Reddit reviews American Holocaust: The Conquest of the New World
We found 15 Reddit comments about American Holocaust: The Conquest of the New World. Here are the top ones, ranked by their Reddit score.
Oxford University Press
> The Holocaust was certainly the biggest genocide by death toll, in history and across the world. The highest estimates are ~6 million Jews, ~17 if we include non-Jewish victims of other Nazi atrocities.
The death and destruction during the 13th century Mongol conquests have been widely noted in both the scholarly literature and popular memory. It has been calculated that approximately 5% of the world's population were killed during Turco-Mongol invasions or in their immediate aftermath. If these calculations are accurate, this would make the events the deadliest acts of mass killings in human history.
...
China reportedly suffered a drastic decline in population during the 13th and 14th centuries. Before the Mongol invasion, Chinese dynasties reportedly had approximately 120 million inhabitants; after the conquest was completed in 1279, the 1300 census reported roughly 60 million people.
source
His murderous Mongol armies were responsible for the massacre of as many as 40 million people. Even today, his name remains a byword for brutality and terror. But boy, was Genghis green..
Why Genghis Khan was good for the planet
Also:
https://www.amazon.com/American-Holocaust-Conquest-New-World/dp/0195085574/ref=pd_sim_14_5?_encoding=UTF8&pd_rd_i=0195085574&pd_rd_r=NZKZ7CNNHRRAGZBEERD0&pd_rd_w=FwxUw&pd_rd_wg=NjrbR&psc=1&refRID=NZKZ7CNNHRRAGZBEERD0
Zinn's books tends to evoke something like methodological scorn tinged with some sympathy for the basic idea... followed by fisticuffs. It's basically AskHistorians' Book That Shall Not Be Named.
Try Stannard's American Holocaust or Davis' Late Victorian Holocausts if you're looking for ball-fryingly depressing and teeth-gnashingly controversial history books in the key of White People Ruin Everything. They're better sourced and more apropos to this comment thread.
David Stannard, the historian who wrote the book of record on the subject, called it "the American Holocaust."
On the issue of the genocide in particular, since you request that, I recommend American Holocaust: The Conquest of the New World by David E. Stannard. I found it very interesting. It is very much source and historical account aware and documented. He covers quite a bit of the religious motivations and justifications involved, which is upsetting to many people and provokes a several denialist response, so be forewarned. The truth is very different from the so-called (re-) education I received as a youth in state run schools, promoting stories that I later found were myths. I mention this only because your post suggests you have had a similar awakening. I don't find this topic to be easy or comfortable reading, and I commend your interest in pursuing the truth.
I have a rather large library myself at my home so I can list hundreds of titles that I have found interesting, so any list I give will be necessarily truncated. It's helpful that you specify the specific area you are interested in. I feel you might also find Peter Nabokov's Native American Testimony of interest, since it contains nothing but first person accounts, one after another, and gives a lot of insight into our perspectives and the way we view things.
There is also the exceptionally well produced 500 Nations documentary which was hosted by Kevin Costner, and the excellent companion book by Alvin Josephy. The film documentary you can purchase on amazon, or watch on youtube, it's several hours long in multiple parts, and exceptional. The book fills in the details and contains a much more accurate history than we have been used to seeing presented.
Thank you for your interest in digging deeper.
Latin America is home to the forgotten genocide where 60 to maybe even 100 million were killed, and lets not forget about native Americans that barely even get recognition. And no one gives a shit because you're too busy focusing on those who died in ww2. Sadly this is nothing new, jist just another chapter in a terrible history of oppression.
Source:
https://www.amazon.com/American-Holocaust-Conquest-New-World/dp/0195085574
I don't have to argue this, it has long been settled in genocide debates whether Jews are the only ones to have experienced Holocaust. Your roughly 6 million Jews pales in comparison to the 17 million Native Americans in the Americas at the dawn of November, 1492, when the first European reached the shores of Aztec empire, and the hundreds of millions that have died since that time.
It is not asinine, you need to be better educated on this stuff. It is not Holocaust denial. It is about giving representation to people who have been denied because they are not seen as white (or adjacent to whites).
Your education starts with reading these comments.
I read a book, The American Holocaust by David E. Stannard where he mentions that George Washington earned the nickname Town Destroyer by the Seneca tribe. Also he committed horrible atrocities to Native American people. Some examples given were: Troops would make belts out of the skin of woman. They would also cut out a woman's vagina at fix it to their hat. Crazy shit man...here's a link to the book. American Holocaust
That page uses the lowest estimate for Tenochtitlan I've come across. Most estimates put it over 200k and some peg it as high as 350k. Paris definitely appears to be smaller unless you use the smallest estimates of Tenochtitlan and the biggest for Paris. As for Constantinople, I would admit that it was likely bigger but it was in rapid flux so its hard to say. But given that half the city lives in Asia, its an odd choice to refute the claim that Tenochtitlan was bigger than any European city.
The initial source I had seen make the claim is here. The book allows you to preview it and you can see it on the bottom of page 3 and top of page 4. It provides scholarly citations backing up those claims.
>Pretty sure they caused more deaths though
No they didnt.
>Just in Indians the British killed 29 million
Wrong. Citations needed. the only way you can get a number that high is if you include deaths from famines that occurred in Princely state lands.
>Then we can look at the Native Americans and the British role in the destruction of a 100 million people
There werent 100 million people living in North America, there were 2 million. You may get 100 million at an extreme stretch if you include central and south america, but Britain had little to do with those areas and as such any deaths there are nothing to do with the British. Secondly, almost all deaths of the natives was down to disease, not active warfare.
>The Irish famine, where the British were exporting food out of Ireland while people were starving.
It is well known fact that even if the British had stopped all food exports, there would still have been nowhere near enough food to feed the Irish.
>You would come close, really close and probably go over it.
Citation needed, because this is wrong.
>Since you count a great famine, so if we are including famines into our numbers it would be probably be pretty easy to go over that number.
Unlike the Socialist and Commie nations, Britain didnt cause any famines. All famines in India were caused by rain failures or natural disasters screwing up crops.
>the UK did a pretty decent job genociding the local population there.
The UK did not commit any genocide in the Oceanic regions. The Maori in New Zealand had very few issues with the British and in Australia, most of the tribes in western and northern Australia didnt even know the British were there and were still been contacted as late as the 1970's.
the only people that died off were the Tazmanian Aborigines, mainly because 12000 people of their original 15000 people were killed off by a wave of smallpox that spread down from Northern Australia after South East Asian fishermen made contact with north Australian natives. From them on, the population of Tazmanian natives was on a terminal decline. Conflict with small groups of colonists made the issue worse. In responce to this, the British tried to help the natives by moving them to similar areas far away from colonists, however due to the every growing number of colonists, conflict appeared again, until simmering down later on by which time the natives population had gotten too small and they died out.
There was no concerted effort to kill off anyone. Britains entire economy was built on trade and capitalism, which requires as many consumers as possible. So why the hell would Britain kill of people for no reason?
>Of course we have left out 2 continents of murders, Namely oceania and Africa,
Citation needed. The only conflict I can think of in Africa that is any type of controversial is the Mao Mao uprising and the only one I can think of in the Oceanic region is the Tazmanian natives, who were almost entirely killed off by disease and then slowly died out after losing most of their population.
>While the actions in Africa were also less than pretty
Ah, the Mao Mao. They deserved every last thing they got. Do you know what the ultimate goal of the Mao Mao was?
To wipe out all non-Kikuyu.
That meant wiping out the dozens of other peoples of Kenya, and all non-africans. The Mao Mao murdered hundreds of thousands of Kenyans and dozens of Europeans for no reason other than 'because they could'. Whilst the Mao Mao were gaining strenght, committing atrocities, setting off bombs and terrorising people, the British offered the Mao Mao a chance to peacefully end things which remained open for 18 months.
The offer stated that any Mao Mao member who came forward would be given a free trial and would be immune to the death penalty even if found guilty. The British stated they could come to a compromise.
Not one Mao Mao member came forward.
Britain then decided to come down on them like a ton of bricks after the Mao Mao carved up a little girl after raping her and her family members. Britain recruited auxiliaries from local tribes who had been suffering Mao Mao attacks, which led to Auxiliaries (and their British officers who were sympathetic to their men) beating and even killing Mao Mao POWs. The British let them do it as they saw it as just revenge for the persecuted Kenyans.
The Mao Mao were monsters. There is a reason they are hated even by modern Kenyans.
As for your links....
>https://www.amazon.com/American-Holocaust-Conquest-New-World/dp/0195085574
Natives werent killed off by the British. The US did that after independence during their manifest destiny. Natives usually allied with the British.
>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Famine_of_1876%E2%80%9378
Whilst the reactions of the Viceroy and various British officials in charge was a mixture of apathetic, incompetant and ineffective, the famine wasnt started by the British. It was, however, ended by the British once relief arrived.
>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bengal_famine_of_1943
Only occurred because of WW2 as Burma (which was attacked and taken mostly under the control of Japan) provided 14% of India's food, including most of Bengals food. The British were also correct in the notion that there was more than enough food in India to feed the famine sufferers. The transit of the relief for Bengal from the muslim states granting aid was blocked by the non-muslim states between the states that had surplus food and Bengal. The British eventually had to act and grant British military escorts to the food to make sure it would reach its destination on time. Once the British started doing this instead of relying on the almost 100% Indian ICS (Indian Civil Service) to manage famine relief efforts, the famine was broken and relief flooded into Bengal.
> The British Empire didnt kill upwards of 50-65 million people in a decade.
Pretty sure they caused more deaths though. Just in Indians the British killed 29 million. Then we can look at the Native Americans and the British role in the destruction of a 100 million people. The Irish famine, where the British were exporting food out of Ireland while people were starving.
>If you combine all civilian and military deaths during historical events that happened during the British Empire, you wouldnt come anywhere near being close to the numbers of the people killed by the Chinese Communist Party.
You would come close, really close and probably go over it. Since you count a great famine, so if we are including famines into our numbers it would be probably be pretty easy to go over that number.
Of course we have left out 2 continents of murders, Namely oceania and Africa, while I can accept the numbers in Australia probably weren't as high, the UK did a pretty decent job genociding the local population there. While the actions in Africa were also less than pretty
> Britain’s Gulag: The Brutal End of Empire in Kenya
No, I'm talking about the systematic wiping out of the rest of the population who didn't die from disease, stealing their land, killing those who resisted, and herding the rest into the reservations on the worst land in the country with no way of sustenance. None of that had anything to do with lack of knowledge of communicable diseases.
No, not even the Japanese did that to the Chinese.
Also, 90% of North American Native Americans didn't die from disease. You're confusing with the natives in Mexico and the Caribbean Islands. It spread to some places in the south of the United States but not the rest of the country (which was not integrated or connected by kingdoms, etc.) Yes, a very large percentage of Natives in the Northeast (perhaps as many as 90%) died of disease because that's where the Europeans first landed. By the time the Europeans started taking over the Midwest and West, it wasn't as big of an issue.
For more fun reading: http://www.amazon.com/American-Holocaust-The-Conquest-World/dp/0195085574
American Genocide is a must read.
https://www.amazon.com/American-Holocaust-Conquest-New-World/dp/0195085574
I never said Christians or religions were perfect, however plenty of atrocities are created by non-believers as well. Christians, Atheists, Muslims and every other belief system is filled with men, and men are flawed. Some of the most petty people I know class themselves as "Christians," but I don't consider them true believers no more than I do suicide bombers true believers of Islam. You can say that you are a Christian, Muslim or Atheist, but being a good person actually takes work.
History is riddled with examples of atrocities by people of all walks of life and faith. There have been countless genocides, some in the name of religion, some not. One generation ago America treated blacks like second class citizens, that doesn't make me ashamed to be an American, it makes me want to learn from past mistakes. You can't change the past, and you can't control the actions of anyone other than yourself, all you can do is be the best person you can be.
There have been hundreds of billions of people that have walked the face of this earth, unsurprisingly many of them were bad people, regardless of how they classed their belief system. While religious persecution and genocides have killed millions, the people who have died from war over tea, spices, gold, land and countless other petty reasons far outweighs those killed for religious reasons. I'm not making excuses for the persecutions, but countries/governments have killed far more people than religion.
The numbers aren't even comparable. As an example, WWII killed upwards of 72 million people in just six years, while the Crusades killed upwards of 9 million people over 200 years. Yes, the Crusades were terrible, but there were far more, far bigger atrocities committed in the name of countries, flags, kings, lands and people. Millions of Native Americans were killed by the US Government as a further example (see the book American Holocaust). I could go on but hopefully the point is made.
>And what is my purpose for posting here? I am an ass who likes to argue (or a critic, as you put it) and correct people.
http://reddit.com/r/debatereligion - Go nuts. Most people from /r/atheism, /r/Islam and other religious subreddits would agree that is the place for challenging people and their beliefs.
>But at least I know what you opinion on faith is, although, one quick question, is it 100% or not?
My faith is absolute, I never doubt it... I used to, but not anymore. I embrace those who bring up questions that used to scare me, and rather than hide from things that would make most people doubt, I embrace and learn from it. The level of faith a Christian has is dependent on multiple things, including their walk with God, how the read and interpret the Bible (if at all), how often they pray, etc. My level of faith is different from others, just as theirs is different from mine.
> And I am sorry many atheists have the misconceptions that you actually have a valid reason to believe.
I don't have to have a valid reason to believe, this is a free country. Your definition of a valid reason and mine can be far different, so why waste my time trying to prove it to you? That is the beauty of living in a free society. You can believe in a flying spaghetti monster, and I can believe in Jesus Christ. When we're both dead we'll know who was right, or we'll both just become worm food.
I think the point is, you look down at believers because you can't comprehend people who "believe in imaginary friends" or any other common Atheist saying. Well I can't comprehend how you can't believe that there is a higher power, as nine out of ten people do. The difference between you and me? I don't need you to validate why you don't believe in God, because I realize that is your choice and I have no problems with you choosing it.
it is racist through and through.
"A great civilization is not conquered from without until it has destroyed itself from within" from there it gets worse.
and "One of the great mysteries of the Maya is why their civilization "collapsed" around A.D. 900, when many of the great ceremonial cities, such as Tikal, were simply abandoned. The current thinking is that collapse had many fathers: drought, deforestation, disease, overpopulation, warfare, social disruption. And Gibson's movie includes a little riff on them all, and indeed the film begins with a quote from historian Will Durant about the Romans: "A great civilization is not conquered from without until it has destroyed itself from within."
But Gibson sets his film not during the era of Maya collapse in A.D. 900, but at the time of European contact in the early 1500s, when the first Spanish expeditions arrived on Maya shores. What wiped out the Maya in the 1500s was not internal rot, it was the Spanish, who brought European disease and fought for decades to pacify the Maya.
"Every society is violent," says Demarest. "And the Maya were no more cruel than any other, especially if you look at their entire history. What if you told the story of our history and didn't mention Pascal or Mozart or science or medicine and just focused on MTV and mass genocide?""1
and
"The Spanish arrive as if to save the Maya from themselves. After enduring two hours of horrific violence, in the last minutes of the film, we witness the miraculous rescue of the film's hero Jaguar Paw from his stalkers by the appearance of Spanish galleons off the coast. This short, final scene shows dour Spaniards approaching the mainland in boats bearing Christian crosses across still water. After forcing his audience to endure two hours of horrific violence, Gibson uses this placid scene allow the movie-goer a sigh of relief in the hopes that these European Civilizers have arrived to make order out of the Maya mayhem. By ending his film there, Gibson ignores the far greater genocide to befall the Maya. In fact, within a hundred years of conquest, the Spanish were responsible for killing between 90 and 95 percent of the Maya population through disease, warfare, starvation, and enslavement."2
i am not going to get into it other than a few more comments. it seems every time i share my opinion in the matter i get blue arrowed to death.
edit: also, he showed the natives as having plagues. plagues and disease came with the europeans. this is a good read on the subject.
Town Destroyer
American Holocaust: The Conquest of the New World
just because you are ignorant of history or choose to interpret it in convenient ways doesn't mean it didn't happen. there are plenty of horrors perpetrated by great Americans.