Michael E Johnson said:
As someone who also has Indian ancestors, I hope that's not what your doing.
I take it you missed the part where I refered to my Cherokee ancestors who were banished from their homeland and sent to Oklahoma. Is it semantics to not call what happened to the American Indians genocide? No, because genocide is all about intent (as are most crimes, accidently shooting someone is not the same as purposely shooting them). The intent of the United States government and people was not to wipe out the Indians but, as zoomar said, to take their land and to forcibly assimilate them into mainstream society. The Nazis did not want to assimilate the Jews, they wanted to annihilate them. There is a difference.
And about semantics...
Michael E Johnson said:
ps maybe you like the syononyms for geocide better-annihilation, assassination, bloodbath, bloodshed, butchery, carnage, decimation, extermination, genocide, internecion, murder, slaughter, slaying
Concept: killing
annihilation- not applicable, involves complete destruction
assassination- not applicable, involves individuals, usually high ranking ones
bloodbath- applicable, as what was done was savage and indiscriminate
bloodshed- applicable
butchery- applicable, what was done was wanton
carnage- applicable
decimation- applicable, a large portion was destroyed
extermination- not applicable, see annihilation
genocide- not applicable, as it can't be a synonym of itself
internecion- iffy, as it is mutual, and relatively few whites were killed
murder- not usually applicable, as it was usually lawful to kill them (ever see that Dr. Quinn episode where the local souix chief is acquitted of murder of a white officer, becuase technically, the US is at war with his people?)
slaughter- applicable
slaying- sometimes applicable, I can't vouch on how violent the deaths were
Yes, I freely admit to being an anal retentive ass.