Holocaust denial

[El Kabong]

Miles, lots of Indians died of disease too....another double standard of yours

[Gandalf]

That is a poppycock argument from the both of you. One event is considerably downplayed compared to the other event and yet that is deemed correct in the eyes of many. The Nazi holocaust is the holocaust to end all other holocausts, but that quite clearly wasn't the case. Arguably over 100 million people died in the Americas which means that we should give just as much time to it, but we don't. Instead in the North American example we make childrens rhymes about Indians, play cowboys and Indians and have John Wayne acting as the proud Amercan. In many respects we glamorised the North American genocide and nobody would ever dream of doing that with the Nazi holocaust and rightly so. It would be sick and twisted which is what Tito accuses me of being.

I am not trying to downplay anything, Tito. I am simply arguing that the holocaust was not a Jewish phenomenom and that the numbers are likely considerably exaggerated. I am sorry if I lack sympathy for the imaginary dead, but for all the others of course I am appalled, but likewise am appalled by the treatment of communists, radicals, homosexuals, the handicapped etc (no Beanz, I don't see the point in the paralympics. Just get a job) and I am appalled at the treatment of all others involved in atrocities commited with the goal of wiping out sectors of a populace.

Lyle, many Native Indians died from hunger and disease and so did many Jews and other victims of the Nazi holocaust. I don't see how those views are incombatable.

I am busy with work these days and only seem to get a post or two in each day and I think I said a while back that I think my views have been expressed. I maintain that admitting an event can not be considered denial. It is a flagrant abuse of the word denial. 'You interpret something differently. You are denying the event'. It is such a childish attitude. People get put in prison in so called free countries for this and and it is ridiculous.

[VictorCharlie]

One event is considerably downplayed b/c it is not similar or comparable to the other. As an aggregate the professional historians and anthropologists of the world don't consider the de-population of the North, Central and South America a holocaust. Oh and 100 million? That is laughable.

[TitoFan]

"De-population" sounds a little cold, Victor. To be sure, in all of the Americas, many indigenous indian cultures were systematically wiped out. But as has been repeated often, this happened over decades and even centuries. It was also the result of warring between colonists from Europe and the indian inhabitants. Indians were not led helplessly in single file into a volcano pit or anything like that. Many colonists lost their lives as well. It was a different time back then. New worlds were still being discovered. This is why I and everyone else disagrees with Miles comparing this to the extermination of the Jews by the Nazis. Europe's colonists and the indian cultures in both Americas were not going to be able to coexist.

[Gandalf]

"De-population" sounds a little cold, Victor. To be sure, in all of the Americas, many indigenous indian cultures were systematically wiped out. But as has been repeated often, this happened over decades and even centuries. It was also the result of warring between colonists from Europe and the indian inhabitants. Indians were not led helplessly in single file into a volcano pit or anything like that. Many colonists lost their lives as well. It was a different time back then. New worlds were still being discovered. This is why I and everyone else disagrees with Miles comparing this to the extermination of the Jews by the Nazis. Europe's colonists and the indian cultures in both Americas were not going to be able to coexist.

Moral truisms then and today are much the same. You know that you shouldn't rape your sister, you know that you shouldn't slit the throat of the neighbor because he gave you a funny look, you know you should respect others. The settlers who commited genocide, were much like the people who lead people to death via governments, military, business and financial abuse today. It's just on the whole we tend to be more subtle or in the case of Panama, Iraq and Afghanistan not so subtle. These days it is control of regions rather than outright genocide. It's not so easy today.They were greedy cunts back then and enough was never enough. You've got to take more and more. Our methods are just more clever now.

Furthermore, the settlers did round up Indians and did incarcerate them in camps and even today the standard of living for natives is considerably lower than that of their bulkier counterparts.

[TitoFan]

"De-population" sounds a little cold, Victor. To be sure, in all of the Americas, many indigenous indian cultures were systematically wiped out. But as has been repeated often, this happened over decades and even centuries. It was also the result of warring between colonists from Europe and the indian inhabitants. Indians were not led helplessly in single file into a volcano pit or anything like that. Many colonists lost their lives as well. It was a different time back then. New worlds were still being discovered. This is why I and everyone else disagrees with Miles comparing this to the extermination of the Jews by the Nazis. Europe's colonists and the indian cultures in both Americas were not going to be able to coexist.

Moral truisms then and today are much the same. You know that you shouldn't rape your sister, you know that you shouldn't slit the throat of the neighbor because he gave you a funny look, you know you should respect others. The settlers who commited genocide, were much like the people who lead people to death via governments, military, business and financial abuse today. It's just on the whole we tend to be more subtle or in the case of Panama, Iraq and Afghanistan not so subtle. These days it is control of regions rather than outright genocide. It's not so easy today.They were greedy cunts back then and enough was never enough. You've got to take more and more. Our methods are just more clever now.

Furthermore, the settlers did round up Indians and did incarcerate them in camps and even today the standard of living for natives is considerably lower than that of their bulkier counterparts.

Gotta go. Don't get pissed off like you did the last time. Good argument, I'm sure it'll still be here in the morning.

[VictorCharlie]

Actually I think moral truiisms is a bullshit argument. We don't even have consistent moral codes across this time much less across centuries.

[Gandalf]

"De-population" sounds a little cold, Victor. To be sure, in all of the Americas, many indigenous indian cultures were systematically wiped out. But as has been repeated often, this happened over decades and even centuries. It was also the result of warring between colonists from Europe and the indian inhabitants. Indians were not led helplessly in single file into a volcano pit or anything like that. Many colonists lost their lives as well. It was a different time back then. New worlds were still being discovered. This is why I and everyone else disagrees with Miles comparing this to the extermination of the Jews by the Nazis. Europe's colonists and the indian cultures in both Americas were not going to be able to coexist.

Moral truisms then and today are much the same. You know that you shouldn't rape your sister, you know that you shouldn't slit the throat of the neighbor because he gave you a funny look, you know you should respect others. The settlers who commited genocide, were much like the people who lead people to death via governments, military, business and financial abuse today. It's just on the whole we tend to be more subtle or in the case of Panama, Iraq and Afghanistan not so subtle. These days it is control of regions rather than outright genocide. It's not so easy today.They were greedy cunts back then and enough was never enough. You've got to take more and more. Our methods are just more clever now.

Furthermore, the settlers did round up Indians and did incarcerate them in camps and even today the standard of living for natives is considerably lower than that of their bulkier counterparts.

Gotta go. Don't get pissed off like you did the last time. Good argument, I'm sure it'll still be here in the morning.

I got annoyed the one time because I was a bit drunk, nothing to do with losing any arguments or being pissed off.

It's a pretty sound argument all the way through and I do read what everyone says and take those points on board, but I also do my own reading and on the whole that is where my views become kind of stubborn. But likewise, I am no less stubborn than any of you.

I think we can all essentially just agree to disagree. In truth, I am struggling to put the time into these posts and should really be knuckling on with marking rather than discussing the meaningfulness of holocausts. I want to enjoy a good fight weekend rather than get all heated over the holocaust (no pun intended).

All I will say in conclusion is that it is a terrible tragedy for a holocaust/genocide to happen anywhere. To be killed for resisting the theft of my home, or be forced to endure suffering because you are a minority is sick. It is one reason Palestine makes me so annoyed. We are seeing it happen again and keep sitting by to let it happen. Anyway, that's all. I have grades to fix. See you all for the fight this weekend.

[Gandalf]

One event is considerably downplayed b/c it is not similar or comparable to the other. As an aggregate the professional historians and anthropologists of the world don't consider the de-population of the North, Central and South America a holocaust. Oh and 100 million? That is laughable.

You clearly don't understand the historical concept of the word holocaust. It isn't a relatively recent word such as genocide, but a word that goes back a long time and describes the mass slaughter of a group of people.

It is downplayed because the settlers won and interpreted history to suit their own agenda. As a historian you will know that this is how history is made. The winners write history or at least get the attention. The settlers won and the allies won and thus you have overexagerration and the subsequent downplaying of what are both extremely brutal histories.

It is laughable to you, but not to Stannard for instance. The 100 million figure is for the Americas and not only the northern part of the continent alone.

Genocide is genocide and though clearly all genocides are different, the elements of murder, starvation and disease are common strands in all.

[VictorCharlie]

One event is considerably downplayed b/c it is not similar or comparable to the other. As an aggregate the professional historians and anthropologists of the world don't consider the de-population of the North, Central and South America a holocaust. Oh and 100 million? That is laughable.

You clearly don't understand the historical concept of the word holocaust. It isn't a relatively recent word such as genocide, but a word that goes back a long time and describes the mass slaughter of a group of people.

It is downplayed because the settlers won and interpreted history to suit their own agenda. As a historian you will know that this is how history is made. The winners write history or at least get the attention. The settlers won and the allies won and thus you have overexagerration and the subsequent downplaying of what are both extremely brutal histories.

It is laughable to you, but not to Stannard for instance. The 100 million figure is for the Americas and not only the northern part of the continent alone.

Genocide is genocide and though clearly all genocides are different, the elements of murder, starvation and disease are common strands in all.

I provided a pretty succinct description of the Holocaust and Native American experience previously. If you think those sound similar then it just confirms your lack of objectivity and ignorance. Be real though Miles you don't care about Central and South America b/c that doesn't fit your US is Satan narrative your tirelessly post about.

[Gandalf]

One event is considerably downplayed b/c it is not similar or comparable to the other. As an aggregate the professional historians and anthropologists of the world don't consider the de-population of the North, Central and South America a holocaust. Oh and 100 million? That is laughable.

You clearly don't understand the historical concept of the word holocaust. It isn't a relatively recent word such as genocide, but a word that goes back a long time and describes the mass slaughter of a group of people.

It is downplayed because the settlers won and interpreted history to suit their own agenda. As a historian you will know that this is how history is made. The winners write history or at least get the attention. The settlers won and the allies won and thus you have overexagerration and the subsequent downplaying of what are both extremely brutal histories.

It is laughable to you, but not to Stannard for instance. The 100 million figure is for the Americas and not only the northern part of the continent alone.

Genocide is genocide and though clearly all genocides are different, the elements of murder, starvation and disease are common strands in all.

I provided a pretty succinct description of the Holocaust and Native American experience previously. If you think those sound similar then it just confirms your lack of objectivity and ignorance. Be real though Miles you don't care about Central and South America b/c that doesn't fit your US is Satan narrative your tirelessly post about.

Of course I care. I care about anyone suffers for no good reason, it isn't much fun to suffer at the hands of others. I really don't hate America, but see it as a point worth making. Most of the bloodshed occured before modern America even existed. I do blame the original settlers for what they did though and a lot of that goes down to the British in North America and the Spanish in South America. It isn't about taking the sides of nations, but simply to point out that an apple is an apple and that we choose to look at different types of apple differently for various reasons.

I don't really care for getting into the America is Satan argument as I don't want to. I quite like American people and they are not to blame for the bloodshed that created the nation. Likewise, Britain was an empire builder and so is America. I was not responsible for it and neither are most Americans responsible for their empire. Though admittedly some like you have played a part. However most would abstain from wanton violence upon others who should be left alone to choose their own destinies. We really have no right to tell others what to do.

Ultimately, all I am saying is that apples are apples and that no matter what type or the size, it is still an apple. It is a moral truism that you don't need to pick at the apple, nor bite into it, thus spilling its contents all over the floor like bowels.