Should I forgive Germany?

Originally posted by soleran30
Capt as difficult as this sounds they went to war with those European settlers and chose to stay in the USA there is Canada and Mexico.....

Did Caesar let crushed enemies live with him.....as a slave
Did Egypt let crushed enemies live with them.......as a slave
How about Ghengis Khan and the mongols........nope killed them all
What did American Indians do with a defeated captured tribe? I will tell you they sure as hell didn't say stay where you are and live off what you can.....guess what the defeated tribe......you guessed it SLAVE or Killed

So what exactly was your point about American Indians now?

It's not difficult!

These native Americans were no match for the tecnologically more advance Europeans, with their guns and diseases. The 'Indians' only really started fighting back in a suffecient manner, after they started getting ahold of European weapons.

Yes, Caesar DID let "crushed" enemies live. Not only live, but they were allowed to live as they had before their conflict. The only difference was, they were enlisted into the Roman army and they had to pay Rome taxes.

The Egyptians did pretty much the same. The only ones they killed were soldiers in battle. They also forced defeated peoples to serve in their army, and pay tribute to the Pharaoh.

Mongols, yeah, I don't know too much about them....

Native Americans had no concept of slaves. And most often, theose they defeated were allowed to joing the victorious tribe...and become a part of their society.

:edit:

Defeated Tribes were slaves or KILLED whoever told you differntly is incorrect........WTF is this about better equipment and disease? So what one army was better prepared one lost.......this is always the case get over that Capt.

And once again I might add please reading comprehension is CRUCIAL because words being placed in someone mouth don't belong.

Mister PVS it pains me to bring this to your attention as well however reparations for Germany holocaust victims was an ALLIED piece not just one country. United Nations was formed during the previous period of Indians there was no collective govt

Originally posted by soleran30
Defeated Tribes were slaves or KILLED whoever told you differntly is incorrect........WTF is this about better equipment and disease? So what one army was better prepared one lost.......this is always the case get over that Capt.

And once again I might add please reading comprehension is CRUCIAL because words being placed in someone mouth don't belong.

Mister PVS it pains me to bring this to your attention as well however reparations for Germany holocaust victims was an ALLIED piece not just one country. United Nations was formed during the previous period of Indians there was no collective govt

"This is" NOT "always the case"

what do guns and disease have to do with it? Read your history.

Originally posted by soleran30
Defeated Tribes were slaves or KILLED whoever told you differntly is incorrect........WTF is this about better equipment and disease? So what one army was better prepared one lost.......this is always the case get over that Capt.

And once again I might add please reading comprehension is CRUCIAL because words being placed in someone mouth don't belong.

Mister PVS it pains me to bring this to your attention as well however reparations for Germany holocaust victims was an ALLIED piece not just one country. United Nations was formed during the previous period of Indians there was no collective govt

i edited because i mistook your initial post on native american reparations.
i thought you were making the point that somehow we were absolved of any guilt because a minority of a minority of a race which was systematically murdered was given a few casinos and small chunks of useless land to live on. when i saw the post after that i knew we were on the same page in this matter.

my bad.

Originally posted by soleran30
United Nations was formed during the previous period of Indians there was no collective govt

Yup its kinda rough really

My point though was to point out even though 2 evils don't equal a right holocaust was the systemic destruction of a people that were established in its own govt/community.
VS

The destruction of a people that an invading army subdued and decimated neither are right but 2 different mechanisms on the WHY it happened

Originally posted by xmarksthespot
What does this sentence mean? It makes little grammatical sense...

He does that some times, I think he/she combines two different thoughts into once sentence.

That doesn't change how wrong he is, however. The United Nations was formed AFTER WW2. The LEAGUE OF NATIONS was formed after WW1.

And there was no continent spanning single government for the native americans. But, there were many different 'indian' nations that were here long before "the white man" arrived.

United Nations was formed after WWII for/because of the holocaust. During the previous period of Indian Wars there was no collective govt other than US in charge

What are you trying to get at Capt_Fantastic.....yes there were different tribes with a different set of rulers for each tribe. What does this have to do with anything.

Two ARMIES fought something I want to make sure is clear ARMED MEN on both sides it doesn't matter if one side is better equipped not like the holocaust where you just sat around eating dinner and WAMMO you got taken........armies face each other they know what can be lost unsuspecting victims are sheep

1. The 'smallpox-in-the-blankets' story has been classified as bullshit.
2. Yeah, guns were REALLY so much more advanced than the bows the Indians used. *Rolls eyes.*

shit, now i realised that i DIDNT misunderstand you. im just having trouble decoding the grammar 😖

anyway, you are correct. many native tribes killed their enemy.
but how does that negate our own crime of genocide?
they were simply "mindless savages" as our superiors liked to put it.
and we were in the business of making them "civilized".

and just so you know, the majority of natives were not killed by gunshots in a war, which most would have preferred as it would have been honerable to them. but instead we killed off all but a few hundred buffalo and forced them into famine, and also intentionally infected many women and children with disease ridden blankets. so many foul tricks to kill off a race of people.

and so this race chose to remain segregated among tribes and sometimes fight and kill, just like 'civilised' caucasion europeans have for centuries. but since they did it on a smaller scale, that makes it different? i dont get it.

Originally posted by soleran30
What are you trying to get at Capt_Fantastic.....yes there were different tribes with a different set of rulers for each tribe. What does this have to do with anything.

Two ARMIES fought something I want to make sure is clear ARMED MEN on both sides it doesn't matter if one side is better equipped not like the holocaust where you just sat around eating dinner and WAMMO you got taken........armies face each other they know what can be lost unsuspecting victims are sheep

It's not what I'm gatting at, it's what you're "getting at". "What does that have to do with anything?" is a good question. I'm trying to figure out what you're saying.

And the American Indians did experience "WAMMO you got taken". There were two sides, one was an "army" and the other wasn't. They were forced to move off their ancestoral lands, again...and again. Villages were burned to the ground, disease spread because they weren't physically acclimated to them, on top of infected blankets being given to them under teh the guise of "humanitarian aide"

"unsuspecting victims are sheep" ...!...wtf does that mean?

Originally posted by FeceMan
1. The 'smallpox-in-the-blankets' story has been classified as bullshit.
2. Yeah, guns were REALLY so much more advanced than the bows the Indians used. *Rolls eyes.*

Are you attempting to justify what was done to the native amricans?

Originally posted by Capt_Fantastic
Are you attempting to justify what was done to the native amricans?

Originally posted by FeceMan
1. The 'smallpox-in-the-blankets' story has been classified as bullshit.

post a link to a valid source then or please dont spread your own special brand of racist misinformation k thx

Originally posted by soleran30
United Nations was formed after WWII for/because of the holocaust. During the previous period of Indian Wars there was no collective govt other than US in charge

Originally posted by FeceMan
Nope, I'm just saying your 'disease and guns' points are invalid.

How so? Because the Indians were stupid enough to fight back? What should they have done? sat there and let themselves be wiped out?

Ok Capt_Fantastic perhaps I need some help with my history and understanding here......

Are you saying that the American Indians did not gather arms and fight against "European Settlers?"

That when European settlers landed on the continent the American Indians lived on they were not attacked by the indians?

Originally posted by xmarksthespot
"🤨 are people seriously defending the slaughter and marginalisation of the Native Americans as justified?"

they always stop damn short of it dont they 😑