[wat0n]

I would not say that Europeans or their white descendants abroad care about genocide and other atrocities. They might be shocked when imagining a particular act of cruelty, but when these acts are brought up here, for example, we get semantic discussions about the definition of the word or outright genocide denial.

This is a rather bigoted statement, and I find it funny coming from someone who's minimizing scalping and other documented acts of cruelty in the same post solely because they happen to have been carried out by people of the wrong race. I guess this is the same as your stance on mass rape, torture of dissidents and other similar acts of cruelty, they're OK as long as the perpetrators are people you like.

[Pants-of-dog]

Yes, genocide denial such as the denial expressed here in this thread is certainly an example.of bigotry.

[wat0n]

Saying people of any race "don't care" about genocide is in fact a bigoted generalization. It also doesn't even follow from demostrable behavior.

[Unthinking Majority]

I would not say that Europeans or their white descendants abroad care about genocide and other atrocities. They might be shocked when imagining a particular act of cruelty, but when these acts are brought up here, for example, we get semantic discussions about the definition of the word or outright genocide denial.

This is a racist overgeneralization of Europeans/caucasians.

The British also had slaves and were dealing in slavery when they began to abolish it. Nor does slave ownership among the Haudenosaunee contradict the fact that their culture had already created something analogous to a human rights system before colonialism.

Please share the evidence of the Haudenosaunee having a human rights system before colonialism that banned slavery.

Nor is this contradicted by the racist assumption that oral.societies are too stupid to come up with accountable systems.of governance.

Please share the evidence that the Haudenosaunee confederacy provided the blueprint for the US Constitution.

Yes, other places also had slavery. The BE turned into a huge multinational industry with stocks and shares and limited liability and all the other accoutrements of capitalism. They were Starbucks when everyone else was a local family business.

The same with scalping. An act Earley done by a few Indigenous groups was turned into a huge multinational industry by the BE. If scalping and rape are bad, then the BE took this bad act and spread it far and wide to make money off it.

Also, there are Jews of every race. The vast majority of the Jewish victims of Nazism were Ashkenazi Jews from Eastern Europe. The Roma are also a multiracial set of communities. And yes, the Nazis were racist. So were the BE. Why else would they think they need to uplift all the other races to their level? By enslaving and killing them, oddly enough.

Yes the BE were racist and cruel. Were they as racist and cruel as the Nazis? No.

[Unthinking Majority]

Yes, genocide denial such as the denial expressed here in this thread is certainly an example.of bigotry.

Bigotry is also constantly criticizing caucasians, making up racist stereotypes about them, and making up "noble savage" lies about how indigenous people were morally superior to caucasians/Europeans even though indigenous groups did to each other all of the cruel things European empires did to each other and others, including slavery, rape, torture, war/plundering, genocide, imperialism etc.

[Pants-of-dog]

This is a racist overgeneralization of Europeans/caucasians.

Canadians on this forum denied that genocide is happening in Canada even after evidence was presented.

This is a fact that is true and verifiable no matter what you accuse me of.

Please share the evidence of the Haudenosaunee having a human rights system before colonialism that banned slavery.

No.

Your claim was that we should laud the BE for creating things like human rights and ignore the historical fact of slavery.

You are now specifically choosing to do the exact opposite for the Haudenosaunee.

You already agree with my point that cultures can be capable of creating democratic institutions while still maintaining slavery.

Please share the evidence that the Haudenosaunee confederacy provided the blueprint for the US Constitution.

You can start at the wiki article.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Law ... nstitution

Yes the BE were racist and cruel. Were they as racist and cruel as the Nazis? No.

I think the BE were worse.

[Unthinking Majority]

Canadians on this forum denied that genocide is happening in Canada even after evidence was presented.

This is a fact that is true and verifiable no matter what you accuse me of.

You said Europeans and caucasians don't care about genocide. Some people on a message board you allege don't care is not all Europeans or caucasians. Therefore your claim is racist.

1. Your claim was that we should laud the BE for creating things like human rights and ignore the historical fact of slavery.

2. You are now specifically choosing to do the exact opposite for the Haudenosaunee.

3. You already agree with my point that cultures can be capable of creating democratic institutions while still maintaining slavery.

#1 & 2 I didn't say. #3 yes.

Indigenous people weren't any better than European empires in terms of democracy, human rights, or cruelty as demonstrated by history.

You can start at the wiki article.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Law ... nstitution

It says the indigenous may have influenced the US Constitution, which very well may be the case, but it doesn't say anything about providing "a blueprint". The claim ignores the contributions of others, like John Locke and other European philosophers, British common law, French civil law, and original contributions by US philosophers and politicians.

I think the BE were worse.

Of course you do, because you're bigoted and racist towards the British.

[Rich]

Yes the BE were racist and cruel. Were they as racist and cruel as the Nazis? No.

Out of context comparisons like this are anti German racist. The Nazis rose in the context of their defeat in WWI. WWI was a war of aggression by France, Russia and Britain. Was Germany in 1914, some great model of human rights, equality and fair play? No of course not. Did the Germans respond wisely to Russian mobilisation? Again in my view no. But none of this contradicts the fact that WW1 was fundamentally a war of aggression and expansionism by France, Russia and Britain.

Once the war started the German leadership, rapidly moved to a consensus that the low countries should come under a German Monroe doctrine. Given their position in the great power hierarchy this was hardly an unreasonable demand, given the US's claim to the whole of the America's and the British entitlement to a Navy twice the size of anyone else. The British guarantee of Belgium sovereignty, by a power that already controlled a quarter of th globe including Gibralter Malta and Cyprus, was an outrageous act of aggressive expansionism. It would be like ... I don't know I can't think of a comparable example.

Britain guaranteeing Belgium was the most ludicrous policy. The only comparison I can make is a hypothetical one. It would be like trying to make Georgia a member of NATO, a country you are not remotely in a position to guarantee and then whining like a bitch when your policy far from bringing peace, leads to instability, chaos and war.

World War I was a war of aggression by France, Tsarist Russia and Britain, later supported by that racist hypocrite moraliser Woodrow Wilson. The central strategy was not to defeat the Germans on the battle field but starve them into surrender and to top it all at the end the Allies made Germany take responsibility for starting it. The allied strategy in WW2 again was to starve the Germans into surrender. It really shouldn't surprise us that all this produced a movement and and government in Germany obsessed with the idea that others must be starved inorder that Germans wouldn't.

[late]

Out of context comparisons like this are anti German racist. The Nazis rose in the context of their defeat in WWI. WWI was a war of aggression by France, Russia and Britain. Was Germany in 1914, some great model of human rights, equality and fair play? No of course not. Did the Germans respond wisely to Russian mobilisation? Again in my view no. But none of this contradicts the fact that WW1 was fundamentally a war of aggression and expansionism by France, Russia and Britain.

Once the war started the German leadership, rapidly moved to a consensus that the low countries should come under a German Monroe doctrine. Given their position in the great power hierarchy this was hardly an unreasonable demand, given the US's claim to the whole of the America's and the British entitlement to a Navy twice the size of anyone else. The British guarantee of Belgium sovereignty, by a power that already controlled a quarter of th globe including Gibralter Malta and Cyprus, was an outrageous act of aggressive expansionism. It would be like ... I don't know I can't think of a comparable example.

Britain guaranteeing Belgium was the most ludicrous policy. The only comparison I can make is a hypothetical one. It would be like trying to make Georgia a member of NATO, a country you are not remotely in a position to guarantee and then whining like a bitch when your policy far from bring peace, leads to instability, chaos and war.

World War I was a war of aggression by France, Tsarist Russia and Britain, later supported by that racist hypocrite moraliser Woodrow Wilson. The central strategy was not to defeat the Germans on the battle field but starve them into surrender and to top it all at the end the Allies made Germany take responsibility for starting it. The allied strategy in WW2 again was to starve the Germans into surrender. It really shouldn't surprise us that all this produced a movement and and government in Germany obsessed with the idea that others must be starved in order that Germans wouldn't.

There were 4 or 5 empires at the start of WW1. They were all jockeying for position. They all knew there were too many empires, and they were all trying to avoid getting wiped out. I see it as a game of musical chairs.

Ironically, the war wiped all of them out. The Brits staggered on, but it was clear their empire was on it's last legs.

The origins of that war are fiendishly complex, yet simple. The old way, empires as a largely closed system, was breaking down. The participants didn't want that, so they fought it, and lost anyway.

The Lords of Finance doesn't tell that story. But the economic weaknesses underlying the situation has to be understood before you can understand the rest:

https://www.amazon.com/Lords-Finance-Bankers-Broke-World/dp/159420182X/ref=asc_df_159420182X/?tag=hyprod-20&linkCode=df0&hvadid=312106851030&hvpos=&hvnetw=g&hvrand=15650144378574177893&hvpone=&hvptwo=&hvqmt=&hvdev=c&hvdvcmdl=&hvlocint=&hvlocphy=9002522&hvtargid=pla-433873431725&psc=1&mcid=1ac99d00267a3b69a62b11861630f952&gclid=EAIaIQobChMIs6n94sDGhAMVLElHAR33OwLJEAQYAiABEgIyUPD_BwE

[Istanbuller]

The British Empire and United States of America does not belong to this list. These countries and nations literally invented capitalism, human rights and freedom. Anglo culture is lovely.

I also wouldn't put German people on that list. Nazi regime belongs to this list but not Germans. Thank you to Germans for their contributions to mankind.

[Pants-of-dog]

You said Europeans and caucasians don't care about genocide. Some people on a message board you allege don't care is not all Europeans or caucasians. Therefore your claim is racist.

So you do not disagree.

You just, instead, are assuming I meant all Europeans, in order to malign me.

#1 & 2 I didn't say. #3 yes.

Indigenous people weren't any better than European empires in terms of democracy, human rights, or cruelty as demonstrated by history.

Yes, Indigenous people were “better” than the BE. Not because they were more moral, but because they did not have the power to affect as many people.

While other groups could only inflict their cruelty on a few dozen people, the BE were able to inflict their cruelty on millions.

It says the indigenous may have influenced the US Constitution, which very well may be the case, but it doesn't say anything about providing "a blueprint". The claim ignores the contributions of others, like John Locke and other European philosophers, British common law, French civil law, and original contributions by US philosophers and politicians.

Sure.

My claim was that Indigenous groups were also providing things like rights to people, which disproves the claim that the BE were the only ones around at the time doing that.

Of course you do, because you're bigoted and racist towards the British.

Since you are ignoring my actual points, I assume you agree that the BE were worse because they had more power, had more technology at their disposal, and had cultural factors that predisposed them to such cruelty.

[wat0n]

The BE was more effective at being cruel at scale, but I would think cruelty would be compared relative to the material means of the perpetrators if we wanted to get into this discussion. If not, then the most cruel regime ever was the Chinese Empire for the simple reason that it ruled over much of humanity.

[Pants-of-dog]

And perhaps the most cruel aspect of the BE is that their legacy continues to cause human suffering.

[Unthinking Majority]

Out of context comparisons like this are anti German racist.

No just anti-Nazi.

[litwin]

I don't like Caligula. I also don't like Timor. I don't like Idi Amin, and many others. The Rwandan genocide. Most colonial Empire takeovers are horrific.

If you are looking for cruelty? Human beings have done it all. Slave trades. Sexual abuse, exploitation, torture for religious purposes, etc.

Ivan the terrible had a gang killer- rapists "monks"

[Rich]

Ivan the terrible had a gang killer- rapists "monks"

So the question some of us are asking in Britain is why are we so concerned about rapists from another country from hundreds of years ago and not the notorious peodophile rapist that was mentour to and helped nurture the values of our current king.

I would suggest that at the very least we should have a day of Thanksgiving to the Provisional IRA,who delivered some kind of justice to his victims. I'm not generally a big fan of the Provos' justice system, but in the case of this vile individual, the Provos were really the only hope his victims had for getting some sort of justice.

[Rancid]

Hands down the US.

[Fasces]

Probably some random death cult warlord in 3000 BC we've never heard of in Polynesia or something.

[Tainari88]

Ivan the terrible had a gang killer- rapists "monks"

I took a course in the university that was about Russian History. I read about Ivan the Terrible. What a horrible man that was!

People think Russians are cold temperament people. I do not think they are. They are passionate in character.

[litwin]

I took a course in the university that was about Russian History. I read about Ivan the Terrible. What a horrible man that was!

People think Russians are cold temperament people. I do not think they are. They are passionate in character.

"Let us begin with this evident fact: Muscovy does not belong at all to Europe, but to Asia. It follows that judging Muscovy and the Muscovites by our European standards is a mistake to be avoided."—gonzague de reynold, 19501 In methodological terms, one should de-Europeanise any analysis of Muscovy policy.— thomas gomart, 20062 "