is best described as "cultural genocide" and contrasts cultural genocide with physical and biological genocide (in order to separate them). Maunus links below to an article confirming that fact. In fact, just about every article about the report characterises the TLC's findings as "cultural genocide." JamesStanley (talk) 13:28, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

I can see the source of the confusion in the way that the report goes from defining the traits of physical, biological and cultural genocides types and then ends the paragraph stating that the canadian case included all of this traits - but it is not completely clear whether they refer only to the traits of cultural genocide or also of the other types of genocide. Based on the fact that they explicitly subsequently only refer to it as "cultural genocide" I think the right reading is the first - i.e. that they think all of the traits of cultural genocide characterize the canadian case.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 15:38, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

I agree. Dnllnd has reversed edits elsewhere based on this misreading and I've started a discussion on his talk page where I present further evidence supporting the irrelevance of physical and biological genocide--if you're interested.JamesStanley (talk) 16:58, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

I found one very good source for the section on Canada - namely the chapter in this book[1]. It describes the debate about genocide in Canada, describing that only recent perspectives from the field of "genocide studies" have participated in re-opening the discussion about whether the experiences of Canadian first nations can be understood as genocidal. This chapter demonstrates that a section on Canada in this article is indeed warranted. Other relevant sources are: "Robert Davis, Mark Zannis. 1973. The Genocide Machine in Canada: The Pacification of the North Black Rose Books", "Kevin Daniel Annett. 2005.Hidden from History: The Canadian Holocaust : the Untold Story of the Genocide of Aboriginal Peoples by Church and State in Canada. Truth Commission into Genocide in Canada" - so indeed it is a notable viewpoint that the Canadian colonialism was genocidal - and not just in terms of "cultural genocide". Significant numbers of scholars however also disagree with this view, and their arguments should be included.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 12:03, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

Those sources all predate the TLC findings which are widely excepted as authoritative. Maybe there should be an entry here indicating that the book is not closed on ancusations of genocide. Even the TLC says that while it cannot confirm biological or physical genocide, it cannot entirely rule it out either.JamesStanley (talk) 13:28, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

Inclusion here does not require unaminous agreement that an event is a genocide, only debate about the issue. The TLC is not "authoritative" for our purposes since this is not about legal definitions but a summary of scholarly discussions.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 13:32, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for this! I've done some more poking around and this article does a nice job of articulating why the TRC opted for 'cultural genocide' rather than 'genocide'. (The section about denialism was particularly relevant to the discussion at hand.) If the purpose of this page is strictly to outline the standalone occurrence of genocide, full stop, and not the myriad subsets that comprise it I would hope that the section can remain with the caveat that no less than three types of genocide were deemed to have occurred (see my comment above). Setting aside the legal implications of why the term was or wasn't used by the TRC, I'm loath to think Wikipedians are comfortable with excluding the residential school system form this page strictly because the types of genocide that occurred have been qualified for what appears to be legal reasons. If three isn't enough for inclusion on this page, I'm at a loss.--Dnllnd (talk) 13:00, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

Inclusion here doesn't require that there is unanimous agreement that a particular event was a genocide, nor an authoritative legal opinion, only that the view that it was exists and is notable enough to be discussed in mainstream sources. Clearly this is the case here. What we shouldn't do is to say that the residential school system "was" genocidal, but that specific scholars have argued that it was and why.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 13:31, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

"Notable enough" is a key phrase here. An entry should reflect the degree of consensus on an issue and be factually accurate. For example, the entry now reads "The Executive Summary of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission found that physical genocide, biological genocide, and cultural genocide all occurred: physical, through abuse; biological, through the disruption of reproductive capacity; and cultural, through forced assimilation." This is false. The TRC themselves define physical genocide as "the mass killing of the members of a targeted group," not "abuse." Nor does the commission demonstrate the "disruption of reproductive capacity," or even claim to. They include this as a definition of biological genocide in order to help differentiate biological genocide from cultural genocide. Physical and Reproductive genocide are terms taken from Lemkin's original thesis. These two elements are what went on to become international law regarding genocide. Believe me, if they had claimed to have discovered this, papers would not be going on and on about "cultural genocide." I noticed that there in this page's preamble, there is talk of "cultural genocide" as a fringe definition of genocide. If this entry is to remain, it should be characterised in that spirit.JamesStanley (talk) 14:19, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

The presence of notable sources about the question means that there is no question about whether the section should remain - the only pertinent question is how it should be represented. There is certainly room for giving a better summary of the debate and the different positions. You are of course free to add the viewpoints you feel are missing or underrepresented. ·maunus · snunɐɯ· 15:34, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

I urge you to reread the Globe and Mail article. They claim in the article that "Yet the recent summary report of the commission called the residential school system “cultural genocide”." How do you take from that that "three types of genocide" were reported? Only the one type was reported and it's conspicuously the type that isn't included in the U.N. definition and is not even part of wiki page on genocide. In other words, it's a fringe definition of "genocide." I'd hope that this page is not grounded in the idea that it will label itself a list of "genocides" then take on a fringe definition of genocide in order to include entries that would otherwise be omitted. I'd like to remind you that a neutral point of view should be adopted. The Globe and Mail article is hysterically biased politically. JamesStanley (talk) 13:28, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

You should read the chapter by Woolford and Jasmine, it describes all the different arguments for seeing the canadian case as a genocide. It is not just about cultural genocide/ethnocide, also physical genocide is being argued.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 13:34, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

Yes. Some people have argued that the Canadian case should be considered more than just cultural genocide, but those are fringe voices, most of whom predate the TRC. I'd be interested in scholarly articles or books dated after the TLC released its findings. I'm fairly certain I've read all the arguments in favour of residential schools being considered a genocide, legally and academically, but I'll take a look at their chapter nonetheless. In the meantime, the center of this issue in the press is whether or not "cultural genocide" is justifiable (though I would peg the consensus as affirming that it is). I even think some of the arguments for the genocide case are worthy of further investigation (most notably the moving of children from one group to another), but nonetheless, equating "cultural genocide" with "genocide" is itself a fringe belief. I'm actually being swayed that there should be an entry here, but it should bend over backward to reflect that 1) the argument that the Canadian case can be considered genocide proper is fringe or at least an open question, and 2) the belief that "cultural genocide" should be considered part of genocide proper is also a fringe belief (this last point is already made in the article's preamble, so maybe a gesture back to that would be sufficient).JamesStanley (talk) 14:19, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

I find the continued use of 'fringe' concerning. Many Indigenous and non-Indigenous people feel that genocide occurred and the failure of Western judicial systems to rule in definitively in favour of that language isn't a reason to dismiss those beliefs as fringe perspectives. I agree that an articulation of the difference between cultural genocide and genocide should be worked into the page as necessary. I also agree that given the contentious (for some) nature of the topic the page should be a summary of current beliefs regardless of how certain editors qualify them. "Hysterically biased politically" or not the Globe and Mail, the CBC and the outputs of the TRC are all suitable references for meeting the reliability and verifiable requirements of all perspectives on this matter. --Dnllnd (talk) 15:12, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

I haven't considered the feelings of aboriginals or any other people. I think we should stick to verifiable sources. It's also not true that these three references meet the requirement for "all perspectives" on the matter, or even the dominant perspectives. I'll take some time and put together a more complete analysis of the discourse on Residential Schools in the media. Academic sources are more difficult because the major investigations on the subject are too recent to have generated academic content yet. JamesStanley (talk)

The sources determine what is and isn't fringe - I would be happy to assume that the TRC report represents the "mainstream view" and that the mainstream view therefore is that it was a "cultural genocide" however on either side of that view exists the views that it was also a physical genocide or that it was no genocide at all. All of those opinions should be included according to their relative weight in the sources. Whether a particular opinion predates or postdates the TRC is not very relevant in my opinion. We need to summarize all the views that are notable.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 15:29, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

I think the age of sources does matter when those sources have been superceded by more recent information. In this case, I don't think older sources are completely irrelevant, but they have been eclipsed by the dominance of the TRC's unearthing of new evidence and the homogeneity of subject's interaction with those findings. No matter anyone's view on the issue, it is now given in the context of the TRC's conclusions. That said, I agree that the argument for genocide here is still an open one (the strongest evidence for that, is that the TRC believes it's still an open question) and I've been convinced that that's enough to justify an entry. JamesStanley (talk) 16:31, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

Accurately summarizing the TRC report

I believe it is a misinterterpretatoin of the report to state that "The Executive Summary of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission found that physical genocide, biological genocide, and cultural genocide all occurred: physical, through abuse; biological, through the disruption of reproductive capacity; and cultural, through forced assimilation". I think it is clear when read carefully that it only states that the cultural genocide occurred. Below I quote the relevant section from the executive summary:

For over a century, the central goals of Canada’s Aboriginal policy were to eliminate Aboriginal governments; ignore Aboriginal rights; terminate the Treaties; and, through a process of assimilation, cause Aboriginal peoples to cease to exist as distinct legal, social, cultural, religious, and racial entities in Canada. The establishment and operation of residential schools were a central element of this policy, which can best be described as “cultural genocide.” Physical genocide is the mass killing of the members of a targeted group, and biological genocide is the destruction of the group’s reproductive capacity. Cultural genocide is the destruction of those structures and practices that allow the group to continue as a group. States that engage in cultural genocide set out to destroy the political and social institutions of the targeted group. Land is seized, and populations are forcibly transferred and their movement is restricted. Languages are banned. Spiritual leaders are persecuted, spiritual practices are forbidden, and objects of spiritual value are confiscated and destroyed. And, most significantly to the issue at hand, families are disrupted to prevent the transmission of cultural values and identity from one generation to the next. In its dealing with Aboriginal people, Canada did all these things.

First it states that the policy can best be described as cultural genocide. Then it defines the three types of genocide, physical, biological and cultural. Then it says that "states that engage in cultural genocide do X, Y, Z" and then finally it says that "Canada did all these things". I believe that the context makes it clear that "all these things" refers to X Y and Z, and not to the three types of genocide. This is supported also by the fact that the rest of the report only mentions "cultural genocide" and provides no evidence or argument supporting the claim that physical or biological genocide occurred. I think we need to be careful in representing the reports intended meaning, and not what we believe it should or could mean.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 11:44, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

This article by MacDonald (MacDonald, D. B. (2015). Canada's history wars: indigenous genocide and public memory in the United States, Australia and Canada. Journal of Genocide Research, 17(4), 411-431.) analyzes the reports conclusion and also notes that it is ambiguous, and it argues that it had to be ambiguous because the commission was not authorized to make a finding of physical or biological genocide as this would entail legal consequences. I have added this, and provided more context about the Canadian genocide debate, the formation of the TRC and the context in which to interpret its final report.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 11:54, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for making the changes to the entry. I have made various text edits to improve readability and to minimize the framing of Indigenous people living in what is now Canada as possessions of the Canadian state. I have also revised the text referring to the findings of the TRC on the Canadian Indian residential school system page to align with what was concluded here.--Dnllnd (talk) 18:17, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, I think all your edits were good improvements. The change of phrasing away from the possessive was particularly useful, thanks for that.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 19:02, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

NPOV

Latest comment: 7 years ago11 comments3 people in discussion

@Xenophrenic:, as discussed on other articles, the text is failing WP:NPOV without the addition. I would tag the section with an organ level tag without this. Whizz40 (talk) 22:53, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

Hi, Whizz40. I've (again) reverted your bold edit for reasons best explained at WP:BRD. While I'm certain you made the edit in good faith, your edit introduced undue POV which is against our WP:NPOV policy: which means representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all of the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic. Here is the content you added:

Historian Michael McConnell writes that, "Ironically, British efforts to use pestilence as a weapon may not have been either necessary or particularly effective", noting that smallpox was already entering the territory by several means, and Native Americans were familiar with the disease and adept at isolating the infected. (cited to McConnell)

It is problematic that your 25+ year old source based his speculation on the Hicks and McCullough information, which has since been examined in more detail (see Wheelis, Mann, Fenn, et al.) - and found that it doesn't "ironically" alter the narrative after all. The tribe to which McCullough referred was actually several hundred miles away, and while they had some prior experience with smallpox, the tribes wiped out in the 1763-1764 epidemic did not. And Hicks' deposition, before his retelling of it with no mention of smallpox, actually supports the timing of the Fort Pitt incident as a probable epidemic source.
Your proposed addition also doesn't address the topic (Genocide), which is determined by actions with intent, and not by speculation on how effective or necessary their attempts were.

McConnell is not the only source to use these apologetics ("the attempts probably weren't successful"; "the Indians deserved it because of their barbaric warfare tactics"; "they were already catching the pox from many other sources, so the Fort Pitt incidents didn't matter"; "the militia at Fort Pitt didn't know enough about disease to pull off a successful bio-attack"; etc.), but current scholarship has overwhelmingly relegated these speculations to the minority-theory category, with some traced back to actual white-washing attempts. Adding in that sentence "to balance previous sentences", as one of your edit summaries stated, indicates a serious misreading of what the preponderance of reliable sources on the matter say. If you'd like to discuss adding the "balancing" current scholarship, which examines the same sources McConnell does, but more thoroughly, along with your proposed addition, we can certainly do that -- but it doesn't appear germane to the genocide topic. I hope that better explains my concerns. Regards, Xenophrenic (talk) 10:35, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

Hi Xenophrenic, we are both agreed there is no issue with WP:V. Beyond that, however, the exact opposite of your arguments above is an equally credible argument

The section of the article United States colonization and westward expansion as currently written gives Wikipedia's opinion on the primary source. The article reads "The letters of British commander Jeffery Amherst indicated actual genocidal intent", WP:Original Research. All that matters is what historians say in reliable sources, preferably secondary sources. Quotations from primary sources need to be used carefully, and certainly not to provide Wikipedia's opinion on them, WP:PRIMARY.
The topic of genocide certainly requires discussion of the effect of any contributory actions or events, that is fundamental. If there is more than one viewpoint on the effects of the actions then due weight should be given to the different views citing reliable secondary sources. The article is not currently written in this fashion, WP:NPOV.
A source being 25+ years old has no bearing on it being a reliable source, WP:RS.

Please also consider WP:OWN. Labelling my edit as "bold", when adding short quotes and description from secondary sources is quite ordinary editing, has the effect of discouraging me from editing the article. Given also your comments above, can you suggest improvements to the wording and citations in this section of the article? Whizz40 (talk) 22:40, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for the blue-links to a lot of Wikipedia policies and guidelines. Let's see if they apply:

we are both agreed there is no issue with WP:V

I never mentioned WP:V, but okay.

the article ... gives Wikipedia's opinion on the primary source.

I disagree, but I'm willing to re-review specific content if you'll indicate it here. Having just rechecked, all assertions in Wikipedia voice are factual assertions cited to reliable sources.

"The letters of British commander Jeffery Amherst indicated actual genocidal intent", WP:Original Research

I believe you have misread policy. Content which is cited to sources and accurately conveys what those sources say is not WP:OR. I see that the cited sources convey, in addition to other relevant information, "...these were the enemy that nearly succeeded in driving the British out, and became the target for British genocide", and also, "Several other letters from the summer of 1763 show the smallpox idea was not an anomaly. The letters are filled with comments that indicate a genocidal intent, with phrases such as..."

genocide certainly requires discussion of the effect of any contributory actions or events

No; not when determining what is or isn't genocide (see the lead section) in its basic defined legal form, as far as I am aware. If you have sources which say that genocide is determined not by actions taken and the intent behind them, but instead by how successful those actions were, I would be interested in reviewing them. Now for Wikipedia's purpose, more information is better, of course -- Unless presentation of that information (or worse, repetitious presentation) goes against the consensus of scholarship on the matter. (And McConnell prefaced his speculation with "may have" for good reason.) That would be a violation of WP:UNDUE.

The article is not currently written in this fashion, WP:NPOV.

I disagree, of course, after having carefully read every source cited in these sections under discussion (and many more on the subject matter). But if you have information of which I am unaware, I am anxious to review it.

A source being 25+ years old has no bearing on it being a reliable source, WP:RS

Nor did I ever say or imply it did. I mentioned its age only as a preface to noting that newer scholarship now exists which examines that very same subject matter more thoroughly and carefully. (And that is what bears on the reliability of the older source.)

Please also consider WP:OWN.

Why - has it changed since I last reviewed it? You must be aware that Wikipedians can't own articles, right? If there is something specific on that page you feel would be helpful here, please point it out. Correctly labelling your edits as bold is not a disparagement (in fact, bold editing is strongly encouraged by the Wikipedia community), and was only noted by me to indicate a step in the WP:BRD process. "That section" is only 4 sentences long, so I haven't considered "improvements to the wording and citations in this section", but I do have notes to myself around here somewhere regarding many parts of the article as a whole which need work. Regards, Xenophrenic (talk) 12:23, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

We clearly don't agree. The greater issue is with the longer text at the section Siege of Fort Pitt#Biological warfare involving smallpox - it lacks neutral tone and content. As discussed at Talk:Siege of Fort Pitt#POV, it seems like this section was written by and for people who would like to make a point about what happened. As I read around the topic, I found very similar text repeated in this and other articles. That section could be written in a more impartial way - the section heading itself is part of the problem. This is not the sort of standard one would expect to see in an encyclopedia. The section Pontiac's War#Siege of Fort Pitt is a much better example of a more neutral way to cover the topic, as would be expected because this is a featured article. Whizz40 (talk) 21:22, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

If I understand this comment, your "greater issue" concern is with another article, as opposed to this one. I'll go review your comments on the other articles you mentioned. Xenophrenic (talk) 16:32, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

There is one minor comment on this article, to remove the word 'actual' from the sentence below because it is unnecessary and removing it does not change the meaning:

The letters of British commander Jeffery Amherst indicated actual genocidal intent when he authorized the intentional use of disease-infected blankets as a biological weapon against indigenous populations during the 1763 Pontiac's Rebellion Whizz40 (talk) 20:43, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

@Xenophrenic: The meaning of the sentence above is not changed by the word "intentional", would you agree it is clearer without it? Whizz40 (talk) 19:07, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

As noted in my edit summary, the "intentional" spread of disease, versus natural unintended contagion, is a key sticking point requiring emphasis separate from the legal term "genocidal intent". If the meaning of the sentence is not changed (i.e.; made less clear) by the presence of the word "intentional", as you claim, then removing it could not make the sentence clearer. So, you have already answered your own question. But I also disagree with your claim: in my opinion, "intentional use of disease-infected blankets" is significantly clearer than just "use of disease-infected blankets". Regards, Xenophrenic (talk) 15:30, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

I think the double use of "intent" so close to each other is a little grating to the eye, but it can easily be avoided by substituting "intentionally" with "knowlingly" or "purposely".·maunus · snunɐɯ· 15:41, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

Common-sense solutions from the mind of Maunus (again). It didn't occur to me to try alternative wording, as I figured the above proposal was to remove the emphasis rather than re-package it. I've tentatively replaced "intentional" with "deliberate" to get rid of the redundancy. However, no offense will be taken if this minor change is reverted. Xenophrenic (talk) 16:27, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

What exactly counts as indigenous here

Latest comment: 6 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Is the absence of obvious cases like the Armenian Genocide here an implication that Armenians are not "indigenous" to Armenia, or is it merely because the Ottomans are not perceived as a "colonial power". I would argue in that specific case that its notable that some scholars have called the Ottomans colonial, especially in areas like Bulgaria (idk about Armenia), but it clearly seems the page is not even using that definition (that somehow "indigenousness" derives counterintuitively from being colonized) given the inclusion of actions of clearly non-colonial governments like that of Bangladesh. I remember when we just had "Genocides in History"-- that seems as if it was better, as I get the feeling this is some sort of POVFORK though to be fair, I can't identify what the POV is. Smells fishy though. --Yalens (talk) 04:50, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

[2] These people were considered natives without knowing that their religion bound them to the land and the other people. In terms of Ian Morris' book 'Fate of Nations,' there are thee unique qualities that define the success of a nation: social organization, ability of science or war, discovery of energy.

Yes, all Indegenous people need to rise up and protect the planet but all atheists are native to planet Earth therefore, we can get past religion and focus on symbolism or just plain abilities!

Now before you go saying that, like the Seminole Wars, the U.S. gov. inflicted genocide. The problem is, is that the Seminole Wars were won by the natives...

As someone who works with psychology and has a French-, Seneca-Indian heritage, I think I can shed light on this topic; atheists (people who don't have a religion) are native to planet Earth. I'm focusing on religion because symbolism is one of the defining aspects of modern humans and with symbolism, comes socialism. In Ian Morris' book 'Fate of Nations,' he highlights 3 unique qualities that define the success of a nation: social organization (religion), ability of war (science), discovery of energy. (In our representation it is the unmovable right of peace, to righteousness in trade, to power.)

Basically, what I'm saying is shots like that of the Lexington fight (American Revolution) may or may not have proportional representation or the benefit of common idealism or secular theology of the area playing a role (in most strategy games religious ordeals cause unwanted dissent). Now even within the Iroquois League today there is strife amongst different states when dealing with tobacco and arms sales. It's nice to think that we 'need' to procreate and all that but in the end mammals need 3 things to live: water, food, sleep, so there is always relations in respect to what Napoleon once said: "Ability is nothing without opportunity."

We can also say Columbus didn't discover America but bringing other demographics and similar Shaman-type religions -- like that of Afghanistan, or Mongolia, and even early Briton -- into the mix is, erroneous. Yes, the religion of Shamanism is almost too practical to even be called a religion since it's just 'Earth' or 'at one,' but, it leaves itself open to science (the Mongol spread Chinese and Asian Science this way) Anyway, I can tell you about the need in Lexington for neutral transparency when there is no representation, but that for another day. An article about U.S. troops not understanding the Tripartide gov. system otherwise known as representative government, proportional representation, etc, where even today as we reach for an economy without consciousness (robotics), the proletariat-communists have gained strength but fail at not realizing they need to be less of an ideology and more of an ability of science as freemasonry-capitalism is. The gov. foundation of people indigenous to Earth must, like chess, be simple and flexible.208.96.66.213 (talk) 18:55, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

Baltic States

Latest comment: 6 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

The section on the Baltic States in Contemporary examples describes deportations, not genocide. Should it be removed from the article?

Instead we could include the Jew pogroms in the Baltic States during and before WWII. Here is a small start: Kaunas pogrom.

RhinoMind (talk) 22:15, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Latest comment: 6 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Genocide of indigenous peoples. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:37, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

Serious issues with historical and factual accuracy

Latest comment: 6 years ago16 comments2 people in discussion

Claiming death from disease as a result of contact with old-world populations during the conquest of the Americas is genocide is an extremely controversial, as well as factually inaccurate, statement. At the very most we can say that x author defines it as genocide (for whichever reason he/she may have). There are a number of other mistakes I am correcting here. Mention of the Encomienda system, which was abolished within 50 years of discovery of the Americas should also include mention of the laws whereby it was abolished in 1542. Bold claims such as the annihilation of the Arawaks when most Caribbean populations have Arawak/Taino blood and Arawak indigenous people exist to this day in the Carribean should also be taken with cautioun. There is a difference between ethnocide and genocide. Accusing the Spaniards of the California genocide is basically an exercise of whitewashing U.S. history. Negin1 (talk) 11:40, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

You seem not to be sufficiently versed in the literature. The introduction of the News Laws in 1542 did not infact end the encomienda system anywhere in the News World for example - they were not implemented in practice. Although you are right that the inclusion of the conquest of Americas as genocide has been controversial the last thirty years or so has seen a general move to recognize the results of settler colonialism in the Americas as a form of genocide. The fact that Taino genes have recently been found to be widespread also do nothing to contest the well-established claim that there was a genocide in the carribbean. I do agree that there are problems with the article - stemming particularly from the inclusion of unsourced material, and the lack of attribution for some statements that may be controversial. But any changes you make that are not sufficiently supported by the current literature on the topic will be reverted pending discussion.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 11:56, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

I am sufficiently versed in the literature, this is my area of expertise. The New Laws had immediate effects (not everywhere but in many places) but more importantly it marked the death of the encomienda system and it was progressively dismantled. In fact, I would say it began to be dismantled before these laws. The role of figures such as Vasco de Quiroga was crucial in this. Its not for nothing that he is worshiped as a saint by indigenous communities in Mexico to this day. Negin1 (talk) 12:07, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

I think that interpretation of the effects of the New Laws or the benevolence of Vasco de Quiroga is not in line with the views taken in recent literature on the topic such as Krippner, Verastique or Gómez Herrero. One might very easily argue that the reason Quiroga is still venerated is that his shortlived hospital communities provided the locals there a modicum of protection that quickly dissappeared and became the subject of nostalgia for better times, even though they were no characteristic at all for any period of colonization.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 12:30, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

I also struggle to see how Tibetans, a recognized minority in the Republic of China whose language is considered a recognized official language in their autonomous region, are or have been subject to genocide. Political repression yes. Genocide no. Negin1 (talk) 11:43, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

Reviewing your edits so far, they seem quite reasonable. We have to keep in mind that almost any claim about a certain historical event will be contested - we should therefore summarize the different views, not try to advocate that certain events were or were not genocidal.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 12:05, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

Great. Thanks. I just want some modicum of caution here. Some of the statements were over the top. Cheers.Negin1 (talk) 12:10, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

This will be relevant: Madley, B. (2015). Reexamining the American genocide debate: Meaning, historiography, and new methods. The American Historical Review, 120(1), 98-139.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 12:57, 18 March 2018 (UTC)
Hinton, A. L., Woolford, A., & Benvenuto, J. (Eds.). (2014). Colonial genocide in indigenous North America. Duke University Press.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 13:01, 18 March 2018 (UTC)
Cave, A. A. (2008). Genocide in the Americas. In The historiography of genocide (pp. 273-295). Palgrave Macmillan, London.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 13:04, 18 March 2018 (UTC)
Smithers, G. D. (2010). Rethinking Genocide in North America. In The Oxford Handbook of Genocide Studies.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 13:05, 18 March 2018 (UTC)
Madley, B. (2016). An American Genocide: The United States and the California Indian Catastrophe, 1846-1873. Yale University Press.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 13:06, 18 March 2018 (UTC)
McDonnell, M. A., & Moses, A. D. (2005). Raphael Lemkin as historian of genocide in the Americas. Journal of Genocide Research, 7(4), 501-529.
Moses, D., & Stone, D. (Eds.). (2013). Colonialism and genocide. Routledge.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 13:07, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

Here is a little material that we can use to base further discussion and further improvements to the article on.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 13:12, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

I suggest removing the phrase "believing their numbers to be inexhaustible". It sounds like a stylistic opinion by an author, even if he happens to have found anecdotal evidence of an individual claiming this (probably an exaggeration by someone making the point that the population of the Americas is high). I don't think anyone can say that the Spanish empire as a whole was convinced of the inexhaustibly of the indigenous population of the Americas. Its not a serious attribution for an encyclopedia.Negin1 (talk) 17:12, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

I don't have a problem with removing that phrase, which seems to be undue speculation about motives and thoughts.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 20:13, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

The article includes no mention of the Ottoman Empire

Latest comment: 6 years ago7 comments2 people in discussion

This should be addressed!

Begin by providing some sources that describe genocide in relation to the Ottoman empire.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 14:34, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

The key issue here is how do we define "indigenous". I wonder if this article should even exist as separate from other similar articles. All populations are indigenous somewhere. The Greek genocide or the Armenian genocide certainly have no lack of sources. Negin1 (talk) 12:34, 19 March 2018 (UTC) Blocked sock:Gaditano23.

We define it the same wayt the international conventions on indigenous peoples do, which is a political and historical definition, - not as simply originating someplace. ·maunus · snunɐɯ· 13:23, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

~~Hmmm but by that definition Armenians certainly qualify. Greeks too I would say, since their presence in Anatolia predates the Turkic conquest. Negin1 (talk) 17:05, 19 March 2018 (UTC)~~ Blocked sock:Gaditano23.

Actually, I don't think any of them qualify because they have their own national state. Diaspora populations of peoples with national states are not generally represented in organizations for indigenous peoples - even if the diaspora is historically prior to the state around them.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 20:22, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

They have their own nation state now, but they didn't at the time. The Congolese have their own state/nation-state (even though it encompasses various ethnic groups) and they too were arguably subject to genocide. I don't see how the nation state lithmus test is supported by any source either?Negin1 (talk) 09:53, 20 March 2018 (UTC) Blocked sock:Gaditano23.

It of course doesn't matter for the question of genocide, but it does matter for determining whether the genocide is apt for inclusion in this particular article which is not about genocide in general but about genocide of indigenous peoples. Inclusion requires sources that describe the particular genocide as an example of a genocide against indigenous peoples. Sources rule. So sources showing that the Ottoman empire carried out genocide against indigenous peoples would be the necessary bar to pass for inclusion.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 10:21, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

Indian Genocide - no, just disease.

Latest comment: 5 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

"Historians such as David Stannard[70] and Barbara Mann[71] have noted that the army deliberately routed the march of the Cherokee to pass through areas of known cholera epidemic, such as Vicksburg"

Is this really likely? Cholera would have been just as dangerous to the Army as the Indians.

The idea of of an Indian genocide is dramatic and romantic, but the numbers tell a different tale. The Congressional enquiry of the 1890s estimated that total Indian deaths at the hands of white colonists and Government in the previous hundred years had been around 30,000. The Indians in turn had killed around 19,000 whites. In other words 300 and 190 per annum deaths respectively on average. These numbers are pinpricks when measured against millions of Indians and whites.

The underlying reason for the massive decline in Indian population over time is tragic but mundane - simply disease, resulting in death rates exceeding birth rates over a long period of time. For every Indian dying in a shoot-out a thousand must have died of mumps, measles, smallpox, cholera, influenza etc etc.

The settlers too also died from these European disease epidemics, but their death rates were significantly lower. Successive epidemics over the course of three centuries or more simply and slowly wiped out up to 90% of the Indian population.

A tragedy to be sure. But genocide? No, that's just a modern fashionable narrative. Cassandra. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.74.52.149 (talk) 17:11, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

Rewrite needed

Latest comment: 5 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

"And it permitted whites to force Indian children to work for them until they were eighteen, provided that they obtained permission from what the law referred to as a 'friend' was obtained first."2600:1700:E1C0:F340:793C:16A2:375:BDCB (talk) 02:58, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

Holomor / Palestine

Latest comment: 5 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

No mention of Holomor or Palestine? No mention of indigenous genocide committed by other indigenous peoples? Clearly, this entire article is POV poopoo. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.128.151.56 (talk) 15:55, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

Removing tags in article

Latest comment: 5 years ago8 comments4 people in discussion

Resnjari PLEASE refrain from removing tags. So far the only consensus achieved between the parties to this content dispute are that the tags stay until it is resolved. See the comment by C.J. Griffin above agreeing to maintaining tags. Your edit warring is disruptive to consensus building which is going to be hard enough to achieve without you attempting to break it. Thank you.Filologo2 (talk) 14:20, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

You have no consensus in the talkpage and editors have already reverted your other changes. Your current edits are WP:TAGBOMBING and smack of WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS and WP:IDONTLIKEIT and cross over into WP:NATIONALIST territory.Resnjari (talk) 14:28, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

Resnjari Read comment by C.J. Griffin above, he specifically agrees to keep tags so there is consensus on keeping the tags until issue is resolved, which I assume will take us some weeks. You have come here out of the blue to disrupt consensus building. Please desist. Thank you.Filologo2 (talk) 14:33, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

If it means adding POV pushing original research again into the article, you will be reported. If in a few weeks time if nothing happens those tags go.Resnjari (talk) 14:39, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

Filologo2 please try to be careful when you're ascribing comments to other editors - it was me, not C.J. Griffin, who said that I was happy enough for the tags to stay. That is true - I don't have a particular issue with the tags, but I also don't have any kind of authority here - other editors are allowed to remove the tags if they don't think they apply. What is then required is discussion, not the reinstatement of the tags.

I'll respond to your previous comments in the section above.GirthSummit _(blether) 14:43, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

So I see. My apologies. Filologo2 (talk) 14:48, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for clarifying this. It seems my agreement with your statement above is being used as a justification by Filologo2 to keep edit warring by restoring the tags if they are removed by other editors.--C.J. Griffin (talk) 14:55, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

C.J. Griffin It was simply a small mistake on the user, it was Girth who was agreeing with keeping the tags and I acknowledge this. Regardless, there is clearly a serious content dispute regarding POV issues. On that much we agree. I will start a new section taking sentence by sentence the worst offending section. Filologo2 (talk) 15:33, 2 April 2019 (UTC)