From: cmk@athena.mit.edu (Charles M Kozierok)
Subject: Re: Genocide and degrees of morality?
Organization: Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Date: Thu, 7 Jan 1993 03:40:01 GMT

i have been polite and patient on this issue so far. but my patience
is waning -- because you seem more concerned with promoting your feelings
on this particular case of genocide which has you upset, than dealing
with the theoretical issues of whether immorality can have degrees.
you should be more careful about what you say.

In article <C0GEM3.9vG@mentor.cc.purdue.edu> branwen@sage.cc.purdue.edu ( ) writes:
>      Many of you have posted, or written me personally, to comment on
>the difference in the "systematization" of the genocides between Hitler's 
>attempted extermination of the Jew and the American relatively successful
>extermination of the American Indian.  Regarding this, I say they are equally
>immoral.

why? you admit he was more systematic. that means his primary intention
was to murder. this makes his actions more reprehensible in my mind.
that is the reason we have first-degree murder, second-degree murder,
and manslaughter.

>The end result is not, in any way, lessened by a lack of intent
>on the part of the European settlers.  It was official government policy that
>what the Indians would not trade, the government would take "even if every last
>Indian must die" (President Andrew Jackson).

because he considered the US to be at war with the Indians. that war
was unjustified, as i have said before, but unjustified war is not
the same thing as genocide.

>      To claim the genocide of the Indians is "less horrible" than the Holocaust
>is ethnocentric or cold.

baloney. there have been many purely rational explanations provided. you
simply choose not to deal with them.


>I'll bank on ethnocentric.  If the Indians had been
>white, or as advanced as the Europeans, would the genocide have occurred?

you keep harping on this, and you are entitled to your opinion.
i can't say you are wrong.
but it doesn't change the importance of the degree of intent.

>      Yes, Hitler was more systematic.  But as far as genocides go, he was very
>unsuccessful.

he destroyed over 10 million people.
he killed 6 million Jews, out of a total population of less than 20 million
worldwide. furthermore, he destroyed almost totally the culture of many
Jewish communities in Europe. before the war there were 3,000,000 Jews
in Poland. now there are less than 5,000. seems pretty successful to me.
in fact, his nazi party is still affecting Jews today in its newer incarnations. 
to call Hitler "unsuccessful" is stupid.

>Would you argue that genocide should be abhorred more for its
>means of systematization or for its success?

a far more logical argument than basing it upon success or lack thereof!
words such as "abhorrent" and "immoral" are indicators of the mental
intent of the action. success is irrelevant.

>I do not distinguish between the
>two in my abhorrence of them.  They were both Genocide.

we already know your position. does that mean you are not willing
to consider other positions? if so, why did you post in the form
of a question? i personally spent a great deal of time composing
my responses. i'm sure others did too.

>That you are so ready
>to defend the genocide of the American Indian scares me.

that is idiotic and unfair. nobody defended the genocide of the Indians.
don't put words in people's mouths.

>That you are willing
>to argue that it was not genocide scares me as much as the people who try to 
>claim the Holocaust was a hoax.

comparing logical argument based upon comparison of intent to Holocaust-
denial is totally baseless. and i consider being compared to a Holocaust
denier to be one of the biggest insults i have received since being
on the net.

>      For those of you who are horrified by the Holocaust because you have
>seen it on film, simply watch Little Big Man with Dustin Hoffman.  It may be a
>"fictionalized historical account" but it still packs quite an unpleasant
>wallop.  WARNING: Do not eat while watching this movie.

i know at least as much about the Holocaust as you do.
probably more.
but i am still willing to use my brain in discussing the matter.
i understand your anger -- but your attacks and characterizations
are not fair.

--
charles
Xref: sparky talk.politics.theory:5617 talk.politics.misc:66978