From: gary@colossus.cgd.ucar.edu (Gary Strand)
Subject: Re: Genocide and degrees of morality?
Organization: Climate and Global Dynamics Division/NCAR, Boulder, CO
Date: Wed, 6 Jan 1993 23:14:18 GMT

k > Karen

k > Many of you have posted, or written me personally, to comment on the dif-
    ference in the "systematization" of the genocides between Hitler's attemp-
    ted extermination of the Jew and the American relatively successful exter-
    mination of the American Indian.  Regarding this, I say they are equally
    immoral.  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).

  Did this attitude exist from 1492 onwards? Did all Europeans believe this?
  Is it possible that, at different times, and in different places, during the
  last 500 years, "Anglo-Americans" were *not* bent on eradicating the Indians?

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

  Who claimed this?

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

  Whether or not group A is "white" or "advanced" makes no difference at all
  when group B decides to exterminate them. Looking at the argument the other
  way, given that Jews are white (Indians are not) and Jews are more advanced
  than Indians, who could believe that millions of them would be killed only
  a few decades ago? If advanced whites can kill advanced whites, then what
  will advanced whites do when presented with less-advanced non-whites?

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

  Really? 6+ million Jews dead. Practically the entire Jewish population of
  Poland was killed, and it was one of Europe's largest, as I recall. I would
  hardly call that "unsuccessful". Plus, many other groups were targetted by
  the Holocaust.

k > Would you argue that genocide should be abhorred more for its means of
    systematization or for its success?  I do not distinguish between the
    two in my abhorrence of them. They were both Genocide.  That you are so
    ready to defend the genocide of the American Indian scares me. 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.

  Who is this "you" that you're referring to? Me? Someone else? I think you
  need to read the documentation for utilizing NetNews.

  Anyway, I haven't seen anyone defend what happened to the Indians. You're
  not reading very carefully. What I (and others) have claimed, however, is
  that "genocide" is perhaps not the best term to use when describing the
  conflict between the European colonists and the people already living in
  the Americas between 1492-1900 (say). 

k > 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.

  Using Hollywood movies as a basis for historical analysis isn't going to get
  you much intellectual credit here. I suspect you regard "Dances with Wolves"
  as an accurate portrayal as well? Pity there aren't films depicting the 
  Aztec practice of human sacrifice.

  It seems that all you're aiming for is some sort of declaration that what
  happened to the American Indian was exactly the same evil as The Holocaust.
  I'm not prepared to make such a statement. Also, what is the point? To draw
  an analogy between "Anglo-Americans" and the Nazis? You're quite wrong if
  you think that it holds.

--
Gary Strand                      Opinions stated herein are mine alone and are
strandwg@ncar.ucar.edu            not representative of NCAR, UCAR, or the NSF
Newsgroups: talk.politics.theory