The Holocaust vs Native American genocide

[manifold]

Comparing and contrasting the Jewish Holocaust of WWII and the systematic genocide of native Americans, which was worse?

Discuss

 

[AllieBaba]

I don't know the numbers. Probably comparable. Though the Indians did fight back. And to my knowledge, we no longer have millions of people still targeting them.

 

[manifold]

Why would anyone target them now that they've been effectively eradicated?

If one were to base their argument on outcome, then clearly the native American genocide was far worse. The Jews were liberated, given a home country and still wield considerable power on the world stage. Native Americans don't have to pay taxes on alcohol and tobacco.

 

[manu1959]

Why would anyone target them now that they've been effectively eradicated?

If one were to base their argument on outcome, then clearly the native American genocide was far worse. The Jews were liberated, given a home country and still wield considerable power on the world stage. Native Americans don't have to pay taxes on alcohol and tobacco.

in case you missed it they are a sovereign nation within the us.....they have subsidized gambling and resorts and are making millions selling the white man firewater while the gamble their life savings away......

oh the irony......

anyone want to discuss the genocide that the various tribes perpetrated on each other....

 

[xotoxi]

Comparing and contrasting the Jewish Holocaust of WWII and the systematic genocide of native Americans, which was worse?

Discuss

I agree.

 

[manifold]

Why would anyone target them now that they've been effectively eradicated?

If one were to base their argument on outcome, then clearly the native American genocide was far worse. The Jews were liberated, given a home country and still wield considerable power on the world stage. Native Americans don't have to pay taxes on alcohol and tobacco.

in case you missed it they are a sovereign nation within the us.....they have subsidized gambling and resorts and are making millions selling the white man firewater while the gamble their life savings away......

oh the irony......

anyone want to discuss the genocide that the various tribes perpetrated on each other....

Sovereign Nation!

I'd like to see them declare war or enter into a treaty with a foreign nation.

 

[Mister T]

Comparing and contrasting the Jewish Holocaust of WWII and the systematic genocide of native Americans, which was worse?

Discuss

To say either was worse would be to say the other wasn't so bad

 

[manifold]

Comparing and contrasting the Jewish Holocaust of WWII and the systematic genocide of native Americans, which was worse?

Discuss

To say either was worse would be to say the other wasn't so bad

 

[Mister T]

Comparing and contrasting the Jewish Holocaust of WWII and the systematic genocide of native Americans, which was worse?

Discuss

To say either was worse would be to say the other wasn't so bad

"Sure, wiping out group A was bad, but it's not so bad as wiping out group B"

 

[manifold]

To say either was worse would be to say the other wasn't so bad

"Sure, wiping out group A was bad, but it's not so bad as wiping out group B"

I wasn't aware that the Jews were wiped out in the holocaust.

Somebody better tell Steven Spielberg.

 

[AkronGuy]

Comparing and contrasting the Jewish Holocaust of WWII and the systematic genocide of native Americans, which was worse?

Discuss

I don't think you can compare the two. The two happened for totally different reasons. And in two different contexts

 

[AkronGuy]

I don't know the numbers. Probably comparable. Though the Indians did fight back. And to my knowledge, we no longer have millions of people still targeting them.

In my opinion, the Indians were no better than the Europeans. They enslaved, raped, and destroyed other tribes.

The only reason the Indians helped the English settlers was purely strategic and political, they offset the power of the dominant tribe of the region.

The oppressed tribes of Mexico supported the Conquistadores for the same reasons.

Indians weren't noble, they weren't holier than the Europeans, they did the exact samethings for the exact same reasons. Just that the Europeans were better at it, and they learned by having it done to them.

 

[Luissa]

I think what was done to them, was executed in a different way but each was terrible. Yes the Native Americans fought back, but they had every right to.

 

[AkronGuy]

Why would anyone target them now that they've been effectively eradicated?

If one were to base their argument on outcome, then clearly the native American genocide was far worse. The Jews were liberated, given a home country and still wield considerable power on the world stage. Native Americans don't have to pay taxes on alcohol and tobacco.

Actually, they're still being targeted across the Western Hemisphere. Especially the Amazonian tribes.

The Indians were at war, and they lost that war, and were treated accordlingly how defeated peoples were treated at that time. The biggest difference in my opinion is that Jews had political and economic leverage whereas the Indians had none.

The Jews weren't exactly given Israel, they had to fight for it.

 

[AkronGuy]

I think what was done to them, was executed in a different way but each was terrible. Yes the Native Americans fought back, but they had every right to.

They also did the same exact things that Europeans did as well. If they hadn't, the Europeans would've never had a chance. The dominant Indian tribes were no better. And it was no different than what the Turks, Russians, Franks, Romans and Mongols did to Europeans. In fact, Mongol genocide against Europeans led directly to the Age Of Discovery.

 

[Luissa]

I don't know the numbers. Probably comparable. Though the Indians did fight back. And to my knowledge, we no longer have millions of people still targeting them.

In my opinion, the Indians were no better than the Europeans. They enslaved, raped, and destroyed other tribes.

The only reason the Indians helped the English settlers was purely strategic and political, they offset the power of the dominant tribe of the region.

The oppressed tribes of Mexico supported the Conquistadores for the same reasons.

Indians weren't noble, they weren't holier than the Europeans, they did the exact samethings for the exact same reasons. Just that the Europeans were better at it, and they learned by having it done to them.

So you are saying it was alright for us to wipe out whole tribes, take their land, and use them for whatever we wanted? Of course they had wars between tribes, each was it's own "nation", and it was a different time. We also couldn't stop after we won the Revolution, we had to take their land out west. And lets not forget Wounded Knee.

 

[AkronGuy]

Why would anyone target them now that they've been effectively eradicated?

If one were to base their argument on outcome, then clearly the native American genocide was far worse. The Jews were liberated, given a home country and still wield considerable power on the world stage. Native Americans don't have to pay taxes on alcohol and tobacco.

in case you missed it they are a sovereign nation within the us.....they have subsidized gambling and resorts and are making millions selling the white man firewater while the gamble their life savings away......

oh the irony......

anyone want to discuss the genocide that the various tribes perpetrated on each other....

They're far from soveirgn nations, they're just semi autonomous regions.

But of course noone'll talk about the genocides the Indians commited, and how they were in no way better than the Europeans. What was done was the standard for millenia.

 

[AkronGuy]

I don't know the numbers. Probably comparable. Though the Indians did fight back. And to my knowledge, we no longer have millions of people still targeting them.

In my opinion, the Indians were no better than the Europeans. They enslaved, raped, and destroyed other tribes.

The only reason the Indians helped the English settlers was purely strategic and political, they offset the power of the dominant tribe of the region.

The oppressed tribes of Mexico supported the Conquistadores for the same reasons.

Indians weren't noble, they weren't holier than the Europeans, they did the exact samethings for the exact same reasons. Just that the Europeans were better at it, and they learned by having it done to them.

So you are saying it was alright for us to wipe out whole tribes, take their land, and use them for whatever we wanted? Of course they had wars between tribes, each was it's own "nation", and it was a different time. We also couldn't stop after we won the Revolution, we had to take their land out west. And lets not forget Wounded Knee.

Was it ok for the Indians to do it ? And it wasn't in no way different. Indians commited outright genocide quite often. And of course he had to expand west, it was a strategic , political and economic situation. And let's not forget the numerous slaughter of innocent settlers either. It's no better to slaughter a village or settlement of Whites than it is to slaughter a settlement of Indians.

Indians did the samething to other tribes. It was the norm the entire world over. At the sametime you had government schools in the US for Indians, you had the Turks doing the samething to Balkan Christians, Mongols doing it to Slavic boys and girls, Slavs doing it to Finnic peoples, Swedes doing it to Sammii, Han doing it to non Han Chinese.

 

[Luissa]

In my opinion, the Indians were no better than the Europeans. They enslaved, raped, and destroyed other tribes.

The only reason the Indians helped the English settlers was purely strategic and political, they offset the power of the dominant tribe of the region.

The oppressed tribes of Mexico supported the Conquistadores for the same reasons.

Indians weren't noble, they weren't holier than the Europeans, they did the exact samethings for the exact same reasons. Just that the Europeans were better at it, and they learned by having it done to them.

So you are saying it was alright for us to wipe out whole tribes, take their land, and use them for whatever we wanted? Of course they had wars between tribes, each was it's own "nation", and it was a different time. We also couldn't stop after we won the Revolution, we had to take their land out west. And lets not forget Wounded Knee.

Was it ok for the Indians to do it ? And it wasn't in no way different. Indians commited outright genocide quite often. And of course he had to expand west, it was a strategic , political and economic situation. And let's not forget the numerous slaughter of innocent settlers either. It's no better to slaughter a village or settlement of Whites than it is to slaughter a settlement of Indians.

Indians did the samething to other tribes. It was the norm the entire world over. At the sametime you had government schools in the US for Indians, you had the Turks doing the samething to Balkan Christians, Mongols doing it to Slavic boys and girls, Slavs doing it to Finnic peoples, Swedes doing it to Sammii, Han doing it to non Han Chinese.

So it was alright for the settlers to take their land, and I guess everything is alright because it was good for our nation to take their land. And there were a lot more Indians killed by Europeans, and American than settlers killed by Indian or soldiers for that matter.

 

[AkronGuy]

So you are saying it was alright for us to wipe out whole tribes, take their land, and use them for whatever we wanted? Of course they had wars between tribes, each was it's own "nation", and it was a different time. We also couldn't stop after we won the Revolution, we had to take their land out west. And lets not forget Wounded Knee.

Was it ok for the Indians to do it ? And it wasn't in no way different. Indians commited outright genocide quite often. And of course he had to expand west, it was a strategic , political and economic situation. And let's not forget the numerous slaughter of innocent settlers either. It's no better to slaughter a village or settlement of Whites than it is to slaughter a settlement of Indians.

Indians did the samething to other tribes. It was the norm the entire world over. At the sametime you had government schools in the US for Indians, you had the Turks doing the samething to Balkan Christians, Mongols doing it to Slavic boys and girls, Slavs doing it to Finnic peoples, Swedes doing it to Sammii, Han doing it to non Han Chinese.

So it was alright for the settlers to take their land, and I guess everything is alright because it was good for our nation to take their land. And there were a lot more Indians killed by Europeans, and American than settlers killed by Indian or soldiers for that matter.

It isn't alright, but that was life at that time. And we can't judge people from an entirely different culture, era and social norms than we have. I try to look at history before the modern era without our modern ideas. Because our ideas then, would be unworkable and impossible. Just as theirs is in the modern era. Tragically and thankfully, the Nazis put the last nail in that coffin for the time being.

People want to judge them from our modern comforts and our modern views. But that's missing an important and overlooked aspect, their hardships, and their societies at large.