"I'm not trying to excuse it or play the suffering Olympics here but the fact of the matter is that white Americans in general wanted the Native Americans to go elsewhere while the Nazis' ultimate goal was to kill them all."
My apologies, this statement " going elsewhere" vs " kill them all" suggests you did not think it was a genocide. I also would just use the term genocide ( me personally). I feel it's an odd semantic turn to use " negligent homicide. :: shrugs:: we have a different lense.
I wasn't calling it negligent homicide. I was making an analogy.
sometimes bad things are just bad and shouldn't be compared one to the other, to create false dichotomies and polarization of people who can agree both of that shits if fucked up.
I disagree. I think it's perfectly fine to compare anything to anything - but we should instead take a closer look at how we wish to react to those comparisons to avoid the reason you think they shouldn't be compared.
Googling to get that link, this also popped up from everyone's fave, Jezebel. A shorter read. I only scanned but it came out a couple days after the NYT article, so I suppose it's similar info in a more pop-culture friendly format
Yeah, I'm not saying it wasn't horrible or even genocide. I'm saying it was different.
To be fair, I lean away from the Noble Savage image (oh those poor NAs who were so perfect until the white people tarnished them). I think it's important that we look at the situation holistically and give them credit for their own successes and failures. I'm particularly interested in the issue and I'm not talking out my ass.
There's actually a lot of evidence lately that pre-Columbian meso-American populations were way larger than previously thought. I'll try to find a source my next break.
I disagree. I think it's perfectly fine to compare anything to anything - but we should instead take a closer look at how we wish to react to those comparisons to avoid the reason you think they shouldn't be compared.
I mean, it was war, right? Maybe not an offical war the whole time, but stil that's the mindset. I'm sure various parts of most wars have Hilter-like tactics. Or have tactics also implemented by Hitler? Surely Hitler wasn't the first to order people to be horrid to other people.
I mean, it was war, right? Maybe not an offical war the whole time, but stil that's the mindset. I'm sure various parts of most wars have Hilter-like tactics. Or have tactics also implemented by Hitler? Surely Hitler wasn't the first to order people to be horrid to other people.
I disagree. I think it's perfectly fine to compare anything to anything - but we should instead take a closer look at how we wish to react to those comparisons to avoid the reason you think they shouldn't be compared.
I'm having a brain dead day (no more coffee)
You are saying we should compare them, but be mindful of what we do with the results of the comparisons?
sorry, babyluv, I just don't follow.
You say we shouldn't compare for certain understandable reasons. I'm saying we should be able to compare, but then to be mindful of ourselves when reacting to the comparisons to avoid said reasons.
I'm really struggling with a way to word this less douchey but dude, sugr, do you have to be so simple all the time?
But to the topic, I'm not saying the Holocaust is any more or less genocidal than what was done to the Native Americans. I'm simply speaking to the differences between the two. At this point, it's like taking maroon and brick and accusing me of saying one is redder than the other simply because I pointed out that one has blue undertones.
I think he's basically saying that comparison and contrasting is acceptable provided you are discussing the different factors and not using that discussion as a ratings system.
I mean, it was war, right? Maybe not an offical war the whole time, but stil that's the mindset. I'm sure various parts of most wars have Hilter-like tactics. Or have tactics also implemented by Hitler? Surely Hitler wasn't the first to order people to be horrid to other people.
I mean, it was war, right? Maybe not an offical war the whole time, but stil that's the mindset. I'm sure various parts of most wars have Hilter-like tactics. Or have tactics also implemented by Hitler? Surely Hitler wasn't the first to order people to be horrid to other people.
No, it wasn't war. It was the systematic slaughter, confinement, segregation, and stripping of all cultural heritage from a group of people. Then a collective head burying of an entire nation.
If anything, what was done, and is still being done, to the Native Americans is worse than anything Hitler could have thought of. However, who cares, right? It all happened decades ago.
ETA: I think the comparison to Hitler is apt, only in that the US Government was successful where Hitler failed.
We're in the middle of a Truth and Reconciliation commission here in Canada to let first nations people tell their stories about residential school and try to heal some of the wounds between races. See, we forgot to kill enough Indians, and now they're the largest growing ethnic group in my province (the average age is somewhere in the late teens, I think - currently 13% of total population projected to be 30% by 2045), but they're still pretty screwed up because we fucked up all their parents/grandparents in residential school. Oh, and keep forgetting to provide little things like safe drinking water. Whatever. They've got casinos here, too.
I mean, it was war, right? Maybe not an offical war the whole time, but stil that's the mindset. I'm sure various parts of most wars have Hilter-like tactics. Or have tactics also implemented by Hitler? Surely Hitler wasn't the first to order people to be horrid to other people.
No, it wasn't war. It was the systematic slaughter, confinement, segregation, and stripping of all cultural heritage from a group of people. Then a collective head burying of an entire nation.
If anything, what was done, and is still being done, to the Native Americans is worse than anything Hitler could have thought of. However, who cares, right? It all happened decades ago.
ETA: I think the comparison to Hitler is apt, only in that the US Government was successful where Hitler failed.
Can you show me where I said who cares?
Murder is still murder and violence is still violence. Neither Hitler nor the Colonists made up either. People suck everywhere and throughout history.
You say we shouldn't compare for certain understandable reasons. I'm saying we should be able to compare, but then to be mindful of ourselves when reacting to the comparisons to avoid said reasons.
ok we sort of agree?
I don't care to play the pain Olympics...sometimes it sucks to be native and sometimes it sucks to be a Jew
Sometimes it sucks to be everyone... What's the point?
The Jews don't have the market cornered on suffering anymore than any other group, and I think any serious comparison to the holocaust is lazy and misguided. Doing so proves an ignorance to one or both of the situations and really does nothing to confront the uniqueness of individual situations.
Besides, there is no way to objectively quantify "badness" here, so why start knicker twisting over it---unless that's the only intent?
I think the comparison is getting more at the reactions that people have to different tragedies. Such as, a pretty white girl is abducted and OMG BREAKING NEWS NATIONWIDE ALERT WE MUST UPDATE YOU EVERY FIVE MINUTES ON THIS HORRIBLE TRAGEDY! while a black boy is abducted and....hey did you hear what Kim Kardashian said today??
Is one abduction worse than the other? No, they're both bad. But the way we react to them says something about our society.
I think the comparison is getting more at the reactions that people have to different tragedies. Such as, a pretty white girl is abducted and OMG BREAKING NEWS NATIONWIDE ALERT WE MUST UPDATE YOU EVERY FIVE MINUTES ON THIS HORRIBLE TRAGEDY! while a black boy is abducted and....hey did you hear what Kim Kardashian said today??
Is one abduction worse than the other? No, they're both bad. But the way we react to them says something about our society.
I think the comparison is getting more at the reactions that people have to different tragedies. Such as, a pretty white girl is abducted and OMG BREAKING NEWS NATIONWIDE ALERT WE MUST UPDATE YOU EVERY FIVE MINUTES ON THIS HORRIBLE TRAGEDY! while a black boy is abducted and....hey did you hear what Kim Kardashian said today??
Is one abduction worse than the other? No, they're both bad. But the way we react to them says something about our society.
Sometimes it sucks to be everyone... What's the point?
The Jews don't have the market cornered on suffering anymore than any other group, and I think any serious comparison to the holocaust is lazy and misguided. Doing so proves an ignorance to one or both of the situations and really does nothing to confront the uniqueness of individual situations.
Besides, there is no way to objectively quantify "badness" here, so why start knicker twisting over it---unless that's the only intent?
huh?
I said no comparisons. so, you're condescendingly agreeing with me?
kind of a doucher ain't ya
Only the first part of that reply was meant only for you, shnookums. I was speaking only to holocaust comparisons, not sweeping generalities---but if you want to play victim to my opinions, there is a line forming to the right.
I am very uncomfortable with the statement. There is no doubt that the Native Americans were literally decimated, pushed out, killed, etc. by the United States. However, it was a centuries-long process, while the white settlers started it, the Native Americans WERE a hostile population who attacked settlements, murdered civilians, and captured women and children, and so it was so much more understandable that the Army would be employed to fight them in a warlike environment in addition to the Trail of Tears, etc.
:-( This is the product of American history taught in High School.
This is the product of American history taught in High School.
Can you explain what you are taking issue with?
Your highly romanticized version of history stemming mainly from Westerns and the scrubbing of the history books.
Most Native American aggression only occurred after they were attacked first. Brutally and systematically attacked, without provocation, by the US government and from settlers.
But, y'know, go on with the explanation that the NAs were savages who weren't protecting their families against a brutal incursion that removed their food sources, poisoned their land, and raped almost all aspect of their lives. It was all their fault since they started it.
I am very uncomfortable with the statement. There is no doubt that the Native Americans were literally decimated, pushed out, killed, etc. by the United States. However, it was a centuries-long process, while the white settlers started it, the Native Americans WERE a hostile population who attacked settlements, murdered civilians, and captured women and children, and so it was so much more understandable that the Army would be employed to fight them in a warlike environment in addition to the Trail of Tears, etc. Now, there's a ton of nuance, and of course the blame lies with the United States, but it's less of a black and white deal. Not to mention, with Indian Removal Acts, the goal was not always, or even often, death. I know there were broken treaties, I know there were lies. It is the fault of the Americans that it all happened. I agree with that. There's just a difference in motive, motivations, time, etc.
To contrast, the Jews were just civilians, totally assimilated and living among the populations of Europe. The government decided they were enemies, rounded them up, and exterminated 6 million of them. In less than a DECADE.
These are very different animals.
And please know that I don't think what happened to the Native Americans was their fault or deserved, I'm just saying that from the perspective of the Americans, pushing them off the frontier seemed like a good call because of actual threat, not Nazi science propaganda.
We attacked them, they fought back, so they're an actual threat? I'm not following this logic.
I'm not even getting into the fact that Jews were only about half of all Holocaust victims and that millions more were not Jewish.
We attacked them, they fought back, so they're an actual threat? I'm not following this logic.
I'm not even getting into the fact that Jews were only about half of all Holocaust victims and that millions more were not Jewish.
By the time we get to 1880s, there's no more being able to say "Well, we started it and they are morally right, so let's leave it alone!" No, by then, there had been 200+ years of fighting, and the United States saw them, right or wrong, as a very real threat to national security.
Over 13,000 native Americans fought for the British in the Revolutionary War, and wiped out settlements in Georgia along the Broad River as part of their tactics.
Again, this doesn't make it even a little bit right to wipe them out, but it is not right to portray native Americans as innocent victims here. They were fighting back to protect their land, and that is understandable, but it's historically and intellectually dishonest when they're being portrayed as peaceful and innocent victims in the entire thing.
eta: Edited because I made a typo because this is the most angry I've ever been at the board. Hate on my politics, but don't hate on my knowledge of history.
Just because the Native Americans had to become violent to defend themselves doesn't mean they're any less innocent in the matter. And that's exactly what it sounds like you're saying.
Your highly romanticized version of history stemming mainly from Westerns and the scrubbing of the history books.
Most Native American aggression only occurred after they were attacked first. Brutally and systematically attacked, without provocation, by the US government and from settlers.
But, y'know, go on with the explanation that the NAs were savages who weren't protecting their families against a brutal incursion that removed their food sources, poisoned their land, and raped almost all aspect of their lives. It was all their fault since they started it.
Jesus Christ. Read my whole motherfucking comment, I SAID THE WHITE PEOPLE STARTED IT. And I've never watched a goddamn western in my life.
ETA: The rest of my paragraph that you didn't include:
"Now, there's a ton of nuance, and of course the blame lies with the United States, but it's less of a black and white deal. Not to mention, with Indian Removal Acts, the goal was not always, or even often, death. I know there were broken treaties, I know there were lies. It is the fault of the Americans that it all happened. I agree with that.There's just a difference in motive, motivations, time, etc."
I agree, Bunnybean. Of course there were hostile indigenous populations among the hundreds encountered. That's how encounters between colliding cultures often go, whether the collision is the result of manifest destiny/imperialism or just population growth.
To smooth over history and say American Indians only ever fought when they were defending themselves--while well-intentioned--plays into the whole myth of the Americas as a land of gentle, peace-pipe smoking, simpletons at one with nature.
One of the things I love about the book "1491" is that it shows how the current, popular myth of Indians is just as dehumanizing as earlier Westerns' portrayals. We trade in brutal savage for the saintly noble savage.
So, no, it's not the same. Colonialism ain't pretty, but it's a different kind of ugly than the Holocaust.