Genocide and Other Matters... (3 Viewers)

[thebritfarmer]

Couldn't agree more Harry, it's a shame that more people couldn't adopt that mentality also, then we wouldn't have these trivial issues.

 

[Rob]

I agree with both Harry and Louis's ealier post.I simply cannot be held responsible for acts carried out by my country hundreds of years before i was born,whilst i can feel sympathy i can't feel guilt, because i didn't exist then.I don't hold todays Generation of Germans responsible for what their country did,its just not the right thing to do.

Rob

 

[Harrytheheid]

Any bricks being chucked at me by the crackpot PC bully-gang generally get chucked back - double-fold.

Thanks Gentlemen
Harry

 

[jazzeum]

Rob,

I think that King Harold still holds you responsible for putting an arrow through his eye about a thousand years ago

 

[Rob]

Rob,

I think that King Harold still holds you responsible for putting an arrow through his eye about a thousand years ago

That i did do Brad,but i was young and eager for power!!

Rob

 

[Harrytheheid]

Rob,

I think that King Harold still holds you responsible for putting an arrow through his eye about a thousand years ago

Difficult one Brad; as my ancestory consist of Celt, Pict, Gael, Norman and Scandinavian I'm not too sure who's side I would've been on at either Stamford Bridge or Hastings.
Or perhaps certain of my arrows simply fly straight and true?

Regards
Harry

 

[damian]

I suppose I need to go through this entire thread again, but there's two points I'd like to make already;

1/ I collect miniature figurines as a hobby. I don't collect the things to "honour" anyone, as I consider this to be a somewhat bizarre concept.

2/ I couldn't care less what the "racist colonial 19th Century British" did - to whomsoever. And don't see why I ought to get all apologetic about it either.
In fact, I don't give a flying fig what the Bad Brits did in the 18th or 17th century either - or the 20th century for that matter.
Why should I, as a miniature figurine collector, be subjected to posts that subliminally suggest I ought to feel guilty for events that I wasn't present at, or would've had no influence over even if I had?

Seems to me, there's a lot being said between the lines here that isn't being said out loud - cos of fear - of one thing or the other.
Either say what you really mean, or don't say it at all if you think some poor wee super-sensitive soul who hasn't grown up yet is going to get all upset by being presented with the truth.

The bottom line is every country - and I mean every country represented on this forum - has been involved to a greater or lesser extent in what could be described as shameful episodes in their history.

So what...???

Regards
Harry

Now Harry can you honestly say you have forgiven Edward Longshanks for cutting William Wallace's sporran off then.

 

[Spitfrnd]

I agree with both Harry and Louis's ealier post.I simply cannot be held responsible for acts carried out by my country hundreds of years before i was born,whilst i can feel sympathy i can't feel guilt, because i didn't exist then.I don't hold todays Generation of Germans responsible for what their country did,its just not the right thing to do.

Rob

No it is not. However Rob, I think the focus on guilt is misplaced and really not the point of recognizing the sins of past generations.
We simply need to accept what was wrong as "wrong" and not attempt to rationalize it, avoid it or dismiss the degree to which it was wrong with convenient excuses like, "That was the standard or the time" or "Bad things happen" or even "It was not my fault so what does it matter." Confronting the immoral acts of the past is not about guilt, it is about truth (yes Harry) and contributing to the evolution of civilization.

None of this means that any of you need to feel or do anything differently about your figure collections. It simply means that a discussion and understanding of such matters is far from "trivial" and certainly not inappropriate on a forum about, in part, military history. There is more to that subject than guns and tanks; thankfully recognized by most decent military academies, if not always appreciated by all their graduates. If that bothers anyone, I frankly suggest they simply ignore the posts that relate to those areas; as I do the many posts here that annoy me to no end.

 

[Harrytheheid]

Now Harry can you honestly say you have forgiven Edward Longshanks for cutting William Wallace's sporran off then.

I don't care Damian.
What am I supposed to do - hate every Englishman on the planet because of something that happened 800 years ago? I could well have been on Eddie Longleg's, and his son, and his grandson's, side in any case - plenty of Scots were during the 1st and 2nd Wars of Independence.
Its all bollox anyway. Be aware of history yes - but after reading up on this stuff ever since I can remember, I concluded there's no absolute right and wrond, or black and white in history - its all some grey colour. I think you really have to use your imagination and put yourself in the shoes of human beings living in a very different world from that which we have in 2009, before you can even begin to understand it.

Regards
Harry

 

[jazzeum]

Taking this to a simpler level and maybe it's a poor example but until recently, administering corporal punishment to children was considered the norm (e.g., "spare the rod and spoil the child"). However, today that is viewed unfavorably. Does that mean we condemn those parents or teachers who used to use corporal punishment as a means of discipline? I think not. We can't judge by today's standards how children were disciplined 100 years ago. What was considered acceptable then can't be (or shouldn't be) viewed through the prism of today's eyes.

 

[Spitfrnd]

Taking this to a simpler level and maybe it's a poor example but until recently, administering corporal punishment to children was considered the norm (e.g., "spare the rod and spoil the child"). However, today that is viewed unfavorably. Does that mean we condemn those parents or teachers who used to use corporal punishment as a means of discipline? I think not. We can't judge by today's standards how children were disciplined 100 years ago. What was considered acceptable then can't be (or shouldn't be) viewed through the prism of today's eyes.

Well I don't follow that. Any thinking person can consider the circumstances surrounding an event and decide how they should affect a judgment of the actions of those involved. To apply that to historical events is no more challenge than to discover any other set of historical facts. Moreover, as I have said before, the popularity of an action is no defense (or condemnation) of its moral correctness. Interestingly, I am not sure that is such a great example since I happen to think not everything about that prior norm was incorrect.

 

[sunyi]

Re: The Little Bighorn

Michael,

I colllect toy soldiers to honor the good guys . . . the Allied troops that fought the Nazi Scum, the brave soldiers who fought against the mass murdering scum. The only reason I have bad guys is to give the brave American, British, Anzac, Canadian and other Allied troops who fought the Nazis and Japs something to shoot at. Nobody on this forum is more proud to be an American than I am, or further from politically correct than I am.

But I am honest enough to admit that our ancestors are no more perfect than those of any other nation, and that we committed our share of attrocities. When Americans are honest with themselves, they recognize that the history fed to us in the public schools and by Hollywood is sanitized B.S. You can't tar every Indian as fair game because of the massacre at Mims, or say it was O.K. for us to break every treaty we reached with them or massacre them because of the first act of aggression against the early colonists in Virginia. If you try to rationalize the deaths of 19 million (99.99% of whom were from utterly different tribes and nations than those that perpetrated these attorcities) on this basis, then you can to say all Germans or even all Europeans should be fair game because of what the Nazis did. The individual politicians, generals, chiefs or other leaders who initiated the massacres of women and children discussed on this thread, and anyone who cheerfully and willingly carried out their policies, are murderous scum. You want to rationalize that Hitler and his henchmen, Stalin, and the Indian Chief behind the Mims Massacre are the worst, but the American politicians and military officers behind Wounded Knee or some of the other Indian Massacres (including Custer, who killed hundreds or women, children and elderly Indians in a village because he was pissed that the Warriors had fled) were justified, go right ahead. But it doesn't take a lawyer to see that this dog just won't hunt.

And the whole the strong have always displaced the weak rationalization works just as well for the Nazis invading Poland as it does for the Europeans displacing the Indians or the Africans. And remember, the Chinese are looking pretty strong right now, but if they manage to invade us down the road, I am pretty sure that as you fight to protect your home and family, you are not going to be thinking, "well, they are stronger, and the strong have always displaced the weak, so this is O.K."

The reason the strong have displaced the weak, is that Humans are not really civilized on anything larger than an individual or at most family scale. Any larger group, led by politicians, or chiefs or kings or mullahs or priests, will always throw morality out the window, or redefine morality to suit its interests. How else do Jews, Christians and Muslims, each of whose bible says "thou shalt not kill" and "thou shalt not steal" spend so much time invading, displacing and killing other people, including other Christians? I say that morality, and true civilization, means using your strength to protect the weak, not to displace them. And that's not political correctness, that's doing the right thing, pure and simple.

America is a great place, a place people from all over the world immigrate to for freedom and opportunity, but you know what, it isn't perfect. Its not being politically correct or unamerican to acknowledge that America isn't perfect. Somebody who loves this Country as much as I do, and as much as I know you do, should want to acknowledge when our Politicians, Generals, Industrialists or other leaders did something wrong, immoral or murderous, and make sure that they don't do it again, because that is the only way this country is going to get better. And you know what, that is not being politically correct, or unamerican, that is being realistic and patriotic.

I may be the only one Chinese people in this forum .will read you the invasion of China, I can not think of a very surprised . Under the communist system in China by the Americans as an enemy, it is during the Cold War way of thinking.
We should not continue to use the ideology as the evaluation of a country and its people's standards.Culture decide a country`s way of thinking.China's Confucian ideology that advocates humane treatment of all the world's species.
In China's history, if any ideological struggle, then it should be the struggle between he kind of Confucianism and of mankind itself cruel, tyranny, desire.
On behalf of the Song Dynasty (AD 1000), China's development to the highest ethics, the Chinese have basically no longer aggressive ambition of the country. At that time, China's GDP accounted for 50% of the world, much like the United States after World War II. This country is not like aggression.
Also subject to influence of Confucianism in Japan, is completely different from China. Surface, with Japanese culture is very similar to China, they learned a lot of Chinese ethics, but only learned that there is no mercy. Ruth benedict in the Chrysanthemum and word of the book, the Japanese have been described as a stigma for all acts of ethnic domination.Sense of shame would have a very abnormal psychology. Japan is still the case now.
Chinese people are kind and good, and this view is weak in the Japanese and the lack of masculinity. In their view, a knife cut off people's heads is the most beautiful.
As a Chinese, I sincerely hope that We should not be treated as the enemy.

 

[Harrytheheid]

Re: The Little Bighorn

I may be the only one Chinese people in this forum .will read you the invasion of China, I can not think of a very surprised . Under the communist system in China by the Americans as an enemy, it is during the Cold War way of thinking.
We should not continue to use the ideology as the evaluation of a country and its people's standards.Culture decide a country`s way of thinking.China's Confucian ideology that advocates humane treatment of all the world's species.
In China's history, if any ideological struggle, then it should be the struggle between he kind of Confucianism and of mankind itself cruel, tyranny, desire.
On behalf of the Song Dynasty (AD 1000), China's development to the highest ethics, the Chinese have basically no longer aggressive ambition of the country. At that time, China's GDP accounted for 50% of the world, much like the United States after World War II. This country is not like aggression.
Also subject to influence of Confucianism in Japan, is completely different from China. Surface, with Japanese culture is very similar to China, they learned a lot of Chinese ethics, but only learned that there is no mercy. Ruth benedict in the Chrysanthemum and word of the book, the Japanese have been described as a stigma for all acts of ethnic domination.Sense of shame would have a very abnormal psychology. Japan is still the case now.
Chinese people are kind and good, and this view is weak in the Japanese and the lack of masculinity. In their view, a knife cut off people's heads is the most beautiful.
As a Chinese, I sincerely hope that We should not be treated as the enemy.

Hi Sunyi,

I'm perfectly aware of what you're saying here as I've had plenty of similar conversations with other Chinese friends.
Louis wasn't suggesting that China is preparing to invade the USA, you and I both know that is ludicrous, he was just using a very strong economic power to illustrate the point he was making.
From personal experience, and I know that I look through rose-tinted spectacles and am very obviously biased, I can honestly say that while every country contains its good and bad, I have never met a Chinese national who once they get to know me has not made me welcome. In addition, despite the fact that I have been to what can only be described as rather "dodgy" areas in several of the Chinese city's I've visited, I have never, not once, felt myself to be in any personal danger. I cannot in all honesty say that about cities I've been to in Europe or the USA. There are areas of my own hometown in the UK I wouldn't dream of hanging out in. Well, not nowadays, and not unless I was sitting in my own personal Armoured Car.

Regards
Harry

 

[maddadicus]

I suppose I need to go through this entire thread again, but there's two points I'd like to make already;

1/ I collect miniature figurines as a hobby. I don't collect the things to "honour" anyone, as I consider this to be a somewhat bizarre concept.

2/ I couldn't care less what the "racist colonial 19th Century British" did - to whomsoever. And don't see why I ought to get all apologetic about it either.
In fact, I don't give a flying fig what the Bad Brits did in the 18th or 17th century either - or the 20th century for that matter.
Why should I, as a miniature figurine collector, be subjected to posts that subliminally suggest I ought to feel guilty for events that I wasn't present at, or would've had no influence over even if I had?

Seems to me, there's a lot being said between the lines here that isn't being said out loud - cos of fear - of one thing or the other.
Either say what you really mean, or don't say it at all if you think some poor wee super-sensitive soul who hasn't grown up yet is going to get all upset by being presented with the truth.

The bottom line is every country - and I mean every country represented on this forum - has been involved to a greater or lesser extent in what could be described as shameful episodes in their history.

So what...???

Regards
Harry

Harry, I love you ,man! ( metaphysically speaking ). You have summed up my entire approach to history and said it much better than I ever could. I have nothing more to say...I go to my happy place and let the idealists argue at their mirrors on how they are so much smarter than us...Michael

 

[Harrytheheid]

Harry, I love you ,man! ( metaphysically speaking ). You have summed up my entire approach to history and said it much better than I ever could. I have nothing more to say...I go to my happy place and let the idealists argue at their mirrors on how they are so much smarter than us...Michael

Why, err, thank you Michael, umm....I think.
While I can't in all honesty claim to having fallen head over heels; after a false start, I have in fact warmed to your good self as being a sincere and decent human being.
Err, hmmm, "warmed to your good self" metaphorically speaking of course.
....

Cheers
Harry

 

[marco55]

Re: The Little Bighorn

Actually the Brits did try: http://www.nativeweb.org/pages/legal/amherst/lord_jeff.html It wasn't the intent that was lacking, but the tools and understanding how to implement.

I was talking about when they first made contact and Amherst wasn't the only one who tried it.Oh yeah the indians dug up the dead at Ft.Wm. Henry so they could get their scalps but some had died of smallpox so you can guess what happen.
Mark

 

[Spitfrnd]

Harry, I love you ,man! ( metaphysically speaking ). You have summed up my entire approach to history and said it much better than I ever could. I have nothing more to say...I go to my happy place and let the idealists argue at their mirrors on how they are so much smarter than us...Michael

Cute Michael, maybe you could find a mirror for yourself.

 

[Harrytheheid]

Confronting the immoral acts of the past is not about guilt, it is about truth (yes Harry) and contributing to the evolution of civilization.
If that bothers anyone, I frankly suggest they simply ignore the posts that relate to those areas; as I do the many posts here that annoy me to no end.

Thank you Bill.
I was always confident that you for one would appreciate the basic truths behind the points I was trying to make - in my own poor and inarticulate way.

Cheers
Harry

 

[bromhead]

Maddadicus Mr. Forlorn between the "genocide" of your Africans and the "genocide" of our Native Americans? Sorry i missed your question, any and all genocide is disgraceful and a stain on all mankind but you seem to have little or no problem with the concept.Genocide is a disease that has plague mankind throughout history it isnt unique to Britain,America,Germany,Russia,Japan,Turkey,etc.Whatever the religious or political motives are for such policy,they are all misguided,but mans inhumanity to man has no bounds and that includes all forms of Imperialism and my Country has been responsible for more than its fair share of blood letting in the past but that does not mean modern Brits should dismiss our past to the bin,we all need to face up to the truth and learn from the past in order to not repeat it in the future.In turn can i ask you to respond to the genocide of your Native Americans?No doubt UKREB will have an opinion and look forward to his slant on Genocide,then again he may not wish to partake since he thinks me repetetive.

No you may not corp,,as had been stated one mans boredom is anothers.

 

[Spitfrnd]

Maddadicus Mr. Forlorn between the "genocide" of your Africans and the "genocide" of our Native Americans? Sorry i missed your question, any and all genocide is disgraceful and a stain on all mankind but you seem to have little or no problem with the concept.Genocide is a disease that has plague mankind throughout history it isnt unique to Britain,America,Germany,Russia,Japan,Turkey,etc.Whatever the religious or political motives are for such policy,they are all misguided,but mans inhumanity to man has no bounds and that includes all forms of Imperialism and my Country has been responsible for more than its fair share of blood letting in the past but that does not mean modern Brits should dismiss our past to the bin,we all need to face up to the truth and learn from the past in order to not repeat it in the future.In turn can i ask you to respond to the genocide of your Native Americans?No doubt UKREB will have an opinion and look forward to his slant on Genocide,then again he may not wish to partake since he thinks me repetitive.

It may indeed be unpleasant and certainly not for all tastes but a fair appraisal of the treatment of our native population by our government and citizens is certainly not boring. I don't think their is any dispute that the official and unofficial American treatment of its native population during much of the 18th and 19th Centuries was abhorent. It has been justified as revenge, necessity and expediency but there can be little doubt it was systematically oppressive and frequently brutal and conducted with a contemptuous disregard for the well being of the native American population. Certainly it cannot be regarded as moral by any reasonable standard then or now. The question of whether it was genocide is more complicated, not only because that term did not exist then as it does now but because here it is necessary to separate the acts of the population from its government.

Under current International Law, genocide is defined as acts "committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial, or religious group as such." Note that percentage of a group that must be affected in order to qualify as genocide has never been well defined but it has been applied to "a reasonably significant number, relative to the total of the group as a whole," and a group has been considered in the context of a specific geographic area within the sphere of a offender's control, and not in relation to the entire population of the group in a wider geographic sense. This is rather significant for the American Indian Wars since all of the most egregious acts of slaughter of native Americans were essentially confined to relatively local areas. It is also interesting to note that, despite much argument to the contrary, there is little if any accepted evidence of any national policy toward such conduct, although there is much evidence of local support for many such actions. It is indeed well established that these acts did include intentional efforts to kill entire populations of native Americans in certain local areas so since genocide is a personal crime and not a crime of governments, to those particular events, it is fair to apply the term since there is little doubt of the intent.

It is also interesting to note that very few of the acts of slaughter against native Americans were conducted by regular army troops. Thus despite the reckless and reprehensible statement of General Sherman to the effect ""the only good Indians I ever saw were dead.", the systemic elimination of native populations was never official US policy. That said, Sherman's remarks, however popular with the settlers of the time, probably did more to encourage such atrocities than any other singe event of the period.

As deplorable as I find much of our history in dealing with the native Americans, I find myself agreeing with the conclusion of Guenter Lewy, an author and former Political Science professor at the University of Massachusetts

In the end, the sad fate of America's Indians represents not a crime but a tragedy, involving an irreconcilable collision of cultures and values. Despite the efforts of well-meaning people in both camps, there existed no good solution to this clash. The Indians were not prepared to give up the nomadic life of the hunter for the sedentary life of the farmer. The new Americans, convinced of their cultural and racial superiority, were unwilling to grant the original inhabitants of the continent the vast preserve of land required by the Indians’ way of life. The consequence was a conflict in which there were few heroes, but which was far from a simple tale of hapless victims and merciless aggressors.

I would only add that the collision produced no small number of crimes, including acts of genocide by some, and there is no doubt that our ancestors could and should have done better but that fact that they did not is as understandable as it is tragic. I sincerely do hope we have learned something from that.