Holocaust museum/memorial - Page 14 - PeachParts Mercedes-Benz Forum

JB3 · #**196** 05-24-2012, 11:10 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aklim

Might not happen again? What was that "War to end all wars" deal again? You really that hopeful when it comes to mankind? That is what we have been doing in many centuries. Different song, perhaps. Limited by the instruments at hand perhaps but the same dance. I would think an apology of 2006 will be ignored as soon as the ink is dry on the paper.

IF the paper survives as does his progeny, they might honor it today, FWIW. Pretty meaningless gesture in the grand scheme of things.

I did say "might".

Were I a Native American, I would feel vaguely insulted by an apology by the US saying sorry we took your land and displaced your people 300 years ago.
Id rather a statement that was more along the lines of, we took your land and moved your people because that what we wanted to do as part of our dream of a unified nation with two coasts. Did you suffer? yes. Are we sorry that you suffered? yes. Are we sorry that we took your land and made it ours? no. That type of policy is what built this country, and if we didn't take it, someone else would have, because the presence of Native Americans on the land in small (relative) numbers and low technology was not a sufficient deterrent for us to NOT take it, and would not have been for any other larger nation at the time and expansionist.

That would at least have the cleanliness of honesty. You are right in there is no value to an apology without some kind of act. Apologizing to the Hawaiians is almost insulting, they are not going back to a kingdom status, and have been a state long enough that the national identity of Hawaii is now part of the United States, not loyal subjects of the Kingdom of Hawaii

chilcutt · #**197** 05-24-2012, 11:46 AM

"The only good thing we got from them was horses that we lead away from their dead bodies" (source) Lakota

chilcutt · #**198** 05-24-2012, 12:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dropnosky

exactly.

Regarding Larondo and the holocaust, he doesn't seem to be able to discuss things that happened then without feeling some sort of guilt towards this, carefully hidden by calling recognition and memorials to the people killed a "uniquely North American" response, or "glorified suffering", and thus claiming all facts and evidence related are some kind of gross misrepresentation.
He shouldn't feel guilt, but there is no way we should forget what happened, or else the world stands at risk of repeating something like that, deliberate genocide. (which has been repeated on smaller scales since then in parts of the world, despite the lesson of WW2)

Regarding the Native Americans, the situation is different, as said before, a 400 year long conflict over land and space. Were there atrocities? sure, in any conflict of arms there are atrocities. However, Native Americans weren't identified specifically by race for mechanized murder. They were displaced, defeated, pushed aside, and jailed for being in the way of expansion, not for being who they were.

In short, what happened to the Native Americans is what happened in any conflict of space throughout human history. They lost the battle for dominance on the continent, but it wasn't genocide, and it wasn't a holocaust. There are numerous shrines throughout the country honoring their bravery and their valor in the ultimately hopeless struggle against the US or Europeans.

I don't think we should apologize to the Native Americans for what happened any more than we should apologize to the Mexicans for taking 50% of their country in the 1840s Mexican-American war.

Also include not having the need to apoligise to the Jews for atrocitys committed against them by the Nazi's.

chilcutt · #**199** 05-24-2012, 12:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dropnosky

Yes, by saying "In the Way", I refer to the origin of conflict with Native peoples. They were classified as all you say above BECAUSE they were "in the way". How can you disagree with that? There is no denying that the US during that period saw it as a right that the nation should extend from "sea to shining sea". The Native Americans were in the way of that goal unless, overwhelmed, assimilated, and crushed as separate entities. That is what happened.

The simple truth is that the Europeans and later the United States wanted what they had, and what they had was land, and lots of it. Classifying them as sub human and abusing treaties made with them because they were considered sub human, therefore not worthy of acting honorably towards are ways to justify taking what was theirs.

The difference is that calling native peoples subhuman was a method of justifying taking their land, vs the Nazi method of classifying Jews as subhuman and worthy of extermination because all current problems are their fault.

EDIT: Also, id like to mention that we are not talking about as a "race". That is a general classification that would be what the US at the time would have done. We are talking about thousands of different tribes. The Peublo people have as much relation to the Huron as English people have to Egyptians. Its partly because of the vast differences and disunity between thousands of tribes that the Native Americans were not able to resist the encroaching and better organized Europeans long term

The decimation of the NA peoples did not stop:
Between 1880-1980 half of the Native American children were drove from their homes to boarding schools hundreds of miles away to be deculturalized.
Less than thirty years ago the United States Indian Health Service (IHS) conducted a program of sterilisation that affected approx. 40% of all Indian women.
IHS also gave Alaskan children the Hepatitus B vaccine, a banned vaccine that correlates with the HIV virus. thousands recently have suffered and died of malnutrition and disease due to the circumstances America created.

About Race: Major racially structured institutions included slavery,Indian Wars, Native American Reservations, segregation, residential schools ( for Native Americans), and internment camps.source: wiki racism in the united states

Botnst · #**200** 05-24-2012, 01:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MTI

I disagree. As a race they were targeted, classified as sub human, subject to abuse by violations of human rights as well as violations of treaties and law. Your suggestion that they were merely "in the way" says it all.

Apologies are merely recognition of past misdeeds, they do not equate to excuse or absolution.

It was even more complex than that: Intermarriage was very common during the earliest colonial times and continued throughout the westward expansion. And the newcomers also killed them. "Nits make lice", as one general opined, in support of killing babies. And it worked the other way, too: Indians slaughtered lots of settlers. And it happened in all of the colonies as far as I know.

There's a hill near where my family is from that is named, "Sang pour sang". Or as we say now, "sangpersing". It got the name from a local massacre and reprisal involving some local indians and a community of free people of color, French subjects, who were slave-owning plantation owners. Since the events the two populations have intermarried for 250 years.

Who should apologize to whom?

It would be a meaningless, pointless apology.

MTI · #**201** 05-24-2012, 02:13 PM

Only if one views the apology as trying to "right the wrong" which is not what any apology, for any offense, great or small, is intended. I believe that some here confuse that effect of an apology and recognition. Consider why our parents thought it necessary that we apologize for our youthful transgressions. Was it only to benefit the recipient?

LaRondo · #**202** 05-24-2012, 02:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dropnosky

Whos chimed in on glorified suffering? Has anyone at any point posted that?

It seems that what you don't want to hear is things that really happened, because now thats "glorified suffering" in your eyes. I prefer not to wear blinders, thats how history gets repeated.

If thats what you have to do to "avoid guilt", not that anyone is claiming you share guilt.

Sounds to me like you can't discuss the Nazi party and the holocaust without claiming that you have to accept some kind of personal responsibility, which is silly. No one says you have to, but you should try and accept what really happened without denying all terms and definitions. That is willful blindness.

I don't "have" to do anything, much less do I have "avoid" guilt. As I stated, I do not accept any guilt regarding this matter.
I am sorry to see your understanding of my responses has resulted in such insufficiency. You are either confused or deliberately misinterpret why I stated.

It seems obvious that there is hardly a single individual out there who can claim to know "what really happened". How can you make such a claim?

LaRondo · #**203** 05-24-2012, 03:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dropnosky

exactly.

Regarding Larondo and the holocaust, he doesn't seem to be able to discuss things that happened then without feeling some sort of guilt towards this, carefully hidden by calling recognition and memorials to the people killed a "uniquely North American" response, or "glorified suffering", and thus claiming all facts and evidence related are some kind of gross misrepresentation.
He shouldn't feel guilt, but there is no way we should forget what happened, or else the world stands at risk of repeating something like that, deliberate genocide. (which has been repeated on smaller scales since then in parts of the world, despite the lesson of WW2)

I find it odd being used as a reference in the context of presenting your opinion and feasible justification to a third person, esp one who is hardly interested in such reference.
Thus, I never (see quotation in bold).

May I note, that your re-interpretation of what I stated is, at least in part a factual misrepresentation.

Subsequently, in regards to "repeating" such events, I like to point in the direction of the current, ongoing bloodshed in a region we lavishly call "The Holy Land".

You can fill that into the space > 60 + years of aftermath <

JB3 · #**204** 05-24-2012, 03:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by LaRondo

I don't "have" to do anything, much less do I have "avoid" guilt. As I stated, I do not accept any guilt regarding this matter.
I am sorry to see your understanding of my responses has resulted in such insufficiency. You are either confused or deliberately misinterpret why I stated.

whos asking you to accept guilt? why do you keep bringing it up is my question? You keep referring to yourself, and then about how you are not accepting guilt, as if anyone was trying to place it on you, which is not happening.

Sounds like a guilty conscious to me, which makes me think you DO feel guilty about something. Why? do you feel persecuted, like people are trying to force you to accept guilt? Do you think you SHOULD accept guilt? I that why you keep defending yourself from an attack that isn't happening?

As I said earlier, if you worked on actually being clear, maybe we all could understand what you mean.

JB3 · #**205** 05-24-2012, 03:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by LaRondo

I find it odd being used as a reference in the context of presenting your opinion and feasible justification to a third person, esp one who is hardly interested in such reference.
Thus, I never (see quotation in bold).

May I note, that your re-interpretation of what I stated is, at least in part a factual misrepresentation.

Subsequently, in regards to "repeating" such events, I like to point in the direction of the current, ongoing bloodshed in a region we lavishly call "The Holy Land".

You can fill that into the space > 60 + years of aftermath <

did you say this?-

I respect your personal input and perspective. I was waiting for it to come.
I am sure you are telling the truth.
Yet it is by no means intimidating. Many of the so called first hand witness statement turned out to be highly questionable, if not flat out untrue.
This includes statements claiming to have worked at or inside the gas chambers.

Do you actually have any awareness about other fates of involvement but your own? I suppose not, else you would be more considerate with throwing out assessments of unawareness and incompetence.

how is that not you claiming that a first person account related by another forum member was in fact a lie? how is that not "claiming all facts and evidence related are some kind of gross misrepresentation. "

I think that I was pretty accurate, anything you don't like, you call "so called" and "questionable"

LaRondo · #**206** 05-24-2012, 03:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jim B.

WRONG. Look it up:

The "Wansee conference".

Berlin, early 1942.

Quoting Botnst: "Google is your friend. Perhaps your ONLY friend."

You are so right, Jim. I forgot about that.
Would you also care to give us a memorandum on "The Protocols of the Elders of Zion"?

JB3 · #**207** 05-24-2012, 03:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by LaRondo

It seems obvious that there is hardly a single individual out there who can claim to know "what really happened". How can you make such a claim?

so what are you saying now? that first hand accounts because they are from single individuals do not represent truth?

LaRondo · #**208** 05-24-2012, 03:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jim B.

(from wiki)

Many Germans feel guilty about the war. But they don't explain the real guilt we share—that we lost

Maybe that's the explanation.

Defend Your Research: Guilt-Ridden People Make Great Leaders - Harvard Business Review

Guilt Is a Good Quality in a Business Leader | BusinessNewsDaily.com

The Best Leaders Are Motivated By Guilt - Business Insider

Now, let's talk about going for a ride in your "A M G".

LaRondo · #**209** 05-24-2012, 03:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Botnst

No shyte. Boy howdy, that's a revelation.

Were you biting your nails...?

JB3 · #**210** 05-24-2012, 03:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by chilcutt

Also include not having the need to apoligise to the Jews for atrocitys committed against them by the Nazi's.

That would certainly have to happen. That was a genocidal act over 4 years, not conquest of land over 400.

Ive been saying all along that the two situations don't compare. Therefore, you can't claim that both were genocide, or holocausts. That was simply not the case.