If the U.S. tried to wipe out the Indians before, that doesn't mean they're trying to wipe out the Indians today. You can choose to take words like genocide seriously or you can choose to take advantage of their emotional connotations. I don't deny that the U.S. mistreats Indians. You don't have to call it "genocidal" to make the point. And it's not picayune to make a distinction between genocidal mistreatment and non-genocidal mistreatment.
I suspect that if someone tried the same kind of intellectual elision on a question of political economy -- for example, claiming the U.S. economy is in a state of "crisis" because wages have stagnated -- you would not let it slide, as indeed you have not in the past on that question.
seth
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Doug Henwood [SMTP:dhenwood at panix.com]
> Sent: Monday, April 12, 1999 4:59 PM
> To: lbo-talk at lists.panix.com
> Subject: RE: Re: genocide
>
> Seth Ackerman wrote:
>
> >This is the key passage:
> >
> ><<with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical,
> >racial or religious group, as such>>
>
> And given U.S. policy towards Indians over the last few centuries,
> where do
> you think the presumption lies?
>
> Doug