Assimilating Native Americans Is Genocide

It has been impossible to ignore the trending, refashioning of American history that is incessantly circulating in the media. One article I was unfortunate enough to stumble upon left me completely inundated at the audacious display of partiality and ignorance that the author willfully espoused, during their retelling of American history.

The article can be found here, ranked among a list of genocidal atrocities that have taken place in human history.

I really hate to bash this article since endgenocide.org supports a good cause, however a one-sided history of the North American conquest doesn’t quite appertain to a website aimed at ending genocide.

Hell, I was so confused when I found ‘Atrocities Against Native Americans’ on a website titled ‘End Genocide’, that I thought I was reading satire. The article is simply out of place; it would be suiting to be published on The Onion, because this article is a stunt.

Anyhow, after reading I couldn’t help but criticize the author’s blatant attempt at delivering a message construing American history to be abounding with racist white men, committing deliberate acts of genocide on docile, peaceful, kumbaya-singing Native Americans.

Here are some of the outlandish, partial, and ignorant remarks:

  • “Even today, Native Americans face … ongoing cases of discrimination.”
  • “Several wars broke out between tribes and American settlers which led to large death tolls, land dispossession, oppression and blatant racism.”
  • “Ultimately, while Columbus is remembered as a daring adventurer, he was also a perpetrator of atrocities and his legacy is viewed as the starting point that sparked hundreds of years of exploration and exploitation of the Americas.”
  • “By the time Christopher Columbus reached the Caribbean in 1492, historians estimate that there were 10 million indigenous peoples living in U.S. territory. But by 1900, the number had reduced to less than 300,000.”
  • The author cites that early settlers distributed smallpox blankets to the natives and proclamations for “redskins” (scalps) were given, which is a “a major indicator of genocidal acts.”
  • This publisher also couldn’t help but refer to the Hoover Commission’s urge to assimilate the Native Americans as a “modern atrocity.”

Okay, now I’m required to chime in on these claims.

My first question is “what form of discrimination are Native Americans currently facing and where is this taking place?” I’ve been unsuccessful at locating systematic cases of discrimination against Native Americans in the 21st century. Could it be that there aren’t any?

To mention that war resulted in “large death tolls, land dispossession, oppression and blatant racism” is to simply speak of war. In the context of war, land dispossession is a common goal, oppression of the enemy is necessary, and racism is unfortunately a customary occurrence in the context of war. Just read any memoir on any war where the opposing forces were of different ethnicities. It wasn’t a racist, systematic form of genocide. It was the hatred of the enemy that resulted in hatred of the race (on both sides), not vice versa.

Also, why must Christopher Columbus’ discovery of the Americas be so quickly discredited due to the wars that were inevitably to come? Are we really signaled to believe that Christopher Columbus sailed the ocean blue in 1492 in search of an undiscovered, underdeveloped civilization that he intended to commit acts of genocide on? Or was he sent out in search of a trade route to India?

Also, the author’s claim to 10 million Native Americans is a frequently debated numerical claim, however 10 million is quite eccentric. Anthropologists have estimated a mere 800,000.

In regards to the distribution of smallpox blankets, this atrocity happened on maybe three occurrences, only one of which can be confirmed. And once again, the settlers were engaged in war.

In regards to incidents of scalping, this strategy was utilized by both sides. To suggest that it was merely settlers who engaged in scalping is obtuse. Where do you think they adopted this idea from? Yeah, the Native Americans. This practice was common well before any settlers landed at Jamestown, and it was recurrent among many Native American tribes, who by the way, were commonly engaged in civil wars with one another. If scalping is supposedly considered a “major indicator of genocide”, then you ought to paint the entire picture.

Also, can someone explain to me how President Truman’s urge to assimilate should be considered a “modern atrocity”?

This article, ‘Atrocities Against Native Americans‘, is found among a listing of genocidal atrocities throughout human history, to include the Holocaust, the Armenian extermination, and Pol Pot’s Cambodian genocide. Are we really hellbent on listing Columbus and Truman alongside Pol Pot? Are individuals earnestly willing to rewrite the conquest of North America as an act of systematic genocide?

The founding of America was simply that, a conquest.

The motivation wasn’t racism, and the reduction of the Native American population wasn’t a deliberate act of genocide.

Just pause for a moment and ponder what the world would look like had America never been founded by Europeans with Judeo-Christian values. The technologically underdeveloped communities that once roamed this land were bound to be conquered. Would the world be a better place if the Soviet Union owned this land? How about Imperial Japan? The Third Reich? We mustn’t dare to assume this that land would still be occupied by indigenous people.

If the proponents of identity politics are truly convinced that American History is riddled with angry white men committing acts of genocide on Native Americans, and that these acts merit reparations, then once again, you must use that paint brush of yours to paint the entire picture.

Essentially every square mile of currently owned land on Earth was previously owned by someone else. So, in regard to reparations, where do we even begin?

            

How to Destroy Any Pro-Life Argument

Are you curious about learning to enhance your ability to delude and overwhelm all those disgusting, altruistic proponents of the pro-life movement in an argument?

By following these three rules correctly, you can be sure to triumph over the next radical, right-wing dullard foolish enough to square off with your newly established, pro-choice, rhetoric repertoire.

Rule #1: Deny biology.

The first tool you’re going to want to add to your double-dealing toolbox of chicanery is the art of denying biological facts.

Every citizen in America who has at least the cognitive capacity of Burn After Reading’s Chad Feldheimer is able to grasp a rudimentary understanding of reproductive biology.

In other words, if someone is 9 or older, they’re likely aware of the biological composition of a human zygote.

Biology is simply not going to help you in this argument.

So, you’re going to have to be crafty about it. Don’t say it outright that you don’t believe in the facts of biological discoveries.

Your pro-life opponent is going to want to allude to the “fact” that the random cluster of cells is human. Prevent them from doing this at all costs. If they’re unyielding, then you’re going to want to use some duplicity once they begin coursing down that path.

For instance, instead of the word “fetus”, a word the pro-lifers love to pound out like a drumbeat, use the word “parasite”.

Biology will tell you a parasite is “an organism that lives on or in a host organism and gets its food from or at the expense of its host.” However, your adversary will argue the parameters defining a parasite are that it must be of a different species. Nevertheless, be adamant about sticking to your definition. In doing so, you may just wear them out by barraging their patience.

If this fails, I recommend keeping it sophisticated by using shifty euphemisms when speaking about the unborn.

Speaking of euphemisms, here’s an exceptional one to add to your political jargon.

Rule #2: Use the word “viable”.

This word is your rhetoric bread and butter when debating against the sanctimonious, pro-life milksops.

The heroes over at Planned Parenthood are more Janus-faced than the supervillain Loki himself, and they’ve managed to reserve an ambiguous, legal term to utilize when speaking about these trivial parasites.

According to the Herculean Planned Parenthood, viability means “being capable of sustained survival outside the woman’s body with or without artificial aid.”

As we know, killing a human is murder. However, the termination of something that isn’t viable” is simply practicing a human right, handed to us by the fallacious Supreme Court.

Since the Supreme Court ruling of Roe v. Wade, it is the interpretation of viability that holds the verdict of the legality of abortion. Therefore, it is your mandate to treasure this word like pure gold.

Remember, the goal of this debate is for you to dehumanize the unborn and justify the convenient termination of the unplanned. Never use the word “fetus” or “zygote” or “human”.

Always use the word viable or nonviable whenever viable.

By utilizing this word correctly, you will be able to quickly turn any debate for human life into a debate for human rights, thus refashioning your adversary’s attempt at preserving human life into an assault on women’s rights. Nobody is fond of a bigot.

And this brings me to my next point.

Wow, the segues are falling right into place today.

Rule #3: Substitute the term “human life” with “reproductive rights”.

Don’t be foolish enough to believe that the cunningly devised euphemism of pro-choice is enough to coax the pro-lifers into believing that we’re not anti-life.

We use the label, pro-choice, because we’re resolute about abstaining from the debate for human life.

This isn’t about human life. It’s about human rights, and women have the right to choose.

Therefore, when utilizing this rule, you must remember to handle it with finesse. Show some passion.

Assuming you’ve already attempted Rules #1 and #2, turn the tides at this point in the argument by cooking up some red hot fervor.

Make the debate personal.

Bring up the fact that you’re related to a single mother, and that she would’ve been better off without that nagging inconvenience.

If you don’t know any single mothers, then just get creative with it. Bring up the fact that less than 1% of abortions are the byproduct of rape and incest, and that those anomalies warrant the right for all women to terminate any unplanned pregnancy due to raw convenience.

Women have reproductive rights. If they don’t want to share their body with an unviable parasite, then they have the right to terminate it.

See what I did there? I just used all three rules in a brief comment. Like I said, get creative.

So, ensure to publicly lambaste the next pretentious wrangler seeking to subvert the freedom a woman has over her body.

Also, this rule is especially potent when used against men. In fact, when debating men, I recommend jumping straight to this rule. By arguing over reproductive rights, you shrink their credibility by turning them into a sexist and an oppressor.


Remember, “iron sharpens iron” and Planned Parenthood murders babies. If we keep up our fight against the bigoted, misogynist, right-wing, pro-life radicals, then we can be confident in being one step closer to the complete dehumanization and degeneration of racist, sexist America.

Keep up the fight, you brave warriors!

inspired by C.S. Lewis’ screwtape letters.