Quote:
Originally Posted by The Batlord
No you are being pedantic. You wouldn't deny the Jewish Holocaust in the same way you would the Native American Holocaust because they are two different historical occurrences with two different histories.
|
in both cases it would involve actually denying the genocide or some aspect of it, otherwise denier is simply the wrong charge to make.
Quote:
|
The Jewish Holocaust is so obvious and still fresh that one simply has to be a conspiracy theorist to deny it, whereas the Native American Holocaust started as an accident, so you can throw that up to trivialize the entire thing to begin with (which you did), and wasn't a centralized plan so you can be vague about what you consider to be genocide and what was just unfortunate history or just gloss over the whole damn thing since the specifics aren't common knowledge to most people even in America (you so far have chosen to gloss over while not being so stupid as to pretend nothing happened but since going down the specifics rabbit hole would mean pages upon pages of potential obfuscation that nobody casually posting on an internet forum wants to go down you still leave yourself open to be vague about what's genocide and what's just embarrassing but still forgivable as a country).
|
I didn't say it started as an accident, only that the vast majority of the body count was through the spread of disease. That's a relevant fact to me in judging the scale of the genocide, not whether there was a genocide. I brought it up because many people don't know that and most people speak as if it's not true. I think you see it as trivializing because you recognize instinctively that people catching diseases doesn't look as nefarious as rape and pillage, and you would just assume gloss over anything that has that affect.