Turkey’s Erdogan Threatens US With Recognizing Genocide of Native Americans

To think just 5 years ago Erdogan was Empire's golden boy, and Ankara counted for nearly as much in Washington as Riyadh and Tel Aviv

Nothing lasts forever, and we both know hearts can change

Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan has announced that in response to the US Senate’s recognition of the Armenian Genocide in the Ottoman Empire in 1915, the Turkish Parliament may adopt a resolution on the genocide of Native Americans during American colonization, RIA Novosti reports.

“We have opened more than a million documents on the events of 1915; come and study [them],” Erdogan said on A Haber TV. “We are talking about documents held in our hands. We must also take action against you by such decisions of our parliament; and we will. How can we keep silent about Native Americans when talking about America? This is a shameful chapter of the US.”

On December 12, the US Senate unanimously adopted Resolution 150 recognizing and condemning Armenian Genocide. Earlier, such a resolution was passed also by the US House of Representatives.

Source: News.am

  1. Garry Compton says

    Lived, homesteaded in Alaska for over 3 decades – I noticed that the native population , other than the Aleuts during WW II were never Genocide. Oh, that’s right, Alaska was owned by the Russians, so there were No Genocides. Sabe’ ?

  2. FilastinHuratan says

    Erdoğan may be doing it for the wrong reasons, and the timing is also questionable, but he is absolutely right about the principle.

    The OUTLAW, psychopath-run, blackmailing, sanctioning, belligerent, rogue empire-in-decline, a.k.a. the United Snakes of Israhell, have not changed an iota, in fact they have got worse with their spread of genocide around the globe.

  3. Zaphod Braden says

    Go live in a TURKISH Prison

    1. OzricTentacle says

      Hey Schlomo, you go first.

      1. Zaphod Braden says

        Erdogan kisses Jewish butt …. afraid to do anything about Israeli murder of Turkish citizens.

    2. JustPassingThrough says

      come to the end of your vocabulary?

  4. Rowdy-Yates says

    The American Indian wars which began around 1777 and continued nonstop till 1870 or so was so devastating that it included the Trail of Tears and extreme violence by the men of General Custer. The Native Americans fought valiantly for close to a century before being annihilated. Among the horrendous acts was to remove the genitals of Native American women to use as tobacco holding pouches.
    Only pockets of them remain today

  5. Ilya says

    Oh Erdo, just point to the fact that Ataturk was of the Dolmeh, and that that genocide, was, heavily influenced by a Jewish sect.

    1. All_has_An _END_. says

      Spot on

  6. Zaphod Braden says

    SIBERIAN/MONGOLIAN immigrants ….. not “native” Americans.

    SIBERIAN Immigrants of MONGOLIAN ( you recall the sophisticated, charming, Mongols?) stock who were busy sticking stone spears into one another and living on the primitive Tribal level. Of course many in Central America graduated to ritualized Human Sacrifice the Northern Sacrifices remained fireside brutalities.

    The Okunev people are seen as the Siberian ethnic grouping most closely related to Native Americans. In other words, it was ancestors of the Okunevs who populated America, evidently using primitive boats to venture to the ice-covered Beringia land bridge some 12,600 years ago.

    There was a war in the mid-1600s you’ve never heard of, ending in the near-extermination of the Erie by the Iroquois and others. Captives were sold into slavery and thus disbursed from the Cherokees in the Carolinas to the Senecas in Canada. All that remains of the Erie are place names—a lake, a city, a canal and so forth—and fugitive traces for linguists and historians to puzzle out.

    Let us not forget how the “environmentalists” would run a herd of Buffalo off a cliff to an agonizing death so they could feast on the TONGUES.


    some important info:
    1) Cash payments (welfare) for the Indians was delayed by the US Civil War. The payments arrived, albeit late, but hostilities had already started in 1862.
    2) Yes, the Sioux may have lost millions of acres, but their total population was under 20,000 people. (For example, Montana is about 94,000,000 acres. Today, we consider it sparsely populated with over 1,000,000 people!)
    3) Even with this incredible ratio of multiple acres per person, the Sioux often faced starvation. They were primitive hunter gatherers. They had knowledge of agriculture, but were not forward-thinking enough to develop mass-farming on their rich lands, even when they were starving to death!
    4) The Sioux were ruthless and brutal, more so than the US Army. Please study their inhumane slaughter of their natural enemies, the Ojibwa. The Sioux were feared by neighboring tribes due to their violence, ruthlessness, and cruelty.
    5) The Sioux routinely massacred, enslaved, and robbed peaceful travelers passing through SIoux territory. Today, this would be called “crimes against humanity.”
    6) The war crimes of the Sioux warriors against the settlers in the Minnesota uprising included bashing-in the brains of non-combatant women and children, ritual torture and corpse mutilation, cannibalism, enslavement, and even cutting living babies from the womb and nailing them to trees. This was the NORMAL treatment Sioux gave to all their enemies, mostly other native Americans.
    7) The Sioux were highly sexist, forcing the Sioux women to do most of the hard work while the men loafed around, hunted, and made war. Sioux women were forced to walk long distances while carrying heavy loads while the men road horseback.
    8) There are about ten times more Sioux alive today than there were in 1862, thanks to the evil white man’s agriculture, antibiotics, food storage, refrigeration, germ theory, sanitation, etc. In the long term, the Sioux BENEFITED from their defeat!
    9) Many angry Americans at the time demanded THOUSANDS of Sioux to pay with their lives for the destruction caused in the 1862 uprising. The fact that only 38 warriors were hung shows not a brutal, vengeful American character, but a forgiving, tolerant attitude.
    10) If the Sioux had won, I can promise you they would have burned the US soldiers and farmers alive, bashed-in the brains of the children, and enslaved the white women.
    Please spare us the “innocent native” narrative and “concentration camp” imagery. The Sioux had to go.
    NOTE from a reader: When younger, I lived for a while near the Black Hills of South Dakota. The local Sioux were never shy about their quite accurate claim that the US government violated a treaty with them and took the Black Hills after gold was discovered there in 1876. “We want our ancestral holy land back!” they said. Oddly I never heard any Sioux mention how they had taken their “ancestral” land from the Cheyenne in a war fought only a few years earlier in 1869.
    NOTE from a reader: Grew up in Arizona. The Navajo name for Apache translates into “head-breaker”.
    One of the things that were so valued by the Cherokee that they brought with them on the “Trail of Tears”; their slaves.

    1. JustPassingThrough says

      “SIBERIAN/MONGOLIAN immigrants ….. not “native” Americans.”

      what are you talking about?

      1. Zaphod Braden says

        You are so uneducated you never heard of the land bridge.

        1. JustPassingThrough says

          hey dummy. there were people in the americas before the land bridge.
          let’s see 36k posts over 3 yrs(generous est.)
          12k posts/yr
          1k posts/month
          30+ posts/day
          busy busy troll aren’t you.
          but still stupid.
          (where did you plagerize your post from this time? lmao)

  7. Timothy Guzman says

    Good. About time

  8. PioneerPreacher says

    Genocide of Native Americans is only the tip of the iceberg in America’s War crimes. America has violated every existing race of peoples on the Planet.

    1. Zaphod Braden says

      BOOHOO would you prefer to be the hammer or the nail?

      1. JustPassingThrough says

        hammer or the nail. my, my what a mental midget you are. a perfect example of the murikan mentality. lmao

      2. FilastinHuratan says

        What’s your problem with PP’s statement, M. Carpenter?

        1. Zaphod Braden says

          Che Guevara HATED negroes.

          1. JustPassingThrough says

            try and stay on topic.

          2. FilastinHuratan says

            I might be wrong, but last time I checked Che Guevara is not the topic here. And here’s me thinking you trying to be nice to everyone – how appearances can be deceptive.

        2. Zaphod Braden says

          It never occurs to people that their ancestors had good reason to do as they did …. and everyone else’s ancestors were NO BETTER.

          1. FilastinHuratan says

            Oh I see, you are trying to be nice to everyone. Fine.

          2. JustPassingThrough says

            “It never occurs to people that their ancestors had good reason
            oh really?
            now that’s a bit of ignorance if there ever was one.
            what a joke.

  9. Aurum Cimex says

    It’s about time that Washington was called out on it’s crimes.

    1. Zaphod Braden says

      In his epic work France and England in North America, the great American historian Francis Parkman describes the early 17th-century recreational and culinary habits of the Iroquois Indians (also known as the Five Nations, from whom, some will have it, the United States derived elements of its Constitution). He tells that the Iroquois, along with other tribes of northeastern United States and Canada, “were undergoing that process of extermination, absorption, or expatriation, which, as there is reason to believe, had for many generations formed the gloomy and meaningless history of the greater part of this continent.” Parkman describes an attack by the Iroquois on an Algonquin hunting party, late in the autumn of 1641, and the Iroquois’ treatment of their prisoners and victims:
      They bound the prisoners hand and foot, rekindled the fire, slung the kettles, cut the bodies of the slain to pieces, and boiled and devoured them before the eyes of the wretched survivors. “In a word,” says the narrator [that is, the Algonquin woman who escaped to tell the tale], “they ate men with as much appetite and more pleasure than hunters eat a boar or a stag …”
      The conquerors feasted in the lodge till nearly daybreak … then began their march homeward with their prisoners. Among these were three women, of whom the narrator was one, who had each a child of a few weeks or months old. At the first halt, their captors took the infants from them, tied them to wooden spits, placed them to die slowly before a fire, and feasted on them before the eyes of the agonized mothers, whose shrieks, supplications, and frantic efforts to break the cords that bound them were met with mockery and laughter …
      The Iroquois arrived at their village with their prisoners, whose torture was designed to cause all possible suffering without touching life. It consisted in blows with sticks and cudgels, gashing their limbs with knives, cutting off their fingers with clam-shells, scorching them with firebrands, and other indescribable torments. The women were stripped naked, and forced to dance to the singing of the male prisoners, amid the applause and laughter of the crowd …
      On the following morning, they were placed on a large scaffold, in sight of the whole population. It was a gala-day. Young and old were gathered from far and near. Some mounted the scaffold, and scorched them with torches and firebrands; while the children, standing beneath the bark platform, applied fire to the feet of the prisoners between the crevices … The stoicism of one of the warriors enraged his captors beyond measure … they fell upon him with redoubled fury, till their knives and firebrands left in him no semblance of humanity. He was defiant to the last, and when death came to his relief, they tore out his heart and devoured it; then hacked him in pieces, and made their feast of triumph on his mangled limbs.
      All the men and all the old women of the party were put to death in a similar manner, though but few displayed the same amazing fortitude. The younger women, of whom there were about thirty, after passing their ordeal of torture, were permitted to live; and, disfigured as they were, were distributed among the several villages, as concubines or slaves to the Iroquois warriors. Of this number were the narrator and her companion, who … escaped at night into the forest …
      Of the above account, Parkman writes: “Revolting as it is, it is necessary to recount it. Suffice it to say, that it is sustained by the whole body of contemporary evidence in regard to the practices of the Iroquois and some of the neighboring tribes.”
      The “large scaffold” on which the prisoners were placed, is elsewhere in his narrative referred to by Parkman as the Indians’ “torture-scaffolds of bark,” the Indian equivalent of the European theatrical stage, while the tortures performed by the Indians on their neighbors – and on the odd missionary who happened to fall their way – were the noble savages’ equivalent of the European stage play.

      1. Pablo Rivera says

        The colonizers needed to justify the premise that the natives were savages and had no soul, so since that era they could make fake news (aka wmd) to call for intervention

        1. Zaphod Braden says

          confirmed by archeologists:

          In his famous work, The Conquest of New Spain, Bernal Diaz del Castillo describes the march on Mexico with his captain, Hernan Cortés, in 1519. The Spanish forces set out from the Gulf of Mexico, and one of the first towns they visited was Cempoala, situated near the coast, where Cortés told the chiefs that “they would have to abandon their idols which they mistakenly believed in and worshipped, and sacrifice no more souls to them.” As Diaz relates:
          Every day they sacrificed before our eyes three, four, or five Indians, whose hearts were offered to those idols, and whose blood was plastered on the walls. The feet, arms, and legs of their victims were cut off and eaten, just as we eat beef from the butcher’s in our country. I even believe that they sold it in the tianguez or markets.
          Of their stay in Tenochtitlan, the present-day Mexico City and the heart of the Aztec empire, Diaz writes that Emperor Montezuma’s servants prepared for their master
          more than thirty dishes cooked in their native style … I have heard that they used to cook him the flesh of young boys. But as he had such a variety of dishes, made of so many different ingredients, we could not tell whether a dish was of human flesh or anything else … I know for certain, however, that after our Captain spoke against the sacrifice of human beings and the eating of their flesh, Montezuma ordered that it should no longer be served to him.
          In renouncing cannibalism, was Montezuma cooperating in the destruction of his Aztec “cultural roots,” or was he aiding a victory of civilized custom over barbaric?
          A few pages later, Diaz provides a detailed description of
          the manner of their [that is, the Aztecs’] sacrifices. They strike open the wretched Indian’s chest with flint knives and hastily tear out the palpitating heart which, with the blood, they present to the idols in whose name they have performed the sacrifice. Then they cut off the arms, thighs, and head, eating the arms and thighs at their ceremonial banquets. The head they hang up on a beam, and the body of the sacrificed man is not eaten but given to the beasts of prey.
          This contemporary Aztec drawing of a human sacrifice ritual shows a priest cutting out the heart of a victim. (From the “Codex Laud,” reproduced from the book, “The Gods and Symbols of Ancient Mexico and the Maya,” by M. Miller and K. Taube, p. 97.)
          Diaz also describes the great market of Tenochtitlan, and its
          dealers in gold, silver, and precious stones, feather, cloaks, and embroidered goods, and male and female slaves who are also sold there. They bring as many slaves to be sold in that market as the Portuguese bring Negroes from Guinea. Some are brought there attached to long poles by means of collars round their necks to prevent them from escaping, but others are left loose.
          Plainly it was the Spanish who stamped out human sacrifice and cannibalism among the people of pre-Cortesian Mexico. As for slavery, it is as obvious that the Europeans did not introduce it to the New World as it is that they eradicated it, albeit not immediately. Moreover, the moral impulse to end slavery came from the West, specifically out of England. Had the Aztecs, Indians, and Africans been left to their own devices, slavery might well have endured in North and South America, as it does in parts of present-day Africa.
          Following the ceremony in which humans are sacrificed to their gods, high-ranking Aztecs eat the flesh of the victims. (A contemporary Spanish illustration, from the “Codex Magliabechiano,” 72 verso, reproduced from the book “Aztecs: An Interpretation,” by Inga Clendinnen.)
          A contemporary Spanish witness commented: “This figure demonstrates the abominable thing that the Indians did on the day they sacrificed to their idols. After [the sacrifice] they placed many large earthen cooking jars of that human meat in front of the idol they called Mictlantecutli, which means lord of the place of the dead, as it is mentioned in other parts [of this book]. And they gave and distributed it to the nobles and overseers, and to those who served inthe temple ofthe demon, whom they called tlamacazqui [priests]. And these [persons] distributed among their friends and families that [flesh] and these [persons] which they had given [to the god as a human victim]. They say it tasted like pork meat tastes now. And for this reason pork is very desirable among them.”
          Human sacrifice, often accompanied by ceremonial cannibalism, was a feature of Aztec religious ritual. As this contemporary drawing shows, a priest wielding a stone dagger has just ripped out the heart of a victim, and is offering it to the Aztec sun god, Tonatiuh.

          1. Pablo Rivera says

            And your point was? It’s the same in all American continent.

      2. JustPassingThrough says

        you are a fraud.

        you plagerized an article.(http://www.ihr.org/jhr/v17/v17n3p-7_Beary.html

        no credit to the author. lol

        what a fool you are.)

      3. JustPassingThrough says

        the settlers stole the land, stole the resources, killed the local population and for all of that the native population was to roll over and play dead. much like the murikan neanderthals have continued doing throughout their history. tell me again how civilized you are. mass genocides of native americans, slavery in the north and south, mass extinction of wildlife. write pages of one-sided BS it doesn’t change the fact that the murikans genocided a nation.

      4. Ilya says

        Yeah yeah – more whataboutisms.. You Jewish perhaps? They practice this method quite consistently.

        Westerners were an invasion on the lands of the natives, how they acted in defensive war was questionable, even wrong, but hey – them’s the breaks if you poke a bee’s nest.

  10. Wooi-Meng Wong says

    People in glass houses shouldn’t throw stones.

  11. JustPassingThrough says


    1. Zaphod Braden says

      The English explorer Samuel Hearne was the first white man to reach the Coppermine River in 1770. He kept a remarkable journal of his travels accompanied by a wholely native entourage. With the exception of the European educated chief Matonabbee, these Indians could be remarkably barbaric. They fell upon an inuit village at night and slaughtered all the inhabitants for no reason other than the joy of killing. Hearne, who wanted no part of the barbarity tried to save one young female, but the savages mocked him by asking if he wanted her as his wife. Later in the journey, his native host robbed a wandering native band of everything they owned, leaving them destitute and probably starved. He wrote of the Indians desire for slaves, of which they promptly murdered whenever they desired. These and other horrors are intermixed with interesting notes of the general culture of these primitives. So it’s just as well these “maskots” are removed.
      the 1622 Massacre that wiped out Wolstenholme Towne in Virginia, killing 78 settlers. See First Look at a Lost Virginia Settlement by Ivor Noel Hume, National Geographic June 1979. [ PDF] See also Massacre Site Found in Virginia, By Wilson Morris, Washington Post, July 5, 1978 and The Skulls Tell the Tale, By Hank Burchard April 25, Washington Post, 1980 which calls it “Virginia’s worst mass murder.” Of course the Powhatans and English had been at peace since 1614 and the English had no control over the Indians so the Indians had nothing to “rise up” against!
      In the Minnesota Massacre of 1862, as pointed out by anthropologist John Greenway in the pre-purge National Review, “at least 800 whites were killed and 10,000 square miles of Minnesota cleared of settlers.”

      1. JustPassingThrough says

        your arguments fall into the categories of “cherry picking” and “stupid.” but then it’s the same arguments the knuckle draggers in w.dc use today to commit mass murder around the globe. in fact except for the names and the dates your litany sounds like what is happening on a daily basis in your civilized murikan society. give it a rest. no one is impressed.

        1. Zaphod Braden says

          Yes they ARE impressed. You are just a Maroon who does not like seeing the truth.

          1. JustPassingThrough says

            now we get to the name calling.
            what a fraud you are.

  12. Jozo Magoc says

    I enjoy Erdogan’s midfinger pointed at the great zionist USAtan!

Leave A Reply

Your email address will not be published.