Eugenics can rightfully be referred to as a subset of genocide, something I’ve blogged about previously.
Depopulationist contend that the ideal global population shouldn’t exceed one billion people.
The same question should be asked of them as those who promote eugenics – that would be who in their opinion qualifies as worthy of being among the elect?
The obvious answer from their perspective would be those who are proponents, something I’ve pointed out in previous blogs is this is a conversation that takes place only among the living, and while still living only those with power.
As it stands today indigenous people retain “ownership” of something like two percent of the land we formally held – the land grab has been ongoing and not an opportunity has been overlooked to facilitate that end, from “allotment acts”, “wartime requirements”, Congressional acts, and instances of outright theft related to resources.
These to fall into the category of genocidal acts in my opinion as they ultimately lead to the destruction of culture and assimilation. Assimilation, the most passive form of genocide when war was the first and apparently the preferred option.
The first mandate is eradication, followed by treaties and the gulags with the intent of both to isolate and create a dependency.
Then relocation and spiriting children away to “schools” in an attempt to disperse and through such dispersion assimilate.
Reducing the size of land holdings reduces the ability to be self sustaining, thereby increasing dependency and effectively leading to a urban migration where assimilation becomes easier.
Culture and language are what bind nations together, as they go so too do nations.
As a people we cannot afford to cobble together new traditions due to external influences, an obvious need to make adaptations exists, but not at the expense of accommodating or appeasing anyone.
Accommodation can be a product of poverty, evidence of that exists in the selling of cultural artifacts like ceremonies, as this is playing out it is primarily the result of personal creed – with greed being the vehicle what is considered marketable increases until a point is reached where nothing is off the table, from pipes to drums
and the name branding of ceremonies.
There becomes something of an acceptability in this as it becomes more common, and in time if enough people participate it becomes a new tradition and morphs into an industry.
An additional threat exists if those who are engaging in such commercial ventures present themselves as and are accepted as authorities.
If people accept that they are when the most obvious of reasons is plainly visible they are not, if they were they would being protecting what are distinctly the nations rather than corrupting and marketing them.
Efforts are being made across the nations to revitalize language and culture – these efforts should be predicated on naming names and demonstrating differences.
The wisdom and knowledge of traditional elders should be the focus, not hucksters and grifters.
When it comes to actual numbers it often comes down to which side of the fence you’re on – numbers alternatively being inflated or reduced, and I suspect there is no way of knowing the actual figures.
As mentioned previously in separate blog the Arawak population has been placed at 3 to 8 million when Columbus first landed – estimates based upon accounts written then.
Since the numbers vary for the sake of discussion let’s take the middle ground and place the figure at 5 million – a population of 5 million driven almost to extinction, that’s one nation in a entire hemisphere where are or were literally hundreds, if not thousands.
Five hundred or so tribes exist within the U.S. to this day representing as of 2003 1.2% of the population – this isn’t coincidental or the result of well meaning policies, it speaks directly to the aftermath of a genocidal effort.
One study asserts that prior to the invasion ten million indigenous people inhabited this country, and by the year 1900 less than 300,000 remained.
That’s for the U.S. alone which may be a eigth or so of the entire landmass of this hemisphere.
Personally I believe his figure of a maximum population of ten million is a bare minimum at the very best. I’ve also heard estimates of 300 million, but I believe that to be an exaggeration.
More than one nation has been driven to the point of extinction, while others have disappeared.
For those who find it better suited to limit any discussion of genocide to the body count I would suggest they take a look at the numbers.
They are significantly higher than those if Bosnia yet the conflict there has always been labeled as ethnic cleansing, or for the those who are more to the point, genocide.
The same holds true related to conflicts throughout Africa – yet somehow the interpretation is supposed to be different in this hemisphere?
No ethnic cleansing, no genocide, just misguided policies? I don’t think so.
1.5 million were killed in Armenia and it is rightfully referred to as genocide with the exception of President Obama who has revised his earlier opinion and Turkey itself.
In Obama’s case to label what happened in Armenia as genocide would be like living in a glass house and throwing rocks without acknowledging that genocide occurred in this country as well.
And that above “diplomatic” concerns is the bottom line.
Genocide cannot be defined by numbers alone, it is about intent, events, history, and policy.
It is about Sherman, Chivington, Custer, Andrew Jackson, papal bulls, manifest destiny, the near extinction of the buffalo, gold and silver, timber, resources, water, boarding schools, relocation, greed, religion, and the gulags.