• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Which Genocide was the Worst? Poll & Comment (1 Viewer)

Which Genocide was the worse?

  • The 50 American Natives that died--conservative est.

    Votes: 5 25.0%
  • 40 million that died from the Russian State religion of Communism

    Votes: 4 20.0%
  • 30 million blacks enslaved--conservative est.

    Votes: 2 10.0%
  • 15 million Chinese died from Red China

    Votes: 3 15.0%
  • 6 million Jews--aka the Holocaust

    Votes: 6 30.0%

  • Total voters
    20
Joined
Mar 6, 2006
Messages
187
Reaction score
0
Location
Among the White US Terrorists
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
When you vote, comment if you want; if you voted a lesser number (of victims) than another Genocide of a higher number; state why you think your lesser number Genocide is justified. Thank you.



excerpts from: http://markhumphrys.com/world.§ §
§
AMERICAN INDIANS—CONVERVATIVE ESTIMATES OVER 50 MILLION
§ 40 MILLION IS SOVIET GULAGS FOR
o 15 MILLION Chines killed by Red China
§ 7,000,000 during the Saracen slaughters in Spain.
§ 2,000,000 Saxons and Scandinavians lost their lives opposing the introduction of Christianity.
§ 30 MILLION BLACKS TO SLAVERY DIED ENSLAVED

In American Holocaust (1992), David Stannard estimates that some 30 to 60 million Africans died being enslaved. He claims a 50% mortality rate among new slaves while being gathered and stored in Africa, a 10% mortality among the survivors while crossing the ocean, and another 50% mortality rate in the first "seasoning" phase of slave labor. Overall, he estimates a 75-80% mortality rate in transit.
David Barrett, Todd Johnson, Justin Long
World Christian Encyclopedia (2001): This book is the standard reference work for religious statistics of all kinds, and both Britannica and the World Almanac cite from it. It has a single page [http://gem-werc.org/gd/gd16.pdf] estimating the number of martyrs since the origin of each religion:
§ Muslim martyrs: 80M
§ Christian martyrs: 70M
 
Most estimates I've seen put the death toll in Mao's China anywhere between 30 million and 60 million.
 
Courtois' book The Black Book of Communism documents the world-wide twentienth century toll as being 94 million. Liberal historian critics, inverterate communist apologists, try to shave off five million here or ten million there. There are no ifs, ands, or buts - communists are the peerless murderers of all human history.
 
All wrong, where is the "23 million chinese killed brutally by the Japanese during WWII?"

I choose that not only because of it's number, but the way the deaths were committed, the rape, unit 731, the utter disrespect for human life and humanity.

Dictatorship killed the most.

The nazis killed between 30-40 million civilians, the allies and soviets killed 10~million german civilians, the japanese killed 7 million non chinese asians during WWII...

And of course Mao's great leap failure, costing 30~million lives.

the natives were killed indirectly, disease, etc.

The blacks enslaved are not counted as genocide... just slavery..

This poll sucks, the priorities are totally wrong, biased to target communism specifically and leaves out Japan completely or the crusades... WTF?
 
Last edited:
The number of Chinese killed under Mao - either through systematic execution or intentional famine - was far greater than any other genocide in terms of sheer number of people killed.

I think the number you give of Native Americans killed through genocide is exaggerated. The number of Native Americans in the Western Hemisphere in 1492 was probably around 80 million. If we don't count the number of Native Americans who died from European diseases (which we shouldn't, since we're talking about genocide), there's no way that the number could possibly be that high, even spacing the genocide out over many generations. Later generations had smaller populations to begin with due to earlier genocide and disease, and therefore the number actually killed through genocide decreased (on average) with every generation.

I voted for China, because it had the most people killed AND was done on a relatively short time scale. The genocide of Native Americans took hundreds of years to even come close to what Mao "accomplished" in just a few decades.

Another possibility for the worst genocide would be Rwanda. Even though the number of people killed isn't as high as some of the others, nearly a million people were killed over the span of a few months. The genocide wasn't stopped until, mercifully, the Rwandan government was overthrown by rebel Tutsis.
 
Courtois' book The Black Book of Communism documents the world-wide twentienth century toll as being 94 million. Liberal historian critics, inverterate communist apologists, try to shave off five million here or ten million there. There are no ifs, ands, or buts - communists are the peerless murderers of all human history.
The Black Book of Communism is not an objective source by far.
the natives were killed indirectly, disease, etc.
So the Aztecs, Incas, Lakota, etc. etc. just died out from disease and other indirect ways? I must have had bad history teachers.
40 million that died from the Russian State religion of Communism
That was generally around 7-15mil. Mostly Ukrainians.
Also the USSR wouldn't exactly becalled "communist".
6 million Jews--aka the Holocaust
Don't forget others persecuted and killed too. Gypsies, homosexuals, communists, socialists, shy people, others not deemed "Aryan", etc. etc.

I picked the Mao one.
 
Last edited:
How about Stalin killing 100,000,000?
 
Khmer Rouge was not included, nor many African nations that have undergone massive genocides in civil wars and leadership/regime takeovers. The Turkish holocaust is generally ignored in history writings, but was the catalyst/guide for Hitler's Final Solution.
Sometimes, while the massive numbers are atrocious on their own, the torture and methods involved in many genocides is equally or more atrocious.
 
NO VOTE !

You, beyond the rim, are trying something ludicrous.
Any genocide is utterly disgusting.......
Is anyone innocent ??
The Jewish people and the Eskimos ?? some natives , or aboriginals?
 
Which genocide is the worst? Doesn't that depend on which side of the barbed wire you're standing?
 
I'm not sure how you can view any one genocide worse than another. I'm sure a victim of the Rwandan genocide would have great difficulty voting in your poll.
 
So the murder of countless innocents vs. other countless innocents can somehow be worse? :( You're a frightening human being, beyoindtherim.
 
American said:
How about Stalin killing 100,000,000?

That number is entirely exaggerated. Personally I don't like Stalin, but that does not mean I'll just exaggerate things he did.

How so? Written by ex-communists - seems credible to me.
There are many who consider themselves "communist" and many, maybe a majority, are punk kids who are just calling themselves that for fun, without knowing anything. Or Stalinists. But also ex-"communists" are also not dependable, just as anyone else. Also I don't care who wrote it, just because some certain group wrote it doesn't make it credible.
 
Last edited:
earthworm:
NO VOTE !
You, beyond the rim, are trying something ludicrous.
Any genocide is utterly disgusting.......

Yes, it was an experiment; but why are you so mad at me? Does our media/education system talk of genocides other than the primary Holocaust (movie after movie, book after book, tv shows, interviews, etc.); very rarely, so is that disgusting and what are you doing about it? I don't see any mass movement leftist, centrist, rightist or whatever you want to call it calling attention to all genocides. Talk about with your family and co-workers and friends and see what genocide they care about, I'm sure it will end pretty disgusting for you. And ask all those conservatives about the holocaust and Israel and why they vote for that sympathy; but not another--good luck.


vergiss:
So the murder of countless innocents vs. other countless innocents can somehow be worse? You're a frightening human being, beyoindtherim.

Yes, we live in a frightening world when only one genocide is plugged for profit and ploys of power and if you are going along with it--your among the many frightening beings that just go along with it. What are you going to do about it? :2wave:
 
beyondtherim55008@yahoo.c said:
earthworm:

Yes, it was an experiment; but why are you so mad at me? Does our media/education system talk of genocides other than the primary Holocaust (movie after movie, book after book, tv shows, interviews, etc.); very rarely, so is that disgusting and what are you doing about it? I don't see any mass movement leftist, centrist, rightist or whatever you want to call it calling attention to all genocides. Talk about with your family and co-workers and friends and see what genocide they care about, I'm sure it will end pretty disgusting for you. And ask all those conservatives about the holocaust and Israel and why they vote for that sympathy; but not another--good luck.

Possibly because half the world's Jews live in the US? When you've got 6 million Armenians or Rwandans living in America, I'm sure you'll hear a lot about their various genocides too.
 
There are many who consider themselves "communist" and many, maybe a majority, are punk kids who are just calling themselves that for fun, without knowing anything. Or Stalinists. But also ex-"communists" are also not dependable, just as anyone else. Also I don't care who wrote it, just because some certain group wrote it doesn't make it credible.

The book is loaded with references and citations. What is your list of errors in the book? Come on - speak up - let's hear it.
 
alphamale said:
The book is loaded with references and citations. What is your list of errors in the book? Come on - speak up - let's hear it.

Never read it. So I can't make any detailed report on it. But I do remember that the book takes most of its "deaths" from Stalin, Mao, and Pol Pot. Neither which are communists.
 
Last edited:
beyondtherim55008@yahoo.c said:
earthworm:


Yes, we live in a frightening world when only one genocide is plugged for profit and ploys of power



Even more frightening is the large number of creatures who idulge in this hateful blather.

When I saw this poll, I figured it would get down to the nitty gritty of Jew hatred before too long. I was right.

If you had any self worth of all, you would not need to denigrate the pain and suffering of others.

Grow up.
 
Comrade Brian said:
Never read it. So I can't make any detailed report on it. But I do remember that the book takes most of its "deaths" from Stalin, Mao, and Pol Pot. Neither which are communists.

Sick. Makes me think of the people who say Hitler wasn't a fascist, he was a national socialist.

Did you ever read Orwell's 1984? Reds actually DO practice doublethink!
 
beyondtherim55008@yahoo.c said:
When you vote, comment if you want; if you voted a lesser number (of victims) than another Genocide of a higher number; state why you think your lesser number Genocide is justified. Thank you.



excerpts from: http://markhumphrys.com/world.§ §
§

What happened to the native americans was not genocide.

gen·o·cide [jénnə sd]
n
murder of an entire ethnic group: the systematic killing of all the people from a national, ethnic, or religious group, or an attempt to do this
Encarta ® World English Dictionary © & (P) 1998-2004 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved.

The death of vast numbers of the Native Americans (though they are no more native than you or I) was not intentional the majority died from disease and starvation not through systematic slaughter. In fact just as many native Americans died at their own hands as they did in clashes with the evil white man. To label it a genocide is to invalidate and downplay the severity of the very word itself.
 
The death of vast numbers of the Native Americans (though they are no more native than you or I) was not intentional the majority died from disease and starvation not through systematic slaughter. In fact just as many native Americans died at their own hands as they did in clashes with the evil white man. To label it a genocide is to invalidate and downplay the severity of the very word itself.

The indians set the terms of interaction with the euro settlers from the very beginning as warfare: Columbus first settlement, Natividad, on the island of Hispaniola, the first recorded settlement in the new world, was wiped out by the indians. The indians took on a technologically superior civilization - very bad move.
 
alphamale said:
The indians set the terms of interaction with the euro settlers from the very beginning as warfare: Columbus first settlement, Natividad, on the island of Hispaniola, the first recorded settlement in the new world, was wiped out by the indians. The indians took on a technologically superior civilization - very bad move.

And if it was indeed genocide ie the systematic slaughter of an entire ethnic group then why are there more indiginious peoples alive in the Americas now then there was in 1492?
 
alphamale said:
Sick. Makes me think of the people who say Hitler wasn't a fascist, he was a national socialist.

Did you ever read Orwell's 1984? Reds actually DO practice doublethink!

Hitler was a "national 'socialist'", which is a variant of fascism.

I have never read 1984, probably will someday. Though I have read Animal Farm.

And if it was indeed genocide ie the systematic slaughter of an entire ethnic group then why are there more indiginious peoples alive in the Americas now then there was in 1492?

I don't think there are more "Native Americans", then there were then. But it would be due to the natural increase in population. Also you think that they were always starving blah blah blah.
 
the systematic killing of all the people from a national, ethnic, or religious group, or an attempt to do this

So your saying when whites found out they had brought disesases to them, they fled to make sure they wouldn't kill anymore and they didn't use this to their advantage?

Your saying some whites didn't purposely plant diseased bodies into tribes? You better start reading your Indian History, your very lacking. Next you will tell me the Indian children and women and elderly were armed w/ awesome advanced weapons and hence that's why they were shot no doubt? LOL. Heck, the invader is entitled to rights of invasion--native people shouldn't fight back--they got what they deserved. With that logic why did we even intervene in WW2?
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top Bottom