I really don't think there's much of a difference. Custer may not have had death camps, but he still slaughtered Native Americans mercilessly with no regard to their right to exist.
share[deleted]
"The presence of concentration camps and forced slave labor makes all the difference. Stop with the moral relativism. It's always such a weak argument the moment "Hitler" is thrown into the mix.
You don't think Indians ever slaughtered other Indians to gain control of their land or resources? You don't think that in the hundreds of thousands of years of human history that one group didn't slaughter another to gain control of land, resources, etc?
Did the Americans perform medical experiments on captured Indians? Please, I'm trying to figure out what you mean by "not much difference."
Funny thing Dave how the Spanish & the Portogueze colonialists in the Western Hemisphere get a pass for all that they did to "the natives" & the social structure they set up & how those countries are still suffering the effects of Iberian rule...
nm
[deleted]
More Indians have been killed by other Indians than were ever killed by whites.
For the same reason that more black Africans have been killed by other black Africans than were ever killed by white Europeans: namely, tribal hatreds.
In Africa, the various tribes have always hated each other more than they ever hated Europeans. In fact, when a leader from one tribe comes to power in an African country, his first order of business is to exterminate his tribe's historic enemies. When Robert Mugabe came to power in Zimbabwe, he wiped out the tribe of his rival Joshua Nkomo.
Small tribes used to camp out at the tops of mesas in order to protect themselves from larger tribes.