Αγορά Πολιτών

Τρόπος Συμμετοχής


Πολίτες στην Αγορά

Έχουμε 843 επισκέπτες συνδεδεμένους

Framing Dissidents



Location: Berlin, Germany

Only send SMS +41762833777

Citizen Band Radio:

- Call-channel: 1 FM (frequency modulation)

- Call-sign: EB-1142

CIA's Child Sex Slaves


Πατριώτη S.O.S.


Greek Dissidents Political Persecution


A Greek Government In Exile


60+ Trillion Euros Dispute for Greece's Minerals


21/06/2020 International Protests


Robbed at Copenhagen


George Bobolas


Prespes-Agreement Superimposed-Reality Ruthless-Propaganda





Mielke - Chrisochoidis


O/L to British P/M


O/L to E. Macron


Accountability-Free Genocides


Militarized "psychiatry"


The Absolute Evil


Gang-stalking Greeks


Byzantine Atrocities


European Dissidents ALARM


Human Rights' Court


The used up men


Dissidents - USG RICO crimes


Open Letter to Theresa May


Open Letter to António Guterres UN's SG


Triangulation - Zersetzen


Open Letter to Andrew Parker, MI5


Πράξεις ποταπές - Despicable choices



My father's death


Cavitation damage


Burglary and vandalism


Dry mini submarine


Message to Bundeswehr 2


Message to Bundeswehr 1


“Tough” guys and TOUGH guys


Μοναδική λύση, το Χόλιγουντ




Zeppelin: Beyond Gravity


Foreign intervention in Greece?


Η ανελεύθερη Ελλάδα


Η Ελλάδα καταγώγιο;


Αν.Επ. Π. Παυλόπουλο


Intangible prisons


Plausible deniability


Images of German w & s


Crimes against Humanity


"Chimera" - "Bellerophon"


pr. Donald Trump



Legal Notice 87


Βδέλλες, αποικιοκρατικές


Being a German


Legal Notice 84


Dirty colonial methods


Georgi Markov, BG - KGB


Samples of Barbarity


Ελλάδα - αποκόλληση


Έλληνες, στο έλεος...


Harvester's log 16/3/17



Legal Notice 66




Legal Notice 62



My story






Η Εστία μου



Why so untidy?






Εξόντωση Ελλήνων αντιφρονούντων;



Ζήτημα εμπιστοσύνης






Ανοικτή Επιστολή πρέσβη ΗΠΑ

Αφορμή, U2RIT vs Ελλάδα;


A request to U2RIT

Colonial aggression - 2

Open Letter to UN S.G.

Open Letter to p.C. & p. O.

Δήλωση πρόθεσης επαναπατρισμού


Ο "εφιάλτης" της Νυρεμβέργης

Συλλογή Φωτογραφιών

Αίτημα προστασίας, προς Ιταλία

Chroma key, background removal

Science and Ethics

Να συμβάλει και η U2RIT

Θα ξαναφτιάξουν πολλές φορές Άουσβιτς και Zyclon B


Split-Screen effect

Η Ζωή είναι Ωραία.

Βόρεια Κορέα

Λευτεριά στους Έλληνες, εξανα- γκαστικά "Εξαφανισμένους"


Μυστικές δίκες;


Πολιτισμό, ή, απληστία;

Ακραία Στυγνότητα

Η Τέχνη της Επιβίωσης

Political Asylum 3

Επιστροφή στις ρίζες

The Human Cost of Torture

An urgent appeal for solidarity

More obvious than the Sun

Western "culture"

Political Asylum

Έννομη Προστασία

Μια μήνυση που εγείρει ερωτηματικά




Honor your father...


Creative Greeks

A pair of Dictatorships

The vicious cycle of colonialism PDF Εκτύπωση E-mail
Αξιολόγηση Χρήστη: / 0
Συνεννόηση για Δράση - Απόψεις
Συντάχθηκε απο τον/την Χρήστος Μπούμπουλης (Christos Boumpoulis)   
Σάββατο, 25 Απρίλιος 2015 15:58



Genocide of indigenous peoples

Genocide of indigenous peoples is the genocidal destruction of indigenous peoples, understood as ethnic minorities whose territory has been occupied by colonial expansion or the formation of a nation state, by a dominant political group such as a colonial power or a nation state.

While the concept of genocide was formulated by Raphael Lemkin in the mid-20th century, acts of genocidal violence against indigenous groups frequently occurred in the Americas, Australia, Africa and Asia with the expansion of various European colonial powers such as the Spanish and British empires, and the subsequent establishment of nation states on indigenous territory.[2] According to Lemkin, colonization was in itself "intrinsically genocidal". He saw this genocide as a two-stage process, the first being the destruction of the indigenous population's way of life. In the second stage, the newcomers impose their way of life on the minority group.[3][4] According to David Maybury-Lewis, imperial and colonial forms of genocide are enacted in two main ways, either through the deliberate clearing of territories of their original inhabitants in order to make them exploitable for purposes of resource extraction or colonial settlements, or through enlisting indigenous peoples as forced laborers in colonial or imperialist projects of resource extraction.[5] The designation of specific events as genocidal is often controversial.[6]

Some scholars, among them Lemkin, have argued that cultural genocide, sometimes called ethnocide, should also be recognized. A people may continue to exist, but are prevented from perpetuating their group identity by prohibitions against cultural and religious practices that are the basis of that identity. The accusation of cultural genocide carried out by the Chinese during the occupation of Tibet is an example.[7][8][9]

Genocide debate

The concept of genocide was defined in 1944 by Raphael Lemkin. After World War II, it was adopted by the United Nations in 1948. For Lemkin, genocide was broadly defined and included all attempts to destroy a specific ethnic group, whether strictly physical through mass killings, or cultural or psychological through oppression and destruction of indigenous ways of life.[Note 2][10]

The UN definition, which is used in international law, is narrower than Lemkin's, and states that genocide is: "...any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such:

(a) Killing members of the group;

(b) Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group;

(c) Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part;

(d) Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group;

(e) Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group."[11]

Most attempts to define specific events as genocidal are disputed to various degrees, especially when the victims are minority groups such as indigenous peoples and the alleged perpetrator is a modern nation state rather than a colonial empire. In these cases, whether or not genocide occurred is a legal question to be settled in International human rights courts.

The determination of whether a historical event should be considered genocide can be a matter of scholarly debate. Because legal liability is not at issue, the UN definition may not always provide the basis for such discussions. Historians may draw on broader definitions such as Lemkin's, which sees colonialist violence against indigenous peoples as inherently genocidal. For example, in the case of the colonization of the Indigenous peoples of the Americas, when 90% of the indigenous population was wiped out in 500 years of European colonization, it can be debatable whether genocide occurs when disease was the main cause of population decline, since there are some instance of deliberate introduction of disease, but the vast majority of instances without the intent to cause death. Some scholars argue that intent of genocide is not necessary, since genocide may be the cumulative result of minor conflicts in which settlers, or colonial or state agents, perpetrate violence against minority groups.[1] Others argue that the dire consequences of European diseases among many New World populations were exacerbated by different forms of genocidal violence, and that intentional and unintentional deaths cannot easily be separated.[12][13] Some scholars regard the colonization of the Americas as genocide, since they argue it was largely achieved through systematically exploiting, removing and destroying specific ethnic groups, even when most deaths were caused by disease and not direct violence from colonizers. In this view, the concept of "manifest destiny" in the westward expansion from the eastern United States can be seen as contributing to genocide.[14][15]

Pre-1948 examples

In the 16th century, the expansion of European empires led to the conquering of the Americas, Africa, Australasia and Asia. This period of expansion resulted in several instances of massacres, and genocide. Many indigenous peoples, such as the Yuki, Beothuk the Pallawah and Herero, were brought to the brink of extinction. In some cases, entire tribes were annihilated.[16][17]

The question of colonization and genocide in the Americas

Estimates of population decline in the Americas from the first contact with Europeans in 1492 until the turn of the 20th century depend on the estimation of the initial pre-contact population. In the early 20th century, scholars estimated low populations for the pre-contact Americas, with Alfred Kroeber's estimate as low as 8,4 million people in the entire hemisphere. Archaeological findings and a better overview of early censuses have contributed to much higher estimates. Dobyns (1966) estimated a pre-contact population of 90-112 million. Denevan's more conservative estimate was 57.3 million.[18] Russell Thornton (1987) arrived at a figure around 70 million.[19] Depending on the estimate of the initial population, by 1900 the indigenous population can be said to have declined by more than 80%, due mostly to the effects of diseases such as smallpox, measles and cholera, but also violence and warfare by colonizers against the Indians.

Scholars who have argued prominently that this population decline can be considered genocidal include historian David Stannard[20] and anthropological demographer Russell Thornton,[21] as well as scholar activists such as Vine Deloria, Jr., Russell Means and Ward Churchill. Stannard compares the events of colonization that led to the population decline in the Americas with the definition of genocide in the 1948 UN convention, and writes that "In light of the U.N. language—even putting aside some of its looser constructions—it is impossible to know what transpired in the Americas during the sixteenth seventeenth, eighteenth and nineteenth centuries and not conclude that it was genocide".[22] Thornton does not consider the onslaught of disease to be genocide, and only describes as genocide the direct impact of warfare, violence and massacres, many of which had the effect of wiping out entire ethnic groups.[23] Holocaust scholar and political scientist Guenter Lewy rejects the label of genocide and views the depopulation of the Americas as "not a crime but a tragedy".[24]


In 1835, the government of Mexican state Sonora put a bounty on the Apache which, over time, evolved into a payment by the government of 100 pesos for each scalp of a male 14 or more years old.[25] Author and historian James L. Haley wrote: "Beginning in 1837 Chihuahua state also offered bounty, 100 pesos per warrior, 50 pesos per woman, and 25 pesos per child, nothing more or less than genocide."[25] According to Harris Worcester: "The new policy attracted a diverse group of men, including Anglos, runaway slaves led by Seminole John Horse, and Indians — Kirker used Delawares and Shawnees; others, such as Terrazas, used Tarahumaras; and Seminole Chief Coacoochee led a band of his own people who had fled from Indian Territory."[26]

United States colonization and westward expansion

In the late 16th century, England, France, Spain and the Netherlands launched colonization efforts in the part of North Americathat is now the United States.[27] The United States has not been legally admonished by the international community for genocidal acts against its indigenous population, but many commentators and academics argue that events such as The Trail of Tears, the Sand Creek Massacre and the Mendocino War were genocidal in nature.[28] Some accounts of genocidal massacres, such as Ward Churchill's claim that the US Army distributed blankets infected with small pox to the Mandans at Fort Clark in 1837, have been shown to be false.[29] However, scholarly analysis indicates that British commander Jeffery Amherstmay have authorized the intentional use of disease as a biological weapon against indigenous populations during the Siege of Fort Pitt.[30][31][32]

Indian Removal and the Trail of Tears

Following the Indian Removal Act of 1830 the American government began forcibly relocating East Coast tribes across the Mississippi. The removal included many members of the Cherokee, Muscogee (Creek), Seminole, Chickasaw, and Choctawnations, among others in the United States, from their homelands to Indian Territory in eastern sections of the present-day state of Oklahoma. About 2,500–6,000 died along the trail of tears. [33] Chalk and Jonassohn assert that the deportation of the Cherokee tribe along the Trail of Tears would almost certainly be considered an act of genocide today.[34] The Indian Removal Act of 1830 led to the exodus. About 17,000 Cherokees—along with approximately 2,000 Cherokee-owned black slaves—were removed from their homes.[35] The number of people who died as a result of the Trail of Tears has been variously estimated. American doctor and missionary Elizur Butler, who made the journey with one party, estimated 4,000 deaths.[36]

Historians such as David Stannard[37] and Barbara Mann[38] have noted that the army deliberately routed the march of the Cherokee to pass through areas of known cholera epidemic, such as Vicksburg. Stannard estimates that during the forced removal from their homelands, following the Indian Removal Act signed into law by President Andrew Jackson in 1830, 8000 Cherokee died, about half the total population.[37]

American Indian Wars

During the American Indian Wars, the American Army carried out a number of massacres and forced relocations of Indigenous peoples that are sometimes considered genocide. The Sand Creek Massacre, which caused outrage in its own time, has been called genocide. General John Chivington led a 700-man force of Colorado Territory militia in a massacre of 70–163 peaceful Cheyenne and Arapaho, about two-thirds of whom were women, children, and infants. Chivington and his men took scalps and other body parts as trophies, including human fetuses and male and female genitalia.[39] In defense of his actions Chivington stated,

Damn any man who sympathizes with Indians! ... I have come to kill Indians, and believe it is right and honorable to use any means under God's heaven to kill Indians. ... Kill and scalp all, big and little; nits make lice.

—- Col. John Milton Chivington, U.S. Army[40]

Colonization of California and Oregon

The U.S. colonization of California started in earnest in 1849, and resulted in a large number of state-subsidized massacres by colonists against Indians in the territory, causing several entire ethnic groups to be wiped out. In one such series of conflicts, the so-called Mendocino War and the subsequent Round Valley War, the entire Yuki people was brought to the brink of extinction, from a previous population of some 3,500 people to fewer than 100. According to Russell Thornton, estimates of the pre-Columbian population of California was at least 310,000, and perhaps as much as 705,000. By 1849, due to Spanish and Mexican colonization and epidemics this number had decreased to 100,000. But from 1849 and up until 1890 the Indigenous population of California had fallen below 20,000, primarily because of the killings.[41] At least 4,500 California Indians were killed between 1849 and 1870, while many more perished due to disease and starvation.[42] 10,000 Indians were also kidnapped and sold as slaves. [43]

Spanish colonization of the Americas

It is estimated that during the Spanish conquest of the Americas up to eight million indigenous people died, mainly through disease.[44] Acts of brutality in the Caribbean and the systematic annihilation occurring on the Caribbean islands prompted Dominicanfriar Bartolomé de las Casas to write Brevísima relación de la destrucción de las Indias ("A Short Account of the Destruction of the Indies") in 1552. Las Casas wrote that the indigenous population on the Spanish colony of Hispaniola had been reduced from 400,000 to 200 in a few decades.[45] His works were among those that gave rise to the term Leyenda Negra (Black Legend) to describe anti-Spanish propaganda.[46]

With the initial conquest of the Americas completed, the Spanish implemented the encomienda system. In theory, encomienda placed groups of indigenous peoples under Spanish oversight to foster cultural assimilation and conversion to Christianity, but in practice led to the legally sanctioned exploitation of natural resources and forced labor under brutal conditions with a high death rate. Though the Spaniards did not set out to exterminate the indigenous peoples, believing their numbers to be inexhaustible, their actions led to the annihilation of entire tribes such as the Arawak.[47] In the 1760s, an expedition despatched to fortify California, led by Gaspar de Portolà and Junípero Serra, was marked by slavery, forced conversions and genocide through the introduction of disease.[48]

Portuguese colonial expansion in Africa and Brazil

Some have argued that genocide occurred during the Portuguese colonization of the Americas, starting in 1549 by Pedro Álvares Cabral on the coast of what is now the country of Brazil. It has also been argued that genocide has occurred during the modern era with the ongoing destruction of the Jivaro, Yanomami and other tribes.[49][50] Over 80 indigenous tribes disappeared between 1900 and 1957, and of a population of over one million during this period 80% had been killed through deculturalization, disease, or murder.[51]

Russian Empire's conquest of Siberia

Historian John F. Richards wrote: "... it is doubtful that the total early modern Siberian population exceeded 300,000 persons. ... New diseases weakened and demoralized the indigenous peoples of Siberia. The worst of these was smallpox "because of its swift spread, the high death rates, and the permanent disfigurement of survivors." ... In the 1650s, it moved east of the Yenisey, where it carried away up to 80 percent of the Tungus and Yakut populations. In the 1690s, smallpox epidemics reduced Yukagir numbers by an estimated 44 percent. The disease moved rapidly from group to group across Siberia."[52]

The Russian conquest of Siberia was accompanied by massacres due to indigenous resistance to colonization by the Russian Cossacks, who savagely crushed the natives. At the hands of people like Vasilii Poyarkov in 1645 and Yerofei Khabarov in 1650 some peoples like the Daur were slaughtered by the Russians to the extent that it is considered genocide. 8,000 out of a previously 20,000 strong population in Kamchatka remained after being subjected to half a century of Cossacks slaughter.[53]The Daurs initially deserted their villages since they heard about the cruelty of the Russians the first time Khabarov came.[54]The second time he came, the Daurs decided to do battle against the Russians instead but were slaughtered by Russian guns.[55] In the 17th century, indigenous peoples of the Amur region were attacked by Russians who came to be known as "red-beards".[56] The Russian Cossacks were named luocha (羅剎), after Demons found in Buddhist mythology, by the Amur natives because of their cruelty towards the Amur tribes people, who were subjects of the Qing dynasty during the Sino–Russian border conflicts.[57]

In the 1640s the Yakuts were subjected to slaughters during the Russian advance into their land near the Lena river, and on Kamchatka in the 1690s the Koryak, Kamchadals, and Chukchi were also subjected to slaughters by the Russians.[58] When the Russians did not obtain the demanded amount of yasak from the natives, the Governor of Yakutsk, Piotr Golovin, who was a Cossack, used meat hooks to hang the native men. In the Lena basin, 70% of the Yakut population died within 40 years, and rape and enslavement were used against native women and children in order to force the natives to pay the Yasak.[54]

In Kamchatka the Russians savagely crushed the Itelmens uprisings against their rule in 1706, 1731, and 1741, the first time the Itelmen were armed with stone weapons and were badly unprepared and equipped but they used gunpowder weapons the second time. The Russians faced tougher resistance when from 1745-56 they tried to exterminate the gun and bow equipped Koraks until their victory. The Russian Cossacks also faced fierce resistance and were forced to give up when trying unsuccessfully to wipe out the Chukchi through genocide in 1729, 1730-1, and 1744-7.[59] After the Russian defeat in 1729 at Chukchi hands, the Russian commander Major Pavlutskiy was responsible for the Russian war against the Chukchi and the mass slaughters and enslavement of Chukchi women and children in 1730-31, but his cruelty only made the Chukchis fight more fiercely.[60] A genocide of the Chukchis and Koraks was ordered by Empress Elizabeth in 1742 to totally expel them from their native lands and erase their culture through war. The command was that the natives be "totally extirpated" with Pavlutskiy leading again in this war from 1744-47 in which he led to the Cossacks "with the help of Almighty God and to the good fortune of Her Imperial Highness", to slaughter the Chukchi men and enslave their women and children as booty. However the Chukchi ended this campaign and forced them to give up by killing Pavlitskiy and decapitating his head.[61] The Russians were also launching wars and slaughters against the Koraks in 1744 and 1753-4. After the Russians tried to force the natives to convert to Christianity, the different native peoples like the Koraks, Chukchis, Itelmens, and Yukagirs all united to drive the Russians out of their land in the 1740s, culminating in the assault on Nizhnekamchatsk fort in 1746.[62] Kamchatka today is European in demographics and culture with only 2.5% of it being native, around 10,000 from a previous number of 150,000, due to the mass slaughters by the Cossacks after its annexation in 1697 of the Itelmen and Koryaks throughout the first decades of Russian rule.[63] The genocide by the Russian Cossacks devastated the native peoples of Kamchatka and exterminated much of their population.[64][65] In addition to committing genocide they Cossacks also devastated the wildlife by slaughtering massive amounts of animals for fur.[66] 90% of the Kamchadals and half of the Vogules were killed from the eighteenth to nineteenth centuries and the rapid genocide of the indigenous population led to entire ethnic groups being entirely wiped out, with around 12 exterminated groups which could be named by Nikolai Iadrintsev as of 1882. Much of the slaughter was brought on by the fur trade.[67]

The Aleuts in the Aleutians were subjected to genocide and slavery by the Russians for the first 20 years of Russian rule, with the Aleut women and children captured by the Russians and Aleut men slaughtered.[68]

The regionalist oblastniki in the 19th century among the Russians in Siberia acknowledged that the natives were subjected to immense genocidal cruelty by the Russian colonization, and claimed that they would rectify the situation with their proposed regionalist polices.[69] The Russians used "slaughter, alcoholism and disease" to bring the natives under their control, who were soon left in misery, and much of the evidence of their extermination has itself been destroyed by the Russians, with only a few artifacts documenting their presence remaining in Russian museums and collections.[70]

The Russian colonization of Siberia and conquest of its indigenous peoples has been compared to European colonization in the United States and its natives, with similar negative impacts on the natives and the appropriation of their land.[71] The Slavic Russians outnumber all of the native peoples in Siberia and its cities except in the Republic of Tuva, with the Slavic Russians making up the majority in the Buriat Republic, Sakha Republic, and Altai Republics, outnumbering the Buriat, Sakha, and Altainatives. The Buriat make up only 25% of their own Republic, and the Sakha and Altai each are only one-third, and the Chukchi,Evenk, Khanti, Mansi, and Nenets are outnumbered by non-natives by 90% of the population. The natives were targed by the Czars and Soviets policies to change their way of life and ethnic Russsians were given the native's reindeer herds and wild game which were confisticated by the Czars and Soviets. The reindeer herds have been mismanaged to the point of extinction. In just the American state of Arizona, the Native American population outnumbers the total northern Siberian native population of 180,000.[72]

Japanese colonization of Hokkaido

The Ainu are an indigenous people in Japan (Hokkaidō).[73] In a 2009 news story, Japan Today reported, "Many Ainu were forced to work, essentially as slaves, for Wajin (ethnic Japanese), resulting in the breakup of families and the introduction of smallpox, measles, cholera and tuberculosis into their community. In 1869, the new Meiji government renamed Ezo as Hokkaido and unilaterally incorporated it into Japan. It banned the Ainu language, took Ainu land away, and prohibited salmon fishing and deer hunting."[74] Roy Thomas wrote: "Ill treatment of native peoples is common to all colonial powers, and, at its worst, leads to genocide. Japan's native people, the Ainu, have, however, been the object of a particularly cruel hoax, as the Japanese have refused to accept them officially as a separate minority people."[75] In 2004 the small Ainu community living in Russia wrote a letter to Vladimir Putin, urging him to recognize the Japanese genocide against the Ainu people, which Putin declined.[76]

Vietnamese conquest of Champa and the Central Highlands

The Degar (Montagnard) people have been subjected to abuse and killing by the Vietnamese government, which settles ethnic Vietnamese into their native land in the Central Highlands. The Vietnamese also conquered Champa and settled its territory with Vietnamese migrants during the march to the south after fighting repeated wars with Champa, shatterring Champa in the invasion of Champa in 1471 and finally completing the conquest in 1832 under Emperor Minh Mang.

Qing Dynasty

Some scholars estimate that about 80% of the Dzungar (Western Mongol) population (600,000 or more) were destroyed by a combination of warfare and disease in theZunghar Genocide during the Qing conquest of Zunghar Khanate in 1755–1757, in which Manchu Bannermen and Khalkha Mongols exterminated the Dzungar Oirat Mongols.[77] Mark Levene, a historian whose recent research interests focus on genocide,[78] has stated that the extermination of the Dzungars was "arguably the eighteenth century genocide par excellence."[79]

Anti-Zunghar Uyghur rebels from the Turfan and Hami oases had submitted to Qing rule as vassals and requested Qing help for overthrowing Zunghar rule. Uyghur leaders like Emin Khoja were granted titles within the Qing nobility, and these Uyghurs helped supply the Qing military forces during the anti-Zunghar campaign.[80][81][82] The Qing employed Khoja Emin in its campaign against the Zunghars and used him as an intermediary with Muslims from the Tarim Basin to inform them that the Qing were only aiming to kill Oirats (Zunghars) and that they would leave the Muslims alone, and also to convince them to kill the Oirats (Zunghars) themselves and side with the Qing since the Qing noted the Muslims' resentment of their former experience under Zunghar rule at the hands of Tsewang Araptan.[83]

The Qing were the ones who unified Xinjiang and changed its demographic situation.[84] The depopulation of northern Xinjiang after the Buddhist Öölöd Mongols (Zunghars) were slaughtered, led to the Qing settling Manchu, Sibo (Xibe), Daurs, Solons, Han Chinese, Hui Muslims, and Turkic Muslim Taranchis in the north, with Han Chinese and Hui migrants making up the greatest number of settlers. Since it was the crushing of the Buddhist Öölöd (Dzungars) by the Qing which led to promotion of Islam and the empowerment of the Muslim Begs in southern Xinjiang, and migration of Muslim Taranchis to northern Xinjiang, it was proposed by Henry Schwarz that "the Qing victory was, in a certain sense, a victory for Islam".[85] Xinjiang was a unified defined geographic identity was created and developed by the Qing. It was the Qing who led to Turkic Muslim power in the region increasing since the Mongol power was crushed by the Qing while Turkic Muslim culture and identity was tolerated or even promoted by the Qing.[86]

Kim Lacy Rogers wrote: "In the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries, while the Hmong lived in south-western China, their Manchu overlords had labelled them 'Miao' ('barbarian' or 'savage') and targeted them for genocide when they defied being humiliated, oppressed, and enslaved."[87][88]

British Empire

The British Empire has been accused of several genocides.[89] The doctrine of terra nullius was used by the British to justify their seizure of territory in Australia and Tasmania. The death of the 3,000–15,000 Aboriginal Tasmanians has been called an act of genocide.[90][91]

Colonization of Australia and Tasmania

The extinction of the Tasmanian Aborigines is regarded as a classic case of genocide by Lemkin, most comparative scholars of genocide, and many general historians, including Robert Hughes, Ward Churchill, Leo Kuper and Jared Diamond, who base their analysis on previously published histories.[92] Between 1824 and 1908 White settlers and Native Mounted Police in Queensland, according to Raymond Evans, killed more than 10,000 Aborigines, who were regarded as vermin and sometimes even hunted for sport.[93]

Ben Kiernan, an Australian historian of genocide, treats the Australian evidence over the first century of colonization as an example of genocide in his 2007 history of the concept and practice, Blood and soil: a world history of genocide and extermination from Sparta to Darfur.[94] The Australian practice of removing the children of Australian Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander descent from their families, has been described as genocidal.[95][96] The 1997 report "Bringing them Home" concluded that the forced separation of Aboriginal children from their family constituted an act of genocide. [97] In the 1990s a number of Australian state institutions, including the state of Queensland, apologized for its policies regarding forcible separation of aboriginal children.[98] Another allegation against the Australian state is the use of medical services to Aboriginals to administer contraceptive therapy to aboriginal women without their knowledge or consent, including the use of Depo Provera, as well as tubal ligations. Both forced adoption and forced contraception would fall under the provisions of the UN genocide convention.[99] Many Australian politicians and scholars, including historian Geoffrey Blainey, political scientist Ken Minogue and prominently professor Keith Windschuttle, reject the view that Australian aboriginal policy was genocidal.[95]

Rubber Boom in Congo and Putumayo

From 1879 to 1912, the world experienced a rubber boom. Rubber prices skyrocketed, and it became increasingly profitable to extract rubber from rainforest zones in South America and Central Africa. Rubber extraction was labor-intensive, and the need for a large workforce had a significant negative effect on the indigenous population across Brazil, Peru, Ecuador and Colombia and in the Congo. The owners of the plantations or rubber barons were rich, but those who collected the rubber made very little, as a large amount of rubber was needed to be profitable. Rubber barons rounded up all the Indians and forced them to tap rubber out of the trees. Slavery and gross human rights abuses were widespread, and in some areas 90% of the Indian population was wiped out. One plantation started with 50,000 Indians and when the killings were discovered, only 8,000 were still alive. These rubber plantations were part of the Brazilian rubber market which declined as rubber plantations in Southeast Asia became more effective.[100]

Roger Casement, an Irishman travelling the Putumayo region of Peru as a British consul during 1910-1911, documented the abuse, slavery, murder and use of stocks for torture against the native Indians: [101]

"The crimes charged against many men now in the employ of the Peruvian Amazon Company are of the most atrocious kind, including murder, violation, and constant flogging."

Congo Free State

Under Leopold II of Belgium the population loss in the Congo Free State is estimated at sixty percent.[102] Congo Free State was especially hard hit by sleeping sickness and smallpox epidemics.[103]

Herero and Namaqua genocide

Atrocites against the indigenous African population by the German colonial empire can be dated to the earliest German settlements on the continent. The German colonial authorities carried out genocide in German South-West Africa (GSWA) and the survivors were incarcerated in concentration camps. It was also reported that, between 1885 and 1918, the indigenous population of Togo, German East Africa (GEA) and the Cameroons suffered from various human rights abuses including starvation from scorched earth tactics and forced relocation for use as labour. The German Empire's action in GSWA against the Herero tribe is considered by Howard Ball to be the first genocide of the 20th century.[104] After the Herero, Namaqua and Damara began an uprising against the colonial government,[105] General Lothar von Trotha, appointed as head of the German forces in GSWA by Emperor Wilhelm II in 1904, gave the order for the German forces to push them into the desert where they would die.[106] In 2004, the German state apologised for the genocide.[107] While many argue that the military campaign in Tanzania to suppress the Maji Maji Rebellion in GEA between 1905 and 1907 was not an act of genocide, as the military did not have as an intentional goal the deaths of hundreds of thousands of Africans, according to Dominik J. Schaller, the statement [Note 3] released at the time by Governor Gustav Adolf von Götzen did not exculpate him from the charge of genocide, but was proof that the German administration knew that their scorched earth methods would result in famine.[108] It is estimated that 200,000 Africans died from famine with some areas completely and permanently devoid of human life.[109][110][111]

Contemporary examples

The genocide of indigenous tribes is still an ongoing feature in the modern world, with the ongoing depopulation of the Jivaro,Yanomami and other tribes in Brazil having be described as genocide.[50] The states actions in Bangladesh, against the Jummahave been described internationally as ethnic cleansing and genocide.[112][113][114] Paraguay has also been accused of carrying out a genocide against the Aché whose case was brought before the Inter-American Human Rights Commission. The commission gave a provisional ruling that genocide had not been committed by the state, but did express concern over "possible abuses by private persons in remote areas of the territory of Paraguay."[115]


In Bangladesh, the persecution of the indigenous tribes of the Chittagong Hill Tracts such as the Chakma, Marma, Tripura and others who are mainly Buddhists, Hindus, Christians, and Animists, has been described as genocidal.[116][117][118][119][120] The Chittagong Hill Tracts are located bordering India, Myanmar and the Bay of Bengal, and is the home to 500,000 indigenous people. The perpetrators of are the Bangladeshi military and the Bengali Muslim settlers, who together have burned down Buddhist and Hindu temples, killed many Chakmas, and carried out a policy of gang-rape against the indigenous people. There are also accusations of Chakmas being forced to convert to Islam, many of them children who have been abducted for this purpose. The conflict started soon after Bangladeshi independence in 1972 when the Constitution imposed Bengali as the sole official language, Islam as the state religion - with no cultural or linguistic rights to minority populations. Subsequently the government encouraged and sponsored massive settlement by Bangladeshis in region, which changed the demographics from 98 percent indigenous in 1971 to fifty percent by 2000. The government allocated a full third of the Bangladeshi military to the region to support the settlers, sparking a protracted guerilla war between Hill tribes and the military.[117] During this conflict which officially ended in 1997, and in the subsequent period, a large number of human rights violations against the indigenous peoples have been reported, with violence against indigenous women being particularly extreme.[121]


In the late 1950s until 1968, the state of Brazil submitted their indigenous peoples of Brazil to violent attempts to integrate, pacify and acculturate their communities. In 1967 public prosecutor Jader de Figueiredo Correia, submitted the Figueiredo Report to thedictatorship which was then ruling the country, the report which ran to seven thousand pages was not released until 2013. The report documents genocidal crimes against the indigenous peoples of Brazil, including mass murder, torture and bacteriological and chemical warfare, reported slavery, and sexual abuse The rediscovered documents are being examined by the National Truth Commission who have been tasked with the investigations of human rights violations which occurred in the periods 1947 through to 1988. The report reveals that the IPS had enslaved indigenous people, tortured children and stolen land. The Truth Commission is of the opinion that entire tribes in Maranhãowere completely eradicated and in Mato Grosso, an attack on thirty Cinturão Largo left only two survivors. The report also states that landowners and members of the IPS had entered isolated villages and deliberately introduced smallpox. Of the one hundred and thirty four people accused in the report the state has as yet not tried a single one,[122] since the Amnesty Law passed in the end of the dictatorship does not allow trials for the abuses which happened in such period. The report also detailed instances of mass killings, rapes and torture, Figueiredo stated that the actions of the IPS had left the indigenous peoples near extinction. The state abolished the IPS following the release of the report. The Red Cross launched an investigation after further allegations of ethnic cleansing were made after the IPS had been replaced. [123][124]


In the protracted conflict in Colombia, indigenous groups such as the Awá, Wayuu, Pijao and Paez people have become subjected to intense violence by right-wing paramilitaries, leftist guerrillas, and the Colombian army.[125][126] Drug cartels, international resource extraction companies and the military have also used violence to force the indigenous groups out of their territories.[127][128][129] The National Indigenous Organization of Colombia argues that the violence is genocidal in nature, but others question whether there is a "genocidal intent" as required in international law.[130][131]

Congo (DRC)

In the Democratic Republic of Congo genocidal violence against the indigenous Mbuti, Lese and Ituri peoples has been endemic for decades. During the Congo Civil War (1998–2003), Pygmies were hunted down and eaten by both sides in the conflict, who regarded them as subhuman.[132] Sinafasi Makelo, a representative of Mbuti pygmies, has asked the UN Security Council to recognize cannibalism as a crime against humanity and also as an act of genocide.[133] According to a report by Minority Rights Group International there is evidence of mass killings, cannibalism and rape. The report, which labeled these events as a campaign of extermination, linked much of the violence to beliefs about special powers held by the Bambuti.[134] In Ituri district, rebel forces ran an operation code-named "Effacer le tableau" (to wipe the slate clean). The aim of the operation, according to witnesses, was to rid the forest of pygmies.[135][136][137]

East Timor

Indonesia invaded East Timor or Timor-Leste, which had previously been a Portuguese colony, in 1975. Following this, the Indonesian government encouraged repressive military policies to deal with ethnic protests and armed resistance in the area and encouraged settlement to the region by people from other parts of Indonesia. The violence between 1975 and 1993 had claimed between 120,000 and 200,000 people. The repression entered the international spotlight in 1991 when a protest in Diliwas disrupted by Indonesian forces who killed over 250 people and disappeared hundreds of others. The Santa Cruz massacre, as the event became known, drew significant international attention to the issue (highlighted with the 1996 Nobel Peace Prizebeing provided to Catholic Bishop Carlos Belo and resistance leader José Ramos-Horta). Following the international outcry, the Indonesian government began organizing a host of paramilitary groups in East Timor which continued harassing and killing pro-independence activists. At the same time, the Indonesian government significantly increased efforts at population resettlement to the area and destruction of infrastructure and the environment used by East Timorese communities. This eventually resulted in an international intervention force to be deployed for a vote by the population for independence of East Timor in 1999. The vote was significant in favor of independence and the Indonesian forces withdrew, although paramilitaries continued carrying out reprisal attacks for a few years.[138][139] A UN Report on the Indonesian occupation identified starvation, defoliant and napalm use, torture, rape, sexual slavery, disappearances, public executions, and extrajudicial killings as sanctioned by the Indonesian government and the entire colflict resulting in reducing the population to a third of its 1975 level.[140]


During the Guatemalan Civil War (1960 - 1996) the state forces carried out violent atrocities against the Maya. The government considered the Maya to be aligned with the communist insurgents, which they sometimes were but often were not. Guatemalan armed forces carried out three campaigns that have been described as genocidal. The first was a scorched earth policy which was also accompanied by mass killing, including the forced conscription of Mayan boys into the military where they were sometimes forced to participate in massacres against their own home villages. The second was to hunt down and exterminate those who had survived and evaded the army and the third was the forced relocation of survivors to "reeducation centers" and the continued pursuit of those who had fled into the mountains.[141] The armed forces used genocidal rape of women and children as a deliberate tactic. Children were bludgeoned to death by beating them against walls or thrown alive into mass graves were they would be crushed by the weight of the adult dead thrown atop them.[142] An estimated 200,000 people, most of them Maya, disappeared during the Guatemalan Civil War.[137] After the 1996 peace accords a legal process was begun to determine the legal responsibility of the atrocities, and to locate and identify the disappeared. In 2013 former president Efraín Ríos Montt was convicted of genocide and crimes against humanity, and was sentenced to 80 years imprisonment.[143] Ten days later, the Constitutional Court of Guatemala overturned the conviction.[144][145]

Irian Jaya/West Papua

From the time of its independence until the late 1960s, the Indonesian government sought control of the Western half of the island of New Guinea, the area called Irian Jaya or West Papua, which had remained under the control of the Netherlands.[146]When it finally achieved internationally recognized control of the area, a number of clashes occurred between the Indonesian government and the Free Papua Movement. The government of Indonesia began a series of measures aimed to suppress the organization in the 1970s and the suppression reached high levels in the mid-1980s.[147] The resulting human rights abuses included extrajudicial killings, torture, disappearances, rape, and harassment of indigenous people throughout the province.[148] A 2004 report by the Allard K. Lowenstein International Human Rights Clinic at Yale Law School identified both the mass violence and the transmigration policies which encouraged Balinese and Javanese families to relocate to the area as strong evidence "that the Indonesian government has committed proscribed acts with the intent to destroy the West Papuans as such, in violation of the 1948 Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide."[149] Genocide against indigenous people in the region were key claims made in the U.S. case of Beanal v. Freeport, one of the first lawsuits where indigenous people outside the U.S. petitioned to get a ruling against a multinational corporation for environmental destruction outside of the U.S. While the petitioner, an indigenous leader, claimed that the mining company Freeport-McMoRan had committed genocide through environmental destruction which "resulted in the purposeful, deliberate, contrived and planned demise of a culture of indigenous people," the court found that genocide pertains only to destruction of indigenous people and did not apply to the destruction of the culture of indigenous people; however, the court did leave open the opportunity for the petitioners to amend their filings with additional claim.[150]


In Myanmar (Burma), the long running civil war between the Military Junta and the insurgents has resulted in widespread atrocities against the indigenous Karen people some of whom are allied with the insurgents. These atrocities have been described as genocidal.[151] Burmese General Maung Hla stated that one day Karen would only exist "in a museum"[152] The government has deployed 50 battalions in the Northern sector systematically attacking Karen villages with mortar and machine gun fire, and landmines. At least 446,000 Karen have been displaced from their homes by the military.[151][153] Karen are also reported to have been be subjected to forced labor, genocidal rape, child labor and the conscription of child soldiers.[154]


There are 17 indigenous tribes who live primarily in the Chaco region of Paraguay. In 2002, their numbers were estimated at 86,000. During the period between 1954 and 1989, when the military dictatorship of General Alfredo Stroessner ruled Paraguay, the indigenous population of the country suffered from more loss of territory and human rights abuses than at any other time in the nation's history. In early 1970, international groups claimed that the state was complicit in the genocide of the Aché, with charges ranging from kidnapping and the sale of children, withholding medicines and food, slavery and torture.[155] During the 1960s and 1970s, 85% of the Aché tribe died, often hacked to death with machetes, in order to make room for the timber industry, mining, farming and ranchers.[49] According to Jérémie Gilbert, the situation in Paraguay has proven that it is difficult to provide the proof required to show "specific intent", in support of a claim that genocide had occurred. The Aché, whose cultural group is now seen as extinct, fell victim to development by the state who had promoted the exploration of their territories by transnational companies for natural resources. Gilbert concludes that although a planned and voluntary destruction had occurred, it is argued by the state that there was no intent to destroy the Aché, as what had happened was due to development and was not a deliberate action.[156][157]


On 5 June 1959 Shri Purshottam Trikamdas, Senior Advocate, Supreme Court of India, presented a report on Tibet to the International Commission of Jurists (an NGO):

From the facts stated above the following conclusions may be drawn: ... (e) To examine all such evidence obtained by this Committee and from other sources and to take appropriate action thereon and in particular to determine whether the crime of Genocide – for which already there is strong presumption – is established and, in that case, to initiate such action as envisaged by the Genocide Convention of 1948 and by the Charter of the United Nations for suppression of these acts and appropriate redress;[158]

David White states "In all, over one million Tibetans, a fifth of the population, had died as a result of Chinese occupation up until the end of the Cultural Revolution."[159]



Deny the British empire's crimes? No, we ignore them. George Monbiot.

There is one thing you can say for the Holocaust deniers: at least they know what they are denying. In order to sustain the lies they tell, they must engage in strenuous falsification. To dismiss Britain's colonial atrocities, no such effort is required. Most people appear to be unaware that anything needs to be denied.

The story of benign imperialism, whose overriding purpose was not to seize land, labour and commodities but to teach the natives English, table manners and double-entry book-keeping, is a myth that has been carefully propagated by the rightwing press. But it draws its power from a remarkable national ability to airbrush and disregard our past.

Last week's revelations, that the British government systematically destroyed the documents detailing mistreatment of its colonial subjects, and that the Foreign Office then lied about a secret cache of files containing lesser revelations, is by any standards a big story. But it was either ignored or consigned to a footnote by most of the British press. I was unable to find any mention of the secret archive on the Telegraph's website. The Mail's only coverage, as far as I can determine, was an opinion piece by a historian called Lawrence James, who used the occasion to insist that any deficiencies in the management of the colonies were the work of "a sprinkling of misfits, incompetents and bullies", while everyone else was "dedicated, loyal and disciplined".

The British government's suppression of evidence was scarcely necessary. Even when the documentation of great crimes is abundant, it is not denied but simply ignored. In an article for the Daily Mail in 2010, for example, the historian Dominic Sandbrook announced that "Britain's empire stands out as a beacon of tolerance, decency and the rule of law … Nor did Britain countenance anything like the dreadful tortures committed in French Algeria." Could he really have been unaware of the history he is disavowing?

Caroline Elkins, a professor at Harvard, spent nearly 10 years compiling the evidence contained in her book Britain's Gulag: the Brutal End of Empire in Kenya. She started her research with the belief that the British account of the suppression of the Kikuyu's Mau Mau revolt in the 1950s was largely accurate. Then she discovered that most of the documentation had been destroyed. She worked through the remaining archives, and conducted 600 hours of interviews with Kikuyu survivors – rebels and loyalists – and British guards, settlers and officials. Her book is fully and thoroughly documented. It won the Pulitzer prize. But as far as Sandbrook, James and other imperial apologists are concerned, it might as well never have been written.

Elkins reveals that the British detained not 80,000 Kikuyu, as the official histories maintain, but almost the entire population of one and a half million people, in camps and fortified villages. There, thousands were beaten to death or died from malnutrition, typhoid, tuberculosis and dysentery. In some camps almost all the children died.

The inmates were used as slave labour. Above the gates were edifying slogans, such as "Labour and freedom" and "He who helps himself will also be helped". Loudspeakers broadcast the national anthem and patriotic exhortations. People deemed to have disobeyed the rules were killed in front of the others. The survivors were forced to dig mass graves, which were quickly filled. Unless you have a strong stomach I advise you to skip the next paragraph.

Interrogation under torture was widespread. Many of the men were anally raped, using knives, broken bottles, rifle barrels, snakes and scorpions. A favourite technique was to hold a man upside down, his head in a bucket of water, while sand was rammed into his rectum with a stick. Women were gang-raped by the guards. People were mauled by dogs and electrocuted. The British devised a special tool which they used for first crushing and then ripping off testicles. They used pliers to mutilate women's breasts. They cut off inmates' ears and fingers and gouged out their eyes. They dragged people behind Land Rovers until their bodies disintegrated. Men were rolled up in barbed wire and kicked around the compound.

Elkins provides a wealth of evidence to show that the horrors of the camps were endorsed at the highest levels. The governor of Kenya, Sir Evelyn Baring, regularly intervened to prevent the perpetrators from being brought to justice. The colonial secretary, Alan Lennox-Boyd, repeatedly lied to the House of Commons. This is a vast, systematic crime for which there has been no reckoning.

No matter. Even those who acknowledge that something happened write as if Elkins and her work did not exist. In the Telegraph, Daniel Hannan maintains that just eleven people were beaten to death. Apart from that, "1,090 terrorists were hanged and as many as 71,000 detained without due process".

The British did not do body counts, and most victims were buried in unmarked graves. But it is clear that tens of thousands, possibly hundreds of thousands, of Kikuyu died in the camps and during the round-ups. Hannan's is one of the most blatant examples of revisionism I have ever encountered.

Without explaining what this means, Lawrence James concedes that "harsh measures" were sometimes used, but he maintains that "while the Mau Mau were terrorising the Kikuyu, veterinary surgeons in the Colonial Service were teaching tribesmen how to deal with cattle plagues." The theft of the Kikuyu's land and livestock, the starvation and killings, the widespread support among the Kikuyu for the Mau Mau's attempt to reclaim their land and freedom: all vanish into thin air. Both men maintain that the British government acted to stop any abuses as soon as they were revealed.

What I find remarkable is not that they write such things, but that these distortions go almost unchallenged. The myths of empire are so well-established that we appear to blot out countervailing stories even as they are told. As evidence from the manufactured Indian famines of the 1870s and from the treatment of other colonies accumulates, British imperialism emerges as no better and in some cases even worse than the imperialism practised by other nations. Yet the myth of the civilising mission remains untroubled by the evidence.

[The Guardian]

American Indian Holocaust

"American Indian Holocaust" is a term used by American Indian activists to bring attention to what they contend is the deliberate mass destruction of American Indian populations following the European arrival in the Americas, a subject which they allege has hitherto received very limited mention in history, partially because most of the deaths happened before European chroniclers arrived to record them.

Estimates of the pre-Columbian population vary widely, though uncontroversial studies place the figure for North, Central and South America at a combined 50 million to 100 million,[1] with scholarly estimates of 2 million[2] to 18 million[3] for North America alone. An estimated 80% to 90% of this population died after the arrival of Europeans,[4] overwhelmingly from factors beyond most human control — e.g., smallpox epidemics[5] — Europeans, especially the Spanish conquistadors, also killed thousands deliberately.

Acts of genocide

The UN famously distinguishes between "genocide" and "acts of genocide",while never answering the question: "How many 'acts of genocide' make up a 'genocide'?" Perhaps the reader shall decide.

Among the individual acts of genocide perpetrated by the American settlers during their colonization of the Americas are:

Columbus's voyages

Christopher Columbus came to the New World for King (well, Queen), honor and God. His ships brought many priests to accomplish God's work. Both his own writings and those of Bartolomé de las Casas mention the thousands of murders done in the name of God, against a people who chose not to convert. Upon discovering the New World, Christopher Columbus:

"coaxed Queen Isabella to support his exploits in the Americas so that the queen "might eminently contribute to diffuse the light and truth of the Gospel" upon the Indians. On Nov 6, 1492, Columbus addressed the king and queen, as recorded in his log. Our intrepid captain opined "I am convinced... that if devout religious persons knew their language, they might be converted to Christ, and so hope in our Lord that your Highnesses will decide upon this course with much diligence." His purpose, Columbus proclaimed, was to "Christianize" the Indians.[6]

A conservative estimate by anthropologist Jack Wetheford suggests that in less than 10 years time, the population of the island of Hispaniola plunged from 500,000 to less than 100,000. Sickness was not reported by De Las Casas or Columbus himself to be the largest factor.

Trail of Tears

Indians were generally disliked in the United States, as they got in the way of American "progress" and manifest destiny. The "Indian Removal Act" of 1831 attempted to move roughly 50,000 Cherokee, Chickasaw, Choctaw and others from their home to Indian Territory (present day Oklahoma). The U.S. government did not provide any means of transportation, forcing them to walk the 2,200 miles. One can reasonably argue that the U.S. government did fully expect many of them to die on the way — especially children and the elderly. The U.S. government recorded 4,000 deaths on just one of many re-location marches among the Cherokee alone; estimates of the total death toll range from as low as 5,000 to as high as 25,000.[7] Ironically, missionaries traveled with the Indians of their own accord, to attempt to provide better provisions to the people.

Sand Creek Massacre

"Damn any man who sympathizes with Indians... Kill and scalp all, big and little; nits make lice." - Col. John Chivington, Sand Creek massacre, 11-29-1864.

On November 29, 1864, 700 militia from Colorado and the surrounding territories surrounded a peaceful encampment of so-called "Peace Chiefs," predominantly from the Cheyenne and Arapahoe, who had been invited to end the "Indian Wars." Without warning or cause, they opened fire and slaughtered approximately 150 Indians from various "western" tribes. Colonel Chivington and his men cut fetuses out of the women, slaughtered infants by stepping on their heads with their boots, cut the genitals off men and women, and decorated their horses and wagons with scalps, genitalia, and other body parts, before parading through Denver.

Wounded Knee Massacre

As the U.S. government were herding Sioux onto reservations, a Paiute shaman among them named Wovoka came up with the syncretic "Ghost Dance" religion, mixing numerous indigenous beliefs and Christianity. Wovoka taught that the dance, along with loving each other, living in peace, working hard and refraining from stealing, fighting amongst each other or with the whites and traditional self-mutilation practices would hasten the reunion of the living and the deceased. This reunion would coincide with the sweeping away of the evil in the world and renewing the earth with love, faith and prosperity. Many Sioux though interpreted this sweeping away of evil and renewing the earth as meaning the cleansing of the white Americans from their lands. This interpretation spread rapidly among the Sioux, causing alarm with the U.S. authorities, who sought to quell the movement by arresting chiefs-most notoriously Sitting Bull, who was shot to death in the process of his arrest.

Sitting Bull's death caused a number of his tribesmen to flee the reservation. Later when journeying to another reservation they were intercepted by a regiment of cavalry, which attempted to disarm them. One deaf-mute man did not understand the order, so he failed to put down his rifle. It went off as soldiers took it from him, resulting in their comrades opening fire, believing they were under attack. 150 Sioux were killed in all. This massacre was committed by the Seventh US Cavalry, a unit formerly under command of General George A. Custer, so revenge for his spectacular, lethal defeat in battle with the Sioux and their allies may have contributed to it.

Gnadenhutten Massacre

Colonial militia slaughtered 96 Lenape Native Americans whose only crime was being the wrong skin color on March 8, 1782.[8] Despite being singled out as a neutral Native American tribe by Colonel Broadhead, the were still rounded up and placed into two killing homes by American miltiamen, who scalped men, women and children. When confronted by their killers and told they would die, the Christian Lenape prayed to Jesus before being killed by their fellow Christians.

Assimilation policies

The U.S. government for many years followed a policy of assimilation, attempting to wipe out the Indians as an ethnic group and integrate them into European-American culture. Practice of tribal religion was outlawed, and children were required to attend boarding schools, modeled on the "industrial schools" of Europe, in which they were forced to give up their old languages and customs.

At present, a program of assimilation (or segregation, depending on your perspective) continues through the blood quantum, wherein you must prove that you are at least one sixteenth Native American in order for the United States government to recognize you as Native American. On top of this the government only started counting babies at some point in the 1930's. Your grandfather would have counted as Native American but he was born two years before the government started keeping track? Well, guess what! You're not Native American and you are not granted the rights granted to Native Americans. Are you one-sixteenth Cherokee, deeply involved in the Cherokee community, but want to marry someone who has no known Native American ancestry but is cool with your kids being Cherokee? Too bad! Marry someone else or give up your childrens' right to be recognized as Cherokee. Not only does this continue the myth of pure races, but it has the potential to do away with federally-recognized tribal sovereignty in a few generations if a whole lot of "inter-breeding" leads to tribes being made up mostly of people who can't prove one-sixteenth native heritage, which arguably would amount to cultural genocide.

In many Latin American countries, Indians have been virtually wiped out as a separate group through a process of assimilation known asmestizaje.


David E. Stannard of the University of Hawaii is a proponent of this term, having written a book on the subject entitled American Holocaust: Conquest of the New World, in which he labels the actions of Europeans as a deliberate genocide comparable to the Holocaust. Holocaust expert David Cesarani said, "Stannard was angered by what he perceived as a double standard in the United States towards 'worthy' and 'unworthy' victims. While Americans readily acknowledge the Nazi crimes against the Jews, he wrote, they continued to 'turn their backs on the even more massive genocide that for four grisly centuries... was perpetrated against the "unworthy" natives of the Americas.'"[9] Others agreeing with this hypothesis include Russell Thornton, Arthur Grenke, Ralph Reed, and the University of Minnesota's Center for Holocaust and Genocide studies.[10] The Smithsonian presented a program on the "American Indian Genocide."

Politically, the charge has been taken up by activists in the American Indian Movement, including Russell Means, Leonard Peltier, Ward Churchill,[11] the poet Joy Harjo,[12] and Vine Deloria amongst others. The term "Holocaust" is specifically used to bring attention to the stark reality of the total decimation of the indigenous peoples after the "discovery" of the "New World" by Europeans.

As with most loaded language, there is strong resistance to using the term "American Indian Holocaust" in textbooks. American Indian activists contend that their history is rarely even addressed as a "genocide," since American historiography tends not to emphasize episodes such as slavery, and the outright slaughter of the indigenous Americans. These activists contend that they have the same right to say they were victims of genocide as the Jewish people of Europe.


When discussing the indigenous population of the United States, conservatives tend to deny most of the deliberate atrocities wrought by the Europeans, focusing on the role of smallpox and other diseases, and pretending that no more American Indians died than could be avoided.

Such denial often goes hand-in-hand with a whitewashing of the realities of late 19th century reservation life as well as the present-day situation of the American Indians, who still live under the control of the Bureau of Indian Affairs with only limited self-government in many areas.

More moderate criticisms of the term would not go into denialism, but would simply question the application of the term "genocide" (deliberate and systematic destruction of an ethnic group) to the long and disorderly course of history in the Americas after 1492. Such criticisms might also suggest that any comparison with the Holocaust is at least in part a false analogy, since most of the deaths were not only unintentional and unavoidable, but unknown to Europeans prior to the 20th century.

[Rational Wiki]


Taken for granted:

  1. The repetitive commitment of crimes hardens the perpetrators.

  2. Hardened perpetrators who systematically exersize criminal activity may develope a corresponding habit.

  3. Habits, eventually, become humans' secondary nature (they become embedded within individuals perception of identity).

Colonialism's internal structure is tripartite:

  • Hierarchical administration

  • Militants

  • victims

In terms of systems' theory, colonialism is a position of equilibrium.

In terms of cybernetics, colonialism is a basin of stability.

The explanation of those two thesis is that, colonial militants posses adequate incriminating information in order to extort the colonial administrator for contributing to the perpetuation of those circumstances which are compatible with colonial militants' quasi secondary nature.

At the same time, the colonial administration posses adequate information in order to extort the colonial militants for perpetuating the material benefits of colonial domination.
Human beings, normally, are innocent and kind. For this reason, it is almost impossible to defend themselves against colonialism. More specifically, the pair of innocence and kindness, is synonymous with the very high intelligence, which, in fact, finds impossible, even, to simply comprehend, to harm, intentionally, other human beings.

Innocence and kindness cannot cope with the viciousness and atrocity because both of them remain incomprehensible to them.

Is, our world, ever, going to become relieved from the consequences of the vicious cycle of colonialism, namely, from the periodic and catastrophic international crisis by which, colonialism, avoids becoming spotted?

According to my opinion, the vicious cycle of colonialism can peacefully become disintegrated. The victims, the militants and the administrators of colonialism may peacefully become retracted to their own homes and families for enjoying a creative and fruitful life. The "key" for this creative en devour is "hidden" in the intersection of excellence and kindness.

Currently, within internet, we can all find horrible pictures of the atrocities which take place in Middle East and in other geographical locations where obvious or covert conflicts of interest are being unfolding. At the same time, Greek Nation, which has suffered in the recent past colonial atrocities during the Greek civil war (just after WW2 had ended) and in Cyprus and which possess enormous material and spiritual resources, is experiencing the escalation of a, more than fifty years long, systemic crisis and misery.

The combination of, the knowledge of the currently happening atrocities, with the knowledge of the recent (one century) international history, sadly, is raising issues which, under normal circumstances, would otherwise be unthinkable, absurd and despicable.

For the above reasons, I would like to address, to the colonialists of our days, the following rhetorical questions, with regard to the alleged "crisis" in my homeland Greece:

  • do you intend to deprive us (the Greek population) from our land?

  • do you intend to deprive us from our material and spiritual wealth?

  • do you intend to deprive us from our freedom?

  • do you intend to scalpe and/or castrate and/or rape and/or torture and/or exile and/or bodily/mentally harm and/or unjustly imprison or exterminate, our natural leaders?

  • do you intent to scalpe and/or castrate and/or rape and/or torture and/or bodily/mentally harm and/or unjustly imprison or genocide, our population?

  • do you intend to degrade Greece to a mere colony?

  • do you intend to implant, within Greece, a colonial dictatorship?

Colonialism, by depriving colonial administration and colonial militants, from innocence, emotions and the ability to trust, perpetuates their lacking of access to the most valuable elements of human life.

Instead, honesty, rationality, humanness, self-discipline and global disarmament could, hopefully, pave the way for Peace, Freedom, Friendship and frugal Prosperity, to become the defining elements of our intended global normality.


Note 1: the photos were found here, here and here.

Note 2cipher parameters

Cipher machine: Enigma
Model: M4 (1942)
Message Key: W.A.K.E.
Reflector: Thin C
Rotor settings
Wheel number: γ, VII, III, I
Ring setting: 21(U), 21(U), 16(P), 16(P)
Plug board pairs: CH FO IR

Note 3: Punctuation marks in the text:

X Period. End of line or abbreviation.

XX Colon.

Y Comma.

YY Dash, Hyphen, slash.

KK Brackets, used as KK-KK. Text can be placed between parentheses (brackets) by placint the letter combination 'KK' before and after it. E.g. KKTULPEKK should be printed as (Tulpe).

J Stress mark (or quote), used as J-J. It was possible to stress a certain part of the text by placing the letter 'J' before and after the text, e.g. Mr JBOHRMANJ, could be printed as: Mr 'Bohrman'.

UD Question mark (?)

Τελευταία Ενημέρωση στις Σάββατο, 23 Μάιος 2015 13:51