The Holocaust vs Native American genocide

of COURSE you would say that.


:rolleyes:

lord fucking knows that a pattern set in stone 6k years ago, which we can literally see in action this very day, sure isn't telling when you keep insisting that it was "Either Cortez of them!"...


sheesh..


:thup:

lol The Spaniards were saints compared to the Aztecs.

Now the Taino, the Spaniards acted like the Aztecs.



hello! Ethnocentrism here. Will you accept the charges?


yea, i'd call the fucking "slave trade market" spaniards trading human lives for SALT AND PEPPER a bunch of fucking saints too. You know, can't let those savages think that killing them off for gold is a BAD thing.


:rofl:

:lol:


:cuckoo:

The Aztecs were beyond brutal, they made the Spaniards look like saints.

Uh, the "slave trade market" has existed long before the Spainards existed. and it was something EVERYONE was doing, doesn't mean it's moral, just means that's how it was.
 
What I learned from this thread:

we can't judge people from an entirely different culture, era and social norms than we have...unless of course they are Native Americans.

:lol:
 
Well, people act like Europeans were utter evil and the Indians were saints and spent their days hunting and doing dances. Which was far from the truth. I'm not saying the Indians were savages, or the Europeans were saints. I'm just saying that what both sides did is people did then and still do now.
 
Comparing and contrasting the Jewish Holocaust of WWII and the systematic genocide of native Americans, which was worse?

Discuss

No comparison. Jews in Germany were not hostile to the dominant culture around them and were assimiliated into it. Germany was not a new land in need of settlement.

There was no "systematic genocide" of the American Indian. They just lost the war. The settling of the American West is an enormously complicated topic. It's way too easy to throw words like genocide around, and inaccurate.
 
No one believes that and no one is taught that.

Right wing talking points are usually based on lies.

rofl You're now calling me a rightwinger ?



That's all you really have ? I'm a right of center conservative. Nice try though you idiotic moonbat. I'm a pragmaticist. It's called reality. Welcome to it. This fail is for you.
 
Comparing and contrasting the Jewish Holocaust of WWII and the systematic genocide of native Americans, which was worse?

Discuss

No comparison. Jews in Germany were not hostile to the dominant culture around them and were assimiliated into it. Germany was not a new land in need of settlement.

There was no "systematic genocide" of the American Indian. They just lost the war. The settling of the American West is an enormously complicated topic. It's way too easy to throw words like genocide around, and inaccurate.

Exactly, but you have people like Ravi who believe that what was the normal conduct during war meant that the Europeans were evil and that the Indians were noble saintly peoples. They weren't and they can't handle it being told to them. lol Which to them makes me an evil rightwinger when I simply point out the truth that the Indians were no better than the Europeans. They were both just products of their times, like we all are.
 
Were American Indians the Victims of Genocide?
Were American Indians the Victims of Genocide?

Finally, even if some episodes can be considered genocidal—that is, tending toward genocide—they certainly do not justify condemning an entire society. Guilt is personal, and for good reason the Genocide Convention provides that only "persons" can be charged with the crime, probably even ruling out legal proceedings against governments. No less significant is that a massacre like Sand Creek was undertaken by a local volunteer militia and was not the expression of official U.S. policy. No regular U.S. Army unit was ever implicated in a similar atrocity. In the majority of actions, concludes Robert Utley, "the Army shot noncombatants incidentally and accidentally, not purposefully." As for the larger society, even if some elements in the white population, mainly in the West, at times advocated extermination, no official of the U.S. government ever seriously proposed it. Genocide was never American policy, nor was it the result of policy.

The violent collision between whites and America's native population was probably unavoidable. Between 1600 and 1850, a dramatic surge in population led to massive waves of emigration from Europe, and many of the millions who arrived in the New World gradually pushed westward into America's seemingly unlimited space. No doubt, the 19th-century idea of America’s "manifest destiny" was in part a rationalization for acquisitiveness, but the resulting dispossession of the Indians was as unstoppable as other great population movements of the past. The U.S. government could not have prevented the westward movement even if it had wanted to.

In the end, the sad fate of America's Indians represents not a crime but a tragedy, involving an irreconcilable collision of cultures and values. Despite the efforts of well-meaning people in both camps, there existed no good solution to this clash. The Indians were not prepared to give up the nomadic life of the hunter for the sedentary life of the farmer. The new Americans, convinced of their cultural and racial superiority, were unwilling to grant the original inhabitants of the continent the vast preserve of land required by the Indians’ way of life. The consequence was a conflict in which there were few heroes, but which was far from a simple tale of hapless victims and merciless aggressors. To fling the charge of genocide at an entire society serves neither the interests of the Indians nor those of history.
 
And of course those same people who talk about how saintly the Indians were and how evil the Europeans were, will utterly overlook the genocide against Europans by Asians. Or how Asians took more white slaves than were taken in the African slave trade, or how they killed more Europeans through slaughter and biological warfare than were killed by Europeans in the Americas. But of course, white genocides, white suffering is ok, it's fine by those people.
 
Comparing and contrasting the Jewish Holocaust of WWII and the systematic genocide of native Americans, which was worse?

Discuss

No comparison. Jews in Germany were not hostile to the dominant culture around them and were assimiliated into it. Germany was not a new land in need of settlement.

There was no "systematic genocide" of the American Indian. They just lost the war. The settling of the American West is an enormously complicated topic. It's way too easy to throw words like genocide around, and inaccurate.

clearly, you are familiar with the aftermath of WW1 given the turd polishing you give the jewish population in germany and the laughable standard which you seem to have regarding the application of the word genocide. So, apparently, a perceived foreign population assumed to be a threat which caused millions of deaths counts.... but, the systematic slaughtering of natives in the name of western expansion doesn't.


amazing. truly.

:cuckoo:
 
And of course those same people who talk about how saintly the Indians were and how evil the Europeans were, will utterly overlook the genocide against Europans by Asians. Or how Asians took more white slaves than were taken in the African slave trade, or how they killed more Europeans through slaughter and biological warfare than were killed by Europeans in the Americas. But of course, white genocides, white suffering is ok, it's fine by those people.

kinda like how you gloss over the genocide against Canaan with laughable "but we can't compare..." arguments that you don't hesitate to apply to those ebil injuns?

:cuckoo:

give me a fucking break. You might as well have just said that banana and sugar growing islands deserve being subjugated by Europe because they reacted to being treated like slaves just so someone in England can have sugar in their tea. The standards you people have are just asinine.

seriously. Thank god no german could read about what happened to Jericho, eh? Oh wait..
 
So who do I have to thank for resurrecting this thread and snatching success from the jaws of failure? :lol:
 
george-orwell-albums-food-and-nourishment-picture1253-food-and-nourishment-at-auschwitz.jpg
BIBLE GENOCIDE AND ETHNIC CLEANSING It seems all depend on which side of the fence you stand on. The Jewish God Jehovah commanded Jews to kill all males, females, and animals, and burn down the trees and houses. All virgins were to be spared and then gang raped. We are told that after they done so it was good in Jehovah's sight.
Calvin said that this was good. They were all predestinated to be tortured, raped, killed, burned, or cut up into pieces. He even stated this will help them to avoid being burned in Hell for eternity. In that sense it was good. For who wants to be everlastingly tortured and burned in Hell? Then being tortured, burned, raped, and killed, was certainly to be viewed as a positive and charitable act from Jehovah.
The largest building inside Auschwitz Camp was its huge kitchen. Jews will tell you this is bad as do some Internet boards who will censor such a building from sight. What sort of kitchen did the settlers provide for the Indians?
Inside the Auschwitz Camp the inmates were treated with the best of food, and ice cream was even served at Hitler's birthday to the inmates. Maybe the Kapos and the Jewish Sonderkommando, those involved with the killing, got most of it, seeing how things moved to this day.
Then the Jews played soccer against the German SS and won. What sort of plays were done with the Indians?
The Jews played water polo inside the Auschwitz big Swimming Pool. What sort of swimming pool did the conquerers provide for their captive Indians?
The Jews had their own Brothel at Auschwitz which they used.
And so much more.......
But all this is bad today, showing that not only is there a problem of what is bad and good, but also the time you live in. Today Shoah business is big business and you must say all the above provisions were bad. If you don't you either get censored or will have to look for another job. So, was it good or bad to write this?
 
Good grief, are you for real?

Kindly prove some first hand accounts of the gourmet meals served at Auschwitz, and prove that the bible stated that all enemies were to be killed and/or gangraped.

In specific wars, God advised the Jews to wipe out the entire population of the enemy, and thanks to the the Jewish penchant for refusing to obey to obey we now get to deal with Muslim Jihadists. But it was certainly not the "rule of thumb".
 

New Topics

Forum List

Back
Top