Quote:
Originally Posted by TheLastBoyScout
On the non-genocide side of the argument:
It was mainly about conquest... taking the land and it's resources.
The people who settled the land did not discriminate; They killed everyone who got in their way. I think the motivation for killing the people was to steal from them.... not to purge their race from the earth.
.
.
|
so i assume your from the school of interpretation that says Andrew Jackson's quote "I think the Cherokee nation needs to be scourged" is taken out of context?
Can genocide not accompany conquest? especially if your goal of conquest is an entire continent, (manifest destiny) and you consider natives incompatible with your social system?
Given that 4 of 6 million holocaust victims were in eastern europe, a future sight of Germanization, is safe to say the holocuast was not genocide but actually part of territorial conquest?