reply to post by merka
There where no worldwide *need* to slaughter people to make the sun move, so in comparison they where rather savage.
In comparison to what?
I wont go back through the Wests timeline such as the Inquisition, or the GENOCIDE of the Indigenous popluation of the Americas. WHy was their cutting
out of a heart so much worse than the slaughter of them all? Why is slaughter for land, power and gold, more civlised than if you are killing for a
cultural purpose? You've lost me. The attrocities carried out during colonialism are beyond belief, it is belived that 30-40 million people were
killed or enslaved by European colonialism. How very civilised and unsavage of them.
I would collapse the ATS server if i listed the savagery of 'civilsed ' societies. So lets stick with 20 century to now.
Genocide in Bosnia: search srebrenica
Genocide in the Sudan
The Indigenous Asutralians Stolen generation
Jewish Holocaust
Stalins slaughter of 20 million Russians and displacement of 28 million
Zionism and Palestinie genocide
Husseins genocide of Kurds
British Genocide of millions in India and Malaysia
The genocide of Muslims in India
Khmer Ruge and Polpott in the Killing fields
The genocides in India/Africa and Asia through deliberate food shortages causing stavation
Over 1 million Iraquis killed since the US led invasion
World War 1 / 8 500 000 soldiers were killed from all nations but when you add civilians killed its is over 20 000 000 killed
World War 2 over 60 million killed
I could go on but surely you get my point? Your definition of 'savagery' and 'civilsed' needs to be reassessed. So when I compare them as you have
asked, I think we come out a little worse.
Edit to add quote
[edit on 10-5-2009 by zazzafrazz]