Kalisetsi, meet reader Stephen. Stephen believes I support the wanton Native killing of Euro-Americans. He calls this "genocide" by Indians against non-Indians.
You two have polar opposite views of me--views that are so completely contradictory there's no point of commonality. So at least one of you is badly, horribly wrong. I suggest you debate the issue among yourselves and decide which of you it is. Come up with a single, unified take on my position and get back to us with it.
When you've reconciled your mutually exclusive views of me, then I'll let you know which of you has misread and mischaracterized my position. We'll have a big laugh together over your folly. Hint: It could be both of you, so watch out.
While we're waiting for Stephen and Kalisetsi to figure out what I believe, the rest of us can debate the issue. Resolved: That Indian resistance to Euro-American conquest sometimes justified killing civilians as a last resort. Any takers for the "pro" or "con" side?
For more on the subject, see Diplomacy Works, Violence Doesn't.
10 comments:
"Kalisetsi, meet reader Stephen. Stephen believes I support the wanton Native killing of Euro-Americans. He calls this "genocide" by Indians against non-Indians."
I didn't post that, I'm starting to wonder if you can actually read. You posted this:
"Once it was clear that the Euro-American colonizers weren't going to leave, the Indians were justified in using any measure to get rid of them."
Which I critiqued saying that you were claiming that it was perfectly all right for Indians to commit genocide. I NEVER called the Jamestown massacre genocide. Savy? Oh and I see you didn't bother to reply to my post on Jamestown.
"That Indian resistance to Euro-American conquest sometimes justified killing civilians as a last resort."
Which is what the provos said about such 'incidents' as bloody friday, it's also what supporters of the dresden or hiroshima atrocity said. The killing of civilians is never justified.
Oh yeah and also reply to the Irish post sometime this century.
I believe in killing in self-defense, that taking a life in order to defend one's life is totally justifiable should that occur.
Even now, I would not hesitate to kill someone to defend my own life or the lives of my family and friends - even an armed police officer if that were the case (I once used a .45 to pistol whip an MP who had gone berserk when I was in the army in Germany in the early '70s - I did not kill him, but I was fully prepared to shoot him as I recall).
I also believe that the pre-emptive killing of enemy combatants who constitute an actual or potential invasionary force or a definite nuclear threat is justified (Iran or North Korea).
Moreover, to act in defense of one's homeland via the killing of civilians on their soil is also completely justified, it's called war.
"Moreover, to act in defense of one's homeland via the killing of civilians on their soil is also completely justified, it's called war."
By your logic hiroshima and dresden are justified. The killing of civilians is never acceptable and it's not even necessary. Take the Old IRA in the '20s (ie Tom Barry and the flying columns of west cork) they did not target civilians and yet they achieved more in a few years than the terrorist scum of the Troubles who committed such atrocities as the kingsmill massacre, yet those guys achieved next to nothing. See my point? While it is true that you can't have a war without civilian casualties there's a big difference between a casualty (which is an accident) and targetting civilians on purpose (ie the Omagh bombing).
*Note: while there is a myth that the old IRA targetted civilins it's been disproven multiple time:
http://www.independent.ie/opinion/editorial/ethnic-cleansing-in-the-war-of-independence-myth-or-reality-85712.html
http://www.indymedia.ie/article/76966
Yes, Hiroshima and Dresden were indeed justified as the Allies were engaged with enemies who were absolutely intractable - and far more inhuman than the Allied forces ever were, to wit: Nanking and The Holocaust as prime examples.
With the current state of (U.S.) bomb technology, civilian casualties have been reduced in ways that were unforseeable in WWII, however, there are simply going to be unavoidable civilian deaths in any war, especially in highly populated areas given the sheer destructive nature of the weapons of war.
If North Korea were to launch a nuclear strike on Seoul or even Tokyo at some point soon, I feel assured that your opinion as to unnecessary civilian deaths in any war, but especially in the context of a nuclear scenario, would have to be modified to say the least.
"Yes, Hiroshima and Dresden were indeed justified as the Allies were engaged with enemies who were absolutely intractable - and far more inhuman than the Allied forces ever were, to wit: Nanking and The Holocaust as prime examples."
The lesser of two evil is still evil (note: I'm not calling the Allies evil but the actions of dresden or hiroshima). Also when it comes to Dresden let's remember that dear little Winnie was not the hero that revionists would have us believe. Accepting mass murder with the ol' "well they killed more" excuse is simply bull****.
Exactly what then were the Allies in WWII to do to defeat the Axis alliance?
Use harsh language?
The Allies wore the Germans down to the point (that one of my grandfather's who was in the 101st Airborne Division until the end of the war in Europe) told me that 11 and 12-year old boys were forced to don uniforms and fight in the streets.
In any war, it is the continuous process of wearing the enemy down that ultimately leads to victory - in Europe and as in Japan where in both cases per the realities of history and of human nature the means were absolutely justifiable by the ends.
At any rate, it has all happened - accept it, get over it and move on, my friend!
"At any rate, it has all happened - accept it, get over it and move on, my friend!"
Umm there's nothing for me to get over; I wasn't exactly whining about it.
Cool, bro! BTW - I enjoy your comments - you possess a far greater degree of insight on historical issues than most here.
Thanks, I also enjoy the articles you've written; they're very enlightening.
Post a Comment