Yeah that’s not genocide. Murder, despicable behavior, sure. But it’s not genocide.
If someone invaded, say, Poland and did that to an ethnic group or groups of the Polish people–confiscating their property and killing unarmed people in cold blood, confining the rest to camps against their will, for instance, in order to clear the area for exclusive occupation by a better race of people–I’d call it a genocide.
So would you.
On the day prior to the attack, the Indians came bringing gifts of meats and fruits and shared them with the settlers, thereby disguising their intentions. The following morning they circulated freely and socialized with the settlers before suddenly seizing their own work tools to attack them (See Robert Beverley’s Description of the 1622 Attack). The Indians killed families in the plantation houses and them moved on to kill servants and workers in the fields. The Powhatans killed 347 settlers in all - men, women, and children. Not even George Thorpe, a prominent colonist well known for his friendly stance towards the Indians, was spared. The Powhatans harsh treatment of the bodies of their victims was symbolic of their contempt for their opponents. The Indians also burned most of the outlying plantations, destroying the livestock and crops.”
I think I was trying to prove that the premise “Lol there’s never been a genocide on US soil” is false. Not once did I ever say or imply that no native tribes ever intended to wipe out Europeans settling in their territories.
How does your example prove otherwise?
And really…Jamestown? What does an attack on Jamestown in 1622 have to do with what happened at Sand Creek to utterly unrelated tribe in 1864? That kind of thinking would give an excuse for a present-day genocidal attack on Germany or Japan (see: Rape of Nanjing).
It’s a long history of attacks and counter attack’s. Not genocide. That’s my point.
If your premise is true, than the natives were equally guilty of genocide of the Jamestown population.
A counter-genocide would still count as a genocide, if that were what it was, which is was not, since the tribes in Sand Creek weren’t related to the tribes in the American Southwest. You may as well say that what the Germans did would excuse wiping out Denmark.
Kit Carson understood that. Any Christian of 2018 should have even less trouble with the concept.
When did I ever said they wouldn’t be? The difference, however, is that one group was ostensibly Christian.
(Weren’t they? And aren’t we? I am on the Catholic web site, right?)
Their Christianity is a moot point. Human beings have been killing each other since time began, was their behavior right? No, no ones making that argument. But it does not meet the definition of genocide.
Besides, given that they were Protestants from England they were all heretics anyway, so their supposed Christianity is dubious to start.
Sigh…once again: “Lol there’s never been a genocide on US soil”
The Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court, Article 6:
For the purpose of this Statute, “genocide” means 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.
No, US soil is not some Shangri-La where the human race has never committed acts of genocide. Women, children and non-combatants have been killed with the intention of wiping out the presence of a tribe or nation in an area.
The statement “Lol there’s never been a genocide on US soil” is patently false.
Honestly, “the only good Indian is a dead Indian” is about the most proto-typically genocidal statement anybody could ever make.
This, by the way, was an entirely repugnant and arrogant thing to say. You’d think Roman Catholics have no blood on our hands, which is also false, and do not try to deny that, either.
I remember helping my parish with helping refugees from Somalia, Myanmar, Syria and Iraq.
I hope this was tongue in cheek because otherwise…oof. Geez, dude. Rein it in a bit.
I’ll add that I was originally baptized in an Anglican Church , and most of my family are not catholic.
We don’t call Protestants heretics . You are in direct conflict with the Catholic Church if you do
That’s not true. They’re just in a state of material heresy rather than formal heresy.
ETA: and given the context, in 1622, the church did regard them as heretics in the time period. Hence all those wars over religion on the continent.
The church does not regard Protestants as heretics anymore. The church also does not regard Jews as treacherous anymore.
The Church has held positions over the centuries that it does not, today.
We have the Holy Spirit to guide us.
Read a few more current Vatican documents.
Also look into the work of the travelling Pope. The man who is now a saint.
Stay away from dubious internet web sites.
Good advice, especially for those new in the faith whose spiritual formation isn’t that well formed or informed.
They could be led astray.
That link doesn’t work.
Protestantism is still a heresy. There is no document that says otherwise. The people born and raised in that faith, through no fault of their own, are still material heretics. However, they are not guilty of formal heresy. I’ve seen this explained to you and others at least 3 times on this board.
Sorry about that, I adjusted the link, try it now
Protestants are one group of our seperated brethren. That’s what we call them, not heretics.
Please stop calling Protestants heretics. You are in direct confrontation with Catholic Church teaching. And it is very uncharitable.
Stop the word play.
You might want to look at documents concerning the recent commemoration of the reformation too. Don Ruggero has posted about it.