The album title was “Never mind the bollocks, here’s the Sex Pistols.” One of the songs was called “Anarchist” which had the line “I am an anarchist.” Apparently you have melded the line from the song and the album title.
If you’d explained your position in terms similar to those you used above, I guess that might be forgivable as a kind of “fighting ignorance through the promotion of critical thinking”. The way you’ve done it in this thread, however, with the alchemy thing, really does make you sound like a demented troll.
Desmostylus, since you are obsessively googling me, I am surprised you didn’t find this:
http://proxy.arts.uci.edu/~nideffer/SPEED/1.3/product/burch/burch.html
or this:
http://www.markburchmotorsports.com/
or this:
http://www.umanitoba.ca/manitoban/archives/feb21_2001/enviro2.html
or this:
http://www.eagleraceway.com/driver/display.asp?driverid=661
I get around, huh?
Desmo, I may be a troll, but you, sir, are a sea cow!
“I think it is called Desmostylus, and it’s an ancient sea cow that’s no longer alive. It’s an extinct species.”
Well, if “once” = “obsessive”, then I’m obsessively Googling you.
I have no intention of reading through the links you just posted.
The quote I offered was partly in your defence. You elsewhere offer a relatively lucid explanation of your position.
If that is your position, then take it and run with it. Teach some critical thought to december.
If, on the other hand, you choose to continue with the sort of bullshit you’ve posted in this thread, how can you expect to be taken at all seriously?
It’s in my profile…“single white male, alchemist, seeks abusive relationship with ideologically xenophobic hyperrationalists.”
Tamerlane, Your last posgt in regard that you use the term near - holocaust demonstrates what I said to begin with. You obviously do not know the history of the destruction of the native Americans.
The effort to eliminate the “redman” was precisely calculated and intended to just that. You ever hear of the trail of tears? You know the Cherokee were not running around in loin cloths like savages at that point. They were farmers that had assimilated and were living as their white counter parts, as farmers. They had adopted the clothing, housing, methods and even religion of the white man. They were then rounded up and led on death march. The march was planned and executed with attention to every detail, even considering that a winter march would be more effective. And what about the bounties paid for Indian scalps? Many US territories paid for the death of native Americans, one by one. And massacres? Too many to list. Orders by military leaders to slaughter any natives encountered.
It was a systematic plan of oppression, murder and starvation. One studied carefully by Hitler and said to have been the model for the “final solution”.l
Tamerlane , the really sad part is that contrary to the Jewish holocaust, no one decided to stop this holocaust although it continued for years and years. At least we decided to stop the Germans before they killed them all.
And Tom , Ethnicity has everything to do with any discussion of the state of Israel. That’s all.
Cite?
“Adolf Hitler, architect of genocide for European Jews openly complimented the United States of America on the efficiency with which it exterminates Native Americans. While he fell far short of his goal of completing his genocide against Jews the United States has achieved an extermination factor of 97% against Native Americans and continues it’s vow to finish.”
Hitler apparently was also inspired by cheerleaders at American football games.
"The historical consensus about the Nazis’ “Sieg Heil” chant is that Hitler copied it from Mussolini’s fascists. But US intelligence had an alternative theory it was borrowed from American cheerleaders.
That unlikely claim is one of many observations and anecdotes in a bizarre document recently declassified by the CIA a pyschological profile of Hitler assembled in 1942."
http://www.theage.com.au/news/world/2001/07/29/FFX1P71AOPC.html
FWIW
mystic. I asked for a citation, not one more made up claim. Your site simply claims that Hitler “complimented” the U.S. on the destruction of the Indian peoples (without, of course, actually quoting Hitler). It would be interesting to see an actual statement by Hitler that indicated that he studied (not simply approved of) the destruction of the Indians and that–against all probability–he used that as a “model.”
It has been long remembered that the original posture for saying the Pledge of Allegiance was to extend the right arm in a gesture reminiscent of the “Hail, Caesar” salute used in ancient Rome–whence both Mussolini and the cheerleaders took their gesture.
Old news and pretty much irrelevant to the discussion.
I said near-genocide, which is not exactly the same thing. I could also term the Jewish Holocaust a near-genocide in the same manner, insomuch as it was a close, but ultimately unsuccessful attempt to exterminate a whole people. Of course another definition of genocide is merely as an attempt at total extermination, but even here the Amerindian analogy fails ( see below ).
Think not, eh? Well, I’ll try not to let your opinion get me down ;).
Nope. Not consistently, at any rate. Sometimes there was a policy of extermination. The settlers in certain conflicts like the Pequot War were often aiming at elimination. At times the later U.S. government or agents thereof expressed similar sentiments. But it was all rather inconsistent.
Sometimes Amerindian nations were allies, albeit unequal, uneasy, and ambiguious ones, as with the Covenant Chain that linked the Iroquois ( Haudenosaunee ) with the Mid-Atlantic and New England colonies from 1677-1784. Sometimes they were peaceful neighbors. Most often they were an impediment to be removed. But only occasionally were they a race to exterminate.
Yes, I know all of this. I also am well aware of the almost equally bad details of the removals that preceded the Trail of Tears
Indeed. The details were all planned to reduce costs, which was the overriding concern of the War Department that oversaw them - The first removal, of the Choctaw, proved far too expensive ( despite the deaths and disease it produced ), so subsequent removals were meticulously planned to reduce the expense, inflicting ever greater horrors on the poor souls forced on these treks. The government response was nothing if not callously indifferent, abstracting and dismissing Indian deaths as inconsequential or necessary to the process. Certainly horrifying.
But it would only be equivalent to the Jewish Holocaust if those southern tribes had been removed to camps where they were then executed en masse. This did not happen - The U.S. didn’t want them dead, necessarily, they just wanted them gone. They even muttered paternalistic platitudes about how they were doing the Amerindians a favor, protecting them from fatal contact with the damaging effect of white society - To quote Andrew Jackson ( Farewell Address, 1837 ) :
“The philanthropist will rejoice, that the remnant of that ill-fated race has at length been placed beyond the reach of injury and oppression, and that the paternal care of the General Government will hereafter watch over them and protect them.”
Nonsense? Of course it is. But it does show the very different perception of Amerindians by people like Jackson ( or Van Buren and others in the government, who made similar remarks around the same time ) vs. the perception of Jews in Nazi Germany.
Yes, all of the above are facts of history. But again, they do not equal the level of assembly-line efficiency and organized slaughter that the Nazis perpetrated.
Nope. It was quite unsystematic and only occasionally planned oppression, murder, and starvation.
I’d have join tom in asking for a cite for this. If you’re saying that Hitler studied the removal of the “Five Civilized Tribes” in particular in light of the transportation of Jews to camps, I can almost see that. But a broader claim that Hitler based his genocidal plans on American policy - That, I don’t see.
You’ll get no argument from me that the Amerindian issue in general is a sad, sad story of American history ( and today, despite real attempts at improvement, the neglect and double-dealing continues ).
My argument continues to be merely that IMHO the Final Solution was unique in its particular level of horror. That doesn’t make events like the Sand Creek Massacre any less grotesque - It just means they weren’t, quite, the same.
- Tamerlane
http://www.bluecorncomics.com/hitler.htm
**Tamerlane, **holocaust denial does not help your case. It is incredible that someone with such sympathy for the Jewish holocaust can deny the Native Americans.
And Andrew Jackson you describe as “indifferent”?
“I take upon myself as my personal duty to exterminate the redman” Andrew Jackson.
Indifferent eh?
Typical pro semitic.
So, now, Hitler’s absorbtion of May’s tales of German valor against the “savages” (in individual combat) is transformed through imaginative reconstruction into the U.S. providing the “model” for the Holocaust.
I’m sure that Hitler viewed the Indians as sub-human savages and probably approved of the way that they were swept aside by the encroaching Europeans. I had hoped that you actually had evidence for your claim that
I actually would have been interested in seeing evidence that Hitler "model"ed the Final Solution on the American tragedy.
Sadly, it appears that we are going to have this, too, declared True by Assertion despite any evidence (or lack).
Well, also, Karl May was just really popular in Germany…it wasn’t just Hitler…a lot of Germans read him. Old Shatterhands and Winnetou were about as popular in Germany as the Lone Ranger and Tonto were here, and, I’m pretty sure that May is one of the most published German authors. Remember, too, that even though May did write about 70 books, only about 15 of them were Westerns. He preferred adventures set in the Middle East…you know, harems, scheming Persian princes, fanatic Arabs charging across the desert on camels…stuff like that.
Apparently you are a wee bit lacking in reading comprehension. I never denied the Native American Holocaust ( great or widespread destruction ), but instead referred to BOTH the Native American Holocaust and the Jewish Holocaust as near-genocides ( the systematic killing or extermination of a whole people or nation ). With the caveat that overall, over the entire course of American history, the Native American Holocaust was non-systematic, especially relative to the Final Solution.
Try again ( or not , as you prefer ).
It’s incredible that you cannot grasp the point I was trying to make and continue to misread my statements.
Or am I that opaque?
Where in the world did I describe Andrew Jackson, specifically, as “indifferent”. Andrew Jackson regarded the Amerindians as inferior and probably doomed to eventually succumb to civilization:
1829 - “Our conduct toward these people is deeply interesting to our national character. Their present condition, contrasted with what they once were, makes a most powerful appeal to our sympathies. Our ancestors found them the uncontrolled possessors of these vast regions. By persuasion and force they have been made to retire from river to river and from mountain to mountain, until some of the tribes have become extinct and others have left but remnants to preserve for awhile their once terrible names. Surrounded by the whites with their arts of civilization, which by destroying the resources of the savage doom him to weakness and decay, the fate of the Mohegan, the Narragansett, and the Delaware is fast overtaking the Choctaw, the Cherokee, and the Creek. That this fate surely awaits them if they remain within the limits of the states does not admit of a doubt. Humanity and national honor demand that every effort should be made to avert so great a calamity.”
1833 - “My original convictions upon this subject have been confirmed by the course of events for several years, and experience is every day adding to their strength. That those tribes can not exist surrounded by our settlements and in continual contact with our citizens is certain. They have neither the intelligence, the industry, the moral habits, nor the desire of improvement which are essential to any favorable change in their condition. Established in the midst of another and a superior race, and without appreciating the causes of their inferiority or seeking to control them, they must necessarily yield to the force of circumstances and ere long disappear.”
However he did not regard them as responsible for most of the evils of the nation and the world, as Hitler did of the Jews. One can draw a parallel between the two men in the fact of their racism, but not in the scope of it. Jackson believed the Amerindians would wither away and should be removed ( and at the same time pandered to the American romantic/paternalistic myth of the Amerindians as perpetual children and happy savages, best left to a “wandering” life away from the corruption of civilization ) - Hitler believed the Jews were inherently evil and had to be actively expunged. Hitler would have never have adopted a Jewish son, unlike Jackson who adopted a Creek infant ( he died at age 16 of pneumonia ). But I sure as hell don’t want to get baited into defending Jackson, whose policies I despise.
Whatever. Sure hope you’re defining Semitic in this context to include all Semites.
- Tamerlane