Will Hitler be seen in a more positive way in the far future?

[Traitorfish]

White people are a pretty rebellious set of ethnic groups, what with all their not-recognising-the-Son-of-Heaven and whatnot. Shall we get the cattle-cars ready?

 

[Mouthwash]

Isn't it midnight over in Scotland?

 

[Traitorfish]

I work funny hours.

 

[Louis XXIV]

That man is wrong. Many Native nations were not nomads but settled farmers. The Iroquois, Cherokee, Chickasaw, Creek, Seminoles, Choctaw, Pueblo, and others were settled. The Cherokee had American style houses, their own written script, a newspaper, and towns. They were also American allies, and the Supreme Court actually ordered the government to honor the Cherokees' right to their land, which President Andrew Jackassson blatantly and explicitly disregarded. You cannot possibly make the argument that they were "nomads" who "stood in the way".

For what it's worth (and I mistakenly believed this too until very recently), this is a myth. The United States Supreme Court was a mixed bag when it came to Native Americans. Although the Court seemed sympathetic to their cause (in an earlier case, Johnson v. M'Intosh, Chief Justice Marshall said that European rules in dealing with Native Americans was "opposed to natural right and to the usages of civilized nations"), it still often ruled against them (in that same sentence, the Chief Justice basically said "but we can't rule against the system responsible for giving this court the authority to rule in the first place.").

The "Justice Marshall has made his decision, now let him enforce it" quote is not only probably apocryphal, it refers to Worcester v. Georgia, not Cherokee Nation v. Georgia. In Worcester, the issue was two US citizens being jailed for opposing Cherokee removal (the Court ordered them freed). However, Andrew Jackson (while not a fan of the decision) was not involved in the case and the state of Georgia did in fact free them.

Cherokee Nation v. Georgia is the case you're conflating with the other one. That's the case where the Cherokee Nation sought an injunction to stop their removal. The Court ruled that the Cherokee Nation had no standing to sue because it was a "domestic, dependent nation" and not a foreign nation so the Court was without original jurisdiction. In other words, they declined to rule on the merits of the case, which opened the door for Georgia (not Andrew Jackson) to remove the Cherokee on the trail of tears.

ETA: I have to modify this post slightly. Worcester was the latter of the two cases and is often thought to support a stop to the Cherokee removal. However, it wasn't an issue in the case and the Court didn't ask anyone to stop their removal. It was just other language in the opinion about the status of Indian relations being an exclusive province of the federal government supported the idea that what Georgia was doing was unconstitutional. Arguably, had there been a case with parties with standing, that case would have been precedent for an injunction against Georgia, but, by that point, it was too late.

 

[Masada]

Anyway, @Masada, so then is the recognition of genocide individual to states then? Since the Turks don't recognize the genocide I guess it wasn't a genocide.

Nope, that's incorrect again. The competent state could presumably include Armenia, which was also the site of massacres etc. The same could be said of Greece and its Turkish issues.

 

[Lord Baal]

delete

 

[Mouthwash]

I work funny hours.

Yet somehow I, who doesn't work at all, can't get to sleep at 1:23 in the morning despite having not slept a wink for the last 36 hours. I don't even feel tired.

 

[DemonicAppleGuY]

Fair enough then. You just want to round up ethnic groups and stick them in camps. Nothing wrong with that.

He probably could have stated it more eloquently. We wanted to push our enemies off their land. It just so happened they were another ethnic group from us.

Heydrich was setting up a "Museum of a Dead Race" in Prague, so that seems doubtful.

Hmm, I wasn't aware. I'd wager it would be remembered far less negatively now had they won though anyway. I'm stating the obvious here though.

Since Charles Manson has never accepted guilt for the Manson Family murders, I guess they weren't murders then.

That is the point I was making.

White people are a pretty rebellious set of ethnic groups, what with all their not-recognising-the-Son-of-Heaven and whatnot. Shall we get the cattle-cars ready?

That may well happen someday. Or not. Who knows right?

 

[DemonicAppleGuY]

Nope, that's incorrect again. The competent state could presumably include Armenia, which was also the site of massacres etc. The same could be said of Greece and its Turkish issues.

So then what state exists that was involved in the supposed genocide of the natives to the US that recognizes it as a genocide?

The US does not recognize it. And the US is the only remaining state that was involved.

 

[Kyriakos]

So then what state exists that was involved in the supposed genocide of the natives to the US that recognizes it as a genocide?

The US does not recognize it. And the US is the only remaining state that was involved.

^If you walk into a room with a bloodied person and a half-eaten human corpse, would you settle what happened by asking both of them for their version?

 

[Cheezy the Wiz]

So then what state exists that was involved in the supposed genocide of the natives to the US that recognizes it as a genocide?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lakota_Nation

Lakota File Genocide Charges Against the United States

 

[Kyriakos]

^

 

[Masada]

So then what state exists that was involved in the supposed genocide of the natives to the US that recognizes it as a genocide?

The US does not recognize it. And the US is the only remaining state that was involved.

Nope, again.

The Contracting Parties confirm that genocide, whether committed in time of peace or in time of war, is a crime under international law which they undertake to prevent and to punish.

Any Contracting Party may call upon the competent organs of the United Nations to take such action under the Charter of the United Nations as they consider appropriate for the prevention and suppression of acts of genocide or any of the other acts enumerated in Article 3.

So it would only take say Sweden to get involved to force the issue. In actual fact, Article 1 and 8 concurrently all but require a military response. The United States blocked resolutions concerning the situation in Rwanda on that basis. In short, it didn't want to have to intervene militarily. But when the government of Rwanda was overthrown - a state of affairs the US helped to facilitate - it had zero issues with passing the UNSC resolution 955 which gave legal force to the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda.

 

[H4run]

I lazily following this discussion and hardly read all of it because it disgust me. I think it is unacceptable to try to advocate the mass killing of the NATIVES american just because he can't/don't want assimilate to the colonialism power. You are guest on their land, still until now, they not tell you to behave while you dictate them to behave, I think assimilation is the things that the China force to Uyghur, the Japanese force to Korean, the spain crusaders force to Muslim. If you argue they must integrate to the society so my question will be how integrate American society itself to one and another? if a german question the Turks they not assimilate and integrate to the society now the question will be how integrate the german within themselves? So I think the true motive is not really "they not fit with our culture" or "they are in the way" or "they not fit with our society", the key point is something else something nasty.

It is not if it genocide or not is the things that is a key point for this discussion, but the fact that it is a mass murder and annihilation of groups of peoples this itself already sufficient to show how it is horrible, and btw it is a genocide, even if one reject it is not a genocide then it is still "the mass murder of tribes because they are standing in the way of the development of America as a state" it still sound horrible for normal peoples.

As someone who really distant from death, and living in the warm womb of capitalism, who scream that the tragedy happen when only several peoples been shot in cinema, who might be pee on their pants when seeing a gun been point out to their head or seeing his family been slaughter or their house been ransack, thousands peoples been killed per operation like what happen in Syria, Palestine or Afghanistan as it happen in America to the natives backthen, it is a hypocrisy to say "if the history repeat again we will do exactly the same thing" I think this is the effect of playing so much video games that contain violent.

This topic and disucssion it is really not a joke and not funny at all.

 

[Louis XXIV]

I don't think anyone is advocating the mass murder of Native Americans.

BTW, earlier, a comparison was made between Manifest Destiny and Lebensraum. I do think there are enough similarities that a comparison is fair, but I also do think there are significant differences. Hitler's vision took into account the Slavs in the area and saw them as resources to be used or killed off. His conscious plan took into account their position and deliberately chose to use that for the Germans' own ends. When you read views about Manifest Destiny, it really seems that people thought they were living in an entirely empty world that could simply be expanded into. There was no conscious plan to kill off Native Americans so they could expand. Instead, it seemed that Native Americans were generally dealt with on an ad-hock basis with the goal of simply having them moved somewhere else. I don't think, at least before the Indian Appropriations Act of 1871 and the Dawes Act, that any conscious plan to remove Indian identity could be seen.

Don't get me wrong, forcing people out of an area so as to destroy their ethnic presence is ethnic cleansing, same as in Bosnia and Kosovo. I'm just saying that, if a conscious plan and intent matter, Lebansraum and certainly the Holocaust were far worse.

 

[H4run]

I might be not a good reader here but from what that I catch from the discussion that I skip so much because I also bit emotional while reading it is what happen in America is not a genocide because it is a mass murder that been launch not base by hatred as it should be define in UN on what is genocide and what is not. The fact is I have deep sympathy to the natives American especially-because of Karl May perhaps, and generally I don't approve and against the western colonialism in every place to every nation indiscriminately, and the fact I feel lots similarity between my history and their history.

I might agree with you that the Lebensraum of the Nazi is worst in the context of how the Nazi treat the Jews as you state as an object that been used that later discard. As someone who seem more knowledgeable than me in this subject, how about if I state but in the result western colonialism in America is worst than Nazi? because Nazi happen in short terms the result is massive but there is no total annihilation of specific tribes of the Jews in result, I think the things that can be equal or worst than western colonialism in America is the massacre of the Jews that result ten lost tribes until today. As we also lost many of the Native American tribes by massacre or "mysteriously" disappear like the Aztec for example.

I must honest with you I'm not expert in this field, but I don't believe that most of the natives die under germs than under the bullets of colonialism like how Jared want us to believes, because mass killing is common in western colonialism take for example Ausralia and how they treat the Aborigine. Some said that the western colonialism treatment to the natives in New Zealand is much better in comparison to other (like Indonesia, Philippines, Malaysia, India, America, etc), but maybe Masada know this things better than me.

 

[tokala]

When you read views about Manifest Destiny, it really seems that people thought they were living in an entirely empty world that could simply be expanded into. There was no conscious plan to kill off Native Americans so they could expand. Instead, it seemed that Native Americans were generally dealt with on an ad-hock basis with the goal of simply having them moved somewhere else. I don't think, at least before the Indian Appropriations Act of 1871 and the Dawes Act, that any conscious plan to remove Indian identity could be seen.

Don't get me wrong, forcing people out of an area so as to destroy their ethnic presence is ethnic cleansing, same as in Bosnia and Kosovo. I'm just saying that, if a conscious plan and intent matter, Lebansraum and certainly the Holocaust were far worse.

Just for clarification:

I did not suggest that the Holocaust and the American Indian ethnic cleansing/Genocide were anywhere close on the scale of abhorrence/evilness whatever you like to call it.

I did not conflate Lebensraum and Holocaust policy either, though there was certainly a lot of overlapping.

I was more referring to the Colonization/Germanization of East European lands that was Hitlers vision to get on a even footing with America as a stepping stone for the struggle for world supremacy.

In my opinion this plan looks like a fast-forward version of Manifest Destiny.
The extermination of a large fraction of the people that happened to live there was a means to an end, not a goal by itself.
Sure they were considered Untermenschen, but were welcomed to live as a low-caste, lowly educated bottom of German-dominated society as long as they didn't get in the way of the Herrenrasse. "Going elsewhere" of those in the way would be likely welcomed by the Nazis, too.

In contrast the "Jews". "Gipsies", Homosexuals and other undesirables were scheduled for industrialized mass murder on principle.

Compare this with the American ideology regarding the Indian tribes. This wobbled between "they might made it into (of course low caste) productive members of American society, given enough time to assimilate" and something even below Untermensch, incompatible with the American project on principle, to be either exterminated or pushed out of sight for the moment, no qualms if half of them died on the way to "out of sight".

The benign version would be predominant as long as there wasn't direct conflict, and among the good citizens far removed from the "frontier" and those that didn't had a direct economic motivation for expulsion/extermination of the Indian tribes.
For examples of the not-so-benign-version see the, (near-)extermination of the Acadian, Californian and Ohio valley tribes or the Trail of Tears (I do consider the colonials to be in ideological continuity with the Americans for the purpose at hand).

I wonder about the "there was no plan to kill Indians to expand part". Wouldn't you agree that the blocks that the English put on westward expansion were a significant part of the motivation for the War of Independence and the War of 1812?
In these wars the Colonials/Americans were quite willing to kill people, a lot of Indians among them.

Uups, sorry overlooked the "off" part of the killing. But still, I was arguing for equivalency with Lebensraum not Holocaust.


I don't think you can argue in good faith that the proponents of westward expansion were considering this area "empty of people".
They might certainly rationalize that those few wandering savages could not be considered real people, never mind that neither the "wandering" nor the "savage" would be correct in all, or even most cases.

 

[Masada]

You seem to have been reading a totally different conversation. One that involved reasoned debate rather than what we've had: denial, definitional handwringing and now the most incompetent attempt at legal ass covering I've ever seen. But I do think a certain person has been arguing that the genocide of Native America happened, was desirable and produced good outcomes! See below:

I'm not arguing we weren't attempting to destroy them. I'm arguing we weren't doing it because of who they were.

ex. Settling the New World. The natives and the colonials were not super enthusiastic about working together. So the colonials did what any sensible people would do. Slaughter the natives and take the land.

In the world we live in today I think it is hard to make the argument that we would have been better off had we not slaughtered them. Sure we feel bad now, but would we do it all over again if given the reason? Certainly I think.

I mean, really the whole thing is a train-wreck where the chief instigator has directly contradicted himself on numerous occasions. But w/e. Here's my favorite example:

Us [White people] taking them [Native Americans] in as our own and attempting to assimilate them rather than slaughter them attests to the fact that we did not have the intent of wiping them out as a group, just wiping out their ability to have stuff. It was simply too late to assimilate the older ones. They were set in their ways. As were we.

If they have nice land are you not destroying a "geographic" group rather than simply an ethnic group?

The two are obviously contradictory. You'll also note that White Americans weren't allowed to go around killing other White Americans for their land. But w/e all the "geographic" groups just happened to be Native Americans. It was an accident, honest! We didn't target them even when we stole their children and kill their oldies! (It must just be luck that Canada didn't get conquered for all its nice land).

There was no conscious plan to kill off Native Americans so they could expand.

That's irrelevant. Having an overarching plan is not a requirement for genocide. It does help the prosecutors, certainly. But ad-hoc death camps are still, well, death camps.

I'm just saying that, if a conscious plan and intent matter, Lebansraum and certainly the Holocaust were far worse.

Intent matters. But only in the sense that it has to be present for a charge to be levied.

I did not suggest that the Holocaust and the American Indian ethnic cleansing/Genocide were anywhere close on the scale of abhorrence/evilness whatever you like to call it.

I think at a certain point it ceases to be profitable to hair-split over which ethnic cleansing or genocide was worse when the simple answer is they're all abhorrent in the extreme. Really, once you hit a certain point its all statistical and sort of meaningless.

The extermination of a large fraction of the people that happened to live there was a means to an end, not a goal by itself.

That's not actually true. The Nazis full-well intended to exterminate most of the Slavs. They just never had the time to do it. We have pretty good evidence of what they intended to do too.

 

[H4run]

Some of the quote that you quoted are pretty nasty Masada, I can't believe myself reading this I thought they regret the tragedy and count this as something that happen in the old time that it is not fit with the mentality of contemporary time which morally more better but I think it somehow stuck or even get worst, no wonder genocide still happen today and if peoples still advocating their "genocider" tendency by giving it moral reason, genocide will be happen again in the future, that will be lead with the Nazi like party like Golden Dawn, BNP or EDL.

And as you said the old genocider hiding behind the fur of the sheep, while the present legalize it and giving it moral value with their intellectual power

 

[Kyriakos]

nope, that's incorrect again. The competent state could presumably include armenia, which was also the site of massacres etc. The same could be said of greece and its turkish issues.

<sound of crickets eating turkish delight>