Ethnic cleansing myth

I'm perfectly aware that many African-Americans have multiracial ancestry, both Indian and European. I still fail to see how this has anything to do with the morality (or lack thereof) of the treatment of either African or Native Americans. In Mexico there is a very high percentage of multiracial Indian/Europeans, and in the Caribbean there's a similarly high percentage of African/European multiracials. By your argument it would seem their history of conquest and settlement was somehow fairer than in the USA, which I don't think is true.

 

"By your argument it would seem their history of conquest and settlement was somehow fairer than in the USA, which I don't think is true."

My argument has nothing to do with the "F" word. F as in fair. Nor is it a justification of America. It is just the way it was and is. Too many people over-simplify what happened. There was no mass extermination at the hand of the "white" man. That is my only point. I'll say it for the tenth time. It was not right what happened, but.........

Read the links. I'll not respond to any more emotional responses.

 

This is a fascinating thread with a lively discussion and some interesting links. Several key points were made that I'm sure most people were never taught in school. This part of American history also tends to not be very popular even among history buffs, so many of these points are things the readers had not previously considered.

Personally, I got stuck on JLV's quote early in the thread. Why would someone from the Netherlands name their son after a mediocre American microbrewery beer rather than famous Dutch brews like Heineken or Amstel?

 

Go figure. Originally I was thinking about Milwakee Best but they talked me out of it......

 

You are naming your son after a VERY good microbrewery!

 

Arcane fact:

When Paul Revere announced: "The British are coming!" (Well, actually he didn't say "British"--WE were British--he said "redcoats" or "regulars", but anyway, when he made that famed ride, one the primary goals of his ride was to tip off his good friends John Hancock (the money behind the Revolution) and Sam Adams (the mouth behind the Revolution) as the redcoats had been given specific instructions to kill those two dead. Hancock wanted to stay and fight, Samson-like, against the whole bunch, and had to be nearly dragged to safety by friends; Adams was more pragmatic and got the heck out of there. This was unusual for Adams, who did not typically live by the creed: "Discretion is the better part of valor." He was a bit of a hothead, and just the firebrand the Revolution needed to get jump-started.

 

The Trail of Tears was a mass slaughter. It simply took place over an extended period and large area. It was government sanctioned and enforced. It is probably one of the better examples of "ethnic cleansing" that took place since there was no war, all the tribes moved were settled and had standing treaties. There were houses in which the new white owners found dinner still on the table after the rightful owners were rounded up.

 

I don't think he's contending that it wasn't "mass slaughter" per se, just that the overriding reason for the decline of that civilization cannot neatly be summed up in the words "ethnic cleansing"; it's more complex than that.

 

I agree that a civilization may not fall due solely to "ethnic cleansing" but I do think the Trail fits the description of "ethnic cleansing."