If you take isolated events all nations have committed atrocities.
To post that randomly and not mention that soon after that ended and human rights were granted to all is quite biased and denotes racism.
If I did the same with your people you would have called me a racist a thousand times over.
I have not time to read it all, but if I read well, the event you mentioned was something specific to one occasion, not something general as you are trying to make it sound.
Delusional.
You’re right again. I’m interested in this forum and all the forums where I listen and speak. If a forum is full of BS (from my PoV) I choose to not be in there. Doing otherwise is trolling.
I don’t like to feed trolls, so I will stop here.
If you read the post I was providing background to the Hopi text I posted under the assumption that people reading from other parts of the world might not be so familiar with the history there.
I should, maybe, tell an incomplete story of this history to appease you.
“Politicians sometimes resort to name-calling during political campaigns or public events with the intentions of gaining advantage over, or defending themselves from, an opponent or critic. Often such name-calling takes the form of labelling an opponent as an unreliable and untrustworthy source…”
No body (EXCEPT YOU) said a word about Hopi or Indian Americans, you just build up your blog there and no body cares.
Let’s take that.
End of this, be more honest when it comes to gaining visits, being a troll is awful.
Don’t worry, you already did to appease yourself. In fact, you misrepresented it.
Right Here
Umm…
“For those who are not familiar; the Hopi, Hopi meaning Peaceful Ones, are a tribe of American Indians. They find that their beliefs most closely relate to Buddhism. When the Europeans arrived they were forcibly relocated and later had their children kidnapped and forced into christian re-education.”
Morgoth edited his post after I posted this. I mentioned the Hopi after numerous people mentioned the Christians.
That’s because I thought you were talking about something generalized, not a specific event on one occasion.
Stop manipulating, this is starting to get sad.
What did I misrepresent?
A Short Account of the Destruction of the Indies by Bartolomé de las Casas
https://faculty.chass.ncsu.edu/slatta/hi216/documents/dlascasas.htm
“his dogs seemed to him to be a hungry, whereupon he took a little Infant out of the mothers arms, and cutting off the thighs and arms of the Childe, cast it to his dogs, and when they had devoured those, he cast the whole body to them.”
Are you suggesting this didn’t happen?
So you misunderstood something and that means I am manipulating?
This has been sad for days. Please stop feeding the troll, and maybe he will go elsewhere to find food.
Why do you think I’ve been ignoring you? 
You said this: “As I understand it the European’s own account of events during the Spanish invasion of South America has Spanish soldiers taking native infants by the ankles, swinging the babies over their heads and smashing them on the ground. Apparently they even fed live babies to their dogs and forced the mothers to watch.”
If you don’t understand the difference between exposing something as if it were a generalized behavior (The Spanish invasion was big and this happened on a Caribbean island) to a specific occasion in a specific place is that you are quite manipulative, especially if you don’t even deign to mention that this was prior to when they were granted human rights, which by the way, ironically was in large part thanks to the Catholic Church.
And I repeat, I too can take any atrocity your people may have committed in the past just like that without coming to the point, but you would call me a racist.
The racism given off by this guy I think is against the rules and he should be banned.
The book A Short Account of the Destruction of the Indies is entirely about brutality against native peoples during the Spanish invasion. I mentioned two of the hundreds of accounts of brutality from that book.
Like I said, it’s purpose was to give background to the conflict between native peoples and the Europeans for people from other parts of the world that are likely not familiar.
Are you suggesting that an accurate view of the relationship between native peoples and the Europeans can be obtained without mentioning the invasion of native lands and the attrocities that took place?
But I can’t… He is clearly overthinking things… First off, no one would imply that any single person(survivalist) is a killer or whatever… Don’t take everything personally… Sometimes people say things that sound good in their head, but not so good when read outloud.
Look, I know that everybody has their own path in life, but i really think that avoiding conflict is always a good path to take. If people don’t want to learn, nothing will teach them, but by avoiding conflict, you’re at least keeping yourself in a good mood
“If you go in the way of survivalism, you will kill, steal, destroy to get what you want. We are not animals, we are more than that.”
I’d be happy to hear him clarify what he meant here. To be clear, it sounds to me like he’s accusing me of being a thief and a killer and also calling me an animal.
That last part isn’t so bad because I believe I am an animal. There are lions and bears, mice and lobsters. So too are there homo sapiens.
I only partly agree about conflict. I disagree with violent conflict and the forcing of one upon another, but do you also disagree with political debate?
P.S. If he’s talking about killing animals, not humans, I suppose cattle ranchers are killers too? And I swear I’ve never stolen an acorn from a squirrel.
I have no place in anything related to politics. I’m no politician.
I believe that he was generalizing when he said about survivalism.
I wasn’t suggesting you were a politician, just asking whether you agree or disagree with politicians debating one another, knowing they will not change their opponents mind?
“War has rules, mud wrestling has rules - politics has no rules.” -Ross Perot
If you had done enough research you would know that numerous historians (including Voltaire) have questioned the data and stories of Bartolome de las Casas, as the figures do not hold up and he exaggerated it all to benefit his cause.
I did not question this so as not to extend a discussion with a fanatic who is not worth the time.
I have nothing more to say.
They suggest exaggeration, but does anyone suggest there were no attrocities?
And you still publish them as real events when they have been questioned and certainly disproved.
Wake up, atrocities happened everywhere and by everyone in the past.
Who is questioning the reliability of these accounts? Natives or Europeans?
I have seen no evidence that the accounts in that book have been disproved. Source?
P.S. I agree that attrocities have happened everywhere, but mentioning the Mongols in what is now modern day India does nothing to tell of the history between native people in the Americas and Europeans.