Should I forgive Germany?

Originally posted by soleran30
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 Capt_Fantastic
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?

Yes, a terrible, terrible thing. Even the five tribes who tried to adopt "civilised"ways ended up being treated the same, pushed back, killed intentionally and not... terrible to think so many types of holocaust have occurred of the years, from Kurds and Armenians, the American Indians, the Australian Aboriginals (also forced off lands to make way for livestock, and then given poisoned flour when they tried to get food anyway they could).

Originally posted by soleran30
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?

WHAT? Seriously!...I have no idea what you're saying to me!

Hell yes they gathered arms and fought back! But, why woldn't they? They were being exterminated and stripped of their land and rights, as human beings! Would you just sit there and take it? Because that's what you seem to be saying they should have done.

So Xmarks the Spot are you saying that it was OK at that time for the American Indians to attack a small European group that was trying to settle a new land?

you mean an isolated tribe who attacked a group of strangers who trespassed on their land and used their resources without permission? just the same as they would have done to another tribe? yes it was justified. YES.

Originally posted by soleran30
So Xmarks the Spot are you saying that it was OK at that time for the American Indians to attack a small European group that was trying to settle a new land?

Now answer my question. Is it justified for settlers to slaughter and marginalise a population of indigenous people in order to expand their territorial wealth? Is it justified to commit what by modern terms would be considered crimes against humanity in order to gain land from indigenous people?

True Capt_Fantastic. There were in the beginning tribes who tried to co-exist with settlers, but just like in South America with the natives it ended up that the settlers wanted more and more and they took it, regardless of the rights and lives of the people who had been living then for 100s to thousands of years. They inflicted suffering and death unknown to the native cultures. It's only natural there were those that fought back.

And you can bet your last button, incidentally, that if a group of Indians had landed on the shores of England and began to colonise that they would have been attacked and see of quick smart, regardless of how peaceful the settlers were.

And my point is that the Indians were a conquered people.......I am not saying that after they were conquered they were treated with the same rights as other "Americans" at the time

However my point was that once again Indians were a conquered people and the Jewish at the time were a general populace of Germany that was singled out after they had been established in the common population and commerce of that society

You didn't answer the question.

Oh and Xmarks the spot the reason those European settlers left England and went to colonize a new settlement was because of religious prosecution not for "wealth" becuase back then those "settlers" had HUGE LOSSES just traveling and then establishing themselves anywhere.

Originally posted by soleran30
And my point is that the Indians were a conquered people.......I am not saying that after they were conquered they were treated with the same rights as other "Americans" at the time

However my point was that once again Indians were a conquered people and the Jewish at the time were a general populace of Germany that was singled out after they had been established in the common population and commerce of that society

I'm sure, once they were "conquered", they shold have just sat there and taken it. Sure...what ever. But, once they were, they attempted to live peacefully with their "conquerors"...who decided they were just simple savages and took EVEN MORE!

Once again, your last "paragraph" make no sense to me...what-so-ever.

The expansion of the British Empire was due to purely to religious persecution... If I recall Ushgarak explained that the expansion of the British Empire was fuelled by greed.

You still haven't answered the questions posed.

Originally posted by soleran30
Oh and Xmarks the spot the reason those European settlers left England and went to colonize a new settlement was because of religious prosecution not for "wealth" becuase back then those "settlers" had HUGE LOSSES just traveling and then establishing themselves anywhere.

No one said they came here for "wealth".

They claimed "religious persecution"...because their religious views were so strict that THEY decided to leave, because there were kids dancing in London, as it were.

(I can't believe I just said that....like he's going to get such a reference)

Originally posted by soleran30
However my point was that once again Indians were a conquered people and the Jewish at the time were a general populace of Germany that was singled out after they had been established in the common population and commerce of that society

a superficial point. one was never allowed to integrate into a society built on their own stolen land, while the other WAS integrated and later exhiled and killed. what exactly is significant in that difference?

Originally posted by PVS
a superficial point. one was never allowed to integrate into a society built on their own stolen land, while the other WAS integrated and later exhiled and killed. what exactly is significant in that difference?

you understood that paragraph?

i guess i'm bilingual and never knew it 😑

Originally posted by PVS
a superficial point. one was never allowed to integrate into a society built on their own stolen land, while the other WAS integrated and later exhiled and killed. what exactly is significant in that difference?

Actually its not superficial becuase what I am saying is that the Indians fought a WAR against the settlers!

Let me try to use my best grammar here......(thats not saying much I understand)

What would you expect a conquering Army to do with the losers?

Because IMO everyone is looking at the end of this struggle but not How it started or even the nuances of how it continued

So if the Jews had fought back more against the Nazi regime then their slaughter would have been justified? 😬

You still haven't answered my questions.

What are you taking about this MORE stuff........the Jewish didn't gather arms and attack the Germans........the Jewish were victims of the them!

Indians gathered Arms and Attacked settlers.........

OMG one group (American Indians) deafeted army
Another group (holocaust) victims of the regime

in the end Indians also became a victim but once again I am stating that holocaust victims didn't raise arms and battle they were dragged into this

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