[deleted]
Avatar: The Holocaust We Will Not See
71–80 of 180 posts
Re: Avatar: The Holocaust We Will Not See
#72This article, and many of the comments here, hint at a deeper and more interesting phenomenon: the need to have things be either all good or all bad. That is, either (A) western civilization is good, and the things it has done were good, and the things it values are good values, etc., or (B) it's bad, and the things it has done were bad, and the things it values are bad values, etc. Once this dichotomy is accepted, a…
> It's quite possible for the Native Americans to have been savages, and the Europeans to have been savages (with better weapons), and for one group of awful people to have murdered another group of awful people. I don't understand what do you mean with that. I don't think there's an absolute good or bad. But according to the fact that Europeans are the ones who came to America and slaughtered the Natives, they are t…
At least one South American civilization was committing human sacrifices, calling them "good people" before the Spaniards showed up is simplistic. At the same time suggesting the Spaniards were a "good people" simply because they replaced one set of barbaric behaviors with another is also simplistic.
Re: Avatar: The Holocaust We Will Not See
#73I recommend getting over it. You are almost certainly the descendants murderers and conquerors. http://www.exile.ru/articles/detail.php?ARTICLE_ID=7819&... That's just how humans roll. Western Europe had lots of problems, but countries that operate in the European tradition are better places to live. (At least, when you look at the immigration patterns between third-world and first-world countries, it's clear that fi…
That's just how humans roll. Precisely. History is littered with examples of the imperialistic tendencies of man (if you want to see some grade-A imperialism, look into how the Aztecs built their empire, hint: it wasn't by having lots of babies).
Appeal to history. Just because a lot of source code is littered with GOTOs doesn't mean that approach is "how hackers roll." Imperialism's just a phase; it's already generally considered harmful.
Re: Avatar: The Holocaust We Will Not See
#74This article is largely based on the claims of Bartolome de Las Casas, an activist from the time of Conquistadors. Some scholars believe thathe wildly exaggerated the crimes in order to convince the Spanish and other governments to intervene.
Has anyone travelled to both Spain and Latin America? Spaniards are white. Latins have on average a mixed colour. So it's clear that extermination did not take place... there.
Re: Avatar: The Holocaust We Will Not See
#75This article, and many of the comments here, hint at a deeper and more interesting phenomenon: the need to have things be either all good or all bad. That is, either (A) western civilization is good, and the things it has done were good, and the things it values are good values, etc., or (B) it's bad, and the things it has done were bad, and the things it values are bad values, etc. Once this dichotomy is accepted, a…
Sou you think being all but exterminated was for the better of the native Americans?
Maybe you are trying to argue for something good, but dead people are dead. They don't benefit from a civilization that emerged a couple of decades later.
Re: Avatar: The Holocaust We Will Not See
#76Earlier quoted context omitted.
There is a definite wrong when one group directly benefits materially from the exploitation of another, no matter how you spin it. The practice of rape, pillage and plunder is without a doubt a bad thing.
I'm not defending rape, pillage, or plunder. I'm defending rationality, and criticizing the all-or-nothing cognitive distortion.
No, you're talking in vague abstractions without referencing specific period of brutality in humanity's history. Platitudes prevent you from making an actual judgment about a given event.
> "It's quite possible for the Native Americans to have been savages, and the Europeans to have been savages (with better weapons), and for one group of awful people to have murdered another group of awful people."
Conquistadors, went to the Americas and slaughtered millions. Regardless of your assertion that both could be "savages", one group initiated and subsequently conducted systematic violence against another group over several decades. You're honestly saying you can't judge that as "bad"? What if you were among one of those indigenous groups that were killed? I know I would not appreciate it...
But of course we can't make concrete judgments about that.
Re: Avatar: The Holocaust We Will Not See
#77This article, and many of the comments here, hint at a deeper and more interesting phenomenon: the need to have things be either all good or all bad. That is, either (A) western civilization is good, and the things it has done were good, and the things it values are good values, etc., or (B) it's bad, and the things it has done were bad, and the things it values are bad values, etc. Once this dichotomy is accepted, a…
Yes, all this black-or-white talk about genocide misses a lot of the subtleties. How about a nuanced analysis of the Jewish Holocaust? Nobody brings up enough the fact that Hitler built some damn good roads.
The world is a lot more complex than that. Germany was not treated well after the First World War. It was almost certain that there will be another war and a dictator would come to power (the only question was when, and what the dictator's name would be).
This does not mean that everything the German army did was good or justified (e.g. the Holocaust). And neither was the allies knights in shining armour (firebombing of Dresden and Tokyo comes to mind).
My grandparents (although not German citizens) were fiercely supportive of Germany in WW2, as where many people. This stemmed mostly from the UK’s treatment of people in its colonies.
Re: Avatar: The Holocaust We Will Not See
#78Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm sympathetic to the plight of the native American, though this article is poor, but no, I would not. It's an unfortunate but necessary part of human progress. It's no worse than the Romans, or Gauls, or Saxons, etc. By that logic you'd have to keep waving your wand until we were all back on the Savannah tossing spears at antelopes.
>It's no worse than the Romans, or Gauls, or Saxons, etc. Or the Nazis? If they had won WW2 I'm sure some people in Germany today would be calling the Holocaust "an unfortunate but necessary part of human progress" and would tell us all about the backwardness of Jewish culture, I'm sure while also being "sympathetic to the plight" of those victims too. That doesn't mean that one group of people have the right to wipe…
What's your answer to my question?
Re: Avatar: The Holocaust We Will Not See
#79Earlier quoted context omitted.
> It's quite possible for the Native Americans to have been savages, and the Europeans to have been savages (with better weapons), and for one group of awful people to have murdered another group of awful people. I don't understand what do you mean with that. I don't think there's an absolute good or bad. But according to the fact that Europeans are the ones who came to America and slaughtered the Natives, they are t…
Let's say there are two murderers, Frank and Bob. Frank murders Bob. Is Bob therefor less bad than Frank? What if Bob had murdered 1000 children, and Frank wasn't a murderer until he murdered Bob? Does being a victim cleanse your sins?
> Does being a victim cleanse your sins?
Only if you subscribe to simplistic narratives about how the world works.
Re: Avatar: The Holocaust We Will Not See
#80Earlier quoted context omitted.
Doesn't this misconstrue DanielBMarkham's argument, though? There's no attempt to justify the act of genocide, merely to point out that Monbiot's response to it ignores substantive differences between the relative merits of Western culture versus Native American culture, and what's more, does so willfully in service of a particular political agenda.
When discussing genocide, pointing out the merits of those who conducted the genocide vs. those who were slaughtered constitutes an implicit justification of the act. Imagine if descriptions of Nazi concentration camps included lengthy treatises on how Jewish culture was backwards and savage, while German culture was refined and noble. Would you find this appropriate, or even relevant in any way?
This strikes me as patently false-- it is perfectly possible to discuss the relative merits of those who conducted genocide versus their victims without justifying the act.
The problem with attributing these kind of motives to those with whom you disagree is that all discussion then shift away from the logical merits of various positions and into the decidedly illogical territory of whose voice you think this the most "authentic". In short, instead of asserting that your opponents have different positions then they actually do, perhaps its worth asking whether or not that is their position.