help contrasting between America and WWII Germany

beorna

Ad Honoris
Jan 2010
17,473
-
And this right here is the problem. "All wrong or all right." You can only see black and white. This explains how you can call the gas chamber "humane" compared to beatings, rapes, whippings, and kidnappings - crimes that have been committed by members of every civilization and culture that ever adorned this planet, including the Native Americans. In your "all wrong or all right" world, everybody is a Nazi.

But I'll sum it up anyway. The Nazis committed genocide. The Americans did not. The Nazis took densely populated land by force when there were peaceful, legal means available for their people to spread out. The Americans and colonists tried to spread out peacefully into unpopulated land that was governed by the law of the jungle, and reacted with force when they were savagely attacked.
What a great BS. Glory to the peaceful and pious settlers, probably blessed by God as well, isn't it? they just gave those bloody red bastards what they deserved.

"Riding through dustclouds and barren wastes
Galloping hard on the plains
Chasing the redskins back to their holes
Fighting them at their own game
Murder for freedom the stab in the back
Women and children and cowards attack".

What do you like us to tell next? That it was good to hold the blacks in slavery, because..... I don't know, probably you have an flimsy excuse for it, too!?
 

beorna

Ad Honoris
Jan 2010
17,473
-
So what recognized international boundaries or laws said that Jamestown belonged to the Indians? Where was the property deed? Who was living there? What structures were in place there? What crops were being grown there? Where were the "No Trespassing" signs?

It was empty, unused land, like the vast majority of the North American continent, but the settlers were eventually "savagely attacked" (torture, mutilation, burnt at the stake - all worse than the gas chamber, remember?) for peacefully settling there.



So if it wasn't the "law of the jungle", what law was it? Could the Erie Indians tell you, perhaps?



And what about the kidnapping of the settlers' children by the Indians? Was that a sign of dehumanization and superiority? You seem more than willing to give the Indians a pass on that, and their other crimes. Does this mean you believe they're the "master race"?
It is not the first posting of that kind, but it another proof, that you are just trolling!
 

Wenge

Ad Honoris
Apr 2011
10,429
Virginia
Let me state the obvious. I harbor no ill will against the indigenous people that habitated what became known as The United States of America. Consequently I absorb no responsibility for the actions of those people who came before me because I consider all people who are citizens of my country to be my brothers and sisters. I can control not what anyone who came before me did anymore than a German can control what Hitler did in Germany.

I consider this a hateful and useless discussion. None of the participants of this discussion are responsible for the atrocities of the past and it is a very sensitive topic. I find no value in its discussion since we all have moved on. The only people who find it worth discussing are the people who, somehow, find that they were left out of something because they were born too late to participate in it.

As I have stated before, you cannot compare or contrast the actions of the settlers of North America with the actions of a mad man in Germany and do do so it to dishonor both the actions of defense, of the American Indian, and the defense of the settler.

The 20th century cannot be compared or contrasted with the 17th, 18th or 19th century. The value system was completely different and humans had not evolved enough in their thinking to accept the things we are able to conceive of in the 20th, or 21st century.

If you want to discuss something; discuss how could man, in his state of evolution, have avoided the turmoil that he put the indigenous people's of The America's through versus how could Hitler have solved the problems he felt were harmful to his vision of Germany.

The thread in itself is harmful because it has no connection. It is two very different conditions and cannot be compared. Put it into a more correct context and it may be discussed openly and more effectively.
 

Rongo

Ad Honorem
Dec 2011
5,683
Ohio
Oh, yeah so when it suits you, you jump and attack my post but when you are left with no arguments, you can only come up with such empty rheotric statements. Its the third time, you have done that, which tells a lot.
I am only going to reply to this to show the extent that you are twisting my words to create your strawman. Here's MY words:

And again, what you're not taking into account is that if any German wanted to settle in another European nation, they could have done so peacefully, either by purchasing a property deed or through other legally recognized means.
And here's how you've twisted my words, not once, but three times:

Even after asking two times you have failed to answer through what legal means could Nazi Germany had expanded into Soviet Union??
By the way for the third time you have dodged this question but still I will try it again "By what law Germany could have expanded into Soviet Union?".
So, you couldn't answer how could Germany have acquired land in Soviet Union using peaceful means, so by your own logic it was okay to invade SU..
That said, I'm going to take the excellent advice of Wenge and Pta and leave you gentlemen to your straw, your euphimisms, your prejudged conclusions, and your "all wrong or all right" pontification. Good day. :)
 
Last edited:
Mar 2012
256
Pataligram, Pataliputra, Palibothra, Kusumpur, Pus
And here's how you've twisted my words, not once, but three times:
so, what about these quotes.

Rongo said:
Germans still had a peaceful, legal way to spread out if they wanted to, even into the Soviet Union, i
and, why were you using European nation, when it was about lebensraum i.e. specially about soviet union and I clearly mentioned that too.

fuser said:
You are twisting the facts by carefully mentioning European nation and not Soviet Union. No German could have purchased any land in Soviet Union by the way.
So, when I was asking you specifically about SU, why were you talking about Europe.:suspicious:

So, rongo don't try to play innocent here, there was never a straw man, just that you had no answers/arguments.
 

beorna

Ad Honoris
Jan 2010
17,473
-
from Michael Fellman, biographer of sherman, from 1998:

What Sherman called the “final solution of the Indian problem” involved “killing hostile Indians and segregating their pauperized survivors in remote places.”
“These men applied their shared ruthlessness, born of their Civil War experiences, against a people all three [men] despised. ... Sherman’s overall policy was never accommodation and compromise, but vigorous war against the Indians,” whom he regarded as “a less-than-human and savage race.”
 
Jan 2012
193
Land of 10,000 lakes
So what recognized international boundaries or laws said that Jamestown belonged to the Indians? Where was the property deed? Who was living there? What structures were in place there? What crops were being grown there? Where were the "No Trespassing" signs?

It was empty, unused land, like the vast majority of the North American continent, but the settlers were eventually "savagely attacked" (torture, mutilation, burnt at the stake - all worse than the gas chamber, remember?) for peacefully settling there.



So if it wasn't the "law of the jungle", what law was it? Could the Erie Indians tell you, perhaps?



And what about the kidnapping of the settlers' children by the Indians? Was that a sign of dehumanization and superiority? You seem more than willing to give the Indians a pass on that, and their other crimes. Does this mean you believe they're the "master race"?

What gives you the idea that Native Americans were required to live by your rules? Your arguments are all over the place. First you say that Europeans were justified in slaughtering the Indians and enslaving blacks because it was different times, Then from your "21st Century Ivory Tower" you want the American Indians to have modern day treaties and deed restrictions and "no trespassing signs". I see you are completely dodging the point of the seizure of children up to 40 years ago.

I wouldn't argue in favor of the kidnapping of children by anyone. Just as I wouldn't argue for the justification of what the Nazi's did or what was done to the American Indians. Both would be heinous acts and I would have the conviction to say as much and not to parse the two.
 

beorna

Ad Honoris
Jan 2010
17,473
-
John marszalek, A soldier's passion for order:
"Since the inferior Indians refused to step aside so superior American culture could create success and progress, they had to be driven out of the way as the Confederates had been driven back into the Union.”

DiLorenzo:
"One theme among all of these Union Civil War veterans is that they considered Indians to be subhuman and racially inferior to whites and therefore deserving of extermination if they could not be “controlled” by the white population......... Sherman, Sheridan, and the other top military commanders were not shy about announcing that their objective was extermination, a term that Sherman used literally on a number of occasions.............Sherman announced his objective as being “to prosecute the war with vindictive earnestness . . . till [the Indians] are obliterated or beg for mercy..............As mentioned earlier, Sherman gave orders to kill everyone and everything, including dogs, and to burn everything that would burn so as to increase the likelihood that any survivors would starve or freeze to death. ”

Lee B. Kenneth, A soldier's life:
"Sherman himself thought of the former slaves in exactly the same way. “The Indians give a fair illustration of the fate of the negroes if they are released from the control of the whites,” he once said. He believed that intermarriage of whites and Indians would be disastrous, as he claimed it was in New Mexico, where “the blending of races had produced general equality, which led inevitably to Mexican anarchy."

M. Fellman:
"Sherman gave “Sheridan prior authorization to slaughter as many women and children as well as men Sheridan or his subordinates felt was necessary when they attacked Indian villages."

General John Pope:
“It is my purpose to utterly exterminate the Sioux. . . . They are to be treated as maniacs or wild beasts, and by no means as people with whom treaties or compromises can be made.”

S. L. A. Marshall, Crimsoned Prairie: The Indian Wars (1972):
about Chivington's order at Sand Creek:“I want you to kill and scalp all, big and little; nits make lice.”
and later he wrote:"“Sheridan held with but one solution to the Indian problem — extermination — and Custer was his quite pliable instrument,”
 

beorna

Ad Honoris
Jan 2010
17,473
-
Pushmataha, a Choctaw chieftain, called on his people to reject Jackson’s offer. Far from being a “country of tall trees, many water courses, rich lands and high grass abounding in games of all kinds,” the promised preserve in the West was simply a barren desert. Jackson responded by warning that if the Choctaw refused to move west, he would destroy their nation......

A number of other tribes also organized resistance against removal. In the Old Northwest, the Sauk and Fox Indians fought the Black Hawk War (1832) to recover ceded tribal lands in Illinois and Wisconsin. The Indians claimed that when they had signed the treaty transferring title to their land, they had not understood the implications of the action. “I touched the goose quill to the treaty,” said Chief Black Hawk, “not knowing, however, that by that act I consented to give away my village.” The United States army and the Illinois state militia ended the resistance by wantonly killing nearly 500 Sauk and Fox men, women, and children who were trying to retreat across the Mississippi River. In Florida, the military spent seven years putting down Seminole resistance at a cost of $20 million and 1,500 casualties, and even then succeeding only after the treacherous act of kidnapping the Seminole leader Osceola during peace talks.......

Despite the semblance of legality--94 treaties were signed with Indians during Jackson’s presidency--Native American migrations to the West almost always occurred under the threat of government coercion. Even before Jackson’s death in 1845, it was obvious that tribal lands in the West were no more secure than Indian lands had been in the East. In 1851 Congress passed the Indian Appropriations Act, which sought to concentrate the western Native American population on reservations........

from Digital History

"Being deeply impressed with the opinion that the removal of the Indian tribes from the lands which they now occupy within the limits of the several states and Territories . . . is of very high importance to our Union, and may be accomplished on conditions and in a manner to promote the interest and happiness of those tribes, the attention of the Government has been long drawn with great solicitude to the object. For the removal of the tribes within the limits of the State of Georgia the motive has been peculiarly strong, arising from the compact with that State whereby the United States are bound to extinguish the Indian title to the lands within it whenever it may be done peaceably and on reasonable conditions. . . . The removal of the tribes from the territory which they now inhabit . . . would not only shield them from impending ruin, but promote their welfare and happiness. Experience has clearly demonstrated that in their present state it is impossible to incorporate them in such masses, in any form whatever, into our system. It has also demonstrated with equal certainty that without a timely anticipation of and provision against the dangers to which they are exposed, under causes which it will be difficult, if not impossible to control, their degradation and extermination will be inevitable."
--President James Monroe, in an 1825 message to Congress, Messages and Papers of the Presidents, vol. 2, in Native American Voices: A History and Anthology, ed. Steven Mintz (St. James, NewYork:BrandywineP,1995) 111-112.


"The evil, Sir, is enormous; the inevitable suffering incalculable. Do not stain the fair fame of the country. . . . Nations of dependent Indians, against their will, under color of law, are driven from their homes into the wilderness. You cannot explain it; you cannot reason it away. . . . Our friends will view this measure with sorrow, and our enemies alone with joy. And we ourselves, Sir, when the interests and passions of the day are past, shall look back upon it, I fear, with self-reproach, and a regret as bitter as unavailing."
--Edward Everett, Speeches on the Passage of the Bill for the Removal of the Indians Delivered in the Congress of the United States (Boston, 1830), 299, in Native American Voices: A History and Anthology, 114.​
 

beorna

Ad Honoris
Jan 2010
17,473
-
in a letter to Pres. Monroe in 1817, Andrew Jackson had said:
"I have long viewed treaties with the Indians as an absurdity not to be reconciled to the principles of our government."