Holocaust denial

[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.