--- Santosh Helekar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > What facts are disputed? How does one know who is > right? What is the nature of the bias? Why would > European historians be biased against their own > kind? > Mario replies: You are free to believe any version you please, just don't try to ram it down my throat when there are other competing versions that I choose to believe which make more sense to me. Your question about European historians being biased against their own kind is just plain silly. Europeans are not monolithic, nor do they all have similar opinions. Most of the early European settlers in North America were running away from religious persecution and the established order in their home countries. Talk about bias. There are some Europeans who are still trying to claim that Hitler's holocaust never happened. > Santosh writes: > I think the term holocaust was used before for > sacrificial immolation. I don't see any reason not > to apply it to any form of mass killing, especially > of defenseless people. > Mario replies: As I have said above, you can apply any word you want. If you think the European settlers in North America committed "sacrificial immolation" or its equivalent its up to you.
I just don't believe there was any systematic mass killing of defenseless people by the European settlers in North America, any more than than there was mass killing of defenseless people in any historical expansionist period, going back to Roman and Greek and Ottoman times, and even the Huns and Barbarians. Might was right in those periods. People who resisted got killed. Those who didn't mostly survived. > Santosh writes: > I don�t understand why any of the European or > American historians would be biased in favor of > Genghis Khan or Attila the Hun. What point is being > made here? > Mario replies: The point is that there were expansionist periods throughout history. The Roman Empire and Alexander ring a bell? Obviously those who were conquered were treated "unfairly". What I am objecting to is revisionism being applied to the settling of North America, with incendiary terms like "genocide" and "holocaust" and incredible claims of small pox infected blankets. > Santosh writes: > It should be noted that those who have already had > small pox develop life-long immunity against it, and > that Amerindians did not have any immunity against > it at least in part because of a complete lack of > exposure. > Mario replies: For this to make sense all the Europeans would have to have had small pox. As I said before, believe such stuff if you want to. I just think that such claims are pure baloney.
