ANSWERS: 36
  • Look at the earth dispassionately and you'll see that genocide is a common, almost everyday occurrence and has always been. Yes, they are the same, but America is the synthesis and culmination of everything. We have better propagandists.
  • Yes, I could compare the two. But to what end?
  • Yes. Sadly racism has existed a long time and a lot of people have been killed because they have different appearance and are of different religion. That's sad. RIP those who have died because of religion or their appearance.
  • you can compare anything to everything. So, my answer is yes
  • There is a slight resemblance since death was the goal, but the politics was different. There have been many times throughout history that genocide has been used by a stronger group against a weaker group, and the result is usually the same, even if the excuse is different. excerpts from wikipedia: The Old Testament describes the genocides of Amalekites and Midianites. Mongol horsemen of Temüjin Genghis Khanwere known to kill whole nations Scholars now believe that, among the various contributing factors, epidemic disease was the overwhelming cause of the population decline of the American natives the Dzungars were annihilated by the Manchu-led Qing dynasty and so on, and so on.........
  • The numbers may be different ... but mass murder by any amount, time, place, for whatever the reason is deserving of the same title ... A tragedy of many which have occurred throughout mans quest to gain power over peace ... When they kill the innocent in the name of war, or any reason to commit war, as they so often do today ... Then they commit the same crime as those they resent or despise from past ... mankind lives here
  • In scale, no. In morals, yes.
  • Can you compare the Holocaust to the Native American genocide? Great question. ++++
  • You should study American history just a little more before trying to do a comparison to the Third Reich. Early settlers to the North American continent were a little slow to learn about how the Indian tribes lived. Their main means of existing was to regularly make war on any and all other tribes that might accidentally get close enough to be raided. Indian tribes at that time were nomads that moved with the changing seasons in order to find food and water. Even the rare tribes that did build semi-permanent housing structures didn't live in them year-round. European settlers that had the habit of building more permanent homes and staying in one place to work farms were just easy prey to any Indian war parties out looking for whatever they could take. The European settler’s customs of holding on to little patches of land just didn't match up with Indian customs very well and many early settlements were totally wiped out by tribes of Indians that just happened to be passing by. As the number of settlers increased, they learned to build forts and defend themselves better and the advantage shifted from the surprise attacks by Indians in favor of the better fortified and better armed settlers.
  • http://www.old-picture.com/indians/pictures/Indian-Tomahawk.jpg Visit this web page and please notice that the tool in his hand is not for hunting rabbits.
  • No, I cant each tragedy has its own horrors.
  • The Native American genocide was worse than the Holocaust. Not only did we slaughter a whole land of people, but we stole their land from them.
  • Well, the actual N.A. genocide was accomplished with blankets infected with smallpox, i.e., biological warfare. The Holocaust used less advanced methods of mass-slaughter: Gas and medical experimemtation.
  • I don't think so. The motive of European-Americans was to conquer and colonize a continent and exploit new resources. Their actions were adverse to the interests of Native Americans but akin to that of white settlers and colonizers throughout the world, e.g., the British in India, Asia and Africa. The Nazi Holocaust on the other hand was an intentional and malevolent plan to exterminate the Jews as an ethno/religious group, not to mention Slavs, gypsies, Jehovah Witnesses, etc.
  • I guess you never heard of the sequel to Mein Kampf. Available through Amazon and other fine book stores. Titled The Second Book.Hitler states that he copied the United States and the was they murdered and used disease to kill of the Indian and put them in Concentration Camps. I believe you can still read it online. Imagine Hitler was inspired by us. You can read it online in the typewritten pages.
  • it's a stretch, but there are some distinct similarities, yes. i don't think it's as bad though. different times. same reason i don't blame christians for their treatment of jews during the middle ages.
  • Genocide and holocaust are essentially the same thing as they both accomplish one goal: the extintion of a race or an ethnic group. The main difference between these methods of mass extermination is the delivery (genocide is slow and holocaust is a rush job). However, the Holocaust has become an exclusive Jewish trademark with all rights reserved (no one else is supposed to claim a right to it even if they experience it - it's a once in the history of humanity kinda thing). In 1947, Israel obtained a patent on the word Holocaust and it has since owned the rights to use it as an excuse and a defense to all of their wrongdoings. The patent also gives them the right to inflict the same atrocities on other people that had nothing to do with what was done to the them. It also gives Israel the right to quash all arguments and criticism of its wrongdoing by crying it as loud as they can. Also, please refer to 'anti-Semitism.'
  • There have been many massacres throughout human history ... Todays Jew blames the world for the nazi's affliction ... this being the difference and main reason we are never permitted to forget this one massacre from the many ... perhaps the only reason it will never be compared to another. Peace
  • The Nazis did adopt the Swastica from the Indians, but to compare that the Nazis put 10 million people in gas ovens in a period of about 4 years does not make sense to me, You forget that the indian tribes here actually used to war against each other quite a bit. Do you remember the Aztecs? They forced their captives onto a pyramid and tore out their hearts...thousands each year - tens of thousands or more all together. Some estimates claim 20,000 a year. This occured over a 200 year period. So if this is correct, up to 20 million people would have died at the hands of the Aztecs. So that is a huge Holocast that most people seem to forget about. In my opinion, the worst thing the europeans did was bring over diseases that the people in the Americas had no defense against, This is what really killed the most people. In some cases up to 90 percent of the population. So disease was the real cause of genocide of the Native American people.
  • Definitely. We might not have killed as many Indians as Hitler did Jews, but we did trample on their rights just the same. Good question.
  • No, they are completely different. The killing of American Indians was more of a class of cultures, as the advanced cultures of the European settlers came into more and more contact with the barbarian people that they encountered. Yes barbarian or savage is the correct term as it means lacking an advanced or complex culture, so the American Indians did lack this advanced or complex culture when compared to European settlers and nations. The Jewish holocaust was partially religious and partially economic, more the later but the reasons for the later relate to the first. Jews generally, primarily because of their history of not having a homeland and being forced out of many countries have learned that it is better to pursue knowledge based trades since it is easier to recover from expulssion from an area if your work is based off of what you know and not the actual labor of ones efforts (if I'm a doctor , lawyer or even a skilled craftsman if you were to confiscate my wealth and property or evict me from your country, I can more easily recover to provide for myself and my family than if I were a simple laborer or farmer and you were to do the same. Jews also have fairly tight knit communities and practice different traditions than their surrounding Christian or Muslim neighbors, so in one sense they self-segregate themselves from society. The Jews in Germany and not even all or most did have some of the more public wealth and positions of power because they had educational backgrounds that many in Germany lacked. It's easy to blame someone that is different from the masses for the problems that they suffer especially when you can point out how they hold such and such position of power or influence or show how some of them are wealthy wile the majority of Germany was impoverished due to the hyperinflation caused by the peace treaty to end world war one, much the same as todays wealthy are vilified by the left. So the Jews were different and it was easy to single them out and point out their differences then lay the blame for Germany's ills upon the heads or backs of the Jews.
  • I suppose you could. Really, the biggest differences between the two are that more American Indians died than Jews and today, very few people really care about the Native American genocide as compared to the Holocaust. For instance, when someone is losing an online debate regarding political ideology, that person compares the other to Hitler, rather than Cortez or Jackson or someone like that. Oh, and there were motivational differences too. Like, the Holocaust happened because a dictator rose to power by creating a united hatred of the Jews, and the Native American genocide happened because they happened to live where the Europeans wanted to put their flags. They also weren't white, so that didn't do them any favors. That's also probably another reason many people seem to care more about the Jews than them.
  • Technically I would say yes. However I would hope that the fact that our world society evolved over the span of time in between makes the holocaust somehow worse. Both were a complete tragedy though.
  • Yes you can - and pretty much that what it was too.
  • You sure got people fired up with this one. I believe they are comparable. Both are examples of the stronger taking from the weaker for gain. Excellent question +3
  • No, because it took place locally in one country,but I think it could be classed with the ethnic cleansing that took place recently in in Bosnia against a minority people.
  • posting error
  • Your video link is; 1) Not relevant to the discussion, 2) not a depiction of genocide 3) not even close to what happened to Jews in Nazi Germany. Yes, it's an example of abuse and exploitation but that's all it is. Yes, by modern standards it is wrong, however as is true for so many things, hind sight is always 20-20.
  • Yes I can... And we had it first! Before slavery, before all that stuff. and ours went pretty much ignored.
  • You may compare although tis an inaccurate comparison. The Nazis had an ideology. Settlers had greed.
  • No defintively not. Both things have an absolute different quality. The native american genocide was a wide action by many single people, consisting of many different actions. The Holocaust was the unique murder in an industrialized way. There have been many genocides in history with very similar ends but it was the Nazis who built up factories for killing other people and this makes it unique in history.
  • Well considering the cookies that Cortes gave to the Indians that were full of smallpox an that he chopped their heads off... Yes that is genocide wiping a race, religion, etc. He killed plenty of native Americans. I greatly sympathize the natives but it was their fault too, some Indians formed associations with the Spaniards.
  • Statistics and numbers may differ, but the intent, more or less, is probbaly the same, no matter how deep Mein Kampf of America's roots may seem to go.
  • "A controversial question relating to the population history of American indigenous peoples is whether or not the natives of the Americas were the victims of genocide. After the Nazi-perpetrated Holocaust during World War II, genocide was defined (in part) as a crime "committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnic, racial or religious group, as such.". Hitler claimed that concentration camps as well as the practicality of genocide owed much to his studies of English and United States history. Historian David Stannard is of the opinion that the indigenous peoples of America (including Hawaii) were the victims of a "Euro-American genocidal war." While conceding that the majority of the indigenous peoples fell victim to the ravages of European disease, he estimates that almost 100 million died in what he calls the American Holocaust. Stannard's perspective has been joined by Kirkpatrick Sale, Ben Kiernan, Lenore A. Stiffarm, and Phil Lane, Jr., among others; the perspective has been further refined by Ward Churchill, who has said "it was precisely malice, not nature, that did the deed." Stannard's claim of 100 million deaths has been challenged because he does not cite any demographic evidence to support this number, and because he makes no distinction between death from violence and death from disease. Noble David Cook, Latin Americanist and history professor at Florida International University, considers books such as Stannard's – a number of which were released around the year 1992 to coincide with the 500th anniversary of the Columbus voyage to America – to be an unproductive return to Black Legend-type explanations for depopulation. In response to Stannard's figure, political scientist R. J. Rummel has instead estimated that over the centuries of European colonization about 2 million to 15 million American indigenous people were the victims of what he calls democide. "Even if these figures are remotely true," writes Rummel, "then this still make this subjugation of the Americas one of the bloodier, centuries long, democides in world history." Some historians argue that genocide, a crime of intent, was not the intent of European colonization while in America. Historian Stafford Poole wrote: "There are other terms to describe what happened in the Western Hemisphere, but genocide is not one of them. It is a good propaganda term in an age where slogans and shouting have replaced reflection and learning, but to use it in this context is to cheapen both the word itself and the appalling experiences of the Jews and Armenians, to mention but two of the major victims of this century." However, a number of historians, though not viewing the history of European colonization as one continuous long act of genocide, do cite specific wars and campaigns which were arguably genocidal in intent and effect. Usually included among these are the Pequot War (1637) and campaigns waged against tribes in California starting in the 1850s." Source and further information: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Population_history_of_American_indigenous_peoples Further information: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genocides_in_history#Americas
  • It would not be the best comparison, or the most accurate - but there are some underlying similarities. Even if one of them just falls down to genocidal intent.

Copyright 2023, Wired Ivy, LLC

Answerbag | Terms of Service | Privacy Policy