« BACK TO FORUM
 Author |
 Post
|
 |
|
Arslan Jumaniyazov
Joined: May 13, 2004
Posts: 1358 (view all)
Poster Rank:
Blabbermouth
User is
Offline
Gender & Age: Male & 32
Country: Turkmenistan
Province/State: Dashoguz
|
The Question of Holocaust Denial
February 16, 2007 - 03:36 PM
|
|
Dear all,
My intention of starting this discussion is following our respected member Luke's following statement:
ADD to that the little conference of Holocaust deniers and bigots Ahmadinejad put together and his hostility and hatred for the Jewish people is abundantly clear.
Luke, I agree with your criticism of that conference, which I pointed out at the time. You have full right to criticize and condemn it, especially because of inviting racists like Duke there.
But since we have been discussing holocaust denial, let me add some balance to this whole discussion. Needless to mention that the founding father of Zionism, Theodore Herzl, supported Turkish genocidal campaign against Armenians--the first act for which the word "holocaust" was uttered to describe it (Winston Churchill), the current Israeli government denies there was a genocide against Armenians. But I don't see you criticizing the Israeli government for this.
Then again, there is the issue of what Tzvetan Todorov calls "the greatest genocide in human history," or what David Stannard calls "The American Holocaust."
It may sound overly provocative, but given the official position of the United States regarding Native Americans, it may be safe to say that at least the Iranian President discusses whether there was a holocaust against Jews, while the US government entirely rejects any kind of discussion on whether there was a massive genocide perpetrated against Native Americans or not.
When your government is going to admit that Native Americans have been a victim of genocide? or holocaust? I am not much interested in arguing which word fits more, but what I can say with confidence is that the destruction of Native Americans was even in a greater scale than the destruction of Jews. The leading historians agree that between 92 to 98% percent of native inhabitants of Americas perished from murder, enslavement, and disease introduced by the Europeans (the latter not always unintentionally).
What is your response to this, Luke?
Arslan
|
|
back to top |
link to this post
|
|
Arslan Jumaniyazov
Joined: May 13, 2004
Posts: 1358 (view all)
Poster Rank:
Blabbermouth
User is
Offline
Gender & Age: Male, 32
Country: Turkmenistan
Province/State: Dashoguz
|
Re: The Question of Holocaust Denial
February 16, 2007 - 03:58 PM
|
|
Just to make a bit clearer of what I mean for those who are not much familiar with what happened to Native Americans, let me present some histrical events.
Cristopher Columbus, a former slave-trader, a religious fanatic willing to become a Crusader, according to his own words and the words of those who accompained him, enslaved, killed, and mass terrorized people whom he described as "Indians." He and his crew brought what one historian described as the "Dogs of Conquest"--specially trained dogs to disembowell Indians, devour babies who were grabbed from the hands of mothers by the Spanish and thrown to dogs to be eaten. The mass murder and enslavement continued, they destroyed village after village, town after town, and coupled with the disease brought, the Europeans inflicted a catastrophic destruction on Native Americans.
But Columbus is a hero and the Columbus Day is widely celebrated to this day.
Then, in North America, it was the turn of the British. English colonialists started with Virginia and New England, and marched through the west imposing the same kind of destruction that their Spanish predecessors had done. Indians were "savage beasts" to be "rooted out." In the 18the century, Massachusetts Bay Colony made it a rule that one cannot shoot at anyone except wolves and Indians. The practice in consistency with the attitude of the Founding Father of the US toward Native Americans. Truely, for George Washington, Indians were "beasts of prey...wolves thou' they differ in shape."
In fact, the same century, the governor of Massachusetts offered bounty for every indian killed: adult males most prizey, less so women, and less so Indian babies. But in order to prove that they killed Indians, the settlers needed to show the proof, and therefore they would take the scalps of killed Indians and show the "bloody redskind." And herein lies the roots of the term "redskin," which some ignorant sportsmen use to name their teams.
to be continued...
|
|
back to top |
link to this post
|
|
Arslan Jumaniyazov
Joined: May 13, 2004
Posts: 1358 (view all)
Poster Rank:
Blabbermouth
User is
Offline
Gender & Age: Male, 32
Country: Turkmenistan
Province/State: Dashoguz
|
Re: The Question of Holocaust Denial
February 16, 2007 - 04:09 PM
|
|
Herein lies the root of the word "Reds." Just consider the implications of this. Indians were described as "Reds"--the characterization used to describe dead men--in other words, by calling Native Americans "reds," Anglo-Americans meant "we are going to kill all of them." It is no surprising, therefore, that it became so widespread in 19th century America that "Every bood Indian is a dead Indian" that Theodore Roosevelt, George Bush Sr.'s hero, once remarked: "I wouldn't go so far as to claim that every good Indian is a dead Indian. One out of ten are, but I wouldn't want to inqurie to cloosely into the case of the tenth one." It is no wonder, again, that the Anglo-American march through the continent which killed, enslaved, and mass-terrorized millions of Native Americans, for the Teddy Nobel Prize Laureate, was nothing but "Winning of the West."
The Indian-hating and the destruction of Indian peoples after peoples, was carried out not only by early Puritans or some stirred up fanatics, but also continued by Founding Fathers of the United States. Washington, by ordering his general Sullivan, destroyed town after town, town after town--so many Indian towns that Indians eventually dubbed him a "town destroyer." They went further by using the word "Washington" to scare out their children at night.
Thomas Jefferson, unarguably one of the most liberal thinkers of his time, according to his letters to John Adams, had lifelong attachment of Indians since his childhood. However, as time went by, he covertly pursuded the Indian removal: either extermination or assimilation. In his letter to Humbolt, he found himself "obliged now to exterminate them or drive them to new seats beyond our reach" (coincidentally the same time when he, after realizing that his grand plan of sending all African slaves back to Africa in order to save the "pure" race turned out to be too costly, he proposed sending only African children back to Africa). After all, Jefferson, alongside John Adams who considered Indians to be "blood hounds," and other three comprising five, described the native peoples of America as "merciless Indian savages" in the very birth certificate of the United States of America--the Declaration of Independence. More than that, in that very document, Indians are described not only as "merciless savages" but also "childish" who would be incapable of rebelling against white Americans unless instigated by agents of the English.
tobe continued...
|
|
back to top |
link to this post
|
|
Arslan Jumaniyazov
Joined: May 13, 2004
Posts: 1358 (view all)
Poster Rank:
Blabbermouth
User is
Offline
Gender & Age: Male, 32
Country: Turkmenistan
Province/State: Dashoguz
|
Re: The Question of Holocaust Denial
February 16, 2007 - 04:25 PM
|
|
If Jefferson had some ambuguities about "saving" or exterminating Indians, Andrew Jackson had none. In the battle of Horse Shoe Bend, he and his crew murdered 800 Creeks by cutting the noses of every Indian killed. Jackson himself, who boasted of taking the scalp of every Indian he had killed, recommended sending souviniers taken from the corpses of dead Creeks to the "ladies of Tenessee." Then his most notorious act was official Indian Removal Act. The Trial of Tears for which he was instrumental, in its murderousness, was almost equal to the Bathaan Death March--the most murderous Japanese act against Americans in the Pacific War (with the slight difference that there weren't any women and children in Bathaan Death March).
Indian-hating continued even after the number of Native Americans was reduced to some 250,000 countrywide at the end of 19th century. The people of the Philippines in the 1898-1901--otherwise known as "niggers"--were "tribal savages" in "Indian country." In the words of Teddy Roosevelt, the Filipinos were "Chinese half-breeds" and granting them self-rule would be an equivalent of granting self-rule to an "Apachee."
Indian-hating was even extended to the Vietnam War. Vietnam, soldiers said, was "Indian country." General Maxwell Taylor referred to them as "Indians" in his congressional testimony, while it became commonplace among US soldiers to change the racist "Every good Indian is a dead Indian" into "every good dink is a good dink." Raised by watching westerns and cowboy movies, US soldiers viewed the Vietnamese in the same degrading manner that they did Indians.
Yet, there is absolutely no sense of guilt expressed by the US government officials for what has been done to Native Americans. No, the US leaders are proud of westward expansion. When the Polish President came to Israel to apologize for Holocaust, the US officials praised him while at the same time the Smithsonian Institute was threatened to have the funds cut by angry Congressmen for daring to use the word "genocide" to describe the plight of native peoples of America.
to be continued...
|
|
back to top |
link to this post
|
|
Arslan Jumaniyazov
Joined: May 13, 2004
Posts: 1358 (view all)
Poster Rank:
Blabbermouth
User is
Offline
Gender & Age: Male, 32
Country: Turkmenistan
Province/State: Dashoguz
|
Re: The Question of Holocaust Denial
February 16, 2007 - 04:42 PM
|
|
Yet, as David Stannard argues, the genocide against Native Indians continued in the twentiesth century. In Guatemala, after the overthow of Arbenz Government, the U.S. backed militarist state murdered some 200,000 people, mostly Mayan Indians, displaced over a million, and tortured hundreds of thousands. So horrible was the plight of Mayan Indians there that one historican described the U.S. backed Guatemalan policy as Less Publicized "Final Solution."
Here is how Rigoberta Manchu, a Mayan Indian woman who received Nobel Prize, described some of her experiences:
My name is Rigoberta Menchú Tum. I am a representative of the "Vincente Menchú" [her father] Revolutionary Christians ... On 9 December 1979, my 16-year-old brother Patrocino was captured and tortured for several days and then taken with twenty other young men to the square in Chajul ... An officer of [President] Lucas Garcia's army of murderers ordered the prisoners to be paraded in a line. Then he started to insult and threaten the
inhabitants of the village, who were forced to come out of their houses to witness the event. I was with my mother, and we saw Patrocino; he had had his tongue cut out and his toes cut off. The officer jackal made a speech. Every time he paused the soldiers beat the Indian prisoners.
When he finished his ranting, the bodies of my brother and the other prisoners were swollen, bloody, unrecognizable. It was monstrous, but they were still alive.They were thrown on the ground and drenched with gasoline. The soldiers set fire to the wretched bodies with torches and the captain laughed like a hyena and forced the inhabitants of Chajul to watch. This was his objective -- that they should be terrified and witness the punishment given to the "guerrillas".
This Nazi-type of treatment of Mayan Indians was carried out by Guatemalan military while receiving direct military and economic aid from the US, and while the highest members of the Guatemalan military received training in the School of the Americas (aka School of the Assassins).
to be continued...
|
|
back to top |
link to this post
|
|
Arslan Jumaniyazov
Joined: May 13, 2004
Posts: 1358 (view all)
Poster Rank:
Blabbermouth
User is
Offline
Gender & Age: Male, 32
Country: Turkmenistan
Province/State: Dashoguz
|
Re: The Question of Holocaust Denial
February 16, 2007 - 04:47 PM
|
|
Here is Fred Sherwood (CIA pilot during the overthrow of the
Arbenz government in 1954 who settled in Guatemala and became
president of the American Chamber of Commerce), speaking in
Guatemala, September 1980"
Why should we be worried about the death squads? They're bumping off the commies, our enemies. I'd give them more power. Hell, I'd get some cartridges if I could, and everyone else would too ... Why should we criticize them?
The death squad -- I'm for it ... Shit! There's no question, we can't wait 'til Reagan gets in. We hope Carter falls in the ocean real quick ... We all feel that
he [Reagan] is our saviour.
Then, what about what Richard Arens describes as Genocide in Paraguay? The genocide against Ache Indians was carried out with precisely the same brutality the genocide against Mayan Indians was perpetrated, if not in a worse manner. Even Elie Wiesel, a celebrated Holocaust survivor who is a passionate advocate of the uniqueness of the Holocaust, was apalled to see the plight of Aches and wrote an epilogue to Aren's book. Read the review of the book:
This important and shocking book breaks the virtual silence on one of the worst atrocities in recent memory. As revealed through eyewitness testimony and a store of document, the Aché Indians, a gentle, forest-dwelling people, are being systematically exterminated by a Paraguayan regime bent on clearing lands for industrial development. Organized manhunts, slavery, torture and forced deculturation on 'reservations' have already eliminated perhaps half of the Achés. The complicity of the U.S. government, corporations and media in this tragedy and the possible involvement of Nazi enclaves in South America are among the book's most disturbing features. But the essays extend far beyond the Paraguayan jungle, focusing sharply on the evolution of Latin American dictatorships, the moral, legal and anthropological dimensions of genocide and ethnocide, and parallels with the plight of other South American Indian tribes and with the Holocaust, brought out notably in Elie Wiesel's moving epilogue.
So, when the US government is going to take responsibility for these genocides, Luke? When this hypocrisy is going to end? Will it?
Arslan
|
|
back to top |
link to this post
|
|
R Kahendi
Joined: Jul 19, 2002
Posts: 59 (view all)
Poster Rank:
Talkative
User is
Offline
 Virtual Volunteer
Country: United States
Province/State: New York
City: New York
|
Re: The Question of Holocaust Denial
February 16, 2007 - 06:05 PM
|
|
Arslan, I think that human history is drenched with alot of blood. The problem is that we all have such short memories. All nations were born out of the bloodshed and repression of people.
You are right in your indication that we can't really move forward without examining our collective guilt, because that guilt shapes everything that we do.
This post was edited on: 2007-02-16 at 10:08 PM by: bumbuwazed
|
|
back to top |
link to this post
|
|
Luke Lieberman
Joined: Feb 13, 2003
Posts: 3007 (view all)
Poster Rank:
Blabbermouth
User is
Offline
Gender & Age: Male, 33
Country: United States
Province/State: California
|
Re: The Question of Holocaust Denial
February 16, 2007 - 07:17 PM
|
|
"but given the official position of the United States regarding Native Americans, it may be safe to say that at least the Iranian President discusses whether there was a holocaust against Jews, while the US government entirely rejects any kind of discussion on whether there was a massive genocide perpetrated against Native Americans or not. "
this is patantly FALSE - you obviously don't know that the offical position of the American government is - do you?
did you even look it up?
Here is the US Senate passing a Resolution of Apology to the Native American Peoples.
http://www.nativevillage.org/MessagesfromthePeople/resolution_of_apology_to_native_.htm
It was first introduced by Sen Brownback, you should read the whole thing.
There is a particular paragraph that might interest you -
"...Whereas the United States Government violated many of the treaties ratified by Congress and other diplomatic agreements with Indian Tribes;
Whereas this Nation should address the broken treaties and many of the more ill-conceived Federal policies that followed, such as extermination, termination, forced removal and relocation, the outlawing of traditional religions, and the destruction of sacred places;
Whereas the United States forced Indian Tribes and their citizens to move away from their traditional homelands and onto federally established and controlled reservations, in accordance with such Acts as the Indian Removal Act of 1830;
Whereas many Native Peoples suffered and perished-- (1) during the execution of the official United States Government policy of forced removal, including the infamous Trail of Tears and Long Walk; (2) during bloody armed confrontations and massacres, such as the Sand Creek Massacre in 1864 and the Wounded Knee Massacre in 1890; and (3) on numerous Indian reservations;"
Hmm Arslan - Here you have the US senate admiting to and apologizing for -
"extermination, termination, forced removal and relocation, the outlawing of traditional religions, and the destruction of sacred places;"
you think that about sums it up? Is "Extermination" enough of a term or are we parsing words?
Every History text book, in every public school in America has a chapter on the Trail of Tears and what happened to the Indians -
For that matter it has a chapter on Cortez and what the Spanish did the Mayans and Incans.
they were an intregral part of the history. These text books were all approved by the govenrment.
What do the Text books in Iran say about the Hollocaust Arslan?
Today Indians live in small Sovereign reservations -
not unlike Israel and in particular the Kibbutz.
This post was edited on: 2007-02-16 at 07:21 PM by: luke
|
|
back to top |
link to this post
|
|
Luke Lieberman
Joined: Feb 13, 2003
Posts: 3007 (view all)
Poster Rank:
Blabbermouth
User is
Offline
Gender & Age: Male, 33
Country: United States
Province/State: California
|
Re: The Question of Holocaust Denial
February 16, 2007 - 07:17 PM
|
|
But Arslan - what is truly offensive and perverse about your thread here -
is that no American President has EVER organized an international conference to deny what happened to the Native Americans.
What President can you name who went out of his way to organize a a bunch of racists for the expressed purpose of denying what happened to the Indians???
Ahmadinejad IS organizing racists to deny the Hollocaust -
SECOND - what happened to the Indians happened 150 - 300 years ago.
THIRD - America is not currently AT WAR with the Indians.
Iran IS in a state of war with Israel - they do not think that Israel should exist -
therefor denial of past crimes is more relevant where Iran is concerned - because this denial is happening in the context of extreme hostility.
it is a much more politically charged context - and one that could possibly involve NUCLEAR WEAPONS.
.
The US is offering APOLOGIES to the descendants of the Indian Genocide.
Iran is pointing MISSILS at the descendants of the Jewish Hollocaust - even as they deny that such a Hollocaust ever happened.
You see Arslan - the reason "The Hollocaust" is called "the Hollocaust" -
is because the WORD "Hollocaust" was INVENTED specifically to describe the Nazi genocide against the Jews.
During the wars against the Indians - such a word did not yet exist.
This post was edited on: 2007-02-16 at 07:19 PM by: luke
This post was edited on: 2007-02-16 at 07:23 PM by: luke
|
|
back to top |
link to this post
|
|
manosijm
Joined: Feb 16, 2007
Posts: 80 (view all)
Poster Rank:
Chatterbox
User is
Offline
Gender & Age: Male, 24
Country: Canada
Province/State: Quebec
City: Montréal
|
Re: The Question of Holocaust Denial
February 17, 2007 - 01:50 AM
|
|
I think we should just sit back and watch Ahmedinejad make a magnificent fool of himself in front of the world and his own electorate.
Don't pay attention -- it only provokes him and increases his sense of conceit.
|
|
back to top |
link to this post
|
|
Arslan Jumaniyazov
Joined: May 13, 2004
Posts: 1358 (view all)
Poster Rank:
Blabbermouth
User is
Offline
Gender & Age: Male, 32
Country: Turkmenistan
Province/State: Dashoguz
|
Re: The Question of Holocaust Denial
February 18, 2007 - 01:38 PM
|
|
Luke,
Of course, I look at the US official attitude toward Native Americans. The website you give clearly shows that the resolution is yet to pass. It has been introduced, but hasn't passed for three years. Nor has it grabbed the President's attention. Why is it there for three years? You are telling me the US government is apologizing?
Luke, you answer really stunned me. When was this resolution introduced, huh? In 2004? Why these senators waited for so long, especially if as you claim it has taken place 150-300 years ago? Doesn't it mean that your government should have apologized long time ago?
But long time ago, Theodore Roosevelt was proclaing the Sand Creek massacre "as righteous and beneficial a deed as ever took place on the frontier" and that "the most righteous wars" to be the ones against the "savages," i.e. Indians.
The Genocide Convention was established in 1948. Why did you government waited for forty years to ratify it? Leo Kuper, one of the leading experts on Genocide wondered whether the US reluctance to ratify the Convention derived from "fear that it might be held responsible, retrospectively, for the annihilation of Indians in the United States, or its role in the slave trade, or in contemporary support for tyrannical governments engaging in mass murder." But then again several European countries complained because the US ratified it with a condition, which stipulated that the US governmental officials cannot be charged with war crimes or crimes against humanity by the ICC.
Now, let's imagine a scenario. A few members of the German parlaiment introduced a resolution of apology to Jews in some 2040. And against the charge that Germany has been denying the genocide against Jews, a German citizen says:
this is patantly FALSE - you obviously don't know that the offical position of Germany is - do you?
did you even look it up?
Here is the German Parlaiment passing a Resolution of Apology to Jews.
Would the above be convincing to you, Luke?
Arslan
|
|
back to top |
link to this post
|
|
Arslan Jumaniyazov
Joined: May 13, 2004
Posts: 1358 (view all)
Poster Rank:
Blabbermouth
User is
Offline
Gender & Age: Male, 32
Country: Turkmenistan
Province/State: Dashoguz
|
Re: The Question of Holocaust Denial
February 18, 2007 - 01:58 PM
|
|
Luke,
There is no need for a US President to organize a conference, the genocide against Native Americans haven't been acknowledged, period. There are many conferences where historians easily deny the charges of genocide. One example is James Axtell, one of the leading historians of Native American peoples. Guenter Lewy, another celebrated historian, does not even consider it a crime, but a "tragic event." . Steven Katz, a professor of Near Eastern and Jewish Studies at Cornell University as well as the author of several books on the Holocaust, argued in his article "The Pequot War Reconsidered" that the charges of "genocide" with regard to near total extermination of Pequots were "false" because some Pequots survived and they could be found as a separate group in Connecticut in 1960s.
Now, let us imagine the German equivalents of Axtell and Lewy openly denying the "genocide" charge against Jews, and going so far as to claim that it was "not a crime" but a "tragic event," an outcome of World War II. Or, let us imagine a professor of Native American studies at the University of Humbolt, Berlin, rejecting the claim of "genocide" with regard to Jews because Jews could be found as a separate group in Bavaria in 1980s.
How would that look, Luke?
James V. Fenelon, a Native American scholar, in his article "Indians Teaching about Indigenous
How and Why the Academy Discriminates" for the Journal of American Indian Quarterly (2003), describes the following:
The "academy" of scholars in United States institutions of higher education generally do not like hearing about genocide in the Americas, especially if it implies or states that this country willingly participated in and benefited from genocidal policies. Well, that about sums up the primary problems that Native scholars have in writing about Indian nations or Indigenous peoples. Five hundred years of dancing around a central fact that European powers came to the Western Hemisphere, militarily and underhandedly "conquered" the peoples already living there, and then built their powerful "democratic" societies on "taken land" does not bode well for an Indigenous history
Imagine, Luke, Jewish students in Germany having difficulties with using the word "genocide" because of discrimination against by the Germany academic institutions. How would that look?
Arslan
|
|
back to top |
link to this post
|
|
Arslan Jumaniyazov
Joined: May 13, 2004
Posts: 1358 (view all)
Poster Rank:
Blabbermouth
User is
Offline
Gender & Age: Male, 32
Country: Turkmenistan
Province/State: Dashoguz
|
Re: The Question of Holocaust Denial
February 18, 2007 - 02:24 PM
|
|
Luke,
What stuns me most is that as a film-maker yourself, you must know it better than I do that Indian-hating and racist stereotypes against Indians have been widespread in the popular culture, literature, and films for the last several decades. Not long ago, in 1960s, some Hollywood films describing Indians as "sqauws" and despised "savages" received highest movie awards.
Why do you think Generals Curtis Lemay, Maxwell Taylor, and a countless number of US soldiers referred to Vietnam as "Indian country"? Because, they have grown up hating Indians and learning at schools and from popular culture Indians to be enemies.
"Indian country" means the world outside the frontier. Inside it, there is "civilization" and outside it, the world of "savagery." That is what "Indian coutry" means.
But here comes a US reporter from CBN in the current Iraq War: "So I guess if this were the Old West I'd say there are Injuns ahead of us, Injuns behind us, and Injuns on both sides too, so we really don't want to give the enemy any hints about where we are." That is not all. Here is another reporter from Los Angeles Times describing Ramadi as "Indian Country" - "the wild, wild West." Agains LATimes quotes a military strategist, a member of the Council on Foreign Relations, referring to enemies in Iraq as "Indians." Another leading Newspaper, World Street Journal, publishes an editorial with the title "Indian Country."
Alas, that is not all. Here a Tribe of Shawnee Indians write a letter of protest to George Bush because a "high U.S. official" referred to Ben Laden's followers as "Indians."
Now, imagine, Luke, Der Spiegel and other Germany Newspapers, a "high German official," a member of the CFR of Germany, referring to enemy territories as "Jewish Country," and to terrorists as "Jews."
I wonder, how would that look like?
Arslan
|
|
back to top |
link to this post
|
|
Arslan Jumaniyazov
Joined: May 13, 2004
Posts: 1358 (view all)
Poster Rank:
Blabbermouth
User is
Offline
Gender & Age: Male, 32
Country: Turkmenistan
Province/State: Dashoguz
|
Re: The Question of Holocaust Denial
February 18, 2007 - 02:40 PM
|
|
Luke,
A Native American school teacher, writes in response to the fact that you can still buy toys of little cowboys and little Indians so that little kids can play killing Indians as cowboys in "Cowboys and Indians
Toys of Genocide, Icons of American Colonialism" (Wicazo Sa Review 19.2 (2004) 33-48):
Imagine if children could also buy bags of little toy African-American slaves and their white slave masters, or Jewish holocaust prisoners and their SS Nazi guards, or undocumented Mexicans and their INS border patrol guards.Imagine if the African-American set included little whips and ropes so the white slave masters could flog the slaves that were lazy and lynch those who defied them. Imagine if the border guards in the Mexican toy set came with little nightsticks to beat the illegal aliens, infrared scopes on their rifles to shoot them at night, and trucks to load up those they caught. Imagine if the Jewish and Nazi toys included little barbed-wire prison camps and toy trains to load up and take the prisoners to the toy gas chambers or incinerators, batteries not included.
So, what does the above tell you, Luke? You are telling me the US Senate is passing the Resolution of Apology. Supposedly, it should be signed by the President as well. Why is President silent about it? While American Indian movements are urging to call their senators and congressment to support the resolution???? Because, it has been there for three years. Then again, American Indivan Movement Grant Council is urging to reject it on the following grounds: [see next post]
This post was edited on: 2007-02-18 at 02:49 PM by: Arslanik
|
|
back to top |
link to this post
|
|
Arslan Jumaniyazov
Joined: May 13, 2004
Posts: 1358 (view all)
Poster Rank:
Blabbermouth
User is
Offline
Gender & Age: Male, 32
Country: Turkmenistan
Province/State: Dashoguz
|
Re: The Question of Holocaust Denial
February 18, 2007 - 02:45 PM
|
|
While S.J. Res.37 is a start in that the United States Congress, and the American people recognizes, and admits to their past, and present depredations, massacres, and crimes against humanity perpetrated against Native nations and peoples, S.J. Res.37 must include language that establishes an American Indian Policy and Review Commission type of investigative body. The first order of business by this body would be to investigate how and where $137 Billion, or more disappeared from U.S. Treasury Trust Accounts held on behalf of individual Indian people’s IIM accounts for more than 100 years for petroleum, oil, minerals, natural gas, timber, water, and grazing leases. The lost and/or thefts have kept our people locked into chronic and perpetual cycles of poverty. This case is documented in Federal Court Case, Cobell v. United States.
This commission must also be mandated to investigate oil companies, and other corporate thefts of natural resources, which are ongoing. This commission must be mandated also to write legislation that deals with the issues of restitutions, reparations, and restorations of land for the reconstruction of an Indian future in America.
At this very moment our sacred shrines and burial sites and the remains of our ancestors are being desecrated and ripped from the bosom of Mother Earth; at this very time the Mendota Mdewakanton Dakota people in Minneapolis, Minnesota are attempting to stop the archeological and corporate interests from digging up their ancestors.
This practice is rampant among most Native nations across the country. In Shasta Lake, California members of the Winnemem Wintu tribe began a four-day protest as recently as this past Sunday to stop a potential expansion of the Shasta Dam, which would destroy sacred shrines and burial sites to the lake.
You see Arslan - the reason "The Hollocaust" is called "the Hollocaust" -
is because the WORD "Hollocaust" was INVENTED specifically to describe the Nazi genocide against the Jews.
Wrong. Winston Churchill used the H-word to describe the massacre of Armenians in 1924.
Btw, you haven't replied why the Israeli government denies the Armenian genocide. Then what about genocidal campaings in Guatemala and Parauay against Native Indians for which the US role was instrumental???
Arslan
|
|
back to top |
link to this post
|
|
|
Display posts from:
|
|
Home
Community
