English Deutsch Français Italiano Español Português 繁體中文 Bahasa Indonesia Tiếng Việt ภาษาไทย
All categories

I'm no expert but was curious if anyone else had considered that the virtual anhiliation of the Native Americans had some eery similarities to Nazism.

I fail to see how the trail of tears is much different than a train ride in a cattle car to Auschwitz.

I fail to see how a gas chamber is much different than a knowingly pox infested blanket delivery or hail of bullets at women and children.

I don't want to invalidate the significance of either event. Just wish to draw some lines of conclusion.

Perhaps we should redefine the lines of propriety and redefine whom is a savage.

2007-07-31 09:41:45 · 9 answers · asked by ? 4 in Politics & Government Other - Politics & Government

9 answers

every genocide is experienced as being unique by its victims. to the jewish community, the holocaust is the greatest imaginable horror in history. for armenians, their slaughter at the hands of the turks is second to none. for african americans, nothing holds a candle to slavery...

nonetheless, the mechanisms of genocide are often similar. every genocide, no matter how unique to its victims, is perpetrated by analogous means. whether by church or state, gas chambers or infected blankets, musket or machine gun.

the lesson is to be ever vigilant against the employment of bigotry to promote political agendas. hate is a powerful unifying force, but it is also a force that knows no bounds.

2007-07-31 10:04:31 · answer #1 · answered by mobius1ski 2 · 1 0

I fail to see the eerie similarities nor do I understand why you need to draw lines of conclusion. If you want to redefine who the savage is, perhaps it will help to define the word savage to begin with.

Savage: barbarous: (of persons or their actions) able or disposed to inflict pain or suffering; "a barbarous crime"; "brutal beatings"; "cruel tortures"; "Stalin's roughshod treatment of the kulaks"; "a savage slap"; "vicious kicks"
feral: wild and menacing; "a ferocious dog"
barbarian: without civilizing influences; "barbarian invaders"; "barbaric practices"; "a savage people"; "fighting is crude and uncivilized especially if the weapons are efficient"-Margaret Meade; "wild tribes"
a member of an uncivilized people.

How would YOU redefine savage?

The purpose of Nazism and the holocaust to totally obliterate a race of people. The Nazis weren't lying to the Jews, nor were they promising them anything but death.

I doubt if those settlers had the technology or the knowledge to purposely infect blankets with small pox. Unlike certain savages today who knowingly send antrax in the mail.

What happened between the Indians and the Settlers was caused by fear, and misunderstandings because of a language & cultural barrier. Both parties did their share of raping, pillaging, and thieving. History revisionists tend to be kinder to the Indians than previous versions of history. I believe that both sides acted out of ignorance and fear and the Europeans just had better weapons.

The Jews had no weapons, and no way to protect themselves. (*Note to anti-gun folks.)

2007-07-31 10:04:53 · answer #2 · answered by ? 6 · 0 1

"I fail to see how the trail of tears is much different than a train ride in a cattle car to Auschwitz."

Really? Did you know that when they got to the end of the trail, they were free and they weren't put into gas chambers?

"I fail to see how a gas chamber is much different than a knowingly pox infested blanket delivery or hail of bullets at women and children."

They didn't always know where the small pox was, remember it didn't affect the colonists as much, and the science of diseases was really lacking at the time. I haven't heard of any intentional exposure to small pox, but I don't doubt it may have happened. I haven't heard any stories of women and children being shot, either.

2007-07-31 09:47:20 · answer #3 · answered by Pfo 7 · 0 2

I do understand that a fetus is a human bring but in the question of personal rights I stand firmly on keeping the government out of something as personal as sex and reproduction. The Government has already over reached its bounds into personal freedoms without handing them this one. My suggestion to you is that if you find this that disturbing then don't have an abortion. If you are going to support the fetus's rights then do so 100% of the time and don't do the "feel good" thing of saying it's okay in the event of rape or incest, don't be an advocate of convenience.

2016-05-19 01:17:15 · answer #4 · answered by evette 3 · 0 0

far reaching. to make that comparison, then you could compare any battle, war or confrontation to the holocaust. darfur, somalia, the crusades. it is the nature of war, at any level. America is not evil no matter how much you portray it to be. perhaps we should redefine ignorance.

2007-07-31 09:48:26 · answer #5 · answered by BRYAN H 5 · 1 1

"virtual anhiliation".

Feeling a wee bit histrionic today, are we, Binky?

2007-07-31 09:45:10 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 2 0

you bet ye, only in america they did a better job.

2007-07-31 10:16:59 · answer #7 · answered by acid tongue 6 · 0 0

None.

2007-07-31 09:45:30 · answer #8 · answered by B.Kevorkian 7 · 1 1

i LOVE pudding!

2007-07-31 09:51:55 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 1 1

fedest.com, questions and answers