An Attitude of Genocide

8/14/2019 An Attitude of Genocide'

1/14

The final pages of this document might be a little hard to handle! But, sometimes youhave to see it to believe it! It is asking the same question, of us all. Are we not all subject

to this inevitable violation, to some degree or another, that will eventually consume the

Takers also! Might I remind you, the Takers, historically leave desert. Whilst Godsgarden is always striving to cover the soil (Mother), and is as diverse as the climateallows. By the respectful management of these resources, given to us all, we are able to

provide abundance, indefinitely. And our children are happy. By the Taking ofeverything, by the exploitation, of everything Living to dead, gone, shipped off

somewhere. Our Children go hungry! All livings things in this life, needs soil. Soil,cannot happen when we keep indiscriminately killing everything. How is this happening,

when the answers to a wholesome future for ourselves, other selves, and our neighbors,are about listening to each other, without judgment, but discernment, tempered by the

love of our fellow man.

FOR the PAKEHA.

A CIVILIZED VISITOR?

And in the eighteenth year, the two and twentieth day of the first month, there was talk in

the house of Nabuchodonosor(Nebuchadnezzar...Daniel, chapter 4), king of the

Assyrians, that he should, as he said, AVENGE HIMSELF ON ALL THE EARTH.

So he called unto him all his officers and all his nobles, and communicated with them his

secret counsel, AND CONCLUDED THE AFFLICTING OF THE WHOLE EARTH OUT

OF HIS MOUTH.

Generated by Foxit PDF Creator Foxit Softwarehttp://www.foxitsoftware.com For evaluation only.


2/14

Then they decreed to destroy all flesh, that did not obey the commandment of his mouth.

The Scythians used scorched earth tactics against King Darius the Great of Persia.Nomadic herders, the Scythians retreated into the depths of the Steppes, destroying food

supplies and poisoning wells. As a result, Darius the Great was forced to concede defeat.A large number of his troops died from starvation and dehydration.

British use of scorched earth policies in war was seen as early as the sixteenth century inIreland where it was used by English commanders such as Walter Devereux and Richard

Bingham. Its most infamous use was by Humphrey Gilbert during the wars against thenative Irish in Munster in the 1560s and 1570s, actions which earned the praise of the

poet Edmund Spenser in his A View of the Present State of Ireland in 1596.

Persians also used scorched earth tactics against the invading Turks during the longOttoman-Iran wars between 1578-90

William T. Shermans First Campaign of Destruction

He contended that the United States and its representatives had the right toremove and destroy every obstacleif need be, take every life, every acre of land, every

particle of property, everything that to us seems proper[and] that all who do not aid areenemies, and we will not account to them for our acts. This last line was reminiscent of

his statement in August 1862, when he had warned that those who resided in the areas

near partisan troop action were accessories by their presence and inactivity to prevent

murders and destruction of property.

Significantly, the Hawkesbury/Nepean River conflicts and the subsequent decimation of

the Aboriginal population cannot be accounted for by disease and alcohol but principally

by Europeans violence. European dominance was established by superior weaponry,

mobility and numbers. However, it is worth noting that: Resistance, for the Aboriginals,

was a matter of survival. As such, the Aboriginals conducted what appears to have been a

well-organised and determined campaign to drive out the Europeans. (Morris 1978, p78-80)

Professor D.J. Mulvaney, professor of per-history at the Australian National University,said the recent evidence meant that more than 600,000 Aborigines died in the years after

European settlement."Some Europeans were also murdered by Aborigines. But the settlers killed about 20

Aborigines for every white person who was murdered."



3/14


4/14

The German forces, forced to retreat due to overall strategic situation, covered retreattowards Norway by devastating large areas of northern Finland using scorched earth

tactics. More than one-third of the dwellings in the area were destroyed, and the

provincial capital Rovaniemi was burned to the ground. All but two bridges in Laplandwere blown up and roads mined[3]. In Northern Norway which was at the same timeinvaded by Finnish forces in pursuit of the retreating German army in 1944, the Germans

also undertook a scorched earth policy, destroying every building that could offer shelter,thus interposing a belt of "scorched earth" between themselves and the allies[4].

Throughout the 60s, the US employed herbicides (chiefly Agent Orange), as a part of its

herbicidal warfare program Trail Dust to destroy crops and foliage in order to expose

possible enemy hideouts and to deny food to the enemy. Napalm was also extensively

used for such purposes.

Eur opean settlement had alter ed the Aborigines from free, assured people, heldtogether by a strong sense of community obligation and shar ing networks, to a

scattered group of dependents, relying on the hand-outs of a non-Aboriginal society.

It was Queen Isabella in particular, who was receptive to Columbuss plan and agreed tofinance his enterprise, to grant him the titles he requested along with one-tenth of all

revenues from his discoveries.

What was viewed by the Eur opeans as a discovery of new terr itory was, from thepoint of view of the native inhabitants of these lands, an invasion.

Influenced by the Spanish Inquisition, Corts and his men firmly believed it was their

Christian duty to invade and annex the Indies in order to bring heathen souls to God.

His conquest of Mexico was often portrayed as the last of the Crusades. Thus did

Corts view himself as leading the Last Crusade into Mexico, bringing heathen souls toGod, and, of course, their riches to himself as a foretaste of his divine reward.



5/14

By accommodating the white man's presence into their beliefs, the Aborigines were

able to resist, even ignore, the attacks on their behaviour of the Europeans who, on the

one hand, put forward Christian laws and codes of behaviour, but on the other hand,

disobeyed those laws with impunity. This was unacceptable within the Aboriginal

system of values and beliefs.

Europeans did not understand the concept that the Maori lived by in relation to land

governorship.

`We do not own the land, The land owns us'

The continuing destruction of indigenous people is a global human rights problem.Today, tens of millions of Aboriginal people reside in dozens of countries around theworld (Hitchcock and Twedt, 1997, p 374).

Whether called native or tribal peoples, First Nations or the Fourth World, many live

under the threat of annihilation. During the twentieth century, dozens of statesimplemented policies intended to physically destroy indigenous populations. In the age of

the UN Genocide Convention, signatory nations waged campaigns of genocide againstthe Cham of Cambodia, indigenous peoples in East Timor and the Amazon basin, Iraqi

Kurds, the Maya of Guatemala, and others. Today, perpetrators employ sophisticated

weapons delivery systems, advanced communications equipment, and overwhelming

firepower to kill indigenous people. No evidence suggests a waning in this trend.

The pattern divides into three phases. Colonists initiate the first by invasion. Economic

and political frictions then develop between the two groups as they struggle for limitedresources and political power. Unable to compete with the invaders technology, arms,

and wealth, the indigenous people find their economy fundamentally threatened and basicpolitical rights denied under the settler regime.

A fundamental issue is how humans stay within the productive limits of their supporting

ecosystem. While most would agree that such adaptation should be possible through theapplication of knowledge and wisdom, history does not support such a rational view and,

in fact, war is virtua lly universal in human societies as a means of resolving conflictsarising from various sources of maladaptation (Keeley, 1996).

Victors write history, and, in the final phases of frontier genocide,

perpetrators create a myth to excuse their crimes. By claiming that so-called primitive

peoples and cultures are fated to vanish when they come into contact with white settlers,

a deadly supposition emerges: the extinction of indigenous people is inevitable and

thus killing speeds destiny.



6/14

The native who did not care to work, and yet did not want to do without worldly goods,eventually was ruined; meanwhile, the industrious white man prospered. This was just a

natural process (Leutwein, 1907, p 372).

requiring a shock such as war. It appears that many, even most, societies have been

defined by war , and that the organization of a society for the possibility of war has

been its pr incipal political stabilizer. The victors who emerged from the ashes of warhave sown the seeds that would produce subsequent tensions, disputes and conflicts.

It often seems that an institutional lack of capacity to adapt to change, or the inertia of

vested interests in the status quo, means that societies inevitably become maladapted over

time, eventually to set them on a different course (Edgerton, 1992).

Plomley estimates that in 1824 there were still 1,500 Aborigines (Plomley, 1992, p 29).

By 1835 fewer than 300 survivors remained.

Beginning in 1826, the Aboriginal Tasmanians fought a desperate guerilla war.

The reason for their outrages upon the white inhabitants (was) that they and theirforefathers had been cruelly abused, that their country had been taken away from them,

their wives and daughters had been violated and taken away, and that they hadexperienced a multitude of wrongs from a variety of sources. (Ryan, 1996, pp 121122)

The people, not content with shooting them in the most treacherous manner in the dark,

had actually cut the woman's arm off and stripped the scalp of her head over her eyes andfinding one of the children only wounded, one of the fellows deliberately beat the infant's

brains out with the end of his muskett... the bodies were left for the natives to view next

morning. (Docker, 1964:75).



7/14

February 3 1835, when Robinson reported to Arthur: The entire Aboriginal populationare now removed [to Flinders Island] (Ryan, 1996, p 170).

Robinsons project was successful in expatriating the last 300 Aborigines from a home

their ancestors had inhabited for perhaps 35,000 years, but he only facilitated their neartotal destruction (Ryan, 1996, pp xxi, 183).

When the Flinders Island camp closed in 1847, only 46 survivors remained (Reynolds,

1995, p 159).

In 1826, the surviving Aborigines, who after the combined depredations caused by

introduced small-pox, syphilis and influenza and by brutalities at the hands of thecolonists, were estimated to be only 65 in number, including men, women and children.

This is in marked contrast to the numerous Aborigines seen in almost every cove during

the first visit to Brisbane Water by Governor Phillip only 38 years before.

Contemporaries appear to have been complacent about continually reducing Aboriginal

numbers; many believed extinction inevitable. The conscience of the European settlerswas untroubled by the disappearance of the Aboriginals. Some regarded it as a blessing

and welcomed it; William Cox asserted that the Aboriginal people would make excellentmanure for crops and that for him was their main function. (Gunson 1974).

The Reverend John Gregory stated, in 1847, that settlers believed the Aboriginalsdecreed by God to a position of innate inferiority from which the only escape was an

inevitable extinction. Threlkeld believed the Aboriginals had strayed from God's path andas a result were doomed. (Gunson 1974)

On February 2, 1848 the United States took possession of California from Mexico. Ten

months later, news of the gold found at Sutters Mill triggered a tidal wave of

immigration into the new state. Between 1849 and 1851 alone nearly 250,000 settlersarrived (Cook, 1970, p 28). These immigrants needed food and triggered an agricultural

explosion that in turn created shock waves of land grabbing. In 1851 the first white

explorers visited the Yuki homeland, in northern California, and in 1854 settlers arrived

to farm and ranch the areas fertile valleys. Before whites arrived, the Yuki numbered

between 5,000 and 20,000. By 1864, settlement policies and a war of genocide had

reduced them to 85 male[s] and 215 female[s] (Carranco and Beard, 1981, p 126

Today approximately 100 Yuki live in Mendocino County on the Round Valley IndianReservation together with members of five other California Indian nations. Fewer than a

dozen native Yuki speakers remain.

Germans hoisted their flag over the Namibian coast in August 1884. Over the next 19years settlers slowly trickled into German South West Africa. By 1903 4,674 Germans

lived in the colony, trading with Africans and ranching cattle (Palmer, 2000, p 149). In

1904 the 6085,000-strong Herero nation rose up against German rule and were defeated

(Irle, 1973, p 52; Leutwein, 1907, p 11; Schwabe, 1907, p 37).



8/14

The German Army then waged genocide against the defeated, killing 4070,000 Hereromen, women, and children. Only 1520,000 out of 6085,000 Hereros survived the war

and genocide.

Herero political frustration centered on German treatment of Herero women, generalphysical abuse, and legal inequality under colonial law. Like Aboriginal Tasmanian and

Yuki attacks, the Herero revolt was met first by warfare, second by a genocidal militarycampaign and finally by deadly ethnic gulags.

By 1903, 3,970 European men and only 712 European women lived in Namibia. As in

the Tasmanian and Yuki cases, this gender imbalance led to rapes of indigenous women

by white men. This practice was so common that German settlers had names for it:

Verkafferung, or going native, and Schmutzwirtschaft, or dirty trade (Rohrbach, 1907, p

243).

Genocide in Tasmania, California, and Namibia began with a common lie: the assertionthat the land was empty, unclaimed, or should be made empty. The British in

Australia employed a doctrine of terra nullius, or land where nothing exists, while inthe US settlers and their advocates spoke of vacuum domicilium, or empty domicile, to

justify invasion and expropriation (Stannard, 1992, pp 234235). In Namibia, colonistsenacted policies of tabula rasa, or creating a map scraped smooth, to facilitate

dispossession and ethnic cleansing (Drechsler, 1966, pp 168169). The concept of tabularasa asserted that indigenous people should be removed and that these people had

minimal moral claim to the land. If white settlers saw no European-style agriculture orWestern trappings of civilization, they often deemed an area empty to rationalize

conquest and settlement.

Under the British doctrine of terra nullius, Aboriginal Tasmanians had no right to

territory because they were not using the land in a European fashion and had no legal title

under British law. Likewise, under the vacuum domicilium doctrine, the California

legislature excluded the Yuki from state citizenship and thus legal land ownership. The

German government did grant land titles to Hereros, but utilized the empty landconcept as part of the rationale behind Chancellor von Caprivis 1893 claim that the

territory is ours, it is now German territory and must be maintained as German territory

(Bley, 1971a, p 611). Later, the Germans justified policies designed to transfer land from

blacks to whites with the same concept. The idea of empty or unclaimed land provided

the legal and intellectual framework for genocide by rationalizing dispossession and bysuggesting that native people were less worthy of land ownership and thus essentially less

human than white settlers.

a new word has been added to the militar y vocabular y: ecocide, the destr uction of

the environment for military pur poses clearly der iving from the scorched ear th

approach of ear lier times.

Westing (1976) divides deliberate environmental manipulations during wartime into two

broad categories: those involving massive and extended applications of disruptive



9/14

techniques to deny to the enemy any habitats that produce food, refuge, cover, traininggrounds and staging areas for attacks; and those involving relatively small disruptive

actions that in turn release large amounts of dangerous forces or become self-

generating. An example of the latter is the release of exotic micro-organisms or spreadingof landmines (of which over 100 million now litter active and former war zones aroundthe worldStrada, 1996).

The conclusion is not surprising: war is bad for biodiversity.

As Thacher (1984: 12) put it, Trees now or tanks later.

Aborigines Protection Acts.

All Aborigines, whether nomadic or civilised, and also all half-castes, are liable to be

"protected" by the Aborigines Protection Boards, and their legal status is defined byAborigines Protection Acts of the various States and of the Commonwealth.

Thus we are for the greater part deprived of ordinary civil legal rights and citizenship,

and we are made a pariah caste within this so-called democratic community.

The value of the Abor igines Protection Acts in " pr otecting" Abor igines may be

judged from the fact tha t at the 1933 census there were no Aborigines left to protectin Tasmania; while in Victor ia ther e were only 92 full-bloods, in South Austra lia

569 fullbloods, in New South Wales1, 034 full-bloods.The Aborigines of full-blood are most numerous, and most healthy, in the northern parts

of Australia, where white "protection" exists in theory, but in practice the people have tolook after themselves. But already the hand of official "protection" is reaching out to

destroy these people in the north, as it has already destroyed those in the southern States.We beg of you to alter this cruel system before it gets our 36,000 nomadic brothers and

sisters of North Australia into its charitable clutches!

What " Protection" Means.

The "protection" of Aborigines is a matter for each of the individual States; while those

in the Northern Territory come under Commonwealth ordinances.

This means that in each State there is a different "system" , but the principle behind

the Protection Acts is the same in all States, Under these Acts the

Aborigines are regarded as outcasts and as inferior beings who need to besupervised in their private lives by Government off icials. No one could denythat there is scope for the white people of Australia to extend sympathetic, or real,

protection and education to the uncivilised blacks, who are willing and eager to learn

when given a chance.

The Aboriginal Protection Board, which has "protected" the full-bloods of New South

Wales so well that there are now less than a thousand of them remaining, has thus

recently acquired the power extend a similar "protection" to half-castes, quarter-castes,

and even to persons with any "admixture" of Aboriginal blood whatever. Its powers are



10/14

so drastic that merely on suspicion or averment it can continue its persecuting protectionunto the third, fourth and fifth generation of those so innocently unfortunate as to be

descended from the original owners of this land.

The effect of the foregoing powers of the Aborigines Protection Board in New SouthWales is to deprive the Aborigines and half-castes (and other "admixtures") of ordinary

citizen rights.

By a cur ious twist of logic, the Abor igines of New South Wales have the r ight

to vote - for the State Par liament! They are considered worthy of the franchise, butnot worthy of other citizen rights. They ar e officially treated either as a menace to

the community (similar to cr iminals) or a s incapa ble of looking after themselves

(similar to lunat ics) - but yet they are given a vote!

The Native Land Act of 1862 bypassed the condition set out in the Treaty of Waitangi,

which stated that Maori land could only be sold to the government. It made sellingdirectly to settlers from Maori easier. This affected many parts of New Zealand that had

not been involved in the wars. It was justified by the claim that it would enable Maori to

obtain a better price for their land. In practice, however, it leads to many unjust purchases

and false land claims. Even if the Maori owners took a case to the Land Court and were

successful with their case they often had to sell their land to pay for the court costs . In

reality the act was set up to destroy the tr ibal systems which slowed progress for the

European settlements. Maori were to be assimilated.

All of these initiatives were intended to help the Maori people to assimilate into European

culture. For a time the future of the Maori people and their culture seemed bleak.

The population declined due to illness and high infant mortality rates and manyEuropeans thought of them as a dying race. The Maori people and culture did survivethough and began to flourish again in the later part of the twentieth century.

Is This OUR ATTITUDE?

Pygmies stand tall over rainforest logging5:00AM Tuesday October 16, 2007By J onathan Brown

The rumble of giant machinery heralds the

arrival of loggers deep in the heart of the

Congo rainforest. For the pygmy tribes who

have inhabited this thick jungle for

millennia, the sound of the advancing

column is the sound of encroaching hunger

and the loss of a way of life stretching back

hundreds of generations.Forty million people in the Congo, including

600,000 pygmies, depend on the rainforests for

survival.



11/14

.

As well as retaining nearly 8 per cent of the world's carbon dioxide, the rainforest ishome to a vast biodiversity, including the bonobo apes unique to the Congo river basin.

. There is mounting optimism that when the representatives of some of Africa's most

remote tribes arrive in the US capital, they can capitalize on outrage over the bank's plan

to turn 60,000sq km of pristine forest over to European logging companies.

It is claimed that far from bringing development and riches, logging is causing

widespread malnutrition, especially among children. Felling is also blamed for re-igniting

violence in the region, which is still recovering from years of civil war.

He said: "When the logging companies arrive, they restrict our right to use the forest andforbid us access to vast areas. They cut pell-mell, with no consideration for the trees wedepend on for caterpillars to eat, or the places where we can find mushrooms or get

honey. We have no say about whether a tree should stand or fall."

Plans to allow industrial logging in the Congo were drawn up after the World Bankmoved back into the country in 2002, aiming to turn it into Africa's main timber

producer. While the civil war cost millions of lives, peace has brought with it a newthreat as Western companies return to exploit the nation's new-found stability. Roads are

being driven through the eastern forest and, to the west, railways and ports are beingupgraded around Kinshasa, the capital.

Campaigners fear that over-development, coupled with widespread corruption signals the

beginning of the end for the rainforest.

The 8t h o f March i s the I n te rn a t iona l Wom en ' s day . Congo Pano ram a ca l l s fo r a spec ia l t r ibuna l fo r

Congo to t ry th ose respons ib le o f c r imes aga ins t hum an i t y , espec ia ll y Museven i and Kagame w ho

used rape as a weapon o f w a r in Congo .

Rape has become a defining characteristic of the five-year war in the DRC, according to Anneke Van

Woudenberg, the Congo specialist for Human Rights Watch. So, too, has mutilation of the victims.

"Last year, I was stunned when a 30-year-old woman in North Kivu had her lips and ears cut off and eyes gougedout after she was raped, so she couldn't identify or testify against her attackers. Now, we are seeing more and

more such cases," she says.

As the troops of occupation from Rwanda and Uganda constantly sought new ways to terrorize, their barbarity

became more frenzied.



12/14


13/14

value of diamonds themselves, which are only as valuable as they are rare, anddesired.De Beers implicitly owns the Botswana government and is 50% shareholder in

Debswana Diamond with it. Botswana is the largest producer of uncut diamondsin the world.De Beers, through its surrogates, has forcibly evicted the Kalahari Bushmen fromtheir ancestral homelands, and resettled them in cinderblock "camps" where theyare deteriorating spiritually and physically. The latest legal denial of their claimsissued by the wholly-owned de Beers subsidiary Botswana government wasaccompanied by testimony from a government prosecutor that the Bushmen arebeing moved to "protect them from game".An ecologist testified in a Botswana court to what every middle-class middleschool kid in the US knows - that the Bushmen are good for the game, and thegame are good for the Bushmen.

They're being evicted for the same reason apartheid was instituted, to protect thediamond industry.The Bushmen have lived in the Kalahari for 20,000 years.

this is the nastiest and least excusable case I have ever come across. In the end, it may notmatter whether the Bushmen were moved as the result of misguided paternalism or a grab formineral wealth. What is beyond dispute is that the Bushmen -- hunter-gatherers nowmarooned in a cash economy and separated from their places of spiritual power -- have beendriven to the brink of cultural extinction.

To make sure there was no coming back, water holes were sealed over. Tshara Johannesshowed me around the now empty meadow where the village had stood for generations. "Thepeople were just taken and thrown into the trucks, he said. Then he repeated over and over,"They just poured the water out on the ground. In the Kalahari, to dump water is to sentencesomeone to death.

President Mogae himself recently said the relationship was less like a marriage and more like"Siamese twins. Survival International's director, Stephen Corry, is more blunt: "Botswana isa company town, owned by De Beers.

Despite their insistence of altruistic intentions behind relocating the Bushmen, however,

government officials are blunt about where cultural heritage and wildlife preservation fall on

the list of national priorities. "If we can discover a lot of diamond deposits in any part of this

country, Minister of Local Government Michael Tshipinare told me over a cup of tea, "whether

it is in a game reserve or outside, and it is minable -- we're going to mine it.

Mass star vation in Z imbabwe has not discour aged t he British government fr om funding a ca mpaign whichpr omotes anti-white " land r eform" in Africa. The UK's Department for Intern at ional Development gave

338,000 last year in " civil society" funding to support Wa r on Wa nt, a ha rd-Left campa ign gr oup formerly ru n

by George Ga lloway.www.samizdata.net/.../cat_african_affairs.htmlhttp://informant38.blogspot.com/2005/05/having-spent-hundreds-of-millions-of.html



14/14

http://www.survival-international.org/tribes/bushmen

http://www.survival-international.org/tribes

www.congopanorama.info/http://www.poemhunter.com/edmund-spenser/


Documents

An Attitude of Genocide