The Holocaust vs Native American genocide

[AkronGuy]

Frankly, I'd be astonished if the Nazis gained enough knowledge from performing medical experiments on jews to buy Rhode Island.

Buy my state?

And see, you would think that, but:

Methadone - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Methadone was developed in 1939 Germany by scientists working for I.G. Farbenkonzern at the Farbwerke Hoechst (it is synthesised from 1,1-diphenylbutane-2-sulfonic acid and dimethylamino-2-chloropropane) who were looking for an synthetic opioid that could be created with readily available precursors to solve Germany's opium shortage problem.[2]

Fact: Nazis used to give prisoners this stuff, then not give it to them so they could suffer through withdrawals.

I've read that Fanta started because of the war cutting off supplies to the Coca Cola bottling company in Germany and that they used local ingredients to continue production and renamed it Fanta because of political reasons.

 

[Modbert]

I'm not saying they deserved it, but they weren't any better. People want to portray Indians and innocent victims, but they weren't. They were just as brutal and oppressive and genocidal as the Europeans. .

And this is how you justify their genocide. Because some of them were as brutal and oppressive to other tribes?

 

[Modbert]

I've read that Fanta started because of the war cutting off supplies to the Coca Cola bottling company in Germany and that they used local ingredients to continue production and renamed it Fanta because of political reasons.

Fact: Fanta - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

So remember boys and girls, everytime you drink Fanta, you become more and more of a Nazi.

 

[Shogun]

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.

in other words, they deserved it. gotcha.

I'm not saying they deserved it, but they weren't any better. People want to portray Indians and innocent victims, but they weren't. They were just as brutal and oppressive and genocidal as the Europeans.

The Indians didn't help the English settlers out of altruistic reasons, they had political and strategic reasons. The Indian tribes that helped them were tributary tribes and were oppressed and had to pay tribute in crops, meat, women and other items of value. They saw the English settlers as a counterbalance to their overlords, and by helping them they were making an investment in their economic and political future. It was a strategy that backfired, but it wasn't a bad one on the surface, they just didn't realize until it was too late that they had made a mistake.

I don't really care if you have a hardon for native americans. But, to pretend that every single ******* injun was out to get the white man despite every example we have otherwise in order to mute the comparative holocausts is just asinine. Yes, many were savage cultures that warred with themselves and others. But, acting like they were all goblins ready to kill ****** as if THAT validates their genocide in relation to the jewish holocaust is just retarded. Strategy or not, ALTRUISM or not, multiple cultures of indigenous populations were eradicated from North America for no other reason than because they were in the way of manifest destiny. THEY didn't spread themselves like ethnic herpes among different cultures and retain a static group identity which was perceived to have undermined a European nation; in this case the aftermath of ww1 Germany. Instead, their crime was living on a homeland when euros wanted to act like a ******* scourge in a race to the pacific ocean. Sorry, I'm just not on board with your logic.

 

[Samson]

more a case of we refused to gain anything...the nazi medical experiments were horrible...but they did gain knowing....which we being so civilized refused to use.

Frankly, I'd be astonished if the Nazis gained enough knowledge from performing medical experiments on jews to buy Rhode Island.

you might want to go ahead and sit down then. Almost everything we know about hypothermia is the direct result of nazi experimentation.

You mean if I get cold I might freeze to death?

Sorry, but this news-flash isn't worth trading Rhode Island.

 

[Modbert]

If we are to recall for a moment, one of the biggest reasons the Americans want independence from the British was so they could go West and expand. Before that, the British were preventing them to do so because of their treaties with the Indians.

Goodness knows how much Benjamin Franklin and George Washington made along with John Hancock.

 

[Shogun]

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.

maybe you should open your standup comedy routine with a Canaan joke before piling on about who died from the hands of Native Americans.

Yes because we all know there were no wars, no suffering, no oppression, no genocides or ethnic cleansing and life was perfect before the Europeans came to America !

But seriously, Indian societies were no less brutal than any other society on the planet at that time. Indians are human beings like anyone else and were no more noble than anyone else.

oh so.. when I give yo ua specific example of jewish tribes doing exactly what you lay at the feet of Native Americans all off a sudden the standard changes, eh?


go figure.





Go read the ******* Old Testament sometime and then come back and tell me about how brutal natives were.

 

[AkronGuy]

in other words, they deserved it. gotcha.

I'm not saying they deserved it, but they weren't any better. People want to portray Indians and innocent victims, but they weren't. They were just as brutal and oppressive and genocidal as the Europeans.

The Indians didn't help the English settlers out of altruistic reasons, they had political and strategic reasons. The Indian tribes that helped them were tributary tribes and were oppressed and had to pay tribute in crops, meat, women and other items of value. They saw the English settlers as a counterbalance to their overlords, and by helping them they were making an investment in their economic and political future. It was a strategy that backfired, but it wasn't a bad one on the surface, they just didn't realize until it was too late that they had made a mistake.

I don't really care if you have a hardon for native americans. But, to pretend that every single ******* injun was out to get the white man despite every example we have otherwise in order to mute the comparative holocausts is just asinine. Yes, many were savage cultures that warred with themselves and others. But, acting like they were all goblins ready to kill ****** as if THAT validates their genocide in relation to the jewish holocaust is just retarded. Strategy or not, ALTRUISM or not, multiple cultures of indigenous populations were eradicated from North America for no other reason than because they were in the way of manifest destiny. THEY didn't spread themselves like ethnic herpes among different cultures and retain a static group identity which was perceived to have undermined a European nation; in this case the aftermath of ww1 Germany. Instead, their crime was living on a homeland when euros wanted to act like a ******* scourge in a race to the pacific ocean. Sorry, I'm just not on board with your logic.

My logic is that people want to portray the Indians as noble innocent people who did no wrong. They weren't, they were people. They did bad things, did good things. And no not all wanted to do bad things to Europeans, but many did, and many wanted to ally with the Europeans and just live life.

Uh they ddi spread themselves around like ethnic herpes, they destroyed other tribes, enslaved other tribes, ethnically cleansed other tribes. Those who could, did. Those who couldn't , didn't and were either oppressed or wiped out or driven off. As it was the world over. And also, if the English didn't expand into America, the same that happened to the Indians, would've happened to them. What happened to the Aztecs and Incans, happened to the Spanish at the hands of the Romans.

Nothing new.

 

[AkronGuy]

If we are to recall for a moment, one of the biggest reasons the Americans want independence from the British was so they could go West and expand. Before that, the British were preventing them to do so because of their treaties with the Indians.

Goodness knows how much Benjamin Franklin and George Washington made along with John Hancock.

Pretty much, but I forget who among the Founding Fathers wanted independance because they were Scottish and were forced to come here for political and economic reasons and simply utterly resented being part of the British Empire. Plus a lot of merchants and plantation owners wanted to be independant so they could access other markets that were more profitable.

But man Benjamin Franklin was a pussyhound. lol I love how they don't teach that and many folks don't know that he was a superstar in his day and got more trim than you could shake a stick at.

 

[AkronGuy]

maybe you should open your standup comedy routine with a Canaan joke before piling on about who died from the hands of Native Americans.

Yes because we all know there were no wars, no suffering, no oppression, no genocides or ethnic cleansing and life was perfect before the Europeans came to America !

But seriously, Indian societies were no less brutal than any other society on the planet at that time. Indians are human beings like anyone else and were no more noble than anyone else.

oh so.. when I give yo ua specific example of jewish tribes doing exactly what you lay at the feet of Native Americans all off a sudden the standard changes, eh?


go figure.





Go read the ******* Old Testament sometime and then come back and tell me about how brutal natives were.

Well considering that the last Jewish genocide was millenia before the last Indian genocide, I'd say it's a lot more relevant.

 

[Modbert]

But man Benjamin Franklin was a pussyhound. lol I love how they don't teach that and many folks don't know that he was a superstar in his day and got more trim than you could shake a stick at.

It's like I said on here before, Benjamin Franklin got all the French Shorties.

 

[Shogun]

I'm not saying they deserved it, but they weren't any better. People want to portray Indians and innocent victims, but they weren't. They were just as brutal and oppressive and genocidal as the Europeans.

The Indians didn't help the English settlers out of altruistic reasons, they had political and strategic reasons. The Indian tribes that helped them were tributary tribes and were oppressed and had to pay tribute in crops, meat, women and other items of value. They saw the English settlers as a counterbalance to their overlords, and by helping them they were making an investment in their economic and political future. It was a strategy that backfired, but it wasn't a bad one on the surface, they just didn't realize until it was too late that they had made a mistake.

I don't really care if you have a hardon for native americans. But, to pretend that every single ******* injun was out to get the white man despite every example we have otherwise in order to mute the comparative holocausts is just asinine. Yes, many were savage cultures that warred with themselves and others. But, acting like they were all goblins ready to kill ****** as if THAT validates their genocide in relation to the jewish holocaust is just retarded. Strategy or not, ALTRUISM or not, multiple cultures of indigenous populations were eradicated from North America for no other reason than because they were in the way of manifest destiny. THEY didn't spread themselves like ethnic herpes among different cultures and retain a static group identity which was perceived to have undermined a European nation; in this case the aftermath of ww1 Germany. Instead, their crime was living on a homeland when euros wanted to act like a ******* scourge in a race to the pacific ocean. Sorry, I'm just not on board with your logic.

My logic is that people want to portray the Indians as noble innocent people who did no wrong. They weren't, they were people. They did bad things, did good things. And no not all wanted to do bad things to Europeans, but many did, and many wanted to ally with the Europeans and just live life.

Uh they ddi spread themselves around like ethnic herpes, they destroyed other tribes, enslaved other tribes, ethnically cleansed other tribes. Those who could, did. Those who couldn't , didn't and were either oppressed or wiped out or driven off. As it was the world over. And also, if the English didn't expand into America, the same that happened to the Indians, would've happened to them. What happened to the Aztecs and Incans, happened to the Spanish at the hands of the Romans.

Nothing new.

and so too were the jews "just people" who have a tendency to act in accordance with their own benefit despite the culture they thrive in. But, shockingly, that doesn't seen to phase you when painting a gritty picture of native americans as if their proverbial rape is acceptable given what they wore and where they chose to walk at night.

and no, they didn't spread themselves around like ethnic herpes or there would have been no distinct segregation among various tribal regions. How many motherfucking natives do you recall in europe prior to the 1400s? But hey, I LOVE watching you rationalize some Cortez. Seriously.

 

[Shogun]

Yes because we all know there were no wars, no suffering, no oppression, no genocides or ethnic cleansing and life was perfect before the Europeans came to America !

But seriously, Indian societies were no less brutal than any other society on the planet at that time. Indians are human beings like anyone else and were no more noble than anyone else.

oh so.. when I give yo ua specific example of jewish tribes doing exactly what you lay at the feet of Native Americans all off a sudden the standard changes, eh?


go figure.





Go read the ******* Old Testament sometime and then come back and tell me about how brutal natives were.

Well considering that the last Jewish genocide was millenia before the last Indian genocide, I'd say it's a lot more relevant.

of COURSE you would say that.




lord ******* 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..

 

[AkronGuy]

I don't really care if you have a hardon for native americans. But, to pretend that every single ******* injun was out to get the white man despite every example we have otherwise in order to mute the comparative holocausts is just asinine. Yes, many were savage cultures that warred with themselves and others. But, acting like they were all goblins ready to kill ****** as if THAT validates their genocide in relation to the jewish holocaust is just retarded. Strategy or not, ALTRUISM or not, multiple cultures of indigenous populations were eradicated from North America for no other reason than because they were in the way of manifest destiny. THEY didn't spread themselves like ethnic herpes among different cultures and retain a static group identity which was perceived to have undermined a European nation; in this case the aftermath of ww1 Germany. Instead, their crime was living on a homeland when euros wanted to act like a ******* scourge in a race to the pacific ocean. Sorry, I'm just not on board with your logic.

My logic is that people want to portray the Indians as noble innocent people who did no wrong. They weren't, they were people. They did bad things, did good things. And no not all wanted to do bad things to Europeans, but many did, and many wanted to ally with the Europeans and just live life.

Uh they ddi spread themselves around like ethnic herpes, they destroyed other tribes, enslaved other tribes, ethnically cleansed other tribes. Those who could, did. Those who couldn't , didn't and were either oppressed or wiped out or driven off. As it was the world over. And also, if the English didn't expand into America, the same that happened to the Indians, would've happened to them. What happened to the Aztecs and Incans, happened to the Spanish at the hands of the Romans.

Nothing new.

and so too were the jews "just people" who have a tendency to act in accordance with their own benefit despite the culture they thrive in. But, shockingly, that doesn't seen to phase you when painting a gritty picture of native americans as if their proverbial rape is acceptable given what they wore and where they chose to walk at night.

and no, they didn't spread themselves around like ethnic herpes or there would have been no distinct segregation among various tribal regions. How many motherfucking natives do you recall in europe prior to the 1400s? But hey, I LOVE watching you rationalize some Cortez. Seriously.

ROFL They didn't migrate ? They didn't wipe out tribes who were weaker and controled land and resources they coveted ? They didni't subjugate and enslave weaker tribes ? They didn't move around the Western Hemisphere ? God you are naive.

How many Europeans were in America before the 1400s ? But hey, I LOVE watching people like you rationalize how evil the Europeans were and how saintly the Indians were. All the while they were slaughtering each other and sacrificing each other and displacing each other. Like which was happening in Europe and had happened in the past in Europe.

The Jews did in Canan what the Europeans did in the Americas. What has happened all through human history.

 

[AkronGuy]

oh so.. when I give yo ua specific example of jewish tribes doing exactly what you lay at the feet of Native Americans all off a sudden the standard changes, eh?


go figure.





Go read the ******* Old Testament sometime and then come back and tell me about how brutal natives were.

Well considering that the last Jewish genocide was millenia before the last Indian genocide, I'd say it's a lot more relevant.

of COURSE you would say that.




lord ******* 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..

lol The Spaniards were saints compared to the Aztecs.

Now the Taino, the Spaniards acted like the Aztecs.

 

[Shogun]

My logic is that people want to portray the Indians as noble innocent people who did no wrong. They weren't, they were people. They did bad things, did good things. And no not all wanted to do bad things to Europeans, but many did, and many wanted to ally with the Europeans and just live life.

Uh they ddi spread themselves around like ethnic herpes, they destroyed other tribes, enslaved other tribes, ethnically cleansed other tribes. Those who could, did. Those who couldn't , didn't and were either oppressed or wiped out or driven off. As it was the world over. And also, if the English didn't expand into America, the same that happened to the Indians, would've happened to them. What happened to the Aztecs and Incans, happened to the Spanish at the hands of the Romans.

Nothing new.

and so too were the jews "just people" who have a tendency to act in accordance with their own benefit despite the culture they thrive in. But, shockingly, that doesn't seen to phase you when painting a gritty picture of native americans as if their proverbial rape is acceptable given what they wore and where they chose to walk at night.

and no, they didn't spread themselves around like ethnic herpes or there would have been no distinct segregation among various tribal regions. How many motherfucking natives do you recall in europe prior to the 1400s? But hey, I LOVE watching you rationalize some Cortez. Seriously.

ROFL They didn't migrate ? They didn't wipe out tribes who were weaker and controled land and resources they coveted ? They didni't subjugate and enslave weaker tribes ? They didn't move around the Western Hemisphere ? God you are naive.

How many Europeans were in America before the 1400s ? But hey, I LOVE watching people like you rationalize how evil the Europeans were and how saintly the Indians were. All the while they were slaughtering each other and sacrificing each other and displacing each other. Like which was happening in Europe and had happened in the past in Europe.

The Jews did in Canan what the Europeans did in the Americas. What has happened all through human history.

so.. are you suggesting that "migration" applies even though, by definition, their activity was limited to NORTH AMERICA? wow. Hey, stick to those Cortez excuses. Smallpox for gold is a BARGAIN!




Ironically, you rationalize no only Euro genocide over those big bad, ebil injuns but *SHOCKER* all of a sudden genocide is "just something we've always done" when I point out Canaan and how this dumps elephant sized holes on your silly ******* logic. ooooook. Again. Stick with telling us about how necessary it was for Cortez just to defend himself while he was around pilfering some ******* precious metals.

wow.

 

[Shogun]

Well considering that the last Jewish genocide was millenia before the last Indian genocide, I'd say it's a lot more relevant.

of COURSE you would say that.




lord ******* 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..

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

 

[jillian]

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

Discuss

does it really matter which was worse?

both were horrible and destructive to the people they victimized.

 

[Modbert]

Figures the Armenian Genocide hasn't been mentioned.

 

[AkronGuy]

and so too were the jews "just people" who have a tendency to act in accordance with their own benefit despite the culture they thrive in. But, shockingly, that doesn't seen to phase you when painting a gritty picture of native americans as if their proverbial rape is acceptable given what they wore and where they chose to walk at night.

and no, they didn't spread themselves around like ethnic herpes or there would have been no distinct segregation among various tribal regions. How many motherfucking natives do you recall in europe prior to the 1400s? But hey, I LOVE watching you rationalize some Cortez. Seriously.

ROFL They didn't migrate ? They didn't wipe out tribes who were weaker and controled land and resources they coveted ? They didni't subjugate and enslave weaker tribes ? They didn't move around the Western Hemisphere ? God you are naive.

How many Europeans were in America before the 1400s ? But hey, I LOVE watching people like you rationalize how evil the Europeans were and how saintly the Indians were. All the while they were slaughtering each other and sacrificing each other and displacing each other. Like which was happening in Europe and had happened in the past in Europe.

The Jews did in Canan what the Europeans did in the Americas. What has happened all through human history.

so.. are you suggesting that "migration" applies even though, by definition, their activity was limited to NORTH AMERICA? wow. Hey, stick to those Cortez excuses. Smallpox for gold is a BARGAIN!




Ironically, you rationalize no only Euro genocide over those big bad, ebil injuns but *SHOCKER* all of a sudden genocide is "just something we've always done" when I point out Canaan and how this dumps elephant sized holes on your silly ******* logic. ooooook. Again. Stick with telling us about how necessary it was for Cortez just to defend himself while he was around pilfering some ******* precious metals.

wow.

lol You're just mad that I'm not worshipping Indians, sorry, they're human just like the Europeans they were at war with. The Israelites were doing the samething the Europeans were doing in America, the samethings that Indians were doing to other tribes. That's how humanity is. lol Cortez wasn't defending himself, he was on a war of expansion, jesus your reading comphrension is lo.