From: cmk@athena.mit.edu (Charles M Kozierok)
Subject: Re: Genocide and degrees of morality?
Organization: Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Date: Wed, 6 Jan 1993 07:40:00 GMT

before touching this hornet's nest, i would preface by saying that i of course
believe that the violation of anyone's right to life is abhorrent. and "deciding
which genocide is worse" is like deciding which "form of execution is worse" --
not really important in the practical sense, only for exploring the issues
underlying. so please don't take anything here the wrong way.

that said,

In article <C0EKsr.C9D@mentor.cc.purdue.edu> branwen@sage.cc.purdue.edu ( ) writes:
>      A poster just claimed that he believes the genocide of the American
>Indian at the hands of Anglo-Americans was less immoral than that which
>was engaged upon the Jews by Hitler! Why would this be true?
>Is is possible because the Jews were an advanced race?

the Jews are *not* an "advanced" race, and i say that in full expectation
that almost all Jews would agree with me. as a matter of fact, characterizations
such as this are detrimental in most cases.

>Because they were
>white?  Because they spoke the samw language as their oppressors?  Because you
>personally know some Jews?  This statement was ludicrous.  The Indian Genocide,
>in my opinion, was all the more immoral because it was successful, was engaged
>upon predications that even the frontiersmen themselves didn't believe, and
>was justified in spite of, not because of, the religious beliefs of the
>practitioners.

i didn't see the offending statement. but i can provide my hypothesis of
the difference: systematic intent. the European conquest of America was
responsible for the deplorable death of many Indians and even worse,
their culture and way of life. there is no excuse for this. but even
having said this, i don't believe that this was the original intent of the
Europeans. they simply didn't respect the Indians. they thought they
were "savages", and that they were "in the way". the Europeans wanted
the land and the resources, primarily. how they accomplished this
may have been inexcusable, but it was a means to an end.

in contrast, Hitler devoted himself to the destruction of the Jews as
an end unto itself. it served no purpose whatever. the only goal was
to kill the Jews (and others). in fact, it served a *negative* purpose,
as it diverted resources he could have used in the real war. so
Hitler's *goal* was to wipe out people.

that is the only difference i see between the two. maybe an analogy
is between manslaughter and first-degree murder. both are wrong, but
one carries a stronger implication of intent.

i don't believe the Europeans had as their intent the destruction
of the Indian race. if you disagree with that and
believe the Europeans wanted to kill the Indians as one of their goals,
then my argument fails. and in that case i see no difference between
the situations.

>      Genocide is never moral.

of course not.
but don't confuse determining relative degrees of something with making an
absolute judgment about it. even if i say that a firetruck is more red
than a macintosh apple, that doesn't imply that the apple is not red.

--
charles