New book: American Heart of Darkness

[happyliza]

Perceval - I think that your signature is quite appropriate here!

 

[Laura]

Re: New book: American Heart of Darkness - Obama's War Against the Weak

Visionary types of long-lasting world peace is not probable, because of human nature, which can be seen in the pattern of human history.

I'm not sure it's "human nature". Human nature is at work, but it seems it is being strongly influenced in a specific direction by other, ultimately non human, forces. Philosophizing on this topic to possibly the greatest extent, we arrive at the idea that even that manipulation ultimately provides learning opportunities for humans. And learning is just about all there is to human life (and perhaps all life).

I agree. Indeed, "human nature" can be shaped, that's why there are "national types" and more. And what shapes the society that shapes the humans that grow up in it and are programmed by it are the elites.

You might like to read "Corruption of Reality" by Schumaker and "Escape From Evil" by Becker.

 

[Aithin Tusa Fein]

Re: New book: American Heart of Darkness - Obama's War Against the Weak

Visionary types of long-lasting world peace is not probable, because of human nature, which can be seen in the pattern of human history.

I'm not sure it's "human nature". Human nature is at work, but it seems it is being strongly influenced in a specific direction by other, ultimately non human, forces. Philosophizing on this topic to possibly the greatest extent, we arrive at the idea that even that manipulation ultimately provides learning opportunities for humans. And learning is just about all there is to human life (and perhaps all life).

Semantics and perspectives again. Everything is strongly influenced by forces outside their species. Take a flower for example, it is strongly influenced by the sun. But the observable nature of the flower, including its interaction and relationship with the sun, or light, is still considered the nature of the flower. Part of the flower's nature is its interaction with the sun. Part of human nature is its interaction with outside forces.

 

[obyvatel]

Re: New book: American Heart of Darkness - Obama's War Against the Weak

Everything is strongly influenced by forces outside their species. Take a flower for example, it is strongly influenced by the sun. But the observable nature of the flower, including its interaction and relationship with the sun, or light, is still considered the nature of the flower. Part of the flower's nature is its interaction with the sun. Part of human nature is its interaction with outside forces.

It is true that any living system is inextricably connected with its environment. The exchange of influence between the environment and the organism has a bidirectional but not necessarily balanced character - in other words, the environment influences the organism and the organism in turn affects the environment in varying proportions. The nature of this reality is complex and non-linear with a lot of uncertainty. In complex non-linear systems, small inputs provided at the right time in the right position often end up having disproportionately large effects. This is not semantics but empirically shown and mathematically modeled to some degree at smaller scales.

So in such a complex non-linear system, it is conceivable that a relatively few organisms, weak as they may appear in relation to the "environment", can exert an undue and disproportionate amount of influence on the whole coupled feedback system comprising of the organisms and their environment. Such influence can move the entire system into different directions. That is why I do not think it is improbable to have "lasting peace". When you write

Visionary types of long-lasting world peace is not probable, because of human nature, which can be seen in the pattern of human history.

you are speaking of what passes today as history - which includes a fair amount of mythicization. If you are willing to admit this mixture of history and myth as evidence to prove that long lasting peace cannot exist, I would say that ancient myths of a golden age were prevalent in different forms in multiple cultures around the world. Laura has written about them in detail in Secret History. I would admit them as showing the possibility that long-lasting peace had been achieved in the past and so is possible to achieve again.

I would speculate that peace with total absence of any conflict may not be realistic - but conflict or opposition in view points can be resolved in various ways and a degree of healthy variation in this regard is beneficial. Humans can settle conflicts without killing and harming each other.

As an aside, based on personal observation of American culture from the perspective of an outsider, I mostly agree with Robert's comments about American national character. What he referred to as "confidence" often borders on arrogance - or so it looks to me. Also, the innovative aspect is mostly limited to material pursuits (technology etc) only.

 

[Laura]

In my research into history, the problems against "lasting world peace" always devolve back to that small percentage of pathology that takes over and, like the bad apple, spoils the barrel. It seems to me that the problem of lasting peace is not human nature, but the fact that, in the distribution curve of human types, psychopathology rears its head. But this is moving into an ontological argument that is really not productive. A NORMAL human, a group of them, led and exampled from childhood, taught thoroughly about pathology, are not the same as a messy group that actually exists at this point in time. And part of that problem is evolutionary, so to say.

The instant pathology appears, by whatever means, it seeks to preserve its own kind within a population. That is done ideologically. That ideology may also result in the destruction of non-pathological types, and so the distribution curve moves its weight toward pathology. So, what we have to day is not only a highly pathologized population, but a population that is composed of a higher percentage of pathology. So, indeed, in this situation, world peace is impossible. It can also be observed that such a population is moving toward extinction.

Having said all that, we come back to the idea that it is, theoretically possible, for a human population to be able to sustain peace given certain conditions. And it's not just semantics.

Which leads me to my curiosity about why this issue bugs you Críostóir, and why you even use particular arguments that are often recognized as partly pathological, such as "it's just semantics" and "human nature is so bad...." You have read Political Ponerology, haven't you?

 

[Minas Tirith]

Re: New book: American Heart of Darkness - Obama's War Against the Weak

Semantics and perspectives again. Everything is strongly influenced by forces outside their species. Take a flower for example, it is strongly influenced by the sun. But the observable nature of the flower, including its interaction and relationship with the sun, or light, is still considered the nature of the flower. Part of the flower's nature is its interaction with the sun. Part of human nature is its interaction with outside forces.

That would be personality and essence in Fourth Way terms, I guess, and yes, both exist at the same time. The programming is done through personality and has been so prevalent in our times that essence in most is rather weak and almost non-existent (that's how Gurdjieff puts it). I don't think flowers can be compared to humans in that respect.

M.T.

 

[Aithin Tusa Fein]

Re: New book: American Heart of Darkness - Obama's War Against the Weak

Okay. I just returned from having surgery and the anesthesia has left me groggy and irritable and I'm sure that will be sensed in my following post. I will admit that you posts 'rubbed me the wrong way'. But I'm sure that is just me. So I apologize in advance and I can assure you I intend no disrespect, or hard feelings. That being said, I will post now in case anyone is waiting for a response:

It is true that any living system is inextricably connected with its environment. The exchange of influence between the environment and the organism has a bidirectional but not necessarily balanced character - in other words, the environment influences the organism and the organism in turn affects the environment in varying proportions. The nature of this reality is complex and non-linear with a lot of uncertainty. In complex non-linear systems, small inputs provided at the right time in the right position often end up having disproportionately large effects. This is not semantics but empirically shown and mathematically modeled to some degree at smaller scales.

So in such a complex non-linear system, it is conceivable that a relatively few organisms, weak as they may appear in relation to the "environment", can exert an undue and disproportionate amount of influence on the whole coupled feedback system comprising of the organisms and their environment. Such influence can move the entire system into different directions. That is why I do not think it is improbable to have "lasting peace".

Yes it is semantics from the way I see it. We're saying the same thing regarding human nature as a species. But, I'm not going to reserve the term "human" just to a specific group possessing of those possessing the human genome. If someone possesses the human genome, I will refer to them as human, psychopaths included, and I will also include their specific traits as belong to the human species even if it is only at the margins of a bell curve. I don't know who is a psychopath, or not, but if they possess the human genome then they are human and their nature is a part of the human species, period. This is a rational position and I see no reason to view it otherwise. I have personally picked up the dead and mutilated bodies of those who others considered to somewhat lesser than themselves, and I personally will not do the same unless there is scientific, genetic proof. As far as higher level influence involved in human behavior, or human reactions and interactions with psychopaths, either way it is still a part of human nature. Although I am open to reevaluate my position further, I have seen no compelling reason to do so and the same regarding the improbability of a "lasting peace." I respect your opinion to the contrary, but I have no compelling reason to change my position as of yet. Beyond that we'll have to agree to respectfully disagree. But I do appreciate your comments.

And yes I have read all of Laura's books. While I hold them in high regard, I do not accept all her hypotheses outright and there are positions that she proposes that I am unsure of in whole, or in part, or completely disagree with altogether. I honestly can't think of anything right now to give as an example, or I probably would. But, I do agree with much of what she proposes. As far as the "possibility" of a golden age, it could have had much to do with difference in the human DNA at the time. Therefore, if our DNA is different than what it was in a "golden age," then my supposition of improbability of a lasting peace in our current condition, is arguably reinforced. Whatever change may have taken place may have affected our behavior as well among other things, even possible psychic abilities. I don't know. And I never said that a "long lasting peace cannot exist" I said it was improbable based upon the patterns of human history. I'm aware of mythicization of history and so forth, but that does not change my position, when those same "patterns" can be observed today.

As an aside, based on personal observation of American culture from the perspective of an outsider, I mostly agree with Robert's comments about American national character. What he referred to as "confidence" often borders on arrogance - or so it looks to me. Also, the innovative aspect is mostly limited to material pursuits (technology etc) only.

I'm not sure why you posted this, but hey, I also have met arrogant Americans, so I agree with you that they exist and some are just as you described.

In my research into history, the problems against "lasting world peace" always devolve back to that small percentage of pathology that takes over and, like the bad apple, spoils the barrel. It seems to me that the problem of lasting peace is not human nature, but the fact that, in the distribution curve of human types, psychopathology rears its head. But this is moving into an ontological argument that is really not productive. A NORMAL human, a group of them, led and exampled from childhood, taught thoroughly about pathology, are not the same as a messy group that actually exists at this point in time. And part of that problem is evolutionary, so to say.

While I agree with you position in part, I do not in full. I do not think that psychopathy is all to blame for the human condition. I think that only a small portion of the population use reason effectively, but the vast majority relies on emotional thinking, which leads to feelings of being in the right, having the truth, having the high moral ground, holding grudges, feelings of injustice and so on. In my view, without psychopathy, there would still be a great deal of conflict. I did not arrive at this position arbitrarily, but I have based it upon my own research and experience. What I have shared is my honest assessment of the situation.

The instant pathology appears, by whatever means, it seeks to preserve its own kind within a population. That is done ideologically. That ideology may also result in the destruction of non-pathological types, and so the distribution curve moves its weight toward pathology. So, what we have to day is not only a highly pathologized population, but a population that is composed of a higher percentage of pathology. So, indeed, in this situation, world peace is impossible. It can also be observed that such a population is moving toward extinction.

Agreed.

Having said all that, we come back to the idea that it is, theoretically possible, for a human population to be able to sustain peace given certain conditions. And it's not just semantics.

I totally agree that "it is, theoretically possible, for a human population to be able to sustain peace given certain conditions." But, right now, I don't think its probable based on the information I have.

Which leads me to my curiosity about why this issue bugs you Críostóir, and why you even use particular arguments that are often recognized as partly pathological, such as "it's just semantics" and "human nature is so bad...." You have read Political Ponerology, haven't you?

I do not regard human nature as bad at all and I reread what I wrote and did not get that impression from my writing. But maybe others did. So I apologize for the confusion and I will clarify: I do not regard human nature as either bad. The way I see it is that what is good, or bad, is based on one's perspective. What is good for the fisherman may be bad for the fish. That is how I view it. And yes I have read ponerology.

Look, let me put it this way, you, or other posters for that matter, may be right and I may be wrong. But until I honestly see it that way, I wont see it that way. The way I put it, is the way I currently see it. No offense intended. It is there for others to consider and comment on, in the same way as I consider the perspective of what others write and comment on it. I appreciate your views and perspectives even though I do not agree with all of them myself. As far as my "use particular arguments that are often recognized as partly pathological," I honestly don't know what to tell you. I see things the way I see things and cannot see them otherwise until I see them otherwise. Beyond that, all I can say is just take it for what its worth. But, I also appreciate your comments and views. Best wishes.

 

[Voyageur]

Re: New book: American Heart of Darkness - Obama's War Against the Weak

Okay. I just returned from having surgery and the anesthesia has left me groggy and irritable and I'm sure that will be sensed in my following post.

Firstly, hope you are doing ok with your post surgery; anesthesia alone is hard on the system.

Yes it is semantics from the way I see it. We're saying the same thing regarding human nature as a species. But, I'm not going to reserve the term "human" just to a specific group possessing of those possessing the human genome. If someone possesses the human genome, I will refer to them as human, psychopaths included, and I will also include their specific traits as belong to the human species even if it is only at the margins of a bell curve...

...As far as the "possibility" of a golden age, it could have had much to do with difference in the human DNA at the time. Therefore, if our DNA is different than what it was in a "golden age," then my supposition of improbability of a lasting peace in our current condition, is arguably reinforced. Whatever change may have taken place may have affected our behavior as well among other things, even possible psychic abilities. I don't know.

I don't know either, however, it appears, osit, that there is much hidden within DNA when switched on or off that make human that which is human (empathy, community minded et al), with the antithesis being perhaps with pathology, as discussed, that certain individuals DNA has unrepairable broken switches or perhaps there are no critical switches, having been burned off long ago, thus they are fused into their own being (their separate kind), which is not human, or more so, does not resonate on a human frequency.

Moreover, being good or bad can be subjective, as you alluded to, just as the outward biological condition of mankind can be. In this respect, perhaps it comes down to the devil being in the details, the scientific biological details of our very DNA coding; one either has human encoding or they do not, and if not, its like a hybrid, it is not the same fruit, so to speak, even though outward appearances deceive.

 

[Joe]

Re: New book: American Heart of Darkness - Obama's War Against the Weak

Visionary types of long-lasting world peace is not probable, because of human nature, which can be seen in the pattern of human history.

I'm not sure it's "human nature". Human nature is at work, but it seems it is being strongly influenced in a specific direction by other, ultimately non human, forces. Philosophizing on this topic to possibly the greatest extent, we arrive at the idea that even that manipulation ultimately provides learning opportunities for humans. And learning is just about all there is to human life (and perhaps all life).

Semantics and perspectives again. Everything is strongly influenced by forces outside their species. Take a flower for example, it is strongly influenced by the sun. But the observable nature of the flower, including its interaction and relationship with the sun, or light, is still considered the nature of the flower. Part of the flower's nature is its interaction with the sun. Part of human nature is its interaction with outside forces.

Seems to me that you're the one engaging in semantics and nitpicking. You said that the chance of long-lasting world peace is not probable, because of human nature. I was saying that long lasting world peace is NOT precluded because of human nature, but that such a utopia fails to materialize because of the influence of other forces. The point being, sure, it's human nature that ultimately is responsible for a messed up world, but that same human nature could produce a much better world, if the forces acting on it were different.

 

[Robert Kirkconnell]

Interesting discussions here that are pushing my buttons all over the place! When I talk with American audiences I generally get an assessment of human nature that is similar to what Criostoir has put forth here. At the risk of oversimplification, this is the view that mankind has been at war from the very beginning and always will be. The reason for this is that it is human nature, in our DNA and so forth. I also find these concepts connected to others such as “natural selection,” “survival of the fittest,” and those put forth by Thomas Malthus that calamities such as war, disease, and famine are necessary to keep populations in check. Americans do not look at humanity as “we” but see it as “them” and “us,” or more accurately “them against us” and “us against them.” It is inconceivable to most Americans that most Arabs and Muslims admire the United States and would love to have good relations with it, or at least used to.
In researching my book I found that the above view has manifested itself in the forms of racism, genocide, and militarism, and that all of these congealed early on in the development of America. I found these seeds of destruction starting to sprout in the very first colony at Jamestown in 1607. The fear of “them” has been used over and over again to drive massive destruction globally, and has further been used to divide and control the American people. When I hear about food stamps for example, the phrase usually is, “I am tired of having to “feed those people…” when “those people” is actually us and our children. Seventy percent of food stamp recipients are working but just do not make enough money to feed their families.
I followed these three hidden guiding principles throughout history and found them not only constant but responsible for unimaginable damage. The methods of extermination used against Native Americans was studied and copied by the Nazis, although even they could not come close to the magnitude of genocide that took place in America. To be able to do that and then cover up the whole thing is incredible. To this day most Americans think that mostly small pox was responsible for the success of the largest genocide in the history of the world. Also, the eugenics movement in the U.S., largely funded by the rabid racist Andrew Carnegie, opened an office in Germany that eventually grew into the Holocaust. And again we have many that would dispute this.
Because most Americans simply cannot accept these facts, I put copies of support materials directly in the pages and text wrapped around them. I know myself that when I read I usually do not want to page back and forth to check references, and that many readers would just dismiss what I was saying out of hand unless proof was right there. I think this was effective in that many people have read my book and said that it was “very disturbing,” but none have rejected or challenged anything in it. Many, however, who have not read it have challenged it regularly, which is why I decided to write the book in the first place. Again, I thank all of you for this stimulating discussion.

 

[Aithin Tusa Fein]

Re: New book: American Heart of Darkness - Obama's War Against the Weak

Firstly, hope you are doing ok with your post surgery; anesthesia alone is hard on the system.

I am doing ok now, but thank you for your concern.

Seems to me that you're the one engaging in semantics and nitpicking. You said that the chance of long-lasting world peace is not probable, because of human nature. I was saying that long lasting world peace is NOT precluded because of human nature, but that such a utopia fails to materialize because of the influence of other forces. The point being, sure, it's human nature that ultimately is responsible for a messed up world, but that same human nature could produce a much better world, if the forces acting on it were different.

Okay, in both times that I mentioned the word 'semantics', I was not using it in a derogatory sense, nor as a synonym for nitpicking. Firstly, I used it as a term for the 'meaning of words, sentences, phrases, etc.' Secondly, I was directing it at myself in relation to your's and Laura's posts. Meaning, that the way I see it, is that we generally agree on the general process under discussion, but not on the specific terms concerning 'national character' and 'human nature'. I used the term as I always do and I have not had this issue before. Perhaps it is a regional, or cultural thing. But, in any case, I apologize for the confusion.

Robert Kirkconnell, I do not mean to come off as targeting you work, but I study history myself and, like any peer review journal, I appreciate your work, but I do have critical input to what you put forth.

Americans do not look at humanity as “we” but see it as “them” and “us,” or more accurately “them against us” and “us against them.” It is inconceivable to most Americans that most Arabs and Muslims admire the United States and would love to have good relations with it, or at least used to.

Although, what you said is true, not all Americans see it that way. Take some American groups that self-identify as Hispanic, Jewish, Palestinian, South American, Russian, Polish, etc, for example. Plus, most nations and other groups for that matter "do not look at humanity as “we” but see it as “them” and “us,” or more accurately “them against us” and “us against them.”" It is not 'just' an American phenomenon.

The methods of extermination used against Native Americans was studied and copied by the Nazis, although even they could not come close to the magnitude of genocide that took place in America. To be able to do that and then cover up the whole thing is incredible. To this day most Americans think that mostly small pox was responsible for the success of the largest genocide in the history of the world.

Unless you are referring to something else, the mainstream academic consensus is that the German government rounded up the Jews in most of the German controlled areas, then transported them to labor camps and eventually death camps where they were systematically executed, largely in poisonous gas chambers. This did not happen to the Native Americans. If you are referring to similarities between the Jewish ghettos and Native American reservations, well I can see that, but not the extermination part. I do, however, agree with you that the post Civil War treatment of the Native Americans could be justifiably called a 'genocide'. But, I will add, that same 'genocide' was also shared by American Southerners at the hands of the Union, generally under the same, or similar, policies and even included the same leaders who repeated the Southern policies on the Native Americans in the American West. I do believe you brought out this in your book if I am not mistaken.

Although there was killing and atrocities on both sides of the conflicts involving Native Americans and European colonists in North America prior to the Civil War, I do not think that the evidence supports labeling it as genocide in the same ball park as what was done post Civil War in the American West. Whether or not it is completely true, the evidence does support the theory that the Native Americans were largely wiped out by disease following contact with the Europeans. I know you disagree with that, which I respect, but I have looked at the academic research myself and I agree with those academics that interpret the evidence that the Native American population decline following European contact was largely due to disease. The Native American population numbers for pre-Columbian contact, are debated by academics and archeologists and is impossible to ascertain those numbers even semi-accurately based on the available evidence. I don't have any figures in front of me at the moment, and anyway they vary depending on the author, but, for the sake of argument, even if one were to suppose that the Native American population was, say for simplicity: 10 million in 1492, then 400 years later, that population has dropped by 90 percent, you cant use that figure as sole evidence for the extermination for 9 million people. What happened to that 9 million? Well, it was a 400 year span and unless those people had lifespans that exceed 400 years, they would have died in the early 16th century of old age if nothing else. In the 4 centuries following European contact, the situation facing the Native Americans became different than the situation that favored them before. They fought with the Europeans and with each other with new, more efficient weapons: guns. Plus, quite a bit of Native American DNA has survived in those that are not considered to be Native Americans, but are instead considered to be blacks and whites. In fact, even though I am considered white, I have had DNA tests done, and surprisingly, I have both Native American and African DNA, but no traces of those in my genealogical records. So, Native American DNA has continued to some degree in larger numbers than what is counted in official records. As to what degree Native American DNA is prevalent among the non-Native American population, I don't know if a study to ascertain that has even been conducted, but I would be interested in the findings if one was.

 

[obyvatel]

Re: New book: American Heart of Darkness - Obama's War Against the Weak

Robert Kirkconnell, I do not mean to come off as targeting you work, but I study history myself and, like any peer review journal, I appreciate your work, but I do have critical input to what you put forth.

Americans do not look at humanity as “we” but see it as “them” and “us,” or more accurately “them against us” and “us against them.” It is inconceivable to most Americans that most Arabs and Muslims admire the United States and would love to have good relations with it, or at least used to.

Although, what you said is true, not all Americans see it that way.

True and in my mind something obvious enough. It is common practice in various disciplines to take a statistically representative population, study that population and arrive at inferences which are generally true. When a pot of water is boiled, not every water molecule undergoes a change of state to steam at 100C. Some molecules stay as water while some change state. Yet 100C is regarded as the boiling point of water under atmospheric pressure.

Similar considerations hold true for the so-called "soft sciences" disciplines. It is logical and admissible for Robert to state what he has about the general characteristics of the current American population.

So what you are providing Críostóir is not really critical input imo. You are doing the classical "yes, but ......." routine. Usually "yes, but....." is motivated by an inner state of denial about some aspect of reality - or lying to oneself.

[quote author=Críostóir]

Plus, most nations and other groups for that matter "do not look at humanity as “we” but see it as “them” and “us,” or more accurately “them against us” and “us against them.”" It is not 'just' an American phenomenon.

[/quote]

Again true and obvious enough. What exactly does "hey, many americans are ponerized - but others are ponerized too" go on to show? This would be a typical argumentative tactic of minimizing the effect of one's actions and avoiding responsibility. It is used by pathologicals as well as normal people. In the latter case, it is sometimes a ploy for avoiding the feeling of the terror of the situation, instead keeping the argument confined to the intellectual arena.

More of the same in the rest of your post Críostóir - at least that is how I see it.

 

[Laura]

http://<iframe width="420" height="...Cc" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

I should mention the fact that I spend sometimes 8 to 10 hours a day reading academic works and have done so for many years. Relying on academic conclusions is problematical if you can't check their raw data. So the "academic conclusions" argument doesn't fly.

 

[Laura]

A quick search brings up the following:

David E. Stannard of the University of Hawaii is a proponent of this term, having written a book on the subject entitled American Holocaust: Conquest of the New World, in which he labels the actions of Europeans as a deliberate genocide comparable to the Holocaust. Holocaust expert David Cesarani said, "Stannard was angered by what he perceived as a double standard in the United States towards 'worthy' and 'unworthy' victims. While Americans readily acknowledge the Nazi crimes against the Jews, he wrote, they continued to 'turn their backs on the even more massive genocide that for four grisly centuries... was perpetrated against the "unworthy" natives of the Americas.'" Others agreeing with this hypothesis include Russell Thornton, Arthur Grenke, Ralph Reed, and the University of Minnesota's Center for Holocaust and Genocide studies. The Smithsonian presented a program on the "American Indian Genocide."

Politically, the charge has been taken up by activists in the American Indian Movement, including Russell Means, Leonard Peltier, Ward Churchill, the poet Joy Harjo, and Vine Deloria amongst others. The term "Holocaust" is specifically used to bring attention to the stark reality of the total decimation of the indigenous peoples after the "discovery" of the "New World" by Europeans.

As with most loaded language, there is strong resistance to using the term "American Indian Holocaust" in textbooks. American Indian activists contend that their history is rarely even addressed as a "genocide," since American historiography tends not to emphasize episodes such as slavery, and the outright slaughter of the indigenous Americans. These activists contend that they have the same right to say they were victims of genocide as the Jewish people of Europe.

When discussing the indigenous population of the United States, conservatives tend to deny most of the deliberate atrocities wrought by the Europeans, focusing on the role of smallpox and other diseases, and pretending that no more American Indians died than could be avoided.

Such denial often goes hand-in-hand with a whitewashing of the realities of late 19th century reservation life as well as the present-day situation of the American Indians, who still live under the control of the Bureau of Indian Affairs with only limited self-government in many areas.

More moderate criticisms of the term would not go into denialism, but would simply question the application of the term "genocide" (deliberate and systematic destruction of an ethnic group) to the long and disorderly course of history in the Americas after 1492. Such criticisms might also suggest that any comparison with the Holocaust is at least in part a false analogy, since most of the deaths were not only unintentional and unavoidable, but unknown to Europeans prior to the 20th century.

American holocaust: the conquest of the New World By David E. Stannard

Ward Churchill, A Little Matter of Genocide: Holocaust and Denial in the Americas, 1998, City Lights Publishers

 

[Laura]

The following is typical academic apologia where paramoralisms, double-speak, and tetraphyloctomy are deployed freely:

Were American Indians the Victims of Genocide? http://hnn.us/article/7302