God, US and reason

-->So much buzzing in my head so I'll put it down informally:

1) 
Lemkin stressed the urgency of adopting measures against genocide. He wrote.."we must see to it that the Hague Regulations are so amended as expressly to prohibit genocide in any war which may occur in the future. ..The definition of genocide in the Hague Regulations thus amended should consist of two essential parts, in the first should be included every action infringing upon the life, liberty, health, corporal, integrity, economic existence, and the honor of the inhabitants when committed because they belong to a national, religious, or racial group; and in the second, every policy aiming at the destruction or the aggrandizement of one of such groups to the prejudice or detriment of another."  

US dropped the atom bomb the following year. The many wars and occupations that have occurred since 1948 run into several pages. In my day to day life, I hear the term genocide  applied, either exclusively to the Holocaust, (there is a zeal in some people to make the term sacred and only refer to the Holocaust) or to mass or "ethnic" killings that occur someplace else - Africa, Asia. The nature of genocide is very often divorced from the politics of military invasions, engaged by the US, for example. Iraq, Afghanistan. If we read Lemkin's definition, then the economic machine and embargos are also a form of genocide. (I'm not putting it well but hope I am getting my thoughts across...)

2) One of the striking features of "A Brief Account" (I don't want to take away the importance of this "evidence") is the underlying concept of "Indians". The "indians" are cast, as a whole, as being docile, simple (minded), and accepting. There is an interplay of their capacity of being "improved" and their use of their land. They are also compared with each other - and the ones who show more ability in using their land are shown to have a capacity of "being instructed in the Knowledge of the true God." A Lockean vein runs through the text - the Indians are passionate (sometimes) but they're not often armed with reason. 

3) La Casas speaks for the Indians as being cast in God's image and therein lies responsibility, to some extent, to treat them as humans. He does not, however, ever question the very presence of invasion and occupation. He writes, "I must acquaint your Sacred Majesty, that the only way to succour and support this tottering Region is to free it from the Power of a Father in Law, and marry it to a Husband who will treat her as she ought to be, and lovingly entertain her,.." 

I'm writing without too much thinking so forgive my meandering mind. Looking forward to continuing our thoughts in class.