# 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

manifold said:


> 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

manifold said:


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


 
I agree.


----------



## manifold

manu1959 said:


> manifold said:
> 
> 
> 
> 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....
Click to expand...





Sovereign Nation! 

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


----------



## Mister T

manifold said:


> 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

Mister T said:


> manifold said:
> 
> 
> 
> 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
Click to expand...


----------



## Mister T

manifold said:


> Mister T said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> manifold said:
> 
> 
> 
> 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
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...




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


----------



## manifold

Mister T said:


> manifold said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mister T said:
> 
> 
> 
> To say either was worse would be to say the other wasn't so bad
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "Sure, wiping out group A was bad, but it's not so bad as wiping out group B"
Click to expand...


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

Somebody better tell Steven Spielberg.


----------



## AkronGuy

manifold said:


> 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

AllieBaba said:


> 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

manifold said:


> 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

Luissa said:


> 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

AkronGuy said:


> AllieBaba said:
> 
> 
> 
> 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.
Click to expand...


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

manu1959 said:


> manifold said:
> 
> 
> 
> 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....
Click to expand...


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

Luissa said:


> AkronGuy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AllieBaba said:
> 
> 
> 
> 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.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 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.
Click to expand...


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

AkronGuy said:


> Luissa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AkronGuy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 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.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 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.
Click to expand...


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

Luissa said:


> AkronGuy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Luissa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 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.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 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.
Click to expand...


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.


----------



## Pajarito7

manifold said:


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



I disagree. Your argument stating that Native Americans were worse because of what was the outcome after genocide happened. But if you were really to compare to two of the process, reason, and cause of how they died then you would find that the genocide of Jews was far more worse. 

First of all we can't blame all of the European Settlers for raping these Native American tribes. In fact, Europeans wanted to keep Native Americans alive so that they can work in their fields as slaves. Europeans enslaved these Indians because they thought they were savages without the knowledge of Christianity that "Christ might save them from condemnation to hell if they a least worked as slaves for the short period of their lives". Unfortunately, due to European dirtiness, new diseases, stronger weeds than North America (which destroyed Indian crops), unseen animals (pigs and rats which ate Indian crops) Native Americans died very rapidly. More than 90% of Indians died from diseases so the cause of how they died is clearly there. Yes there were tribes who did fight back but they had a huge disadvantage due to the lack of weapons and new technology European and Spanish settlers had brought. The genocide Conquistadors did happened because Hernan Cortez disobeyed an order to leave the Aztecs alone. He convinced a group of people from Cuba to take over the Indians but once done, left the place into a huge city of ruins.

Jews have been hated for centuries but if you were referring to the genocide of Jews in WW2 then I'd say the motive to annihilate Jews was far more evil than Native Americans. Adolf Hitler was an insane and evil but very intelligent man. Unlike Native Americans, Jews had a step by step system of how to be intentionally wiped off the map of Europe. First their liberties in Germany were stripped away. They couldn't eat at restaurants, they couldn't step on pavement, they were gradually being treated like dogs. Then they singled them out by identifying them by having to wear a patch of the star of David and put every Jew into a ghetto. In the Ghetto's Nazi's cut communication to everything outside the world (doctors, food, money, etc.) so they slowly died and had to survive for themselves. If it couldn't get worse Jews were then crammed into boxcar trains and sent to concentration camps were they stripped all their clothes, cut womans' hair for profit, and send to crematories and buildings where they were killed by gas. Nazi's then boiled the dead Jews to extract the body fat and make Jewish soap where it could be sold in Germany. That's just the smallest amount of how Jews were treated in WW2. Others were picked out to be gunned. If one tried to escaped 7 more had to pay the price for them. Some were experimented on by evil doctors to injected them with strange chemicals. If I'm correct I believe Hitler raised two whole generations with his ideology that there is only one supreme race and that all Jews should be hated even though Hitler himself was partially Jew.

If I were to choose which were worse. I say the genocide of Jews was far more worse.


----------



## AkronGuy

To me, it wasn't any different than what Indians have done. 

To me it's very ironic that intentional biological warfare that resulted in genocide, led directly to another situation where biological warfare led to another genocide. It's just that the Europeans were thoroughly overpopulated that the loss of a half to two thirds of their population actually in the long run helped them.


----------



## &#9773;proletarian&#9773;

manifold said:


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


THAT WAS DIFFERENT THOSE WERE NAZIS AND GOD CHOSE THE JEWS!!!!


----------



## Modbert

AkronGuy said:


> 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*.



Sure we can. It's called debating historical events.


----------



## AllieBaba

manifold said:


> 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.



Tell that to those of us who live in close proximity to reservations. Which, by the way, is land deeded to them and functions independent from the US government.


----------



## AllieBaba

PS..the English also attempted to eradicate the Scots, and Indians also sought to eradicate their enemies by wiping them out and taking their women. In tribes in South America and other isolated places in the world, it continues. Including Darfur, eastern Europe, the mid east, etc and so on.


----------



## Samson

manifold said:


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



This seems to be a no-brainer.

We gained nothing from the Jewish Holocaust of WWII, so it was clearly worse.


----------



## strollingbones

Samson said:


> manifold said:
> 
> 
> 
> Comparing and contrasting the Jewish Holocaust of WWII and the systematic genocide of native Americans, which was worse?
> 
> Discuss
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This seems to be a no-brainer.
> 
> We gained nothing from the Jewish Holocaust of WWII, so it was clearly worse.
Click to expand...


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.


----------



## AkronGuy

Dogbert said:


> AkronGuy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 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*.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sure we can. It's called debating historical events.
Click to expand...


Not a serious historical debate, and often moralizing history that's in an era with a different set of norms stifles the debate in that you can't really see the issue as a whole. 

In the end, you had two sides, both sides were generally made up of martial cultures and cultures that had no problem with brutally subjugating those that were weaker than they were or were in a disadvantegous position.


----------



## AkronGuy

AllieBaba said:


> PS..the English also attempted to eradicate the Scots, and Indians also sought to eradicate their enemies by wiping them out and taking their women. In tribes in South America and other isolated places in the world, it continues. Including Darfur, eastern Europe, the mid east, etc and so on.



They didn't try to eradicate the Scots as a whole, they wanted to eradicate Highland Scots. Which ended up biting them in their asses until this very day.


----------



## Shogun

AllieBaba said:


> 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.



yea.. much like we don't have millions of people out skinning buffalo...  think about it.


----------



## Shogun

AkronGuy said:


> AllieBaba said:
> 
> 
> 
> 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.
Click to expand...



in other words, they deserved it.  gotcha.


----------



## Shogun

AkronGuy said:


> manu1959 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> manifold said:
> 
> 
> 
> 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....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 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.
Click to expand...


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


----------



## Samson

strollingbones said:


> Samson said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> manifold said:
> 
> 
> 
> Comparing and contrasting the Jewish Holocaust of WWII and the systematic genocide of native Americans, which was worse?
> 
> Discuss
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This seems to be a no-brainer.
> 
> We gained nothing from the Jewish Holocaust of WWII, so it was clearly worse.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 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.
Click to expand...


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


----------



## Modbert

Samson said:


> 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.


----------



## Shogun

Samson said:


> strollingbones said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Samson said:
> 
> 
> 
> This seems to be a no-brainer.
> 
> We gained nothing from the Jewish Holocaust of WWII, so it was clearly worse.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 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.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Frankly, I'd be astonished if the Nazis gained enough knowledge from performing medical experiments on jews to buy Rhode Island.
Click to expand...


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


----------



## GHook93

manifold said:


> Native Americans don't have to pay taxes on alcohol and tobacco.


And have the nicest casinos outside of Vegas!


----------



## AkronGuy

Shogun said:


> AkronGuy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AllieBaba said:
> 
> 
> 
> 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.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> in other words, they deserved it.  gotcha.
Click to expand...


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.


----------



## AkronGuy

Shogun said:


> AkronGuy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> manu1959 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 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.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> maybe you should open your standup comedy routine with a Canaan joke before piling on about who died from the hands of Native Americans.
Click to expand...


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.


----------



## Modbert

Shogun said:


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



That too.

Nazi human experimentation - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## AkronGuy

Dogbert said:


> Samson said:
> 
> 
> 
> 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]
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Fact: Nazis used to give prisoners this stuff, then not give it to them so they  could suffer through withdrawals.
Click to expand...


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

AkronGuy said:


> 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

AkronGuy said:


> 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

AkronGuy said:


> Shogun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AkronGuy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 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.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 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.
Click to expand...


I don't really care if you have a hardon for native americans.  But, to pretend that every single fucking 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 whitey 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 fucking scourge in a race to the pacific ocean.  Sorry, I'm just not on board with your logic.


----------



## Samson

Shogun said:


> Samson said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> strollingbones said:
> 
> 
> 
> 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.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> you might want to go ahead and sit down then.  Almost everything we know about hypothermia is the direct result of nazi experimentation.
Click to expand...


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

AkronGuy said:


> Shogun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AkronGuy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 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.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 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.
Click to expand...


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 fucking Old Testament sometime and then come back and tell me about how brutal natives were.


----------



## AkronGuy

Shogun said:


> AkronGuy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Shogun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 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.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't really care if you have a hardon for native americans.  But, to pretend that every single fucking 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 whitey 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 fucking scourge in a race to the pacific ocean.  Sorry, I'm just not on board with your logic.
Click to expand...


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

Dogbert said:


> 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

Shogun said:


> AkronGuy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Shogun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 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.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 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 fucking Old Testament sometime and then come back and tell me about how brutal natives were.
Click to expand...


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


----------



## Modbert

AkronGuy said:


> 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

AkronGuy said:


> Shogun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AkronGuy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 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 fucking 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 whitey 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 fucking scourge in a race to the pacific ocean.  Sorry, I'm just not on board with your logic.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 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.
Click to expand...


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

AkronGuy said:


> Shogun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AkronGuy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 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 fucking Old Testament sometime and then come back and tell me about how brutal natives were.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well considering that the last Jewish genocide was millenia before the last Indian genocide, I'd say it's a lot more relevant.
Click to expand...


of COURSE you would say that.




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..


----------



## AkronGuy

Shogun said:


> AkronGuy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Shogun said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't really care if you have a hardon for native americans.  But, to pretend that every single fucking 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 whitey 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 fucking 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.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 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.
Click to expand...


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

Shogun said:


> AkronGuy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Shogun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 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 fucking 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.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> of COURSE you would say that.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 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..
Click to expand...


lol The Spaniards were saints compared to the Aztecs. 

Now the Taino, the Spaniards acted like the Aztecs.


----------



## Shogun

AkronGuy said:


> Shogun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AkronGuy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 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.
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 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.
Click to expand...


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 fucking logic.  ooooook.   Again.  Stick with telling us about how necessary it was for Cortez just to defend himself while he was around pilfering some fucking precious metals.

wow.


----------



## Shogun

AkronGuy said:


> Shogun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AkronGuy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 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 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..
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> lol The Spaniards were saints compared to the Aztecs.
> 
> Now the Taino, the Spaniards acted like the Aztecs.
Click to expand...




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.


----------



## jillian

manifold said:


> 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

Shogun said:


> AkronGuy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Shogun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 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.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 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 fucking logic.  ooooook.   Again.  Stick with telling us about how necessary it was for Cortez just to defend himself while he was around pilfering some fucking precious metals.
> 
> wow.
Click to expand...


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.


----------



## AkronGuy

Shogun said:


> AkronGuy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Shogun said:
> 
> 
> 
> of COURSE you would say that.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 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..
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> lol The Spaniards were saints compared to the Aztecs.
> 
> Now the Taino, the Spaniards acted like the Aztecs.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 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.
Click to expand...


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.


----------



## Ravi

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.


----------



## AkronGuy

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.


----------



## Ravi

No one believes that and no one is taught that.

Right wing talking points are usually based on lies.


----------



## Samson

Dogbert said:


> Samson said:
> 
> 
> 
> Frankly, I'd be astonished if the Nazis gained enough knowledge from performing medical experiments on jews to buy Rhode Island.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Buy my state?
> .
Click to expand...


Shit.

The asking price for Rhode Island just dropped 50%.


----------



## Samson

Ravi said:


> No one believes that and no one is taught that.
> 
> Right wing talking points are usually based on lies.



Liar.


----------



## &#9773;proletarian&#9773;

Dogbert said:


> AkronGuy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 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.
Click to expand...

Fanta and a Volkswagen


----------



## LuckyDan

manifold said:


> 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.


----------



## AllieBaba

Ravi said:


> No one believes that and no one is taught that.
> 
> Right wing talking points are usually based on lies.



Prove it.


----------



## AkronGuy

Ravi said:


> 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.


----------



## AkronGuy

LuckyDan said:


> manifold said:
> 
> 
> 
> 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.
Click to expand...


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.


----------



## Ragnar

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.


----------



## AkronGuy

Great post and it sums up the reality of the situation.


----------



## 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.


----------



## Shogun

LuckyDan said:


> manifold said:
> 
> 
> 
> 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.
Click to expand...


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.


----------



## Shogun

AkronGuy said:


> 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..


----------



## manifold

So who do I have to thank for resurrecting this thread and snatching success from the jaws of failure?


----------



## LuckyDan

manifold said:


> So who do I have to thank for resurrecting this thread and snatching success from the jaws of failure?


 
Hitler and the US Cavalry as near as I can tell.


----------



## GEORGE ORWELL

*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?*


----------



## AllieBaba

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".


----------



## AkronGuy

Shogun said:


> AkronGuy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 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..
Click to expand...


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

AllieBaba said:


> 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

Finn said:


> 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&#8212;obligatory work, often inadequate food and medical care, corporal punishment&#8212;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&#8217;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

manifold said:


> 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

manifold said:


> 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

Douger said:


> manifold said:
> 
> 
> 
> 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.
Click to expand...


Actually both were conducted by people who were mostly Christian.

 True story!


----------



## editec

manifold said:


> 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

editec said:


> manifold said:
> 
> 
> 
> 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._
Click to expand...


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

sparky said:


> Genocides in history - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



A proud list of human achievement


----------



## Katzndogz

uscitizen said:


> 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

manifold said:


> 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

psikeyhackr said:


> manifold said:
> 
> 
> 
> 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
Click to expand...


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

strollingbones said:


> editec said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> manifold said:
> 
> 
> 
> 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._
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> most native americans died of what? i am not sure of that statement
Click to expand...

 
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.


----------



## Two Thumbs

Well considering we could have killed every native and didn't.  for a variety of reasons, good and bad.

I'd say the jews had it worse, b/c most thought they were headed for work camps, while the tribes got to fight back.

Hard to beat small pox though.

the cold and flu

VD

ya know, the good stuff.


----------



## Douger

LuckyDan said:


> manifold said:
> 
> 
> 
> 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.
Click to expand...

Yeah. More of the old "yer eiver wiff us er genst us". murkin logic.


----------



## psikeyhackr

Sallow said:


> It wasn't just disease, either.



I didn't say it was just disease.

I simply said more died from disease than other causes.

psik


----------



## Finn

AllieBaba said:


> 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".



I rationalize it took me a while to respond to this but:

I'm 1/8th Mi'kmaw. My line is Meuse of Bear River, Nova Scotia (Canada). My uncle is Chief Frank Meuse for clarity. My grandma was one of the children at the reform/boarding schools in Canada and is why we live in America / New York now (Those schools lasted into the 70s/90s), so I personally take offense to you making a joke out of that.

I want you to consider this; a lot of people are only part Indian because their grandparents were raped. A lot of government enforced quantum rules / enrollment programs require the bloodline to be male; maybe that little tidbit of information will open your eyes as to why. The next time someone says that, remember that their is a good chance that someone in their family was raped. Maybe ask them to identify themselves more clearly. I rationalize the frustration of someone saying they're 1/32 or 1/64 or some obscure number like that and don't even know what tribe (I'm actually okay with the whole 1/32 thing, if someone identifies themselves as an aboriginal, then awesome -- but if you don't know what tribe or just shoot off Cherokee or something like that, that is frustrating to me), but keep an open mind. 

In any case, what happened to my family has personally affected me so please do not down play it. I never got to reconcile with it either because my mother died in a fire, so it's something I'll have to, for the rest of my life, live in anguish with. But the violence they experienced carries down generations as well, and I can speak of that from personal experience; imagine being dragged down a flight of stairs, by your hair, at the age of 12, 2 months after your father died, because you refuse to get in the car with your drunk mother for example. But at least in my family it ends with me.

There is a lot of ignorance that surrounds the subject of Aboriginals; but the fact is the genocide continues to this day and it's carried out by the very same people who started it. In America, they are still having their land taken away from them. If you take the time to actually go to a reservation or two, you would notice that those that surrendered were put on land that is for the most part unusable. The idea that they get tax free tobacco/alcohol and gambling is another form of psychological warfare -- it's culturally damaging. 

For those that claim there was no systematic genocide, you need to take a closer look -- it become very systematic in the late 1800s (It became a very public government goal by both the US and Canada to eradicate all natives at the very least culturally,  and they used the Catholic church to do this and was "Pope sanctioned". If you need source material I can provide it. Privately they were still being killed) and was arguably systematic for the length of it. But I'm fairly certain it's common knowledge now that it was systematic, they are teaching it now in schools - at least in New York.

Some things I guess I'll clear up or offer some insight about (Note that I can only speak really for the North American bands/tribes, I don't know too much about the South American and my knowledge is admittedly limited beyond the Mi'kmaq)

Wagon trains for example were exaggerated. There was only some 300 people that ever died during wagon train raids, as opposed to the hundreds of thousands Hollywood likes to represent. It was honestly really rare for Natives to attack wagon trains. The reason they circled them was actually to keep the herd in check or protect against the elements.

Scalping was actually mostly an European practice (The natives did do it as well, but it was very few tribes and selective / ritualistic mostly), and this could have actually been taught by the Vikings original landing. There has been less than 1000 bodies found pre-Columbus that indicate scalping -- it was a multicultural phenomena. I may actually be wrong about the number, it may actually be less than 100 -- I over estimated for safety sake. I believe the locations were primarily "Plains Indians." 

The irony with the whole scalping thing is that it was a very popular practice by Europeans, the natives only started doing it so widespread because the Pilgrims promoted it, and it never reached a level that matched the European habitability; prices for scalps (Something like $1000+ by today's standards per scalp) pushed people to even grave robbing. The pilgrims also stuck heads of the natives on stakes (In front of their children no less) and burned people alive for entertainment.

Alcoholism is actually a serious issue on reserves (I wouldn't say so much off the reserves though); granted the stereotype that all natives are alcoholics is uncalled for and not true by any means, it is a serious issue and continues to destroy a lot of families. I gather you're welcome to continue hold this preconception if you have it, but try to look at it differently -- this was an intentional injection into their society to keep them down, and the programs to help them out are not really available. They're better now, especially the locally run ones, but it still needs a lot of improvement. 

Many tribes did not actually wear feathered head ware; sadly this fact has been lost on some tribes as well and tribes that never wore feathers began to. I'm not entirely sure why, but I'm assuming it is/was some convoluted attempt to reconnect with their history that they lost. (This is a serious problem)

Not all bands had pow-wows.

Not all chiefs or elders were male. Women were highly regarded in Native society, they were "givers of life"

Natives are still forcefully losing their land, primarily in America they are still being removed by the government when the government discovers natural resources on their land.

Undrinkable or land with poor soil (Can't grow crops) is a common problem on reserves. Primarily the only reservations that are successful are those that have little to no US government intervention; the government has a habit of sticking their nose into their business when they don't want it, and when they need basic things like aid / shelter they don't get anything.

Not all natives are "tan" -- there is one tribe I know of that was actually platinum blonde and blue eyed -- the name eludes me as of now though. I believe the Lumbee are actually "black" as well (This is still being disputed/reviewed though, for the sake of transparency). So don't judge someone based on their skin color, like Europeans -- aboriginals came in all colors and sizes. If you're going to judge someone, judge them by their character, which you can't learn until you learn about them.

Not all natives had tomahawks or were war hungry. Most were extremely peaceful with minor exceptions. There were of course more war oriented bands but there is a big difference between aboriginal war and "traditional war". Aboriginals commonly stopped at a certain point because it was expected for those that lost to know that they lost and leave. This actually became a problem because of their expectations that people would move on once they fought back (The Jamestown Massacre for example was not the initial sparking event for the English pilgrims; Aboriginals were already being enslaved, killed and cheated) essentially lead to a large number of unexpected attacks on them; their honor system was completely different, if not admittedly hard headed sometimes. This doesn't apply to all bands/tribes though, every band was different.

Their view of morality/honor was different as well, from the outside this may seem savage but with perspective it's intelligent/rational. There was one story I read about a son killing another native with a knife. The son was forced to dig a grave and bury this person, when he finally did and he was still down in the grave, the sons father planted a tomahawk in the back of his head. The primary reason for this is that they know that the circle of killing/revenge would continue on for generations, which would do more harm in the end; the father sacrificed his own son for the survival of the entire people. For clarity they were smart enough to know that humans are emotionally driven and that the relationship between the two families would lead to a struggle; the father killing his son shows the murdered son's family that he will bear the burden with them.

They did not make a habit of stealing white women; this is a primarily a folk lore in regards to a few instances. White women were more or less viewed as weak or inferior to native women because they couldn't maintain a working/functional pace. Not that this made "white women" bad, it's just their roles in their micro society were different from the needs of the natives. It was actually more habitual for native women to be stolen by whites and used as sex slaves.

Every single treaty that has been made with the natives has been broken in some form or another by America/Pre-American colonies, including recent ones. In the past, the breach normally was by killing them in mass numbers during peace time. (The Europeans would essentially sign a treaty, and then a day later or a few days later during the night raid them)

All treaties that were broken, weren't generally out of "evil" (which is, of course, subjective) of the Europeans, some of it was just communication barriers for example. There were a lot of very sympathetic pilgrims, but like we see today on the news, news can quickly change your perception of things even if absolutely false.

The original ideals of American society is actually modeled off band "laws." Specifically, the constitution is actually modeled off the Iroquois Confederacy constitution; Ben Franklin even made this very aware. This is still being disputed, but it's possible that "We the people" is actually a direct copy of their oral constitution. I believe it's called the Great Law of Peace. Information is hard to find on the internet, it's better to read books on it.

I covered this before; but the Natives actually won the war from a military standpoint in most instances (Meaning band to band, some bands lost outright but most actually won), especially in the west. The primary reason they "lost" is from both intentional and unintentional spreading of disease after the fact. There are still some tribes that retain all their original land.

There has been a number of instances of genocide in particular tribes, but I can't speak for all. I covered this, but the Mi'kmaw and a number of other northern bands/tribes through the 1890s into the 1970s-1990s (More prominently in the 1930s) were systematically destroyed. All children were forced into boarding schools. They were burnt alive in ovens, dumped in mass graves by other students, raped, beaten, culturally manipulated to believe they were evil. A lot died from sickness again as well. They're still actually finding the mass graves under the churches and schools today.

The irony of the original question here (The comparison to the Jewish Holocaust and the American Aboriginal Genocide) is that the Catholics and America actually taught the Third Reich how to do it; the church even supported them in the beginning and then stopped when it became public knowledge of what was really happening. (Again you can't blame all Christians/Catholics for the actions of a few though, I absolutely have no problem with religion; I have a problem with the way a lot of people wield it). It's interesting how involved American companies were in it; read up about IBM if you have free time.

The Jewish Holocaust was a little different though because it was definitely more systematically driven from the beginning. But part of the psychology of that is that the lay person has an ability to find historical bits of it on TV an can form their own opinions themselves. The issue with the natives is it's all orally passed and very diluted from all perspectives (Including native), for example I guarantee that 0% of the people that read this post were aware of everything I stated, and maybe 90% were unaware of a good chunk of it. There is a lot beyond what I said, sadly -- it would take me a very long time to cover everything and even I know very little in the grand scheme (The reason I may appear to know so much is from direct experience and I guess "Fruedian" issues [Mom issues; I try to find answers to provide excuses for my mom's actions], so I'm more obsessively driven about it because it's very strong part of who I am today)

On numbers, like I said prior -- the American Aboriginal Genocide is the worst genocide in history. The Mohawk (Kanien'gehaga), only one tribe, lost 1.5 million (And that's probably a low estimate) alone and were left with only a few thousand to my knowledge. I couldn't really say which is worse because I think it's unfair to even suggest the death of someone is more important than the other; but I think they were both worse in their own ways. The biggest difference though is the motive, so I gather that's where you would find your answer; by whether you find humanity to be a problem or humans.


----------



## editec

manifold said:


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


 
Worse from what perspective?

From the victims perspective, or from the perspective of the perps?

Looks to me like from the victims perspective the AmerIndians got the worst end of the stick because not only did they lose the vast majority of their people, they ALSO lost the Western Hemisphere.  Additionally their genocide is STILL ONGOING on this hemisphere and has been ongoing _since 1492_

As to which crime against humanity was the worst one?

I'd have so suggest that comparing crimes against humanity is basically a wasted effort.

When an event achieves _that level of evil_ the numbers become mere detail.


----------



## blimpo

There is a small difference:

Jews were killed for who they were.

Indians were killed to take the land.  But also for who they were. The British called them savages.


----------

