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

[Traitorfish]

 

[Hygro]

I'm seeing a disconnect between what TF is saying and what DAG is interpreting TF as saying and I think the solution is going to require time.

 

[Lord Baal]

delete

 

[Masada]

Here's a paper on the Stolen Generation by Colin Tatz. I'd encourage people to read it and consider whether the same sort of argument can be made about the removal of Indian Children. (It has been but I'm not all that familiar with the literature and I don't have the time or inclination to dig it up).

Masada has met genocidaires in Indonesia

More like war criminals. But, yeah I have. I had dinner with one, it was quite pleasant.

 

[Lord Baal]

delete

 

[H4run]

More like war criminals. But, yeah I have. I had dinner with one, it was quite pleasant.

It was Soeharto family or cendana I guess, or his son in law Prabowo the criminal that want to be the next president of Indonesia, God forbid me to drink the water that they gave me.

 

[DemonicAppleGuY]

Who is "we." And most "enemies" - which the Native Americans largely were specifically because the colonials attacked them first - tend to be different ethnic groups. Civil wars are almost the only exception to this.

Yeah, fair enough.

Have you been reading the thread, Louis XXIV? That's precisely what Mouthwash and DAG have been doing.

I'm not sure how I'm advocating mass killing. It's wrong. I recognize this. But it is important to also recognize that just because something is wrong people may still engage in the activity anyway because it

Neither are Jews. Or Roma. Or the Armenians, Syriac Greeks, Anatolian Greeks, Hereros, Hutus, Tutsis, Tasmanians, mainland Australian Aborigines, Mantaeans, Slavs, etc..

Are you frigging serious? "I've been proven wrong, but here's this minuscule piece of driftwood to cling to in the storm. Therefore, I'm not wrong!"

Aye, fine I was wrong.

Since when does something require recognition in order to be true? Taiwan is an independent state, despite it's lack of recognition. Australia controls the Coral Sea, despite not having any legal basis for claiming that much territory. I would think a Realist would recognise that facts trump appearances.

While facts triumph appearances, the word "genocide" is simply a label here. It does not change what happened. It does not change that the Indians were slaughtered. Since it is a label that is not necessarily well defined, it needs recognition for it to be true.

Also, your argument here is that if Germany had won the war and wiped out the Jews, it would not have been genocide, as no Jews would have been left to bring charges. I guess the Tasmanians weren't genocided.

See above.

How many "scholarly works" have you seen presenting your argument?

I presented an excerpt from this article earlier in the thread.

B%&$# had it coming. She was dressed provocatively.

I somehow knew this would come up.

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

Genocide need not be murderous.

Alright?

DAG, just stop. Your argument is patently false on semantic, legal, ethical, ideological and geopolitical grounds. Genocide is a widely accepted term with known definitions, which have been accepted for just under seventy years now.

Then please, show me the academics calling it a genocide.

 

[Lord Baal]

delete

 

[H4run]

I'm not sure how I'm advocating mass killing. It's wrong. I recognize this. But it is important to also recognize that just because something is wrong people may still engage in the activity anyway because it

You are playing with words here, you state :

mass killing is wrong and you know it, but it still important to acknowledge that peoples have right (as you use the word "may") to justify this action and do it anyway (by engage into that activity)

Isn't this mean you advocating mass killing? It's wrong but its okay

 

[Masada]

I presented an excerpt from this article earlier in the thread.

That's not literature.

 

[tokala]

(It has been but I'm not all that familiar with the literature and I don't have the time or inclination to dig it up).

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

ICWA was enacted in 1978 because of the high removal rate of Indian children from their traditional homes and essentially from Indian culture as a whole. Before enactment, as many as 25 to 35 percent of all Indian children were being removed from their Indian homes and placed in non-Indian homes, with presumably the absence of Indian culture.[3][4] In some cases, the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) paid the states to remove Indian children and to place them with non-Indian families and religious groups.[5] Testimony in the House Committee for Interior and Insular Affairs showed that in some cases, the per capita rate of Indian children in foster care was nearly 16 times higher than the rate for non-Indians.[6] If Indian children had continued to be removed from Indian homes at this rate, tribal survival would be threatened. Congress recognized this, and stated that the interests of tribal stability were as important as that of the best interests of the child.[7] One of the factors in this judgment was that, because of the differences in culture, what was in the best interest of a non-Indian child were not necessarily what was in the best interest of an Indian child, especially due to extended families and tribal relationships

Yeah, I know, wikipedia. It's referenced to the literature, though.

The key theme of the post-conquest American Indian policy was the eradication of Indian identity (up to about 1980), this is so unequivocal that I'm a bit puzzled that this is even up to debate.

http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Code_of_Indian_Offenses
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Native_American_boarding_schools
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indian_termination_policy
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indian_Relocation_Act_of_1956

(Of the top of my head)

 

[Masada]

I know I linked to the ICWA a while back

 

[red_elk]

Well, it is a useless term in a sense.

It's not useless term, you just don't want it to be associated with your country. Because it brings up unwanted parallels with Nazi Germany.

You Russians surely know a thing or two about mass-murder right?

Yes, Russian history is bloody. There were episodes which can possibly be qualified as a genocide, e.g. some episodes of Caucasus invasion in XIX century. But not according to your definition, because people who had been exterminated were definitely "rebellious group" and thus the Russians were doing "sensible" thing and moreover it is not recognized as a genocide by international community. Why did you ask?

So, while mass murder may be "wrong", could it still be "sensible" at the same time?

So, genocide is only when people believe what they do is not sensible? It means genocide never happened in human history.
You are using very specific definition of "sensible". If some guy kills you and takes your wallet, the fact that it was "sensible" thing to do for him doesn't change his guilt or definition of his action.

 

[Cheezy the Wiz]

I did specifically ask for a state, so I guess I'm almost safe.

In any case, they can't bring charges of genocide against the US. When they tried to, they were ignored.

If you read the article Cheezy linked.



Fair enough.

In any case though, they have not successfully brought charges of genocide against the US nor has anyone else. It is not recognized as a genocide internationally.

And have not seen any attempts to present scholarly works presenting it as such.

The Armenian genocide is also unrecognized by the United Nations.

 

[DemonicAppleGuY]

Totten goes into some detail on the very argument you're making; genocide needs a better definition (which is horsecrap). He still concludes that much of the killing of Native Americans qualifies as genocide.

Links were fine.

I'm not sure I felt the conclusion that much of the killing qualified as genocide. He seemed to be saying that while there was plenty of killing with genocidal intent, there was also plenty without it and that attempting to apply the word "genocide" to the entire conflict is useless because it groups together numerous events undertaken in a variety of places over the course of centuries.

Now to comment on the links about the taking of Native American children well into the 20th century (When the Native Americans were undoubtedly out of the way). I would wager that unless we can truly prove that the government believed it was in the best interests of the children to have them brought into American culture (which we can't, as I doubt it is true, but we can't know) then I believe this could likely be classified as a genocide of sorts.

In a way though, it seems to make more useless the term. As it groups the "kidnapping" of children with the Holocaust.

Yes, Russian history is bloody. There were episodes which can possibly be qualified as a genocide, e.g. some episodes of Caucasus invasion in XIX century. But not according to your definition, because people who had been exterminated were definitely "rebellious group" and thus the Russians were doing "sensible" thing and moreover it is not recognized as a genocide by international community. Why did you ask?

Well I'm not accusing of you genocide, so we're good. I asked because we now have another historical mass-killing of people that were certainly "in the way" to an extent.



Anyway, everyone commenting on "sensible": Do you really believe that just because something is wrong they won't do it? Especially if they believe it is beneficial to them?

I suppose it is a form of justification. It does not make the wrongness of the actions any less though.

The Armenian genocide is also unrecognized by the United Nations.

Indeed. They got away with it.

That's not literature.

Sure it is..?

 

[Masada]

Sure it is..?

No, it's a post on a website.

 

[red_elk]

Well I'm not accusing of you genocide, so we're good. I asked because we now have another historical mass-killing of people that were certainly "in the way" to an extent.

There were plenty of mass killings, most notable ones related to wars and civil wars. Though the intent to wipe out some ethnic identity happened not so often. As for parallels with Russian history, the Siberian natives are still there and well off.

 

[Louis XXIV]

You're making the same mistake I cautioned against. Genocide doesn't require killing. And neglect can be sufficient cause for a genocide charge to be levied.

I've acknowledged that like three times already (including in the very post you literally quoted about two sentences prior).

However, whether there's a killing certainly affects the weight of moral judgment regardless of whether it is or is not genocide. It would be ridiculous to suggest otherwise.

 

[Lord Baal]

delete

 

[DemonicAppleGuY]

There's you problem, right there. No one, except the nutters, applies the genocide narrative to the entirety of the centuries-long conflict between Native Americans and the colonials. They're the ones Totten was responding to with this text. There are numerous instances during this conflict, however, which amount to genocide. The Seminole War, for example, involved the US attempting to forcibly relocate an entire ethnic group, then resorting to massacring them when they refused to move. It is far from the only example.

Fair enough, but I don't see how the example you gave is genocidal.

You obviously aren't aware of the kidnapping of Slavic children with blonde hair and blue eyes to be raised by German parents. How can mass kidnappings of the children of whole ethnic groups be anything but genocide?

This was only part of the Holocaust.