2006-09-23 13:05:03 · 22 answers · asked by slavedriver2me913@btinternet.com 1 in Politics & Government ➔ Military
Anyone who has seen "Soldier Blue" would agree with the question and might is right and history is always written by the victors spring to mind. If memory serves I think in Canada if you can prove you are full blood native you are exempt from taxes and that sounds a bit like reparations to me for wrong done
2006-09-23 21:46:55 · answer #1 · answered by william john l 3 · 0⤊ 1⤋
The American Indians were not all wiped out, so right off the bat you are laboring under a misconception. The idea of "war crimes" did not even surface until maybe the Second World War in the wake of Nazi atrocities, so the concept had no relevance at all when it came to the conquest of the American West. The operative term then was "Manifest Destiny".
2006-09-23 13:12:43 · answer #2 · answered by Kokopelli 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
American Indians were not lined up and marched to their deaths in huge gas ovens. They were wiped out in what would be called conventional warfare for the time. They fought and they lost. I'm not saying it's right, but it isn't even remotely the same thing as what happened in Poland and Germany in the 40's. That was when the term 'war crimes' came into the public conciousness.
2006-09-23 14:22:21 · answer #3 · answered by Shepherd 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
War Crimes weren't really established during that period. There were some rules to follow, but the different fighting styles of each conflicted with those rules. Both did horrible things to each other. Also, not all American Indians were wiped out.
2006-09-23 13:26:12 · answer #4 · answered by K_S 1 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Yes, by many of the inteligentsia of the day, both American and European. But they technically were not. War crimes can only be committed during a declared state of war. For most of the time that Native Americans were being persecuted, there was no such declaration. It should properly be called "attempted genocide".
2006-09-23 13:07:48 · answer #5 · answered by juicy_wishun 6 · 2⤊ 0⤋
1) The Native Americans were not wiped out. 2) back then they thought that was acceptable. but by today's standards about 50% of what was done to the Native Americans would be war crimes or attempts at Genocide.
2006-09-23 13:09:14 · answer #6 · answered by redhawktotem 2 · 0⤊ 1⤋
no war- get a grip on reality ,- your in for a shock!!!!
its only called a war crime when the side that wins sets up a court and decides what is a crime or not. - ie make sure you win, if you dont you will have already died or probably get put in prison for fighting in the wrong manner- simple innit
2006-09-23 13:13:32 · answer #7 · answered by bob 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Back then, life was simpler. Things were in black and white, right and wrong, with not nearly as much "grey" area... probably due to a smaller percentage of lawers in the general population. War was war and there were winners and losers. The losers were the ones who died more than the winners.
2006-09-23 13:11:46 · answer #8 · answered by fiveamrunner 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Why don't you try holding America accountable for modern day history...not ancient history. If you go back far enough in virtually any country's history, you will find something they aren't proud of. Conquering natives was, frankly, common practice in those days for countries expanding their territories. America was not better...and no worse...than any advanced country of the day.
Not that we should be proud of that point in our history, but we shouldn't be beating ourselves up about it still. And we sure shouldn't try to make any moral equivalence in the realities of today's events.
2006-09-23 14:54:57 · answer #9 · answered by kathy_is_a_nurse 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
It should have been but that is the past and no one living committed those atrocities. Just like you cant bring up charges against the Romans who basically killed and subjugated everyone in Europe and the middle east.
2006-09-23 13:07:42 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋