Gunny
Gold Member
History is written by the victors.
And revised later by the clueless.
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
History is written by the victors.
The claims of the body count are well, quite off.
Apart from that:
1. Russia did not loose.
And, more importantly, the Red won their revolutionary war, inspite of everyone and his mother intervening on behalf of the whites (Royalists). The whites werent any nicer than the reds anyway.
Sadly, on this world, the winner can get away with nearly everything, provided he wins.
Do you wonder why noone cares a lot about the American genocide on the native Indians either?
The Greek genocide on the persians?
The Mongolian Genocide on well, just about anybody?
The Russian/Muscovitan Genocide on the Crimea Tatars?
The Frankish genocide on the Saxons? Heck, Charlemange is usually considered a hero.
That "American genocide on indians" is pure BS.
Wrong.
Native Americans are still here.
True...some of them. Other tribes were completely eradicated
White European settlers just wanted them out of the way.
What a pleasant way of saying they wanted to steal their land and killed them to do so.
There was no war nor wars to exterminate them.
Completely wrong.
You'd have to go way out of your way not reading any REAL American history to arrive at that insane conclusion.
There were wars to subjugate and dispossess them.
Yes, there were those, too. They often lead to the inevitable genocide that was obviously going to happen to them, too.
It's just another retelling of the history of mankind's migration to cover the globe. In context with the day and time that it happened, it was the way the strong dealt with the weak.
Yes, that's true.
Wars over land and genocides that follow are quite common in the human experience.
We were in fact not as bad as some nations/races/societies that in fact DID wage wars of genocide.
We were in fact very bad, Gunny. We were worse, for example than Gheghis Khan because Gheghis's empire actually TRIED to keep as many people alive as possible precisely because his was a war of conquest where the PEOPLE were PART of the booty.
Like the one that's been given lip service for the past few years in Sudan. Or Rwanda. Those are recent events happening under today's standard. Judging people in the past by today's standard merely presents a dishonest account of history.
I don't get the reference but as to the European genocide of the Amerinidian people?
It was often contrived specifically to wipe out entire tribes.
Not all the time, not in every case, but in more cases than NOT, the point was to remove the people from their land and let them starve or die of disease.
And of course in some cases, like infecting blanlets with small pox, the point of that exercise was precisely GENOCIDE.
, for example than Gheghis Khan because Gheghis's empire actually TRIED to keep as many people alive as possible precisely because his was a war of conquest where the PEOPLE were PART of the booty.
It's very simple to answer.
One ethnic/political/religious group in America controls the media.
So their preceived genocide/holocaust takes center stage in our society.
*yawn*
It's very simple to answer.
One ethnic/political/religious group in America controls the media.
So their preceived genocide/holocaust takes center stage in our society.
*yawn*
I really wish you would stop using Ike as an avatar. You are defaming one of the greatest men in U S history.
The claims of the body count are well, quite off.
Apart from that:
1. Russia did not loose.
And, more importantly, the Red won their revolutionary war, inspite of everyone and his mother intervening on behalf of the whites (Royalists). The whites werent any nicer than the reds anyway.
Sadly, on this world, the winner can get away with nearly everything, provided he wins.
Do you wonder why noone cares a lot about the American genocide on the native Indians either?
The Greek genocide on the persians?
The Mongolian Genocide on well, just about anybody?
The Russian/Muscovitan Genocide on the Crimea Tatars?
The Frankish genocide on the Saxons? Heck, Charlemange is usually considered a hero.
That "American genocide on indians" is pure BS.
Wrong.
True...some of them. Other tribes were completely eradicated
What a pleasant way of saying they wanted to steal their land and killed them to do so.
Completely wrong.
You'd have to go way out of your way not reading any REAL American history to arrive at that insane conclusion.
Yes, there were those, too. They often lead to the inevitable genocide that was obviously going to happen to them, too.
Yes, that's true.
Wars over land and genocides that follow are quite common in the human experience.
We were in fact very bad, Gunny. We were worse, for example than Gheghis Khan because Gheghis's empire actually TRIED to keep as many people alive as possible precisely because his was a war of conquest where the PEOPLE were PART of the booty.
Like the one that's been given lip service for the past few years in Sudan. Or Rwanda. Those are recent events happening under today's standard. Judging people in the past by today's standard merely presents a dishonest account of history.
I don't get the reference but as to the European genocide of the Amerinidian people?
It was often contrived specifically to wipe out entire tribes.
Not all the time, not in every case, but in more cases than NOT, the point was to remove the people from their land and let them starve or die of disease.
And of course in some cases, like infecting blanlets with small pox, the point of that exercise was precisely GENOCIDE.
Feeling contrarian today, are we? Your wordsmithing aside, thanks for saying you disagree then saying pretty-much the same things I stated.
Blankets were not purposefully infected with smallpox. Genocide requires a willful act. Ignorance and stupidity are not willful acts. Just like some of the people around here, it can't be helped sometimes.
The US as a nation, and its citizens as a people did NOT contrive to wipe out tribes of indians. That's pure revisionism and BS. Some INDIVIDUALS may have, but that is NOT the same thing.
The US as a nation, and its citizens as a people DID contrive to take what they wanted and felt was rightfully theirs regardless who it dispossessed and/or what happened to them when they were dispossessed. Callous? Yeah. Thoughtless? Yeah. Apathetic? yeah. Genocide? Not.
And again, you are attempting to judge what people did then by today's standard. An American male from the 1800s would look at you and/or any other bleeding heart in disgust, as if you were from Mars. They lived in a different time under a different set of rules and beliefs.
And let's not forget the poor, downtrodden red man. There was NOTHING downtrodden about a war party of Coman-tse outside your lone farmhouse astride their ponies in full battle regalia. Quite the opposite. Indians lived to make war. A young male was nobody until he had bested worthy adversaries in battle. They considered us the weak ones and looked on us with contempt. We hanged horse thieves. A horse thief to an indian meant a he was good provider. We considered attack from ambush cowardly. Indians thought it was just common sense to kill an enemy by the most efficient means while not exposing oneself.
It was a clash of cultures, as I said, and the strongest culture won. Not because we were better individual warriors but because the indians could not compete with our numbers.
It played out no different here than anywhere else in the world. Easy to sit and judge hiding behind the protections of an society those who came before us who lived in a world where only the strong survived.
Do make note that none of the above states that I believe by today's standards the indian was treated justly by the US government or its people. I'm just not going to condemn them for playing by the rules of the day.
In the Russian Revolution, 40million people (or 100million, depending on the source you believe) were slaughtered. Why does the media and government place more importance on the deaths of millions of one particular people from WWII?
If we're going to make comparisons, many times as many Christians were killed in the communist uprising, for example. So why does no one care?
Who's building monuments to their memory?
Who's paying reparations to their families?
That's been a question in my mind since I learned about it in History class.
In the Russian Revolution, 40million people (or 100million, depending on the source you believe) were slaughtered. Why does the media and government place more importance on the deaths of millions of one particular people from WWII?
If we're going to make comparisons, many times as many Christians were killed in the communist uprising, for example. So why does no one care?
Who's building monuments to their memory?
Who's paying reparations to their families?
That's been a question in my mind since I learned about it in History class.
I'd like to see a link, from a credible and authoritative source that shows Stalin executed 100 million people.
Stalin was bad enough, without having to make up lies to buttress a rightwing talking point.
I seriously doubt 100 million people died in the gulags or in the purges.
I DO believe that 100 million people died violent or horrible deaths under stalin, if you include the casualities incurred by WW2, and starvation from the collectivist agricultural disaster.
As for your question more broadly, I don't think people call it a holocaust, becase I don't think it meets the definition of a holocaust, which has a very specific definition.