The Holocaust vs Native American genocide

[AkronGuy]

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?



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..

Nice putting words into my mouth. But did I say that ?

 

[Finn]

I apologize for the delayed response to this thread and reviving it but I was sincerely disgusted by the sheer ignorance expressed by both "sides".

For one the Jewish holocaust and American Indian genocides were two completely issues and additionally mind the fact that there MULTIPLE genocides of the American Indians. The Mi'kmaq's for example suffered similar trepidations the Jewish did in the 1930s but it was a largely quieted operation in Canada. And yes -- that includes burning children alive.

In regards to the Indians losing in the wars because they were inferior fighters again is negligent. The British French and so forth consistently had trouble from both sides in the several wars / conflicts that place. The Mohawks and other members of the Iroquois Federation ( Seneca and so forth ) were detrimental enemies to the French and the Mi'kmaw, Acadians and Beothulk were problems to the British for example. The reason they died is because they introduced small pox strains to the tribes.

Factually the Indians were extremely polite and actively traded with the Europeans prior to Americas conquest. When the battles started and the armies realized they couldn't beat the Indians they resulted to an early form of biological warfare in the north. The south was both accidentally bringing disease and using it their advantage. In all irony had the M'ikmaq tribe not been annihilated by that small pox strand the French would have actually won the war ( go figure ). Only a couple thousand were left alive. The Beothulks are completely gone. And a number of other tribes were completely killed as well ( meaning they actually succeeded in the genocide of a few of the tribes ).

The scale in numbers between the two are different though. I think about 6-12 million people died in the WW2 Holocaust. A minimum of 20 million American Indians were killed and there was another report that determined 118 million. The population regardless was dropped to single digit percentage.

So yeah we fought but we had to. The Indians welcomed the Europeans and we were taken advantage of and still are today. Most of the people on the reservations are in severe conditions and no the gambling isn't doing much for the Indians. Even in the 1980s Mohawk and Iroquois Federation militia had to defend themselves. That's how messed up we are even today -- were still spitting on them and no one says a thing.

In regards to the raids of other tribes that's just the way it was and it wasn't mass genocides. I sure as hell hope the schools haven't been still teaching that. Factually I shouldn't even be calling Mohawks "mohawks", they're Kanien'gehaga -- You'd think movies would get that straight because it's a derogatory term and Americans are all uptight about being "proper" these dies. But I will not that even if they fought brutally ( just like the vikings ) they were also very respectful of their enemies and commonly had the hostages assimilated into the tribes as family.

So the scale of the American Indian genocide is a quantum leap in comparison to the holocaust which mind you wasn't just Jewish people killed. Blacks and polish people were too. They died just as viciously as the Indians which is sad as hell. It makes you question if we're just one giant disease.

But one point I want to make in that while in my opinion both were equally horrific genocides -- no one should have to experience such terror; War is one thing but fear of your entire family being slaughtered for nothing is another. The difference is that Hitler did it because he was a sociopath with a grandeur delusion of Utopia. He wanted to make the world better which is actually a fairly logical wish -- its just how he went about it that was completely wrong. Killing people like that isn't the answer.

In contrast the Indians were slaughtered simply for land. That's all.

But just keep in mind that the Indians are still fighting politically. The terms granted to them weren't even remotely kept to.

I apologize for the ferocity I posted this and if they're any typing mistakes -- this is from a phone -- but I got really pissed off when it seemed like not only were people degrading both events but actually degrading both peoples. Though I was little bit more pissed off about the small town "savages" tone I saw in some posts.

Off topic but if anyone was by definition a savage it would be the catholic church. While I respect peoples beliefs the entity as a whole has successfully eradicated two groups through genocide and was a direct part in a third (Indians) and just barely failed. (Depends on your definition of failure though) a fourth if you consider their involvement with the ww2 holocaust. ( I'm pretty sure they had the first camps but the German SS obviously took over. )

In any case, I do apologize for my tone -- but this is a topic that is extremely serious to me because I am part Indian and the ignorance on the subject really bothers me a lot. America's a wonderful place, but we are sincerely a new Rome -- we're innovative and well spoken, but we have a tendency to become self-serving and narcissistic as a whole which leads to a war-like mentality. It's like a Napoleon complex, but absorbing the entire national aura.

But that's humanity as a whole, people in power generally become idiots and people without power generally stay idiots. Einstein said it right in saying that while he cherished and loved Humanity, he hated humans. We can be vile creatures :/. Only thing we can do is take the time to enlighten ourselves and try and learn as much as possible to try and better ourselves and hopefully that peace will bring us together as a whole at some point.

 

[frazzledgear]

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.

Genocide? No. Just one of MANY, MANY chapters of man's history of one civilization clashing with a more modern one and the less modern one losing that clash as it always did -and when it did, typically that less modern civilization also disappeared. The most conservative estimates are that smallpox alone wiped out more than 65% of native Americans -not war. And unfortunately exposure to a disease in a population with zero immunity built up against it over time has been a major reason for the disappearance of past civilizations too. Smallpox decimated native American populations and killed millions more than war with Americans ever even came close to doing.

There is nothing comparable with that history to the Holocaust which was the deliberate targeting of their OWN civilian citizens for mass murder as simply undesirable citizens. A war between clashing civilizations of unequal modernity is nothing comparable to the Holocaust on any level. This is just a pathetic attempt by a liberal to once again insist there is moral equivalency between those who settled the US with Nazi Germany for their own political agenda when it actually has no bearing on a damn thing and was nothing alike at all. The left also seems to think it serves their agenda to judge past societies past wars by today's morals but only if doing so will in some way demean or harm the US or whatever group is on their enemy list at the time -but it doesn't wash here. That was in reality a classic and very common chapter in the history of our species -not just American history.

Wonder why it is the left has this burning need to constantly pretend the history of the US is among the worst on the planet when in fact it stacks up better than the vast majority of countries past and present -warts and all. We have a relatively short history with very few ugly warts among the world's nations and did not need to make every single mistake other nations did along the way -especially when considering what has been seen and is still seen in other nations, with repeated cycles of horrific violence and real genocide occurring on a regular basis for centuries -and we can see are still going full throttle in that same rut and perpetual cycle that is an INTEGRAL part of their history both past and current as they build up to yet another round of it all over again.

 

[AllieBaba]

I apologize for the delayed response to this thread and reviving it but I was sincerely disgusted by the sheer ignorance expressed by both "sides".

For one the Jewish holocaust and American Indian genocides were two completely issues and additionally mind the fact that there MULTIPLE genocides of the American Indians. The Mi'kmaq's for example suffered similar trepidations the Jewish did in the 1930s but it was a largely quieted operation in Canada. And yes -- that includes burning children alive.

In regards to the Indians losing in the wars because they were inferior fighters again is negligent. The British French and so forth consistently had trouble from both sides in the several wars / conflicts that place. The Mohawks and other members of the Iroquois Federation ( Seneca and so forth ) were detrimental enemies to the French and the Mi'kmaw, Acadians and Beothulk were problems to the British for example. The reason they died is because they introduced small pox strains to the tribes.

Factually the Indians were extremely polite and actively traded with the Europeans prior to Americas conquest. When the battles started and the armies realized they couldn't beat the Indians they resulted to an early form of biological warfare in the north. The south was both accidentally bringing disease and using it their advantage. In all irony had the M'ikmaq tribe not been annihilated by that small pox strand the French would have actually won the war ( go figure ). Only a couple thousand were left alive. The Beothulks are completely gone. And a number of other tribes were completely killed as well ( meaning they actually succeeded in the genocide of a few of the tribes ).

The scale in numbers between the two are different though. I think about 6-12 million people died in the WW2 Holocaust. A minimum of 20 million American Indians were killed and there was another report that determined 118 million. The population regardless was dropped to single digit percentage.

So yeah we fought but we had to. The Indians welcomed the Europeans and we were taken advantage of and still are today. Most of the people on the reservations are in severe conditions and no the gambling isn't doing much for the Indians. Even in the 1980s Mohawk and Iroquois Federation militia had to defend themselves. That's how messed up we are even today -- were still spitting on them and no one says a thing.

In regards to the raids of other tribes that's just the way it was and it wasn't mass genocides. I sure as hell hope the schools haven't been still teaching that. Factually I shouldn't even be calling Mohawks "mohawks", they're Kanien'gehaga -- You'd think movies would get that straight because it's a derogatory term and Americans are all uptight about being "proper" these dies. But I will not that even if they fought brutally ( just like the vikings ) they were also very respectful of their enemies and commonly had the hostages assimilated into the tribes as family.

So the scale of the American Indian genocide is a quantum leap in comparison to the holocaust which mind you wasn't just Jewish people killed. Blacks and polish people were too. They died just as viciously as the Indians which is sad as hell. It makes you question if we're just one giant disease.

But one point I want to make in that while in my opinion both were equally horrific genocides -- no one should have to experience such terror; War is one thing but fear of your entire family being slaughtered for nothing is another. The difference is that Hitler did it because he was a sociopath with a grandeur delusion of Utopia. He wanted to make the world better which is actually a fairly logical wish -- its just how he went about it that was completely wrong. Killing people like that isn't the answer.

In contrast the Indians were slaughtered simply for land. That's all.

But just keep in mind that the Indians are still fighting politically. The terms granted to them weren't even remotely kept to.

I apologize for the ferocity I posted this and if they're any typing mistakes -- this is from a phone -- but I got really pissed off when it seemed like not only were people degrading both events but actually degrading both peoples. Though I was little bit more pissed off about the small town "savages" tone I saw in some posts.

Off topic but if anyone was by definition a savage it would be the catholic church. While I respect peoples beliefs the entity as a whole has successfully eradicated two groups through genocide and was a direct part in a third (Indians) and just barely failed. (Depends on your definition of failure though) a fourth if you consider their involvement with the ww2 holocaust. ( I'm pretty sure they had the first camps but the German SS obviously took over. )

In any case, I do apologize for my tone -- but this is a topic that is extremely serious to me because I am part Indian and the ignorance on the subject really bothers me a lot. America's a wonderful place, but we are sincerely a new Rome -- we're innovative and well spoken, but we have a tendency to become self-serving and narcissistic as a whole which leads to a war-like mentality. It's like a Napoleon complex, but absorbing the entire national aura.

But that's humanity as a whole, people in power generally become idiots and people without power generally stay idiots. Einstein said it right in saying that while he cherished and loved Humanity, he hated humans. We can be vile creatures :/. Only thing we can do is take the time to enlighten ourselves and try and learn as much as possible to try and better ourselves and hopefully that peace will bring us together as a whole at some point.

Excuse me, most Americans are "part" Indian. It's a running gag in welfare offices that most of our clients, when asked to name their race, always say "well I've got some Indian in me but we're not enrolled or anything".

 

[AllieBaba]

"
The most lethal of the pathogens introduced by the Europeans was smallpox, which sometimes incapacitated so many adults at once that deaths from hunger and starvation ran as high as deaths from disease; in several cases, entire tribes were rendered extinct. Other killers included measles, influenza, whooping cough, diphtheria, typhus, bubonic plague, cholera, and scarlet fever. Although syphilis was apparently native to parts of the Western hemisphere, it, too, was probably introduced into North America by Europeans.
About all this there is no essential disagreement. The most hideous enemy of native Americans was not the white man and his weaponry, concludes Alfred Crosby,"but the invisible killers which those men brought in their blood and breath." It is thought that between 75 to 90 percent of all Indian deaths resulted from these killers.
To some, however, this is enough in itself to warrant the term genocide. David Stannard, for instance, states that just as Jews who died of disease and starvation in the ghettos are counted among the victims of the Holocaust, Indians who died of introduced diseases"were as much the victims of the Euro-American genocidal war as were those burned or stabbed or hacked or shot to death, or devoured by hungry dogs." As an example of actual genocidal conditions, Stannard points to Franciscan missions in California as"furnaces of death."
But right away we are in highly debatable territory. It is true that the cramped quarters of the missions, with their poor ventilation and bad sanitation, encouraged the spread of disease. But it is demonstrably untrue that, like the Nazis, the missionaries were unconcerned with the welfare of their native converts. No matter how difficult the conditions under which the Indians labored—obligatory work, often inadequate food and medical care, corporal punishment—their experience bore no comparison with the fate of the Jews in the ghettos. The missionaries had a poor understanding of the causes of the diseases that afflicted their charges, and medically there was little they could do for them. By contrast, the Nazis knew exactly what was happening in the ghettos, and quite deliberately deprived the inmates of both food and medicine; unlike in Stannard’s"furnaces of death," the deaths that occurred there were meant to occur. "
History News Network | Because the Past is the Present, and the Future too.

 

[CitizenPained]

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

Discuss

One was very heavily genocide, and the other was more of an ethnic cleansing. Native Americans were expected to assimilate (and often forced to) all the way through the 1970s. Jews, even the mischling, didn't have any choice. Jews who had converted and were CATHOLIC NUNS were still carted off.

I hate to sound like Janet Reno, but sometimes 'genocidal acts' is not representative of a systematic genocide.

BUT...if the shoe fits...it fits. I have no problems with people saying Rwandan genocide or Armenian Genocide or Native American genocide. I do have a problem with people saying Big H Holocaust, though. That, I think, is reserved for a specific event in history.

Both are bad. Why play the compare/contrast game? Let each case stand on its own facts.

 

[Modbert]

Man, this thread brings back memories. Though I would hope those who are responding to posts before Finn realize the thread is old.

 

[Raincat]

"Hitler's concept of concentration camps as well as the practicality of genocide owed much, so he claimed, to his studies of English and United States history. He admired the camps for Boer prisoners in South Africa and for the Indians in the wild west; and often praised to his inner circle the efficiency of America's extermination - by starvation and uneven combat - of the red savages who could not be tamed by captivity." P. 202, "Adolph Hitler" by John Toland

Interesting,yes? Nuff said.

 

[Douger]

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

Discuss

Both were conducted by the same people. Nazi's. No. Hitler didn't invent that nor did Nazism die when he did.

 

[Sallow]

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

Discuss

Both were conducted by the same people. Nazi's. No. Hitler didn't invent that nor did Nazism die when he did.

Actually both were conducted by people who were mostly Christian.

True story!

 

[editec]

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

Discuss

Define worse.

If you mean worse based on the number of people who died then I suppose the AmerIndian holocaust is worse.

Of course most AmerIndians died of newly introduced diseases without ever having encountered any White men, so it not unreasonable to dismiss the magnitude of their dying as not an important issue to help us address this question

But I really think that asking this question is basically asking us the wrong question.

Genocide is still genocide regardless of the numbers.

 

[sparky]

Genocides in history - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[strollingbones]

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

Discuss

Define worse.

If you mean worse based on the number of people who died then I suppose the AmerIndian holocaust is worse.

Of course most AmerIndians died of newly introduced diseases without ever having encountered any White men, so it not unreasonable to dismiss the magnitude of their dying as not an important issue to help us address this question

But I really think that asking this question is basically asking us the wrong question.

Genocide is still genocide regardless of the numbers.

most native americans died of what? i am not sure of that statement

 

[uscitizen]

Zeig Heil to Andrew Jackson.

The only good Muslim is a dead Muslim.

 

[Urbanguerrilla]

Genocides in history - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

A proud list of human achievement

 

[Katzndogz]

Zeig Heil to Andrew Jackson.

The only good Muslim is a dead Muslim.

First to Thomas Jefferson to battled the muslim barbary pirates, then Andrew Jackson and the muslims of Sumatra, THEN Grover Cleveland.

It is with complete confusion that obama could give a speech to muslims and mention Thomas Jefferson favorably when he was, in fact, a muslim killer.

 

[psikeyhackr]

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

Discuss

A significant difference would be that the majority of Indians in North America were probably killed by diseases brought by Europeans and not deliberate killing even though the number that died due to the arrival of Europeans was greater than the number of Jews killed.

It was the GERMS part of Guns, Germs and Steel.

Guns, Germs, and Steel - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Give me a break, this thread is from 2009.

psik

 

[Sallow]

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

Discuss

A significant difference would be that the majority of Indians in North America were probably killed by diseases brought by Europeans and not deliberate killing even though the number that died due to the arrival of Europeans was greater than the number of Jews killed.

It was the GERMS part of Guns, Germs and Steel.

Guns, Germs, and Steel - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Give me a break, this thread is from 2009.

psik

Indians have been deliberately killed in this country..for centuries.

Colonial Germ Warfare : The Colonial Williamsburg Official History Site

It wasn't just disease, either.

 

[manifold]

Guns, Germs and Steel is a steaming pile of PC propaganda horseshit. And very very poorly written to boot.

 

[editec]

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

Discuss

Define worse.

If you mean worse based on the number of people who died then I suppose the AmerIndian holocaust is worse.

Of course most AmerIndians died of newly introduced diseases without ever having encountered any White men, so it not unreasonable to dismiss the magnitude of their dying as not an important issue to help us address this question

But I really think that asking this question is basically asking us the wrong question.

Genocide is still genocide regardless of the numbers.

most native americans died of what? i am not sure of that statement

VArious diseases for which that the had no natural antibodies.

Smallpox, measles, and influenza, are all examples of the diseases that killed MOST native Americans long before most of them encountered any White men.

The diseases spread throughout the Western Hemisphere much MUCH faster than we colonized the place.

The waves of disease destroyed AmeriIndian civilizations first, and White men just finished off the job in the following couple centuries.

In fact has these pandemics not occurred I doubt that Europeans would have succeeded in taking over this hemisphere.

There were a number of rather large and highly structured Indian Empires that would have been terribly difficult to dislodge had most of their people not already been dead.