The whites, an appropriate term since "black" was meant to designate slaves, needed the kidnapped Africans alive to amass wealth. By contrast, the whites needed the American Indians dead, so they could force labor on bloodsoaked land. Therefore, the ends that justified the means was to kill the American Indians, yet recapture any kidnapped Africans. Notwithstanding the first slaves in the New World were Native American, " we shall take you and your wives and your children, and shall make slaves of them (Spanish Requirement of 1513)," white slave owners had to level off their cruelty, so their hostages could work. There are many African Americans with Native American heritage (that's another discussion). Incredibly, something has changed in the collective consciousness.
Prior to George Floyd's public execution, some still thought that an African American responding respectfully, hence having "the talk" with black youth, would result in their physical safety. By analogy, prior to the Sand Creek Massacre, some thought whites attacking American Indians was only about land.
Kurt Kaltreider, PH.D. American Indian Prophecies. pp. 58-59:
"The report of witnesses at Sand Creek: "I saw some Indians that had been scalped, and the ears cut off the body of White Antelope," said Captain L. Wilson of the first Colorado Cavalry. "One Indian who had been scalped had also his skull smashed in, and I heard that the privates of White Antelope had been cut off to make a tobacco bag of. I heard some of the men say that the privates of one of the squaws had been cut out and put on a stick..." John S. Smith... All manner of depredations were inflicted on their persons; they were scalped, their brains knocked out; the men used their knives, ripped open women, clubbed little children, knocked them in the heads with their guns, beat their brains out, mutilated their bodies in every sense of the word...worse mutilation that I ever saw before, the women all cut to pieces...children two or three months old; all ages lying there."
After the Sand Creek Massacre, tribes realized what was already true, " Now, the soldiers were destroying everything Cheyenne - the land, the buffalo, and the people themselves."
"And so, when the Chiefs gathered to decide what the people should do, Black Kettle took his usual place among them. Everyone agreed Sand Creek must be avenged. But there were questions. Why had the soldiers attacked with such viciousness? Why had they killed and mutilated women and children?
It seemed that the conflict with the whites had somehow changed. No longer was it just a war over land and buffalo. Now, the soldiers were destroying everything Cheyenne - the land, the buffalo, and the people themselves. Why? George thought he knew. He had lived among the whites and had fought in their war. He knew their greed for land and possessions - Their appetite for these things was boundless. But they also obeyed rules of warfare peculiar to them. They waged war on men, and only on recognized fields of battle. In the great life-and-death struggle between North and South even then raging in the East, prisoners were routinely paroled and released or held in guarded camps, where they were fed and cared for. And the whites never warred on women and children who were protected by law and by an unshakable code of honor - Still Black Kettle counseled peace."
Dee Brown tells us "Chivington and his soldiers destroyed the lives or the power of every Cheyenne and Arapaho chief who had held out for peace with the white men." And that started the Indian "Wars," as the books mostly say. It was a continuation of the Great Indian Holocaust, where a consensus of willingness to go to war came from realizing whites wanted all the American Indians exterminated. Now, American Indians and African Americans have the same reconized thing in common.
Every rape, every murder, every lynching, every being dragged tied to a truck, every massacre absent of the evil belief that slaves were property after Juneteenth meant the whites weren't killing African Americans to scare them back into compliance anymore, they wanted African Americans dead. Every noose left for intimidation means that, every white supremacy symbol means that. Every apologist agrees with that. Every cop that kills an African American or a Native American with "intent to destroy" does that. To be clear, they commit genocide.
A mental element: the "intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such"; and
A physical element, which includes the following five acts, enumerated exhaustively:
Killing members of the group
Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group
Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in partImposing measures intended to prevent births within the group
Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group
What changed in the collective consciousness? The United States lived in the post extermination phase of genocide, denial, when white supremacists needed kidnapped Africans alive during slavery. Now, like Native Americans, they need them dead for power and a "pure" race. African Americans have been being killed because of their "national, ethnical, racial or religious group," and like Native Americans, killer cops' intent is the same peaceful or not - "killing members of the group" with "intent to destroy." The US lives in the post extermination phase of genocide, denial, why wouldn't it be so?
Genocide expert Gregory Stanton shows QAnon using the exact same conspiracies the Nazis used.
The judges continue in paragraph 12, "The determination of when the targeted part is substantial enough to meet this requirement may involve a number of considerations. The numeric size of the targeted part of the group is the necessary and important starting point, though not in all cases the ending point of the inquiry. The number of individuals targeted should be evaluated not only in absolute terms, but also in relation to the overall size of the entire group. In addition to the numeric size of the targeted portion, its prominence within the group can be a useful consideration. If a specific part of the group is emblematic of the overall group, or is essential to its survival, that may support a finding that the part qualifies as substantial within the meaning of Article 4 [of the Tribunal's Statute]."
The exclusion of social and political groups as targets of genocide in the CPPCG legal definition has been criticized by some historians and sociologists, for example M. Hassan Kakar in his book The Soviet Invasion and the Afghan Response, 1979–1982 argues that the international definition of genocide is too restricted, and that it should include political groups or any group so defined by the perpetrator and quotes Chalk and Jonassohn: "Genocide is a form of one-sided mass killing in which a state or other authority intends to destroy a group, as that group and membership in it are defined by the perpetrator." In turn some states such as Ethiopia, France, and Spain include political groups as legitimate genocide victims in their anti-genocide laws.
Rutaganda, (Trial Chamber), December 6, 1999, para. 59: A person may only be convicted of genocide if he committed one of the enumerated acts with “the specific intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a particular group.”
(5) specific plan not required, but is strong evidence of intent
Kayishema and Ruzindana, (Trial Chamber), May 21, 1999, para. 94, 276: “[A]lthough a specific plan to destroy does not constitute an element of genocide, it would appear that it is not easy to carry out a genocide without such a plan, or organisation.” “[I]t is virtually impossible for the crime of genocide to be committed without some or indirect involvement on the part of the State given the magnitude of this crime.” “[I]t is unnecessary for an individual to have knowledge of all details of genocidal plan or policy.” “[T]he existence of such a [genocidal] plan would be strong evidence of the specific intent requirement for the crime of genocide.”
ii) “intent to destroy in whole or in part”
(1) considerable number required or substantial part of the group
Kayishema and Ruzindana, (Trial Chamber), May 21, 1999, para. 96-97: The Chamber held that “‘in part’ requires the intention to destroy a considerable number of individuals who are part of the group.”
Although it is unusual for a police officer to be so open about his involvement in an extremist organisation, for decades, anti-government and white-supremacist groups have been attempting to recruit police officers into their ranks. “It is something a lot of folks are overlooking,” says Vida B Johnson, an assistant professor of law at Georgetown University. “Police forces are becoming more interested in talking about implicit bias – the unconscious, racial biases we carry with us as Americans. But people aren’t really addressing the explicit biases that are present on police forces.”
According to Johnson’s research, there have been at least 100 different scandals, in more than 40 different states, involving police officers who have sent racist emails and text messages, or made racist comments on social media, since the 1990s. A recent investigation by the Center for Investigative Reporting found that hundreds of active-duty and retired law enforcement officers from around the country were members of confederate, anti-government and anti-Islam groups on Facebook. But there is no official record of officers who are tied to white supremacist or other extremist groups because, in the US, there is no federal policy for screening or monitoring the country’s 800,000+ law enforcement officers for extremist views. The 18,000 or so police departments across the country are largely left to police themselves.
Author is a member of the Metis Nation of the United States