By Stephan's own logic here, Hispanic immigrants are helping to expand White America, due to their at least partial or half and half European ancestry.
Okay so Molyneux is a hypocrite here. And so are you if you either don't agree with white genocide or alternatively agree that the native americans were diluted not genocided.
_either don't agree with white genocide_ White genocide isn't real. _or alternatively agree that the native americans were diluted not genocided_ Diluted? They're not a bottle of squash. Genocide: a large number of people of a given demographic being systematically murdered actually happened. Moley trying to say native genocide didn't happen because genes is just him trying to minimize the fact that the natives underwent a genocide. Moley doesn't get to redefine words and their meanings, history or current reality to fit his own warped agenda. To avoid any further confusion, take whatever moley says and just disregard it as being the insane ramblings of a nutbag that's found an audience in the US - whod've guessed?
Well, no you're missing Stefan's point (which is dud, and explained in the video), which is that the population grew larger over time. A better example would be how aliens come and kill 75% of all humans, and a century later the human population grew back, larger than its original size.
@a. s. No I totally agree, Stefan's point is dud. It's bullshit. I was just pointing out that I think the top comment extremified the hypothetical, which doesn't actually refute his original point imo. Again, to be clear, Stefan is fucking dumb
"But they just starved to death, it's not like I shot them or something" is a brilliant defense for the person who burned down someone else's food stores
Starvation and disease deaths due to polices by Stalin and Mao are invariably included in the numbers for "millions murdered by communism". It is blatantly inconsistent and deceitful to not include such deaths as those murdered by capitalist imperialists.
Well. When the Germans killed ... had there multiple genocide going, they weren't using guns after a certain time ("the poor soldiers couldn't take murdering so many people, let's search for a way that makes killing easy for them"). I mean they killed people with disabilities without any bullet. Gotta say there, though, that nobody was really punished for that. Doctors and care takes could just live on after the war without further consequences
At start when Shaun summarizes Stefan's argument, it sounds to me like. 1-There wasn't a Native American Genocide. 2-There was, but it wasn't like you think 3-Ok it is how you think, but it was justified cause war lol
Typical right wing argument... And this applies to every country you name it... First they deny something "X" even happened, then later slowly acknowledge and then add a big "but", and later when pushed against the wall, shamelessly justify the "X" event. Tried and tested method
Narcissist's prayer: "That didn't happen. And if it did, it wasn't that bad. And if it was, it's not a big deal. And if it is, it's not my fault. And if it was, I didn't mean it. And if I did, you deserved it."
Stefan talks so heavily about "If you don't obey the rules of war, then you deserve all the atrocities you get". The US government and Native tribes signed 528 land treaties. The US government violated 528 of them.
I love how much these morons rely on "the rules of war" as if such a fucking thing even exists as anything but hypothetical. If someone breaks a rule, presumably there's recourse for doing so - yet this is hardly ever the case on a universal basis. 'Might makes right' is the only real rule of war, and the recourse for disregarding this rule is destruction. Countries are all contemptible things with no sense of virtue and the powerful disregard all supposed international decorum if it suits them - if the US did not have the world in a headlock, we'd have been a country of war criminals ages ago.
Yeah that’s why in court we also punish people for attempts, and even unintentional crimes... accidents. Severity of punishment would be different from case to case of course
its like when tommyinnit said that nobody was killed when he tried to attack phil as a response to being called a mercenary, but then he was just called a bad mercenary
Except there is no evidence that genocide was ever attempted by the Europeans or Americans. This is the basic problem. So not only were the Whites bad at genocide, they never actually tried.
@@PiterLauchy Yes I watched the video, painful as it was to listen to. The slew of evidence you refer to is historically weak and or assumed and not substantiated. Remember, a massacre of a couple hundred people such as at Sand Creek or Wounded Knee, or native massacres carried out in Texas, by the Comanche or by Pontiac during his rebellion or during King Phillip's War, also are not evidence of genocide. Attempting to eradicate an entire people or civilization, through a premediated program of mass killing, never happened vs. the natives. True genocides would include, the Holocaust, the Armenian genocide by the Turks, the Rwandan genocide of the 90s and the Holodomor in Ukraine etc... There is little to nothing that you can objectively term genocide in the entirety of native European/American relations post 1492. If you believe a genocide happened, when did it happen, to whom, based upon what evidence and how do you use this blanket term to explain 500 years of history in the Americas? Ignorance and myth.
IRA Pepe Didn’t they Europeans use chicken pox to wipe them out? Natives don’t have a lot of documents left behind but they were no extremely backwards civilization. They had some tech, and drove some Europeans out at some points in the post-Columbian time period
@@Obs23456 That's not particularly true for the majority of North American tribes, where many wars were nearly bloodless as far as we could tell. In Central America this would have been more true, though still less so than how you mean, as while quite a lot of people died in their wars specifically, not a single one of these wars would have decimated the population as the arrival and actions of Europeans did. Besides, the actions of genocide continued into the modern day. Even to this day, many Native American women have their Fallopian Tubes cauterized or tied after birth, and it was a major "medical" practice up to 1995. This, as defined early into the video, very clearly constitutes a practice defined as genocide. If you desperately want a source, I'll provide some, but you'd need to provide some to support your side as well.
To add another point, since he, Stefan, believes in white genocide, but there are still a plethora of nations that self-identify as white, does that then mean that, following his logic, what he perceives as being enacted against his people, the act of "white genocide" is not actually happening? Something tells me he would simply find a way to slither back to his fortress of BS.
Evan Andersson same is true in reverse. If the history of something is portrayed as purely dystopian, it’s likely been propagandized against. See the history of socialist countries for example.
"To quote Shlomo Sand, 'Good history is painful.' If your history is idyllic, it has likely been mythologized." A major fascist propaganda tactic, from way back when. Thank you for your pointer!
Been their first instinct towards colored people for a while, also the cover up with euphemisms in history books, white people today can't comprehend the anger of and sutuation of minorities because they really don't know how savage this stuff was.
"It's not a Genocide if they survive". Um, Stefan, I think you need to go back to school and learn again. You clearly didn't do it right the first time.
The bit where Stefan says the genocide was acceptable given the rules of engagement of the time... aren't these people supposed to be against moral relativism?
also just plain untrue, people like Bartolomieu De Las Casas, Roger Williams, and many many others were actually against what was being done to them at the time. Mostly settlers who needed indians for trade, ironically also the ones to suffer the most when open warfare broke out. it was usually only the rich, sociopathic, land speculators and people of that sort who “exacerbated tensions” all over the place, for which everyone else paid the cost. Of course this isnt universally true, but there is a clear pattern.
Stefan: If we genocided them, how can there be more of them today???? Me, trying not to laugh: Well you see, Stefan, when two Native Americans reeeeeeeally love each other...
Gordon Uh... I hate to break it to you, but murder (especially on such a large scale for it to earn the label of genocide) is wrong on EVERY occasion. Even in supposed “self-defense,” the vast majority of any demographic is going to be completely irrelevant to the actions of any few that wronged your nation. In every single case, you’re just casually murdering innocent people. Edit: I can’t believe I just had to explain why genocide is wrong in the 21st century.
Gordon Is that supposed to justify anything? Even if it were true, that still doesn’t have anything to do with the Europeans being generally awful people and your angry defense of those awful actions. Genocide cannot be justified, no matter who is committing it to whom. Deflecting the discussion won’t save you from that.
Gordon Holy shit, you fit the textbook definition of barbaric. Do you think the Holocaust was the best genocide because it killed the most people very quickly? Do you think that you can actually justify genocide by handwaving away the Native Americans’ as being lesser and not even stopping to think that they were human beings like yourself? “Barely any basic tools” actually means something more like “hasn’t mastered metalworking yet.” The Aztecs’ padded armor was noted by the Spanish as being so good that they found it worthy of stealing and wearing themselves, and their obsidian blades were as sharp as any sword. The Maya were masters of architecture on the level of the Egyptians, building huge stone cities all over the place, as well as inventing a complex writing system and being excellent at astronomy. The Inca built Machu Picchu, a city on top of a giant fuck-off mountain in the middle of giant fuck-off mountains, before they invented the wheel. Teotihuacan was the sixth-largest city in the world at the time. The only qualification in which they were not “advanced” was in their weapons technology, which even then was superb for its kind. Also, fuck you and the ground you stand on for this “judging people’s worth by their technology” bullshit. You wanna know something? THEY’RE STILL FUCKING PEOPLE. It doesn’t matter if they have iron tools or obsidian, they’re still human beings and deserve to be treated as such. YOU ARE A FUCKING ABOMINABLE MONSTER. The only reason white Europeans ended slavery is because they dominated the world. Nobody else was going to do it because nobody else was in the position to do so. I would also say that you appear to think genocide is bad, and yet your comment is dedicated to justifying one of the most devastating genocides in history. You should feel like shit, because that’s what you are. By the way, I feel I should mention that Europe was far from the peaceful paradise that you make it out to be. Europeans genuinely hated each other and slaughtered each other like cows for their entire history. The only reason you might think they were harmonious is that they were able to live on the same continent without destroying each other, even disregarding the fact that they very much tried several times. I know there’s a lot of ad hominem in here, but I feel it’s the only effective way to get my point across that justification of genocide, no matter what genocide it happens to be, is and always will be one of the most horrible things a human in the 21st century can do. Good day, you sick bastard.
To paraphrase John Oliver, the definition of genocide is like the age of consent. If you have to ask which one, chances are you've already done something horrible
Most American kiddos are kept in the dark about these terrible historic atrocities in their public school systems. What’s horrifying is that in states like Florida, they believe the current standard of history isn’t patriotic ENOUGH-and are continuing to chip away to create a perfect vision of America
@@June28July Technically yes, but in practice, basically, no. Nobody really comes up with or applies definitions of genocide (or of the age of consent for that matter) so nonsensical that the statement above does not ring true to any degree, which is kinda the point.
No one will ever see this comment, but as a history buff from Colorado who has extensively studied Sand Creek, this video is missing the fact that the women and children were mutilated, THEN the army paraded down through the main street of Denver with the limbs and scalps of innocent people. People lined up to cheer for this. History is fucked up and we have to make sure shit like this isn't forgotten.
Seen by at least 364 people so far; thank you for the additional horrifying detail that shows they knew that what they were doing was so monstrous it needed to an entire murderous cover story.
And the Karankawas used to tie men to poles and dance around them, occasionally cutting off and eating a body part. Tribalism, which the Left embraces, causes atrocities, and we have to make sure this is known.
I am Native American (Seneca Tribe), I'll not speak to further this video's message as there is no need. The message is most clear. No, rather I'll simply speak to say "Thank you Shaun" I for one appreciate you making clear a history as dark as night.
@@jackdisbury1047 , Well Jack you're right old philosopher Seneca was not here in the New World. The "Seneca tribe's real name means "People of the great hill" and is a long word in our native language. So the colonist shorten it to simply "Seneca" as it was easier for them. Peace and health to you sir.
@@jackdisbury1047 the discipline of philosophy itself is supposed to help people understand their own limitations and gaps in knowledge and understanding. You’re not supposed to fetishize specific philosophers, you’re supposed to analyze their arguments. One branch of philosophy, epistemology is concerned with questions of knowledge like what is knowledge? How is obtained? Go dive into the intersections of epistemology and linguistics with a heaping of curiosity so you’ll start to *properly* question the world and historical record instead of trolling native people in a way you can’t fathom how fucking disrespectful it actually is.
Excerpt from Shaun's ending monologue that I found important: _Now I’m not saying White Guilt™ is impossible as a concept. Just that people like Stefan and Lauren Southern aren’t applying it correctly._ _Reading the history of what happened to the Native Americans, I was often outraged, sometimes disgusted. But I never felt personally guilty. Just saddened by what people can do to one another. Acknowledging offence from the past in which white people have been in the wrong isn’t driven by guilt, just honesty. Understanding is not guilt._ _Hiding from the historical record, cherrypicking from it, whitewashing it to erase atrocities committed, well… that’s real guilt in action right there._
Occam's Blazer also important: thinking population X (for example Germans) having to take responsibility for past failings (like for example the genocide of the herero) isn't the same as saying the current population is guilty just that this population should make things right again and show atonement
I've always thought that the people who truly feel guilty are the ones who constantly try to justify and defend the actions of white people in the past. Why would you feel so defensive if you don't have some subconscious semblance of guilt? Why constantly say that you shouldn't be held responsible for the actions of your ancestors but, when people do condemn the actions of your ancestors, you somehow take it... personally? Almost as if.. .you do feel responsible?
I think white people now don't have anything to feel guilty about the Native American genocide except those who deny the genocide and still somehow attack the Native Americans (in words and invented excuses to not see the pain Natives lived). If they really felt guilty, they should realize that they are the ones trying to hurt the Natives now and destroying the truth. That's no way to behave if you really feel guilty. In fact, they just don't want their race to be seen as guilty, not that they care about really being guilty.
The thing is also they need to justify and lie because they see themselves as the superior best race, immaculate without sin or fault, hence why they have to lie to themselves and others about it so is flawless, to maintain the mental illusion of perfection and grandeur.
the real problem is that the political left uses this history to justify delegitimizing the accomplishments of western civilization and white people. which are immense when it comes legal concepts, political rights, technology, science, overall improvement of the human condition, etc. also the left uses this real history to delegitimize one group of humans ,while ignoring the fact that these horrible practices re near universal among humans, including the native americans before Columbus. the Aztecs, incas were brutal imperialists by any standard; the Pequot war started as an inter-native American war between several rival tribes trying to establish their own dominance over trade. the Pequot tribe were also expanding into other tribes' land. when you really study human history, the idea that one race, nation, gender, etc is uniquely evil or oppressive is not only false, it is ignorant often purposedly so.
@@Hermitage-xu5dn My apologies for the minor thing, but from my research, apparently the word genocide was created in 1944 to describe what Germany was doing, while citing earlier mass killings.
@@GamerGuy249 Raphael Lemkin's "Axis Rule in Occupied Europe" is what popularized the term, but looking at his research notes from the '20s and '30s we see that much of what shaped his conception of the term he would coin came from studying the history of European colonialism in the Americas, Africa, and Australia/the Pacific. And he had a broader definition of what could be considered genocide, some of the nuance even being lost in the UN Conventional definition of the crime (what leaps to mind is those acts he considered "cultural genocide": forced conversions, destruction of books, symbols, and material culture, etc). It's kind of a shame that genocide isn't centrally identified with colonialism even though it was colonialism that motivated the majority of genocides in human history and it's what inspired Hitler to commit the most extreme and streamlined one (almost every ideological basis for the Holocaust, from racial purity and eugenics to Lebensraum, stemmed directly from the history of British and American attitudes and policies towards indigenous peoples in the American continent as well as the Africans they enslaved). TL;DR it's ironic that today there are still people like Molyneux that say what happened to native americans wasn't a genocide even though the guy who defined genocide literally based it on what happened to native americans, and the most infamous genocides were based on what happened to native americans
I would *love* to hear Molyneux’s argument in regard to the genocide in Australia. Hearing him debunk the fact that the indigenous population were considered ‘fauna’, and the continent was declared a Terra Nulis would be a feat to behold. The fact that they weren’t considered humans until the 1970’s. Our history is more recent, he’d struggle to disprove it.
I don’t think the “fauna” thing is actually true, I was reading about this a while back and it’s more complex than that (For eg SA gave indigenous people the vote pre-federation, so they were citizens not “fauna”). But otherwise yeah, I shudder to think what he’d say. EDIT: imagine him and the stolen generation for a start
It’s come back to me. I tried to find a source but couldn’t find a neat one. What the ‘67 referendum did was give the Federal Gov the power to make laws with respect to indigenous people, which meant they could (among other things) be included in the federal census. Previously the Fed Gov was constitutionally unable to do that, which is probably how the whole “fauna” thing came about. That doesn’t mean they weren’t considered “human” - they had full voting rights before the referendum for eg (not much before in some places, but still), they could be witnesses in Court, they could be charged with crimes, etc. The referendum was, however, not presented that way in the day, and symbolically was and remains very important. Yes this is quibbling, no it doesn’t excuse any of the horrible things Aus DID do. Please excuse any errors, I am going mostly from memory and the specifics seem to change from state to state.
He did do a lecture on this, he basically said that the aboriginals (sorry if that's not a good term, I just don't know the better one) were a starving, illiterate, and totalitarian society so their destruction was good because now they're nof
@@nevillegreen482 that’s a perfectly fine term. Aboriginal or indigenous Australian is correct. They were actually quite an advanced hunter gatherer society with some degree of Land and sea agriculture (fisheries, etc). There are thousands of unique indigenous languages from all across the country and their history dates back between 40000 and 60000 years. I recommended you take the time to learn about them, they are a fascinating culture and the history of their treatment, both past and present, is a tragic one. Stefan knows nothing about them and the aus government decided not to let him and Lauren southern back in because they are straight up white supremacists. A channel called YeahNah has a video on it. And illiteracy is not a sign of being primitive. Again, they had languages and art, but they didn’t need to write it down. It’s like when other racists insult Aboriginals because they didn’t invent the wheel. They didn’t need it, so they didn’t make it. Also, many communities are now worse off due to inter generational trauma primarily as a direct result of the stolen generation (look that up if you want to be sad) and many communities suffer from domestic violence, drug use and alcoholism in addition to high unemployment. This is the result of more than a century of legal and social discrimination and attempting to force a different way of life on vastly different groups of people.
I wonder what Stefan thinks about the Saw movies? Technically Jigsaw didn’t kill anyone, but that doesn’t mean he didn’t put people in the an environment were they were most likely to die.
While it is true that some of Jigsaw's behaviour exacerbated tensions, it is also true that his victims tried to resist being killed and mutilated, so there is clearly blame on both sides.
im glad residential schools were mentioned, bc in canada, those "schools" were actually legal until 1996, so people who have experienced the abuse of these places are still very much alive.
As a Canadian, it still blows my mind that the last one only closed in 1996. I know we still don't have great relations with the natives, to put it mildly, but still.
That's the year pokemon released in the united states, having existed in japan a year earlier *pikachu was made in a year when a form of fucking genocide was legal in canada*
as a fellow canadian, I'm glad this was brought up as well. it's how the "it was so long ago, get over it" argument falls flat. people that are as young as 30 can have attended in those schools. it's appalling.
There is also the fact that certain tribes, like the Beothuk, are now extinct as a direct result of European colonization. So entire populations were eliminated by genocide, no matter which definition you're using
That partially stems from trying to define all natives as the same, as "savages," where the truth was that they had many individual cultures and plenty of epigenetic diversity between them. To define the natives as one amorphous entity just further serves to dehumanize them, so it's pretty logical that people like Stefan would pick up on that kind of rhetoric.
Nathan Morgan No one in this comment chain was doing that? They were just stating the fact that there were multiple Native American genocides enacted by colonialists.
@@Swampy0525 What multiple genocides are you talking about? Assuming the destruction of a given group equals a deliberate policy of eradication is a huge leap. Almost all of the natives who died after 1492 and the contact with the Europeans, was the result of a lack of immunity to disease, especially small pox. Given that no one understood anything about virus', bacteria, transmissions, etc...it cannot be argued that those deaths were sought or deliberate.
The Canadian residential schools are a horrible stain on our history. It's uncomfortable to talk about but it doesn't go away by ignoring it. These acts must never be forgotten.
Carl Siemens we did a project in the school called "the blanket project" basically the big blanket was Canada and the teacher was the europeans, we were all handed sheets of paper with different designs and colours. I had an X. The teacher would walk around and make our blanket smaller and smaller. And then she made everybody with an X sit out we "died" from starvation and this kept happening until only two were left. When we talked about it. 5 kids cried, especially me. But they told us feeling bad won't help people but we can donate to charities and try to spread awareness.
It's not like literally everything he says is wrong on every topic. The issue is on several important issues you can't fucking tell which is which unless you're actually educated on the topic.
All the information he presents is absolutely true! He is a perfect example of a Sophist, somebody who takes absolute facts and can spin absolute bullshit!!
The problem with using the Holocaust as an example of what a genocide is against Stefan is that Stefan and his viewers don't believe that was a genocide either.
@@silentj624 True. They basically feel only one genocide has ever happened in history: White Replacement, the absolutely true and not at all made up theory of non-whites "replacing" white people by existing in the same country.
Oh, Stefan believes in the “Holocaust”. He refers to it plenty, as established fact. I don’t believe the established narrative, but that’s another story. You should probably know what you’re talking about before making moronic judgments about people and their supporters - especially if your angle is that they are morons for not knowing enough about a subject to speak on a specific manner with authority.
Even if we assume for the moment that these people understand the concept of the Nazi Holocaust (regardless of whether they believe it happened), the idea that sticks with them is the industrial aspect of it. The Nazi Holocaust is defined for most people through its complex network of Concentration Camps, Death Camps, railroads, and general expediency. As an Assyrian, when discussing the Seyfo and the Armenian Genocide with Deniers (or the uninformed). their first questions are rarely concerning the population decreases, whether civilians were targeted, and which political figures issued genocidal threats, but often are "where were the concentration camps?" and "where were the gas chambers?", as if those were the markers of genocide. By and large (although there are cases of railcars and concentration camps in Western Anatolia), most of the Seyfo, Armenian Genocide, and Native American genocide were performed with "death squads" more than any industrialized process.
You know I can imagine some high schooler who saw Stefan's video try to debate a teacher about the things shown in it and just keep whining about how the accepted information is false because of "white guilt revision" and I just feel bad for the teacher in this situation.
I was in the opposite camp, sadly most Teachers in the US are on Stefan’s side and won’t even mention natives and if you bring it up they silence you saying “THIS IS AMERICAN HISTORY, Tony words”. Luckily I had one art teacher who really blew my mind on just how massively fucked US history is from the other side.
Thanks for this series. Molyneux is the laughing stock of historians everywhere. Sad thing is he holds an MA on the subject. Amazing how he ever managed to graduate with such ridiculous beliefs
Getting an MA in history with misguided beliefs is relatively easy. He could have written on an uncontroversial topic while hokding controversial beliefs. I'm in a MA program currently and I've met a few students like that.
"Reading the history of what happened to the native americans, I was often outraged, sometimes disgusted, but I never felt personally guilty, just saddened by what people can do to one another. Acknowledging events from the past in which white people have been in the wrong isn't driven by guilt, just honesty. Understanding is not guilt. Hiding from the historical record, cherrypicking from it, whitewashing it to erase historical atrocities committed, that's real guilt in action right there."
i think that a lot of this irrational defense of white people as a whole comes from the constant onslaught of shaming white people as a whole so the focus revolves around white people as a whole instead of what those specific white people did or didn't do the problem is not one sided at all in fact it is very much a back and forth issue where both sides constantly provoke each other to continue on this ridiculous path
@@Zack-dk3pt I'm 100% white and I don't have a feeling that anyone is putting any kind of blame on me. And I do not fear extinction of white race, it's obviously a nonsense. Group think is idiocy. My people are people who try to follow conscience, not orders.
White people don't have to feel guilty that white people in the past did horrific things, but they need to recognize how much they benefit from the systems those white people put in place. And do something to help, if possible. And if you support policies that make life worse for minorities, you darn well deserve to feel guilty.
Maybe if they had like a nega-Shaun who could state right-wing arguments without artificially turning the controversy up to 11... Then again, their arguments can't really exist without controversy
@August Denys 👍👍You’re not the only one. This guy and Black Pigeon, even listening to the short clips in Shaun’s video makes me think, Mommmeeeee, make it go awaaaay! 😂 Except Molypuke is worse; jeez, CAN. the. GUY! TALK!! NORM!! ully? He’s like William Shatner on steroids.
jesus christ, I got goosebumps when you described that massacre, what a horrifying thing. How can one deny such atrocities? Denying slaughters, means denying those people's lives, denying the existence of all the pain they've experienced. We usually laugh at people like Molyneux, but tbh they are evil, and we must do everything to stop them from succeeding in their tasks.
Colonisation wasn't a war. And in fact, killing innocent people in a war is a crime. You can easily find cases of people getting arrested for ethnic/religious cleansings during wars. And, actually, it's not like war and genocide are mutually exclusive. Example, armenian genocide, it took place during the first World War, but it was definitely and attempt to destroy all armenians by turkish government. Countries like Russian Empire were practically always at war, that doesn't mean circassian genocide can't be classified as a genocide either.
When did he deny that these things happened? What he is saying is that the decline in population was the result of disease and intermarriage. Massacres were abominable, and yes, they happened, but they do not account for the population decline. Here, watch the original video. I have found the specific part where he talks about actual war between natives and Europeans: ruclips.net/video/WNHKDJzgqJg/видео.htmlm36s Try to actually listen to what he says, not what you imagine he says.
the point you linked talks about natives slaughtering europeans, not the other way around. Link me a point, where he talks about europeans slaughtering the natives, and says it's abominable.
The last residential school in Canada closed in 1996. It was the Gordon's Residential School in Punnichy, Saskatchewan and was one of the most notorious for physical and sexual abuse cases. This isn't at all ancient history; residential schools operated until two years before I was born.
And that's one year before my own birth. My brother was, like, 13 years old, for fuck's sake. He literally could have seen or read the news and remember it. It happened after the fall of the Berlin wall. It happened after the end of the USSR. It fucking happened after the creation of the World Wide Web, god dammit!
People have a huge problem with historical. In simple terms the events of history will have have major effects on the present for hundreds of years to come. Hell we are still feeling the afffects of the French revolution... the first revolution. When people say things like slavery or the native genocide or residential school were years ago, in the grand scheme of things they weren't that long ago and we will be dealing with it for years to come. Hell it was still illegal to be gay when my dad was a kid... I'm 20 years old in Canada. Fuck out of here if gay rights isnt still a major issue. Guys like Stephan or whatever his name is pisses me off. Trying to cherry pick history to justify their hate. Fucking idiots
And now the bodies of dead children have been found under those schools. God I hate being white and yet feel lucky to be so perhaps it's white guilt. It doesn't help that people try and defend these atrocities. They often group all white people in their analogies and I guess it's made me do the same.
The man who illegally wiretapped his wife's therapy sessions and posed as a girl to up-vote his own videos is tired of people lying? Oh this should be bloody good.
Project AcuHope yes, there was always a similar message on the top of his comments section about how great he was, to which he would respond "thank you for your kind words" one day he forgot to log into or out of the account and posted it under his own name, followed by his own reply, "thank you for your kind words" For some reason it was always a girl that he posed as. Some said the original comments were genuine and on free domain radio, he just copied them a cross, still a weird thing to do.
Stefan Molyneux was kicked from the platform yesterday. Shaun, I just got into your channel in the past day to listen to while working, and I absolutely love your calm approach in taking on these claims.
...I grew up in Colorado, literally about 5 miles away from the Arapaho National Forest, and I barely remember hearing about the Sandy Creek Massacre in school. Seriously made me emotional to learn about that tragedy in more depth. How someone can hear about that and think America is blameless is beyond me.
You can't blame America or the US for the actions of a crazed, militia commander. That is foolish thinking. Do you blame all native people for the actions of Geronimo?
@@karimqk1895 If I think who is an outlier? Are you talking about Sand Creek? If so, the question is about the use of the word genocide in regards to the Indians and their treatment at the hands of the Europeans and Americans. Over the hundreds of years, in this war of cultures, there were massacres and atrocities all the way around. But the Whites did not want or attempt a genocide of the natives. This is simply wrong. Read my fuller explanation below.
@@thomassenbart You said that the US cannot be held accountable for the actions of a solitary "crazed... commander." That's implying that him and his actions were antithetical to the US government's intentions. Which is patently false when looking at how explicit the US military and political leaders were about removing, eradicating, and/or subjugating natives who lived on land deemed useful or desirable by the United States. Y'know things like: intentionally slaughtering buffalo en masse to starve out Plains Indians and bring them to heel, the Trail of Tears, subsidizing white settlers in Indian territory, etc. It's absurd to claim that the US neither wanted nor performed genocidal actions, when contemporary writings of the time directly contradict that. And to your point, maybe not _all_ these events would technically count as "genocidal," but the events that ARE undeniably genocidal in nature were very much on brand with the overall thrust of manifest destiny and similar ideologies. Those ideologies were central to US expansion, not some fringe movements which were not representative of US policy, like you seem to be saying.
@@karimqk1895 No, the US govt did not have a policy of eradication. Removal to Reservations, yes. Subjugating, yes. Which is why the Buffalo were killed, along with the skin trade of course. Starving the Indians into submission was not about killing them but subjugating them. Once they were on the Reservations the Bureau of Indian Affairs was responsible for feeding the Indians and did, though with a great deal of corruption. This same tactic was and is used in warfare through the ages. We impose blockades on countries just for this purpose. We did it to Iraq, Iran, Russian, N. Vietnam, Nazi and Imperial Germany, the Confederacy etc... Yes the Trail of Tears was terrible but again, not genocide. The removal of the tribes to Oklahoma, did not kill them off and it was not the policy of the Jackson admin. No, contemporary writings at the time do not contradict me. Produce the documents. Which President or administration sought the genocide/extermination of the Native population? What events were undeniably genocidal in nature? I only know of one that would classify as such and it was not a governmental policy but was instituted by the miners and land grabbers in California after 1849. Manifest destiny did not seek to kill off the Indians either. It was an ideal that believed the US was destined to control the continent from Sea to Sea. The idea of settling the West, making the great American desert into farm land and making use of the vast interior of the country, which was overwhelmingly uninhabited, though the plains tribes obviously ranged across it, was the purpose of the Federal govt. I would argue this policy was not genocidal at all and allowed for the feeding of the world via making American agriculture amazingly productive. A civilizational and global good. Also, by the time of the founding of the USA. The vast majority of indigenous Americans had already died but not due to genocide but disease. 90% of all native died in this manner and without ever contacting a European or American. The number of Indians in 1783 across the entirety of North America, would have been in the hundreds of thousands. The continent was mostly uninhabited. The massacres, such as Wounded Knee and Sand Creek killed hundreds of people, not millions. Obviously they were horrible but so too were all of the Comanche raids in Texas and Mexico, the Indian on Indian warfare where torture and indiscriminate killing and enslavement were the norm, the attacks on pioneers or settlers throughout the period. It was all rough business. The way that the natives were treated was abominable in general however, it was not genocidal.
My great great grandmother was Lakota Sioux. When she was a little girl, she was separated from her family and sent to western Pennsylvania to be educated "as a white girl". She never really talked about it much, according to her daughters and grandchildren who knew her, she was very quiet and drank herself to death. We don't even know her real name, all we have left of her existence is a marriage certificate and a death certificate using her English-given name.
as a native studies student, I feel this video goes to easy on Stefan (and yes I've seen his video too). the atrocities committed against native people were undoubtedly worse and more frequent than what native groups have done to settlers, (there is one example in Virginia where a native allegedly stole a cup from a settlers house and in return had his village raided and their crops salted) but even if you use his definition of genocide, that you have to succeed in getting rid of the group for it to be genocide, than it still applies to native people. There are First Nations that were completely destroyed (as in no members of that nation left today) such as the Beothik of Newfoundland. That is a native group that no longer exists because of English colonists, this is genocide in the Americas even by Stefan's definition.
Superb rebuttal. I'm actually more offended and outraged at the notion that we as Americans can ignore atrocities so egregious as Sand Creek and call ourselves a just and moral society. Just sad. Thanks for sharing.
I grew up in Colorado and they never even mentioned the Sand Creek Massacre in school. You would think that's kind of an important bit of local history, no? -_-
@@synthdriver8817 Have you been to every single school in the U.S.? If not, how can you claim that they’re not covered in the U.S. education system? Oh and btw, history is not a source to find out if schools teaches a certain subject. You’d have to go through the curriculum of EVERY single school in the U.S. which I’d wager you didn’t. Either that, or you just didn’t pay attention when you were in history class. In that case, it’s YOUR fault. It’s usually people who don’t pay attention in class that later on complain that they didn’t learn anything. Maybe stop using your phone all fucking class and look at the board every once in a while.
@gloverfox9135 I was homeschooled dipshit. Did you know I never had a proper history curriculum and was limited to Abecka Books, which were whitewashed to hell and back? They mentioned nothing of the trail of tears and MLK Jr. (I'm surprised they mentioned him at all) who was whitewashed to only say in the most milk toast tone possible that "racism in all forms should be abolished." Nothing was mentioned about redlining, the civil rights Era, or how black men could simply be beaten in the streets by white men. Nothing was mentioned of MLK"s socialist attitudes, FDR's socialist accomplishments, or of the atrocious treatment we wrought on the natives. You don't learn much when your parents have full legal authority to hold you from truth. Same thing for teachers in the South who teach "states rights" or discriminate against trans people in the classroom. Not much learning is going on in the classrooms in TX where teachers are allowed to teach that Moses was the founder of our constitution and that our constitution is based on the Ten Commandments, which is a lie.
jontron does say some things that at least i can agree with but like almost everyone in this world there will always be things that you can mutually agree on and disagree on there is nothing wrong with that and i believe that it is irrational to hate someone because you cant agree with them on every little thing.
He mostly claims to just to stir the pot and genuinely irk people as it attracts idiots and views. Plus it was from the 2016 hype where you have even center left people supporting Trump especially after Sanders was cheated just to stick it to the establishment.
@@sundayschoolflunkie3979 "Academic philosophers do not take the idea of Molyneux as a philosopher seriously. American philosopher David Gordon wrote of Molyneux's 2007 book Universally Preferable Behavior: A Rational Proof for Secular Ethics that, "He fails, and fails miserably. His arguments are often preposterously bad."' What makes a good propaganda department is the ability to remove the other forms of criticism. He'd just be a figurehead, laughed at by those outside of his reach, similar to how Baghdad Bob would claim American soldiers were commiting suicide to escape Iraqi troops and denying the prescence of American Armored Infantry despite being able to hear tanks in the background. A propaganda department featuring Stefan Molyneux would be good despite him, not because of him. His power comes from embracing one lie, then another contradictory lie without relinquishing the first.
@@Demiglitch Well Molyneux is quite an effective propagandist currently, and double think is an effective method of propagandising, having contradictory ideas isn't necessarily a hindrance. Neither is having bad arguments, as long as you use other strategies. He doesn't look any good at his job from a leftist perspective, but a centre or centre-right person may be more susceptible to his propaganda.
What is so difficult for me to understand, as a white person, is how Stefan feels so very *personally* attacked by this. Like, if he's so worried about what Native Americans think of him and his white heritage, maybe he should consider not being a such a defensive jerkoff
Abusers have a vested interest in being justified in their dirty deeds, so they can continue doing it without being called out. Slavery in the US is abolished but prisons are full of black men with white men making money off of it. Using your brain to recognize the pattern gets you labeled “race baiter” or playing the race card.
Femme Futile The point is that blaming this on “white fragility” is racist. Labeling these kinds of behaviors as “white” or “black” or whatever else is always racist. The psychological “fragilities” That these behaviors arise from are common to and observable in everybody.
How can Stefan be so confident about these so called "Rules of War"? It's not a "rule of war" unless both sides agree to those. And obviously the U.S. was not interested in abiding by ANY rule, treaty, or laws that should have prevented these atrocities. Let's also be clear that these were not equally situated troops on each side. One side was mostly women and children with nothing but bows & arrows. The other side was a coordinated assembly of troops with guns, cannons, and other weapons. To call it a war is a mockery.
More to the point, the Sand Creek Massacre happened during the American Civil War. We have a war to compare it with. If Sherman had rounded up all the women and children of Atlanta and shot each and every one of them dead in cold blood, you can be damn sure nobody would niggle over whether that was justified.
Skill issue. It was a war,many great wars,actually. They had to fight huge empires,with thousands of vicious warriors. You're insulting them by reducing them to savages. Not to mention they ARE NOT NATIVES AT ALL.
My parents were teachers. We're white and we live in California. Every year we'd have to learn/take a field trip to the missions what was going on there (slavery). I never felt personally responsible for the genocide or ashamed of my skin color. It's just a fact that people were ungodly racist and cruel and that white settlers were the ones committing a lot of crimes. I don't identify too much with my race, but I do my Californian culture. A part of accepting that culture is accepting that some really, REALLY awful things happened in this state. One sure-fire way to tell if someone's insecure with their racial identity is if they're out to justify the crimes of a particular group and demonize those they were oppressing. It's the classic "everyone's wrong but me" argument most school yard bullies use to help them sleep at night.
Get rid of the monetary system on the planet, and everybody can live without all technology. Everybody will have to pitch in to clean up the environment. :) People ought to look up the Mexican-Comanche Wars of the 1800s. I imagine Mexico would have been glad to take over more of the present day United States land. Before Mexico there were the Spanish and the Aztecs. History is one big sham. It is like people selling used cars.
@@booglegoo6526 Yes, History is a contiuing narrative. And no country has a 'perfect' history where they've done nothing wrong. It's fine to be proud of your country but it's inhumane to deny your own history
In regards to an apology, people probably have a concern about wanting money then. Many people are quite aware of preferences for jobs and opportunities given to women and minorities for many years. Also, a lot of people have immigrated from other countries in recent decades. Between the late 1800s and early 1900s a lot of ethnic groups came to the United States, including my hometown.
A federal botanist was working on invasive species. He told me of his western and eastern European ancestry. I am all western European ancestry. I told him we had to leave. He was amused. He did leave, but only to work in another state.
I don't understand how this is such a hard concept for some people to graps. Like... I'm German. How do you think I could live with myself if I felt _personally responsible_ for the holocaust? And also, who could possibly benefit from that?
"He seems to think that the only acceptable definition of genocide is the total, unanimous and unceasing attempt of one people to wipe out another people." No, no. He only seems to accept it if they also _succeed_ in wiping them out.
*British colonisers:* "We're going to *deliberately* infect these blankets with smallpox as an act of biological warfare, while we pretend to make peace with these natives." *Modern Brits:* "Damn, that's pretty messed up..." *Stefan "But I'm not a Nazi" Molyneux:* _"I'm gonna pretend I didn't see that!"_
Just a minor correction: Our last residential school only shut down in 1996. ...Which is so many different kinds of fucked up. I was alive back then. This was in my lifetime.
I have two siblings born in 1978 and 1980 respectively. That was during a time when half of all countries in the world were dictatorships (or something like that, I don't remember in detail).
Kauhma You fucking idiot. Europe’s history is that of bloodshed. “B-b-but that’s because Europe isn’t culturally homogenous!!!!!11” And neither were the natives of the Americas. The ink drying in the European history book is scarlet, courtesy of the blood of fellow Europeans and the collateral damage levied on foreigners whom Europeans exploited to get the advantage on one another. Don’t act so high and mighty. Europe committed genocide on the natives, and that’s all there is to it.
@@kampakala1544 Its funny how you ignore the fact that literally any and all other races could be chalked up to that same consensus , unless you want to forget the people who created such wondrous contraptions of torture such as the Judas cradle , The Iron maiden , and literally have a term for doing something barbaric named after an era in which they existed.. And I sure as he'll am not talking about Native Americans.
@@charleswashington3973 "You fucking idiot." Is not an argument There has been bloodshed in every part of the world. So, what is your point? It is funny how you liberal better people always ignore the wrongdoings of non-europeans.
I can't find it now, but I remember some obscure politician arguing that talking about the treatment of the Native Americans (as well as slavery, for that matter), was inherently unpatriotic *even if true*, because if you loved your country you would never present it in a bad light. I suppose these people are a step above Molyneux, as they at least admit it could all be true, and that they simply want to stop hearing about it.
That is a pretty common attitude actually, at least here in Texas. If you question the greatness or the goodness of the US, you are termed "unamerican." It's not even that they mean you are wrong, just that you are bad and should shut it.
I think examining the evils of all ancestry is helpful. Just as humans are 3 dimensional, so are societies. You take the good, but it's equally, if not more valuable to learn from the bad to protect the future. You say, "this general (or President, or leader) may have accomplished great things for one portion of a group here... But he did it using tactics that are in the least unethical if not downright vile to other portions. As much as we can celebrate the accomplishments, we need to examine for the future how we can diminish evils in the methodology" etc. You acknowledge to take responsibility. Hiding from it only hurts the future by risk of repeat.
In public school I was taught that the Natives started it and deserved what they got. I was horrified when I got to high school and started to learn some of the truth.
@@Distimmer a small town one, like 160 kids in my grad class I think They really did their best not to educate us. Also learned that slavery "wasn't that bad and people forget about Irish slavery so what about that, huh?????" Just really fucked up.
I was taught more that whites killing Indians wasn’t so bad because the tribes also fought with & killed each other. Goes with the argument that Africans sold other Africans into trans-Atlantic slavery, therefore white people doing it wasn’t that bad either. Small religious schools in my case, and my parents still believe both those points.
I remember that we learned that we started to get their gold by giving them shiny marbles. The person that debunked this for us was our religion teacher. The priest asked us if we are really just going to assume these people were that dumb, and we discussed racism and colonialisation for a full day. I'm no longer christian, but this man was just so great, for how he decided to have this talk with us 9-12 year old children. Only later in life I learned that this is not the norm for what christianity is about, but I think the fact that he told us that black people are black because they live closed to the sun and have therefore evolved like that, that is great.
We should be conscious of how native Canadian peoples were and are treated here, and work to fix things. I had a client a few months ago who said he was an environmentalist, but disagreed that aboriginals are being affected by the tar sands in Alberta. I saw a documentary in college about how the fish in their streams are growing tumors, so I knew he was full of shit. One of my coworkers is currently suing the Canadian government for taking her away from her reserve as a baby and giving her to a white family. There's still a lot of work left to do it seems. I hope things are getting better :/
No sympathy from me. Canadian natives are causing their own downfall. I'll not have it blamed on me any longer. Not with all the special privileges native canadians enjoy.
Stellar Gnoma that's what's great about our country. nationalism made Nazism, neoconservatism, and Islamic extremism. we have no strong national identity to cloud our judgement and making us act like fascist morons (though there are still people like Alexandre bissonett and Lauren southeron). fuck nationalism, fuck tribalism, fuck tradition and xenophobia. let's all hug and sing kumbaya, and keep Canada open and free. :)
it's important to note that attempted genocide of native americans even reaches all the way to the 80s and 90s, at least. my mother was almost unwilfully sterilized after having my older sister in 1990. and according to my grandmother, that kind of thing wasn't uncommon in non-indian hospitals in the area
Which actually makes things kinda sad about the Canadian Stanley Cup drought considering the fact that the last time that a Canadian team won the Stanley Cup was in 1993...
Excellent! ... There is no collective guilt. The fact that I, old white German man, benefitted from the horrible acts committed by my ancestors must not blind me to the historical truth.
As a Canadian, I wanted to add a couple points about the Canadian Residential Schools. The last one closed a decade later than reported here. The last one was closed in 90's. Recently, there were nearly 1000 unmarked graves of children at two of these schools. Almost every single indigenous Canadian alive today either was a direct victim of this or is the child of direct resident of these schools.
I am repeatedly disgusted by people who insist that the horrors inflicted on people, particularly people of color, throughout American history were "not that bad" or "the sjws are lying about history." This lunatic is denying genocide, go to his video and people deny that slavery was horrific, plus they have interesting views on "The Jews," and etc. I feel defeated when I realize that this psychos actually exist, I thought no one could be this awful or willfully ignorant.
Same with imperialism. Went to a Christian school in USA, had a BJU textbook on history, said imperialism is bad, but at least they're being converted. Sickened me.
Stefan is so wrong! I know this for a fact because my deceased husband went through hell in boarding schools, being taken away from his family and he ran away a lot, but in spite of that he grew to be an amazing strong person a fine athlete and a leader in the community. He was a veteran of Viet Nam where they made him a sniper and after three months they gave him some training. He was in college and had a family but they did it anyway. My name is Roberta Stone and I am so proud to be associated with him.
Your husband was Native American? It's not clear from your account as "boarding schools" are still around and a lot of rich European/American/Asian parents send their children to them. Did you mean Indian Schools or Residential Indian Schools?
That feeling when you call Native American “gene pool” being diluted “flourishing” but you consider the same happening even hypothetically to Europeans a “white genocide”. :P
Have you got any evidence for that? Also are you aware of the fact that Arabic people are a linguistic group not a genetically distinct racial grouping?
+Jordan Myers Would you adhere to the same logic if you were on the other end of the stick? Let's say Aliens with superior Technology come to Earth and want to kill us all. Would you be okay with that?
Jordan Myers If we look at the rest of the world, it seems city building civilizations require large population growth which is sustainable through farming. Quite simply, if you can't feed a city, the city will fail. Additionally, in colder regions people need to move to warmer regions with more food in the winter, unless they can store food in sufficient quantities to last through the winter. In case of a bad harvest, it needs to last through 2 winters. If it doesn't, the city will die. In warmer climates people can have more harvests per year, resulting in more food and a more stable supply of food. There were loads of different ways different tribes dealt with this. Due to the winter, people also need to build shelters that are better at keeping the temperature, or they need to burn more wood. If they burn more wood than grows near the city, the city will die. Running out of wood is seen by some as a major reason for the fall of Cahokia, a large city near St Louis. There was also the onset of the Little Ice Age from about 1300 onwards, which may have prevented further growth of existing settlements in colder climates, and even lead to their decline. Solving these problems takes time, and chance. In Central America there were fewer problems to solve, so they had a better chance to reach the city building stage first. Once all of these problems are solved, population growth will likely still be slower in colder climate, slowing down the time it needs to grow from small settlements to large city states. As the size of the settlements grows, trade between settlements is more likely to grow and therefore the rate of advancement of knowledge is likely to increase. These effects can be - and have been - countered through other effects such as traditions, caste systems, religion, government policy, wars, epidemics, natural disasters, etc. But these effects seem to be far less dependent on climate than the consumption of firewood and the amount of harvests per year are. For example the black death affected all of Europe, regardless of latitude. In contrast, in Europe the knowledge of growing crops was imported as was much of the population, so they didn't have to solve all of these problems on their own. Add to that the Roman Empire and the Migration Period, and you see how these developments can very quickly become completely random and unpredictable. Leave North America and go South and you'd have found some of the most advanced cities in the world if you were in the right time period, big buildings and agriculture isn't a European thing, you'll have to look elsewhere for supremacy, like genocide, Europeans probably out genocide anyone.
The residential school system was mandated in the US as well. In both the US and Canada, different armed forces were used to forcibly kidnap children from their tribes and send them to those schools.
On the topic of white guilt: I have found that right-wing people often conflate guilt and responsibility. They argue that because you didn't comit past atrocities you are not guilty of them and therefore hold no responsibility towards them. What they don't seem to recognise is that guilt is not necessairy for responsibility. If you come from a culture that has commited atrocities in the past it is your responsibility to be sensitive, informed and critical about these issues. You're not responsible for what happened, but you're very much responsible for that never happening again. To admit that however would mean to admit that issue at hand has nothing to do with guilt. But I guess "white responsibility" doesn't have the same ring as "white guilt".
Jernej Blatnik it exists, see the Japanese government’s deliberate attempts to erase the existence of comfort women and other atrocities committed against other Asian nations, notably Korea in the 1900s. BUT that isn’t an excuse to say that all people are violent, all sides are bad. to use other nations to avoid feeling bad about the things your nation has done is cowardly and actual white guilt. like fuck off. I’m Korean and hate the Japanese government but that doesn’t mean that Native American genocide didn’t happen or that it’s some how justifiable. don’t use other nations histories as a catch all dipshit
@@gben82 I'd say it is rather a question of nationality and the respective affiliation to the group carrying out these atrocities. Boko Haram are a certain ethnic and religious group who call upon certain terms that imply certain values or meanings (these values can differ between individuals, e.g. Islam has a different meaning for a moderate Muslim than it has for an ISIS member). I believe that whoever belongs to that group or calls upon this specific term of values has the responsibility to define this term in morally sound way, aka be a decent human being. I personally am German, so I believe my responsibility is to show the world that being German does not mean being a fascist and genocidal monster. The big difference is however that Boko Haram are still active, while the German Reich does not exist anymore, so it is far easier to determine who is actually responsible (or guilty, for that matter) for Boko Haram's crimes, which of course does not include every African or even black person on this planet.
Even though you might not see this, as a Saulteaux-Anishinaabe native I'd like to express my thanks towards you shedding a light on history that many would otherwise prefer to censor and call CRT. Thank you💙
13:06 "You've been a very naughty boy, you tried to kill X million people!" "But I only killed two." "Oh, alright then. Get out of here, I never want to see you in this courtroom ever again."
It's really refreshing to hear logic applied to Stefan. I was unfortunately introduced to his videos by my dad who uses his Smart TV to binge watch them as well as other right wing and conspiracy videos. So much is wrong that it's hard to know where to begin to explain it to him, but he doesn't listen when I try anyway. Thanks for demonstrating sanity. ❤ It calms my nerves.
Granted, when the US tried to remove my tribe there weren't any large scale massacres like Bear River, Sand Creek or Wounded Knee. Still they did confiscate or destroy food stores, livestock, and crops. This was very intentional and it resulted in a lot of people starving to death and being forced into surrender. The irony being that the Army basically said "surrender to us and we'll feed you", but of course the military didn't have any food either. Of the thousands who died during that time few of them were outright killed violently. Instead the real causes of death were starvation, exposure, and diseases. To put it in perspective the US government hanged the Confederate officer in charge of the Andersonville POW camp for failing to feed the Union prisoners there of which a third of them died. Of the near 10,000 of my forbearers who were sent to an internment camp almost half of them died there. No justice for that though the Army basically said "oops" and that was that.
As a Canadian, the prison/labour camps, previously known as residential schools were more than "harsh". They cruelly tortured children. Currently, in July 2021, there have been about three discoveries of unmarked graves, one a mass grave, which contained a child about three years old among the other dead children, and the other two were traditional graveyards but were also unmarked. If someone asks me, "were they really that bad?" I only have one sentence to demonstrate that they were: a nun built an electric chair as a "punishment" for the First Nations children. A nun... So far, I have not heard that any of the kids bore marks of deadly violence, so it's probable that some large fraction died of disease exacerbated by malnutrition and hunger. Some education and the reason I will not use "residential schools" and instead call them prison/labour camps because that's what they were. The last one did not close until 1996!
@@sessayu2502 which ones? Are the actual pictures of unmarked graves being dug up not enough to convince you that people died? How about the catholic church refusing to open their records? Not suspicious enough for you? Okay, are you going to tell me all those First Nations people who testified at the Truth and reconciliation hearings colluded and then lied en masse? What part do you think is a lie? And, for that matter, why do you think it's a lie? Are you going to spew some ignorant racist crap about status cards, taxes, and paying for distant, isolated communities? C'mon, Don't be the usual internet goof who just says "liar" and privides no context or evidence. If that's all you have, then I can only conclude you're a reactionary troll who never could get through high school and believes the only reason he makes minimum wage is "'Cause some immigrant stole my good job". But go ahead, surprise me...
What the Old Cheyenne Women at Sand Creek Knew (Sand Creek Massacre: November 29, 1864) by Red Hawk All along the creek bank they crouched holding the children until the last warrior was dead and the soldiers turned slowly towards them like men in a bad dream. The old women knew what was coming. All along the creek bank they tore off their shawls, their shirts, their scarves, anything close at hand and they covered the eyes of the children. The old women knew that if young children saw what men in a bad dream could do they would not die a clean death so they covered the eyes of the children and made no move to run. The old women knew it was time. All along the creek bank they sat with their eyes wide open watching and rocking the swaddled children and when the soldiers opened fire they tumbled into the creek, the dead children in their arms with eyes covered so they would not see what men in a bad dream could do. All along the creek bank The old women knew how to move from one dream to another And take the children safely through; the old women knew what men in a bad dream could do.
“Doesn’t Stephan realize his arguments could also be applied to the holocaust” I think he’s well aware of it, and he’s hoping his audience picks up on it.
I know this video is old but I just want to give you a heartfelt thank you for making it. The modern rehabilitation of white supremacists like molyneux popping up like weeds is terrifying. These people rely on targeted history revisionism, and anyone who tears down there misinformation is greatly appreciated.
Lol Molyneux is not a white supremacist, and the fact that you think he is (and spread rumors to that affect) shows that you're either misinformed or otherwise intentionally disseminating bullshit. Stefan has repeatedly stated that he does not believe any race is superior over another. Actual white supremacists have no issue loudly and vocally telling everyone that they believe in white racial superiority. Stefan's not that guy.
snozzlehead92 shut the fuck up. How fucking stupid do you have to believe that someone can’t be a white supremacist unless they say “I’m a white supremacist!” Loudly. How fucking stupid.
@@cnacma LMAO 😂 can I ask you a question do you believe there are black supremacists? like Louis Farrakhan, Khalid Abdul Mohammed, Tariq Nasheed etc they are not called black supremacists?
None of this surprises me about Stefan. He's broken many ethical (and probably legal) norms. The fact he's discussed the details of his wife's therapy sessions on his show kinda shows you the kind of creep he is. I have to wonder at what point are the legal authorities going to shut this dirt bag down? Time will tell.
I've yet to see either Molyneux or BPS make anything within a multiverse of resembling so much as the whisper of a suggestion of a good argument. But you do you.
Any feelings about the cruelty inflicted on them by OTHER NATIVE AMERICANS? The Sioux on the Pawnee? The Incas on everyone? The Aztecs on...etc, etc... Native American warfare was far more cruel and barbarous than anything the white man.
@@LazlosPlane what Native Americans did to other Native Americans is no where near as bad as what the Europeans did to Native Americans (And a lot of other people), stop lying.
@@communismyes5607 For example, at Crow Creek in South Dakota, archaeologists found a mass grave containing the remains of more than 500 men, women, and children who had been slaughtered, scalped, and mutilated during an attack on their village A CENTURY AND A HALF BEFORE COLUMBUS. The Crow Creek massacre seems to have occurred just when the village's fortifications were being rebuilt. All the houses were burned, and most of the inhabitants were murdered. This death toll represented more than 60% of the village's population, estimated from the number of houses to have been about 800. Grow up.
@@LazlosPlane😂😂😂 no it isn't you f**king idiot. If they were more brutal to each other they wouldnt have lived coast to coast and not been wiped out 95% by American colonists. How do you come up with that logic numb nuts 😂😂😂
Stefan Molyneux is one of the few internet personalities that I can say I truly hate. Like I dislike Sargon, Undoomed, Blaire White, etc. But I HATE Stefan Molyneux.
Translation: He obliterates my ideology with facts and I'm unable to present a valid rebuttal. As a cry-baby liberal, my natural response is to throw a temper tauntraum.
'I recommend you watch his video first' lmao no I'm not putting myself through that shit nothing surprises me with Stefan Molyneux anymore that guy is fucking insane
You, a British man, are teaching me more about American history than any of the schools I went to (both in and out of the US). Never even crossed my mind to do in-depth research about how the Native Americans were treated, planning on doing that soon thanks to you!
I'm so glad we live in the age of information, nazis would've risen again in the U.S by now if we weren't able to educate ourselves through alternative forms of media and instead relied on big news sources.
@@ernest73 Although technically correct, this ignores the differences in technology between the Native Americans and the Europeans and the disparity of sheer numbers. "BUT THERE WERE CASUALTIES ON BOTH SIDES" is genuinely stupid to say. It wasn't 50/50, not even fucking close. Did you even watch the video?
This is the first video I got to be a Patron of and I'm SO glad it's this one. Native American issues are near and dear to my heart and I appreciate Shaun's efforts to fight misinformation regarding them.
"I strongly recommend you go watch his video to make sure I don't take anything out of context" Me: Okay RUclips: The account this video is associated with has been terminated. Me: Hmmm...I wonder why
Stefan Molyneaux is considered an intelligent and well-read person among the alt-right. What a low standard. Edit: Just saw this video recommendation: "Stefan Molyneux - Why High IQ People Can Handle Free Speech & Low IQ People Can't". lol
Astralnaught You must be a troll. Even the most ardent people on the alt-right aren't so quick to defend dictatorships. (So much for western values, huh?)
L0LWTF1337 I have an IQ of 135 and a PhD and I believe that racist speech comes under the provision of free speech, you are either free to have your own opinions and express them or not. Anything else is a slippery slope as it requires some authority to police what is acceptable and what is not. Watch some sargon and styxhexenhammer videos for a more elaborate explanation.
![Felix "Unfair" | [Stray Kids : SKZ-PLAYER]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/Oswujxm2Ag0/mqdefault.jpg)
![I.N "HALLUCINATION" | [Stray Kids : SKZ-PLAYER]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/n5B5q1Hwt_U/mqdefault.jpg)
"If the genetic expression of a race is increased, it's not a genocide, even if the genetics get diluted."
Stefan just debunked white genocide.
By Stephan's own logic here, Hispanic immigrants are helping to expand White America, due to their at least partial or half and half European ancestry.
slimithy12
Heh .. well spotted. Nicely done.
Okay so Molyneux is a hypocrite here. And so are you if you either don't agree with white genocide or alternatively agree that the native americans were diluted not genocided.
_either don't agree with white genocide_
White genocide isn't real.
_or alternatively agree that the native americans were diluted not genocided_
Diluted? They're not a bottle of squash. Genocide: a large number of people of a given demographic being systematically murdered actually happened.
Moley trying to say native genocide didn't happen because genes is just him trying to minimize the fact that the natives underwent a genocide. Moley doesn't get to redefine words and their meanings, history or current reality to fit his own warped agenda.
To avoid any further confusion, take whatever moley says and just disregard it as being the insane ramblings of a nutbag that's found an audience in the US - whod've guessed?
Jesus fucking Christ ..
Imagine if an alien species showed up and wiped out 99.9% of humanity and then an alien went "It wasn't genocide because they survived".
Imagine using hand sanitizer that kills 99.9% of germs and someone goes, "Well it's not antibacterial because it doesn't kill 100%."
Well, no you're missing Stefan's point (which is dud, and explained in the video), which is that the population grew larger over time. A better example would be how aliens come and kill 75% of all humans, and a century later the human population grew back, larger than its original size.
@@hazyipa That still doesn't disprove that a genocide happened...
David Schultz that’s still genocide
@a. s. No I totally agree, Stefan's point is dud. It's bullshit. I was just pointing out that I think the top comment extremified the hypothetical, which doesn't actually refute his original point imo. Again, to be clear, Stefan is fucking dumb
"But they just starved to death, it's not like I shot them or something" is a brilliant defense for the person who burned down someone else's food stores
*sweats in economic sanctions*
Also, the U.S. government literally worked to wipe out buffalo purely with the intent of starving the natives
*almost completely kills the entire buffalo population*
Starvation and disease deaths due to polices by Stalin and Mao are invariably included in the numbers for "millions murdered by communism". It is blatantly inconsistent and deceitful to not include such deaths as those murdered by capitalist imperialists.
Well. When the Germans killed ... had there multiple genocide going, they weren't using guns after a certain time ("the poor soldiers couldn't take murdering so many people, let's search for a way that makes killing easy for them").
I mean they killed people with disabilities without any bullet. Gotta say there, though, that nobody was really punished for that. Doctors and care takes could just live on after the war without further consequences
At start when Shaun summarizes Stefan's argument, it sounds to me like.
1-There wasn't a Native American Genocide.
2-There was, but it wasn't like you think
3-Ok it is how you think, but it was justified cause war lol
There's always another goalpost to move to.
Typical right wing argument... And this applies to every country you name it... First they deny something "X" even happened, then later slowly acknowledge and then add a big "but", and later when pushed against the wall, shamelessly justify the "X" event. Tried and tested method
Freud called this "kettle logic"
@@ozymandias6644 Big "but"s are irresistible and therefore effective.
Narcissist's prayer:
"That didn't happen.
And if it did, it wasn't that bad.
And if it was, it's not a big deal.
And if it is, it's not my fault.
And if it was, I didn't mean it.
And if I did, you deserved it."
Stefan talks so heavily about "If you don't obey the rules of war, then you deserve all the atrocities you get".
The US government and Native tribes signed 528 land treaties. The US government violated 528 of them.
Billy Bloomer stefan molyneaux is jewish he said himself
Ercan Kilic okay so?
@@ercankilic5782 What do you mean?
Can you send me to his quote directly because it doesnt make any sense to me at all
I love how much these morons rely on "the rules of war" as if such a fucking thing even exists as anything but hypothetical. If someone breaks a rule, presumably there's recourse for doing so - yet this is hardly ever the case on a universal basis. 'Might makes right' is the only real rule of war, and the recourse for disregarding this rule is destruction. Countries are all contemptible things with no sense of virtue and the powerful disregard all supposed international decorum if it suits them - if the US did not have the world in a headlock, we'd have been a country of war criminals ages ago.
"They don't get let off the hook because they were bad at genocide" - I feel like this statement deserves far more love from everyone...
Yeah that’s why in court we also punish people for attempts, and even unintentional crimes... accidents.
Severity of punishment would be different from case to case of course
its like when tommyinnit said that nobody was killed when he tried to attack phil as a response to being called a mercenary, but then he was just called a bad mercenary
Except there is no evidence that genocide was ever attempted by the Europeans or Americans. This is the basic problem. So not only were the Whites bad at genocide, they never actually tried.
@@thomassenbart
Did you not watch the very video you're commenting under? It provides a slew of evidence.
@@PiterLauchy Yes I watched the video, painful as it was to listen to. The slew of evidence you refer to is historically weak and or assumed and not substantiated.
Remember, a massacre of a couple hundred people such as at Sand Creek or Wounded Knee, or native massacres carried out in Texas, by the Comanche or by Pontiac during his rebellion or during King Phillip's War, also are not evidence of genocide.
Attempting to eradicate an entire people or civilization, through a premediated program of mass killing, never happened vs. the natives.
True genocides would include, the Holocaust, the Armenian genocide by the Turks, the Rwandan genocide of the 90s and the Holodomor in Ukraine etc...
There is little to nothing that you can objectively term genocide in the entirety of native European/American relations post 1492.
If you believe a genocide happened, when did it happen, to whom, based upon what evidence and how do you use this blanket term to explain 500 years of history in the Americas?
Ignorance and myth.
"It's not genocide if they survive"
- Stefan Molyneux
As a person whose ethnic group has survived a genocide, I am speechless
"well your honor yes i shot him with express intent to kill him, but he managed to survive therefore i am innocent "
IRA Pepe Didn’t they Europeans use chicken pox to wipe them out? Natives don’t have a lot of documents left behind but they were no extremely backwards civilization. They had some tech, and drove some Europeans out at some points in the post-Columbian time period
@@Obs23456 That's not particularly true for the majority of North American tribes, where many wars were nearly bloodless as far as we could tell. In Central America this would have been more true, though still less so than how you mean, as while quite a lot of people died in their wars specifically, not a single one of these wars would have decimated the population as the arrival and actions of Europeans did.
Besides, the actions of genocide continued into the modern day. Even to this day, many Native American women have their Fallopian Tubes cauterized or tied after birth, and it was a major "medical" practice up to 1995. This, as defined early into the video, very clearly constitutes a practice defined as genocide.
If you desperately want a source, I'll provide some, but you'd need to provide some to support your side as well.
Earl of Tyrone Did you... like... watch the video? And listen to what was said?
To add another point, since he, Stefan, believes in white genocide, but there are still a plethora of nations that self-identify as white, does that then mean that, following his logic, what he perceives as being enacted against his people, the act of "white genocide" is not actually happening? Something tells me he would simply find a way to slither back to his fortress of BS.
"Sorry, not all black people were enslaved, so slavery didn't happen."
Even worse: “black people served in the confederacy so slavery is okay”
God I hope those quotations are spotted
“0 black people were enslaved in 1450 and 0 black people are enslaved today, thus, slavery didn’t happen.”
well said omori from omori
To quote Shlomo Sand, "Good history is painful." If your history is idyllic, it has likely been mythologized.
That's a fantastic quote and such a true, yet succinct, sentiment. That is history. History is painful.
literally quoting 'Shlomo' lol.
Evan Andersson same is true in reverse. If the history of something is portrayed as purely dystopian, it’s likely been propagandized against. See the history of socialist countries for example.
"To quote Shlomo Sand, 'Good history is painful.' If your history is idyllic, it has likely been mythologized." A major fascist propaganda tactic, from way back when. Thank you for your pointer!
I would argue that correct history is painful. In my mind, good history is correct history, but others may not share that definition.
We still call the "Rwandan Genocide" a "genocide" even if all of the targeted ethnicity of Rwandans aren't yet dead.
Well, the Tutsis were targeted by the Hutu's.
@@nathanschmitz2302 but there are still Tutsi so no genocide
@@marylawrence2218 Oh, now I get it, is there a link to a Brietbark to prove your statements? Maybe Daily wire? I am so smart.
@@nathanschmitz2302 just pure undiluted 100% straight logic
@@marylawrence2218 I now know cold fusion, watch my brain grow!
"As he approached the soldiers, they opened fire and murdered him."
Boy, I'm glad that sort of thing doesn't happen in America anymore.
....
@conan263 nah just cops
2020 would like a word with you...
@Spaghetti Dish This aged better that I wish it had
Been their first instinct towards colored people for a while, also the cover up with euphemisms in history books, white people today can't comprehend the anger of and sutuation of minorities because they really don't know how savage this stuff was.
@@Mish844 yep
"It's not a Genocide if they survive".
Um, Stefan, I think you need to go back to school and learn again. You clearly didn't do it right the first time.
I'd make fun of this meaning he doesn't consider the Holocaust and slavery as genocide if that wasn't his true view...
If that is true then the Holocaust was not genocide either. Wait, Stefan Molyneux might actually think that. *CRINGE*
I think the school system itself must improve, if we have so many stupid people.
@@maxrichards3881 LOL I agree.
The bit where Stefan says the genocide was acceptable given the rules of engagement of the time... aren't these people supposed to be against moral relativism?
A part of their definition of "white" seems to be "always morally superior, regardless of situation" and that seems inherently relativistic.
In funny ironic, conservatives and white supremacist have pretty much embrace relativism because it gave the a chance to said they did nothing wrong.
also just plain untrue, people like Bartolomieu De Las Casas, Roger Williams, and many many others were actually against what was being done to them at the time. Mostly settlers who needed indians for trade, ironically also the ones to suffer the most when open warfare broke out. it was usually only the rich, sociopathic, land speculators and people of that sort who “exacerbated tensions” all over the place, for which everyone else paid the cost. Of course this isnt universally true, but there is a clear pattern.
When have they ever been that consistent?
Somebody should tell Mao, Hitler, Pol Pot and Stalin they’re absolved of all crimes lol
Stefan: If we genocided them, how can there be more of them today????
Me, trying not to laugh: Well you see, Stefan, when two Native Americans reeeeeeeally love each other...
It’s almost the same type of logic as “if we evolved from monkeys, why are there still monkeys?!”
@Gordon there are so many things wrong with this statement morally speaking.
Gordon Uh... I hate to break it to you, but murder (especially on such a large scale for it to earn the label of genocide) is wrong on EVERY occasion. Even in supposed “self-defense,” the vast majority of any demographic is going to be completely irrelevant to the actions of any few that wronged your nation. In every single case, you’re just casually murdering innocent people.
Edit: I can’t believe I just had to explain why genocide is wrong in the 21st century.
Gordon Is that supposed to justify anything? Even if it were true, that still doesn’t have anything to do with the Europeans being generally awful people and your angry defense of those awful actions.
Genocide cannot be justified, no matter who is committing it to whom. Deflecting the discussion won’t save you from that.
Gordon Holy shit, you fit the textbook definition of barbaric. Do you think the Holocaust was the best genocide because it killed the most people very quickly? Do you think that you can actually justify genocide by handwaving away the Native Americans’ as being lesser and not even stopping to think that they were human beings like yourself?
“Barely any basic tools” actually means something more like “hasn’t mastered metalworking yet.” The Aztecs’ padded armor was noted by the Spanish as being so good that they found it worthy of stealing and wearing themselves, and their obsidian blades were as sharp as any sword. The Maya were masters of architecture on the level of the Egyptians, building huge stone cities all over the place, as well as inventing a complex writing system and being excellent at astronomy. The Inca built Machu Picchu, a city on top of a giant fuck-off mountain in the middle of giant fuck-off mountains, before they invented the wheel. Teotihuacan was the sixth-largest city in the world at the time. The only qualification in which they were not “advanced” was in their weapons technology, which even then was superb for its kind.
Also, fuck you and the ground you stand on for this “judging people’s worth by their technology” bullshit. You wanna know something? THEY’RE STILL FUCKING PEOPLE. It doesn’t matter if they have iron tools or obsidian, they’re still human beings and deserve to be treated as such. YOU ARE A FUCKING ABOMINABLE MONSTER.
The only reason white Europeans ended slavery is because they dominated the world. Nobody else was going to do it because nobody else was in the position to do so. I would also say that you appear to think genocide is bad, and yet your comment is dedicated to justifying one of the most devastating genocides in history. You should feel like shit, because that’s what you are.
By the way, I feel I should mention that Europe was far from the peaceful paradise that you make it out to be. Europeans genuinely hated each other and slaughtered each other like cows for their entire history. The only reason you might think they were harmonious is that they were able to live on the same continent without destroying each other, even disregarding the fact that they very much tried several times.
I know there’s a lot of ad hominem in here, but I feel it’s the only effective way to get my point across that justification of genocide, no matter what genocide it happens to be, is and always will be one of the most horrible things a human in the 21st century can do.
Good day, you sick bastard.
To paraphrase John Oliver, the definition of genocide is like the age of consent. If you have to ask which one, chances are you've already done something horrible
Unless of course there are nonsensical definitions.
@@June28July no, not really.
@@radschele1815
Please elaborate at your earliest convenience.
Most American kiddos are kept in the dark about these terrible historic atrocities in their public school systems. What’s horrifying is that in states like Florida, they believe the current standard of history isn’t patriotic ENOUGH-and are continuing to chip away to create a perfect vision of America
@@June28July Technically yes, but in practice, basically, no. Nobody really comes up with or applies definitions of genocide (or of the age of consent for that matter) so nonsensical that the statement above does not ring true to any degree, which is kinda the point.
No one will ever see this comment, but as a history buff from Colorado who has extensively studied Sand Creek, this video is missing the fact that the women and children were mutilated, THEN the army paraded down through the main street of Denver with the limbs and scalps of innocent people. People lined up to cheer for this.
History is fucked up and we have to make sure shit like this isn't forgotten.
Good to see there's at least 1 educated person in Colorado
I think, blood red canisters of paint should be thrown at any static commemoration.
Oil paint.
people did in fact see this comment, it appears
Seen by at least 364 people so far; thank you for the additional horrifying detail that shows they knew that what they were doing was so monstrous it needed to an entire murderous cover story.
And the Karankawas used to tie men to poles and dance around them, occasionally cutting off and eating a body part. Tribalism, which the Left embraces, causes atrocities, and we have to make sure this is known.
I am Native American (Seneca Tribe), I'll not speak to further this video's message as there is no need. The message is most clear. No, rather I'll simply speak to say "Thank you Shaun" I for one appreciate you making clear a history as dark as night.
Seneca? What was he doing over in America!!!
@@jackdisbury1047 , Well Jack you're right old philosopher Seneca was not here in the New World. The "Seneca tribe's real name means "People of the great hill" and is a long word in our native language. So the colonist shorten it to simply "Seneca" as it was easier for them. Peace and health to you sir.
@@jackdisbury1047 the discipline of philosophy itself is supposed to help people understand their own limitations and gaps in knowledge and understanding. You’re not supposed to fetishize specific philosophers, you’re supposed to analyze their arguments. One branch of philosophy, epistemology is concerned with questions of knowledge like what is knowledge? How is obtained? Go dive into the intersections of epistemology and linguistics with a heaping of curiosity so you’ll start to *properly* question the world and historical record instead of trolling native people in a way you can’t fathom how fucking disrespectful it actually is.
@@Sarah-re7cgit was a joke the original commenter took in good humor and proceeded to educate furthermore why be a stickler?
Old comment, but hey a fellow Western New Yorker?
Excerpt from Shaun's ending monologue that I found important:
_Now I’m not saying White Guilt™ is impossible as a concept. Just that people like Stefan and Lauren Southern aren’t applying it correctly._
_Reading the history of what happened to the Native Americans, I was often outraged, sometimes disgusted. But I never felt personally guilty. Just saddened by what people can do to one another. Acknowledging offence from the past in which white people have been in the wrong isn’t driven by guilt, just honesty. Understanding is not guilt._
_Hiding from the historical record, cherrypicking from it, whitewashing it to erase atrocities committed, well… that’s real guilt in action right there._
Occam's Blazer also important: thinking population X (for example Germans) having to take responsibility for past failings (like for example the genocide of the herero) isn't the same as saying the current population is guilty just that this population should make things right again and show atonement
I've always thought that the people who truly feel guilty are the ones who constantly try to justify and defend the actions of white people in the past. Why would you feel so defensive if you don't have some subconscious semblance of guilt? Why constantly say that you shouldn't be held responsible for the actions of your ancestors but, when people do condemn the actions of your ancestors, you somehow take it... personally? Almost as if.. .you do feel responsible?
I think white people now don't have anything to feel guilty about the Native American genocide except those who deny the genocide and still somehow attack the Native Americans (in words and invented excuses to not see the pain Natives lived). If they really felt guilty, they should realize that they are the ones trying to hurt the Natives now and destroying the truth. That's no way to behave if you really feel guilty. In fact, they just don't want their race to be seen as guilty, not that they care about really being guilty.
The thing is also they need to justify and lie because they see themselves as the superior best race, immaculate without sin or fault, hence why they have to lie to themselves and others about it so is flawless, to maintain the mental illusion of perfection and grandeur.
the real problem is that the political left uses this history to justify delegitimizing the accomplishments of western civilization and white people. which are immense when it comes legal concepts, political rights, technology, science, overall improvement of the human condition, etc. also the left uses this real history to delegitimize one group of humans ,while ignoring the fact that these horrible practices re near universal among humans, including the native americans before Columbus. the Aztecs, incas were brutal imperialists by any standard; the Pequot war started as an inter-native American war between several rival tribes trying to establish their own dominance over trade. the Pequot tribe were also expanding into other tribes' land. when you really study human history, the idea that one race, nation, gender, etc is uniquely evil or oppressive is not only false, it is ignorant often purposedly so.
Debating the meaning of the word Genocide, is exactly how the Turks defend what they did to the Armenians.
Yeah, and that's why I can't respect Turkey, at all.
@muhammad *Greeks of Pontus
@@Hermitage-xu5dn My apologies for the minor thing, but from my research, apparently the word genocide was created in 1944 to describe what Germany was doing, while citing earlier mass killings.
@@GamerGuy249 Raphael Lemkin's "Axis Rule in Occupied Europe" is what popularized the term, but looking at his research notes from the '20s and '30s we see that much of what shaped his conception of the term he would coin came from studying the history of European colonialism in the Americas, Africa, and Australia/the Pacific. And he had a broader definition of what could be considered genocide, some of the nuance even being lost in the UN Conventional definition of the crime (what leaps to mind is those acts he considered "cultural genocide": forced conversions, destruction of books, symbols, and material culture, etc). It's kind of a shame that genocide isn't centrally identified with colonialism even though it was colonialism that motivated the majority of genocides in human history and it's what inspired Hitler to commit the most extreme and streamlined one (almost every ideological basis for the Holocaust, from racial purity and eugenics to Lebensraum, stemmed directly from the history of British and American attitudes and policies towards indigenous peoples in the American continent as well as the Africans they enslaved).
TL;DR it's ironic that today there are still people like Molyneux that say what happened to native americans wasn't a genocide even though the guy who defined genocide literally based it on what happened to native americans, and the most infamous genocides were based on what happened to native americans
@Ibn Salah al-Sharazuri every nation has done massacres, the turkish government is denying their past actions becouse they're really conservative.
I would *love* to hear Molyneux’s argument in regard to the genocide in Australia. Hearing him debunk the fact that the indigenous population were considered ‘fauna’, and the continent was declared a Terra Nulis would be a feat to behold. The fact that they weren’t considered humans until the 1970’s.
Our history is more recent, he’d struggle to disprove it.
He came here and tried to make it seem that colonialism in Australia was not so bad. Badempanada does a great video debunking stefans speech
I don’t think the “fauna” thing is actually true, I was reading about this a while back and it’s more complex than that (For eg SA gave indigenous people the vote pre-federation, so they were citizens not “fauna”). But otherwise yeah, I shudder to think what he’d say.
EDIT: imagine him and the stolen generation for a start
It’s come back to me. I tried to find a source but couldn’t find a neat one.
What the ‘67 referendum did was give the Federal Gov the power to make laws with respect to indigenous people, which meant they could (among other things) be included in the federal census. Previously the Fed Gov was constitutionally unable to do that, which is probably how the whole “fauna” thing came about.
That doesn’t mean they weren’t considered “human” - they had full voting rights before the referendum for eg (not much before in some places, but still), they could be witnesses in Court, they could be charged with crimes, etc. The referendum was, however, not presented that way in the day, and symbolically was and remains very important.
Yes this is quibbling, no it doesn’t excuse any of the horrible things Aus DID do. Please excuse any errors, I am going mostly from memory and the specifics seem to change from state to state.
He did do a lecture on this, he basically said that the aboriginals (sorry if that's not a good term, I just don't know the better one) were a starving, illiterate, and totalitarian society so their destruction was good because now they're nof
@@nevillegreen482 that’s a perfectly fine term. Aboriginal or indigenous Australian is correct. They were actually quite an advanced hunter gatherer society with some degree of Land and sea agriculture (fisheries, etc). There are thousands of unique indigenous languages from all across the country and their history dates back between 40000 and 60000 years. I recommended you take the time to learn about them, they are a fascinating culture and the history of their treatment, both past and present, is a tragic one. Stefan knows nothing about them and the aus government decided not to let him and Lauren southern back in because they are straight up white supremacists. A channel called YeahNah has a video on it. And illiteracy is not a sign of being primitive. Again, they had languages and art, but they didn’t need to write it down. It’s like when other racists insult Aboriginals because they didn’t invent the wheel. They didn’t need it, so they didn’t make it. Also, many communities are now worse off due to inter generational trauma primarily as a direct result of the stolen generation (look that up if you want to be sad) and many communities suffer from domestic violence, drug use and alcoholism in addition to high unemployment. This is the result of more than a century of legal and social discrimination and attempting to force a different way of life on vastly different groups of people.
I wonder what Stefan thinks about the Saw movies? Technically Jigsaw didn’t kill anyone, but that doesn’t mean he didn’t put people in the an environment were they were most likely to die.
CM Ramirez-Zuniga Good guy Jigsaw, perhaps the victims got children afterwards too!
He probably thinks the Saw movies are dog whistle racist toward white people.
While it is true that some of Jigsaw's behaviour exacerbated tensions, it is also true that his victims tried to resist being killed and mutilated, so there is clearly blame on both sides.
*insert clip of the burn meme here*
Natives: (doing nothing)
Americans: I'D LIKE TO PLAY A GAME.
im glad residential schools were mentioned, bc in canada, those "schools" were actually legal until 1996, so people who have experienced the abuse of these places are still very much alive.
As a Canadian, it still blows my mind that the last one only closed in 1996. I know we still don't have great relations with the natives, to put it mildly, but still.
There are plenty of people in the United States that went to similar schools run by catholics as well.
That's the year pokemon released in the united states, having existed in japan a year earlier
*pikachu was made in a year when a form of fucking genocide was legal in canada*
@@MCXL1140 And Anglicans. They really liked doing the “convert or die” proposal with huge swaths of Native Americans
as a fellow canadian, I'm glad this was brought up as well. it's how the "it was so long ago, get over it" argument falls flat. people that are as young as 30 can have attended in those schools. it's appalling.
Hearing about the Sand Creek massacre really punches a giant hole through the idea that the Native Americans were the “savages”
I will never understand people who go after Native Americans. Like, we've pushed them as far as they can go, what more could you want?!
Usually they want more land, these days in the form of oil pipelines and mining rights
Settlers want Indigenous people to disappear and get out of the way.
As a Canadian Native, it's stupid in concept because Native Reserves in BC are 0.4% of land mass.
People do that today?
How about a piece of that casino pie baby! Yeah!!! (I'm a horrible person)
There is also the fact that certain tribes, like the Beothuk, are now extinct as a direct result of European colonization. So entire populations were eliminated by genocide, no matter which definition you're using
@Blois Yes, and? Plus this specific example is bad cause they were financed by british if I remember.
That partially stems from trying to define all natives as the same, as "savages," where the truth was that they had many individual cultures and plenty of epigenetic diversity between them. To define the natives as one amorphous entity just further serves to dehumanize them, so it's pretty logical that people like Stefan would pick up on that kind of rhetoric.
@@legrandliseurtri7495 Nope, just allied...sometimes
Nathan Morgan No one in this comment chain was doing that? They were just stating the fact that there were multiple Native American genocides enacted by colonialists.
@@Swampy0525 What multiple genocides are you talking about? Assuming the destruction of a given group equals a deliberate policy of eradication is a huge leap.
Almost all of the natives who died after 1492 and the contact with the Europeans, was the result of a lack of immunity to disease, especially small pox. Given that no one understood anything about virus', bacteria, transmissions, etc...it cannot be argued that those deaths were sought or deliberate.
The Canadian residential schools are a horrible stain on our history. It's uncomfortable to talk about but it doesn't go away by ignoring it. These acts must never be forgotten.
Stellar Gnoma
Is what I wrote wrong?
Nothing, Stella is just salty because the world dosent worry about him not having laid more often.
Diego ernesto varela parra
Ooooh, damn!
Carl Siemens we did a project in the school called "the blanket project" basically the big blanket was Canada and the teacher was the europeans, we were all handed sheets of paper with different designs and colours. I had an X. The teacher would walk around and make our blanket smaller and smaller. And then she made everybody with an X sit out we "died" from starvation and this kept happening until only two were left. When we talked about it. 5 kids cried, especially me. But they told us feeling bad won't help people but we can donate to charities and try to spread awareness.
David Young
You're right: Feeling bad doesn't help anybody. However, empathy is a good response to have to help people.
You gotta love Stefan's college freshman power point presentation aesthetic while he delivers blatant misinformation.
And the constant close ups on his ugly mug.
Dan Mason: he thinks he's handsome and can't understand why women don't hurl themselves at his feet.
It's not like literally everything he says is wrong on every topic. The issue is on several important issues you can't fucking tell which is which unless you're actually educated on the topic.
All the information he presents is absolutely true! He is a perfect example of a Sophist, somebody who takes absolute facts and can spin absolute bullshit!!
It's more like a highschool freshman.
The problem with using the Holocaust as an example of what a genocide is against Stefan is that Stefan and his viewers don't believe that was a genocide either.
They dont think it happened
@@silentj624 True. They basically feel only one genocide has ever happened in history: White Replacement, the absolutely true and not at all made up theory of non-whites "replacing" white people by existing in the same country.
@@silentj624but they wish it did
Oh, Stefan believes in the “Holocaust”. He refers to it plenty, as established fact. I don’t believe the established narrative, but that’s another story. You should probably know what you’re talking about before making moronic judgments about people and their supporters - especially if your angle is that they are morons for not knowing enough about a subject to speak on a specific manner with authority.
Even if we assume for the moment that these people understand the concept of the Nazi Holocaust (regardless of whether they believe it happened), the idea that sticks with them is the industrial aspect of it. The Nazi Holocaust is defined for most people through its complex network of Concentration Camps, Death Camps, railroads, and general expediency.
As an Assyrian, when discussing the Seyfo and the Armenian Genocide with Deniers (or the uninformed). their first questions are rarely concerning the population decreases, whether civilians were targeted, and which political figures issued genocidal threats, but often are "where were the concentration camps?" and "where were the gas chambers?", as if those were the markers of genocide. By and large (although there are cases of railcars and concentration camps in Western Anatolia), most of the Seyfo, Armenian Genocide, and Native American genocide were performed with "death squads" more than any industrialized process.
“I’m sick and tired of people lying” *Continues to lie about almost everything thereafter* lol
You know I can imagine some high schooler who saw Stefan's video try to debate a teacher about the things shown in it and just keep whining about how the accepted information is false because of "white guilt revision" and I just feel bad for the teacher in this situation.
I actually did see several students make the arguments to our history teacher similar to Stefan's arguments.
boafewa hserf its a common occurrence in canada. White canadians HATE the truth.
I’m in hs and I have several classmates like this, all middle class white guys lol.
I had a few classmates like this. All conspiracy theorists and Nazi sympathizers
I was in the opposite camp, sadly most Teachers in the US are on Stefan’s side and won’t even mention natives and if you bring it up they silence you saying “THIS IS AMERICAN HISTORY, Tony words”. Luckily I had one art teacher who really blew my mind on just how massively fucked US history is from the other side.
Thanks for this series. Molyneux is the laughing stock of historians everywhere. Sad thing is he holds an MA on the subject. Amazing how he ever managed to graduate with such ridiculous beliefs
I was gonna diss his credentials but then I found out he got his BA from McGill and MA from UofT, and he lives in my old home town. What the fuuuuuck?
The answer is simple: he knows its all bullshit. He knows that he is lying. He doesn't care. His goal isnt to educate.
He'd pretty much have to, with the sheer amount of stuff he's skipping over, & how common knowledge much of it is.
Getting an MA in history with misguided beliefs is relatively easy. He could have written on an uncontroversial topic while hokding controversial beliefs. I'm in a MA program currently and I've met a few students like that.
A true Canadian embarrassment.
Despite not being Irish, Molyneux was born in Ireland. I would just like to sincerely and unironically apologise on behalf of my country...
I doubt he will do that as the irish are white so he will probably acknowledge the genocides inflicted upon them.
@@regularguy2807 unless he's doing some bullshit trying to defend the British empire, ofc
@Charles R. Law They were infected by smallpox, but unfortunately the smallpox passed away due to a severe Stefan Molyneux infection.
Not all white ppl are bad
@@aprillynn5993 Nope, just this one guy that OP wishes they'd aborted.
"Reading the history of what happened to the native americans, I was often outraged, sometimes disgusted, but I never felt personally guilty, just saddened by what people can do to one another. Acknowledging events from the past in which white people have been in the wrong isn't driven by guilt, just honesty. Understanding is not guilt. Hiding from the historical record, cherrypicking from it, whitewashing it to erase historical atrocities committed, that's real guilt in action right there."
i think that a lot of this irrational defense of white people as a whole comes from the constant onslaught of shaming white people as a whole so the focus revolves around white people as a whole instead of what those specific white people did or didn't do the problem is not one sided at all in fact it is very much a back and forth issue where both sides constantly provoke each other to continue on this ridiculous path
@@Zack-dk3pt I'm 100% white and I don't have a feeling that anyone is putting any kind of blame on me. And I do not fear extinction of white race, it's obviously a nonsense. Group think is idiocy. My people are people who try to follow conscience, not orders.
No one is really shaming white people as a whole, it's just a lot of people reading it into things which don't actually imply that at all
Thank you 👍👌👏👏👏👏👏well done
White people don't have to feel guilty that white people in the past did horrific things, but they need to recognize how much they benefit from the systems those white people put in place. And do something to help, if possible. And if you support policies that make life worse for minorities, you darn well deserve to feel guilty.
I don't have the pain tolerance to watch the original video... sorry
Eyyyyyyyy!
It’s Stefan’s psycho fucking eyes, trying to channel Manson vibes or smth. He’s one truly sick individual.
Maybe if they had like a nega-Shaun who could state right-wing arguments without artificially turning the controversy up to 11... Then again, their arguments can't really exist without controversy
And no one can fault you for that.
@August Denys 👍👍You’re not the only one. This guy and Black Pigeon, even listening to the short clips in Shaun’s video makes me think, Mommmeeeee, make it go awaaaay! 😂
Except Molypuke is worse; jeez, CAN. the. GUY! TALK!! NORM!! ully? He’s like William Shatner on steroids.
jesus christ, I got goosebumps when you described that massacre, what a horrifying thing. How can one deny such atrocities? Denying slaughters, means denying those people's lives, denying the existence of all the pain they've experienced. We usually laugh at people like Molyneux, but tbh they are evil, and we must do everything to stop them from succeeding in their tasks.
It would be like saying that we are committing genocide in the middle east. This is war, simple as that. If you are anti-war? Congrats join the club.
Colonisation wasn't a war. And in fact, killing innocent people in a war is a crime. You can easily find cases of people getting arrested for ethnic/religious cleansings during wars. And, actually, it's not like war and genocide are mutually exclusive. Example, armenian genocide, it took place during the first World War, but it was definitely and attempt to destroy all armenians by turkish government. Countries like Russian Empire were practically always at war, that doesn't mean circassian genocide can't be classified as a genocide either.
When did he deny that these things happened? What he is saying is that the decline in population was the result of disease and intermarriage. Massacres were abominable, and yes, they happened, but they do not account for the population decline.
Here, watch the original video. I have found the specific part where he talks about actual war between natives and Europeans: ruclips.net/video/WNHKDJzgqJg/видео.htmlm36s
Try to actually listen to what he says, not what you imagine he says.
the point you linked talks about natives slaughtering europeans, not the other way around. Link me a point, where he talks about europeans slaughtering the natives, and says it's abominable.
the cat, your allies, to scalp and mutilate your friends children....that is not war you fucking idiot
Well the Airbenders weren't completly wiped out because Aang was frozen in an Iceberg. So I guess it was not a genocide?
And eighty years later, there were four airbenders. If the population went up, how could it be a gencide?
Oh my god this is so good.
I mean if teenage girls can practise the way of the air bender, surely they aren’t extinct?
Pro-tip: If someone capitalizes dramatic words like "the Truth," they're insane and definitely wrong
Unless they’re talking about Fullmetal Alchemist Brotherhood.
@@thatsroughbuddy8742 Agreed. Every other title shall henceforth include only miniscule letters. All glory to FMA:B!
@@thatsroughbuddy8742 my first girlfriend turned into the 🌕
You can actually hear him capitalising words as he speaks
Yes thanks, TRUTH is already a Red flag to me
The last residential school in Canada closed in 1996. It was the Gordon's Residential School in Punnichy, Saskatchewan and was one of the most notorious for physical and sexual abuse cases.
This isn't at all ancient history; residential schools operated until two years before I was born.
And that's one year before my own birth. My brother was, like, 13 years old, for fuck's sake. He literally could have seen or read the news and remember it.
It happened after the fall of the Berlin wall. It happened after the end of the USSR. It fucking happened after the creation of the World Wide Web, god dammit!
People have a huge problem with historical. In simple terms the events of history will have have major effects on the present for hundreds of years to come. Hell we are still feeling the afffects of the French revolution... the first revolution. When people say things like slavery or the native genocide or residential school were years ago, in the grand scheme of things they weren't that long ago and we will be dealing with it for years to come. Hell it was still illegal to be gay when my dad was a kid... I'm 20 years old in Canada. Fuck out of here if gay rights isnt still a major issue. Guys like Stephan or whatever his name is pisses me off. Trying to cherry pick history to justify their hate. Fucking idiots
@@BisexualWrath The first country to legalize gay marriage was Netherlands in 2001, pretty sad that it even took that long honestly.
That's the same year pokemon released worldwide and became a sucsess
And now the bodies of dead children have been found under those schools. God I hate being white and yet feel lucky to be so perhaps it's white guilt. It doesn't help that people try and defend these atrocities. They often group all white people in their analogies and I guess it's made me do the same.
The man who illegally wiretapped his wife's therapy sessions and posed as a girl to up-vote his own videos is tired of people lying? Oh this should be bloody good.
Zefram Mann tried to pose as a girl,
Project AcuHope yes, there was always a similar message on the top of his comments section about how great he was, to which he would respond "thank you for your kind words" one day he forgot to log into or out of the account and posted it under his own name, followed by his own reply, "thank you for your kind words" For some reason it was always a girl that he posed as.
Some said the original comments were genuine and on free domain radio, he just copied them a cross, still a weird thing to do.
Zefram Mann ad hominem much?
Diane Auger, it's not an ad hominem attack if it's based on his behavior and what he's done. Clearly you don't know what ad hominem argumentum means.
Wait wait wait...what the actual fuck! I want to know more about this.
Stefan Molyneux was kicked from the platform yesterday. Shaun, I just got into your channel in the past day to listen to while working, and I absolutely love your calm approach in taking on these claims.
Yes
Yes
YES
Please never stop deconstructing all of Stefan's bs.
Don't ask Shaun to bother further rotting his brain by watching this stupid bald nazi asshole lol.
...I grew up in Colorado, literally about 5 miles away from the Arapaho National Forest, and I barely remember hearing about the Sandy Creek Massacre in school. Seriously made me emotional to learn about that tragedy in more depth. How someone can hear about that and think America is blameless is beyond me.
You can't blame America or the US for the actions of a crazed, militia commander. That is foolish thinking. Do you blame all native people for the actions of Geronimo?
@@thomassenbart Lol if you think he was an outlier, you're either misinformed or doing the misinforming.
@@karimqk1895 If I think who is an outlier? Are you talking about Sand Creek? If so, the question is about the use of the word genocide in regards to the Indians and their treatment at the hands of the Europeans and Americans.
Over the hundreds of years, in this war of cultures, there were massacres and atrocities all the way around. But the Whites did not want or attempt a genocide of the natives.
This is simply wrong. Read my fuller explanation below.
@@thomassenbart You said that the US cannot be held accountable for the actions of a solitary "crazed... commander." That's implying that him and his actions were antithetical to the US government's intentions. Which is patently false when looking at how explicit the US military and political leaders were about removing, eradicating, and/or subjugating natives who lived on land deemed useful or desirable by the United States. Y'know things like: intentionally slaughtering buffalo en masse to starve out Plains Indians and bring them to heel, the Trail of Tears, subsidizing white settlers in Indian territory, etc. It's absurd to claim that the US neither wanted nor performed genocidal actions, when contemporary writings of the time directly contradict that.
And to your point, maybe not _all_ these events would technically count as "genocidal," but the events that ARE undeniably genocidal in nature were very much on brand with the overall thrust of manifest destiny and similar ideologies. Those ideologies were central to US expansion, not some fringe movements which were not representative of US policy, like you seem to be saying.
@@karimqk1895 No, the US govt did not have a policy of eradication. Removal to Reservations, yes. Subjugating, yes. Which is why the Buffalo were killed, along with the skin trade of course.
Starving the Indians into submission was not about killing them but subjugating them. Once they were on the Reservations the Bureau of Indian Affairs was responsible for feeding the Indians and did, though with a great deal of corruption.
This same tactic was and is used in warfare through the ages. We impose blockades on countries just for this purpose. We did it to Iraq, Iran, Russian, N. Vietnam, Nazi and Imperial Germany, the Confederacy etc...
Yes the Trail of Tears was terrible but again, not genocide. The removal of the tribes to Oklahoma, did not kill them off and it was not the policy of the Jackson admin.
No, contemporary writings at the time do not contradict me. Produce the documents. Which President or administration sought the genocide/extermination of the Native population?
What events were undeniably genocidal in nature? I only know of one that would classify as such and it was not a governmental policy but was instituted by the miners and land grabbers in California after 1849.
Manifest destiny did not seek to kill off the Indians either. It was an ideal that believed the US was destined to control the continent from Sea to Sea.
The idea of settling the West, making the great American desert into farm land and making use of the vast interior of the country, which was overwhelmingly uninhabited, though the plains tribes obviously ranged across it, was the purpose of the Federal govt.
I would argue this policy was not genocidal at all and allowed for the feeding of the world via making American agriculture amazingly productive. A civilizational and global good.
Also, by the time of the founding of the USA. The vast majority of indigenous Americans had already died but not due to genocide but disease. 90% of all native died in this manner and without ever contacting a European or American.
The number of Indians in 1783 across the entirety of North America, would have been in the hundreds of thousands. The continent was mostly uninhabited.
The massacres, such as Wounded Knee and Sand Creek killed hundreds of people, not millions. Obviously they were horrible but so too were all of the Comanche raids in Texas and Mexico, the Indian on Indian warfare where torture and indiscriminate killing and enslavement were the norm, the attacks on pioneers or settlers throughout the period. It was all rough business.
The way that the natives were treated was abominable in general however, it was not genocidal.
My great great grandmother was Lakota Sioux. When she was a little girl, she was separated from her family and sent to western Pennsylvania to be educated "as a white girl". She never really talked about it much, according to her daughters and grandchildren who knew her, she was very quiet and drank herself to death. We don't even know her real name, all we have left of her existence is a marriage certificate and a death certificate using her English-given name.
"I stole some things from your house but I didn't steal EVERYTHING so it doesn't count as a legit robbery"
as a native studies student, I feel this video goes to easy on Stefan (and yes I've seen his video too). the atrocities committed against native people were undoubtedly worse and more frequent than what native groups have done to settlers, (there is one example in Virginia where a native allegedly stole a cup from a settlers house and in return had his village raided and their crops salted) but even if you use his definition of genocide, that you have to succeed in getting rid of the group for it to be genocide, than it still applies to native people. There are First Nations that were completely destroyed (as in no members of that nation left today) such as the Beothik of Newfoundland. That is a native group that no longer exists because of English colonists, this is genocide in the Americas even by Stefan's definition.
Superb rebuttal. I'm actually more offended and outraged at the notion that we as Americans can ignore atrocities so egregious as Sand Creek and call ourselves a just and moral society. Just sad. Thanks for sharing.
I grew up in Colorado and they never even mentioned the Sand Creek Massacre in school. You would think that's kind of an important bit of local history, no? -_-
@@erinhaury5773 history is written by the victors
Abhorrent fact: These atrocities are not covered in any comprehensive way by the American education system.
This allows it to happen again, or disguises it if it is already happening.
Source: I made it up
@@gloverfox9135 My sources are actually history. Look it up. You'll learn more if you read.
@@synthdriver8817 Have you been to every single school in the U.S.? If not, how can you claim that they’re not covered in the U.S. education system? Oh and btw, history is not a source to find out if schools teaches a certain subject. You’d have to go through the curriculum of EVERY single school in the U.S. which I’d wager you didn’t.
Either that, or you just didn’t pay attention when you were in history class. In that case, it’s YOUR fault. It’s usually people who don’t pay attention in class that later on complain that they didn’t learn anything. Maybe stop using your phone all fucking class and look at the board every once in a while.
@gloverfox9135 I was homeschooled dipshit. Did you know I never had a proper history curriculum and was limited to Abecka Books, which were whitewashed to hell and back? They mentioned nothing of the trail of tears and MLK Jr. (I'm surprised they mentioned him at all) who was whitewashed to only say in the most milk toast tone possible that "racism in all forms should be abolished." Nothing was mentioned about redlining, the civil rights Era, or how black men could simply be beaten in the streets by white men. Nothing was mentioned of MLK"s socialist attitudes, FDR's socialist accomplishments, or of the atrocious treatment we wrought on the natives. You don't learn much when your parents have full legal authority to hold you from truth. Same thing for teachers in the South who teach "states rights" or discriminate against trans people in the classroom. Not much learning is going on in the classrooms in TX where teachers are allowed to teach that Moses was the founder of our constitution and that our constitution is based on the Ten Commandments, which is a lie.
Big props to doing a whole response to him without calling him any derogatory terms. I could never lmao
Within the first few minutes I would have called Stefan a dumbass like 4 times
@@heavenly2k Oh, you're a lot nicer than me.
It makes my blood boil that JonTron, an IRANIAN IMMIGRANT, watches this guy. If Molly had his way Jon never would have been allowed into the USA.
silverstarinthesky Well JonTron is a disingenuous hypocrite
Jon's father was Iranian, and he probably sees himself as "honorary white".
jontron does say some things that at least i can agree with but like almost everyone in this world there will always be things that you can mutually agree on and disagree on there is nothing wrong with that and i believe that it is irrational to hate someone because you cant agree with them on every little thing.
silverstarinthesky it’s a shame since I actually like his content but my god he’s an idiot when it comes to politics
He mostly claims to just to stir the pot and genuinely irk people as it attracts idiots and views. Plus it was from the 2016 hype where you have even center left people supporting Trump especially after Sanders was cheated just to stick it to the establishment.
With his definition of genocide, Pol Pot would love him so much.
Stefan should work as the propaganda minister of China, he is great at spinning things
@@DudeWhoSaysDeez That thought is genuinely scary to me. He'd be good at his job, and that's what scares me.
@@sundayschoolflunkie3979 "Academic philosophers do not take the idea of Molyneux as a philosopher seriously. American philosopher David Gordon wrote of Molyneux's 2007 book Universally Preferable Behavior: A Rational Proof for Secular Ethics that, "He fails, and fails miserably. His arguments are often preposterously bad."'
What makes a good propaganda department is the ability to remove the other forms of criticism.
He'd just be a figurehead, laughed at by those outside of his reach, similar to how Baghdad Bob would claim American soldiers were commiting suicide to escape Iraqi troops and denying the prescence of American Armored Infantry despite being able to hear tanks in the background.
A propaganda department featuring Stefan Molyneux would be good despite him, not because of him. His power comes from embracing one lie, then another contradictory lie without relinquishing the first.
@@Demiglitch Well Molyneux is quite an effective propagandist currently, and double think is an effective method of propagandising, having contradictory ideas isn't necessarily a hindrance. Neither is having bad arguments, as long as you use other strategies.
He doesn't look any good at his job from a leftist perspective, but a centre or centre-right person may be more susceptible to his propaganda.
And Slobodan Milosevic
What is so difficult for me to understand, as a white person, is how Stefan feels so very *personally* attacked by this. Like, if he's so worried about what Native Americans think of him and his white heritage, maybe he should consider not being a such a defensive jerkoff
And then, WE are the ones who are easily triggered...
Reza Lustig
It is racist. And anyone who quotes Ben Shapiro loses all credibility.
GarrusN7 I think Ben Shapiro is the joke for not realizing his facts are his feelings. The formula can remain true regardless of whoever is using it.
Abusers have a vested interest in being justified in their dirty deeds, so they can continue doing it without being called out. Slavery in the US is abolished but prisons are full of black men with white men making money off of it. Using your brain to recognize the pattern gets you labeled “race baiter” or playing the race card.
Femme Futile The point is that blaming this on “white fragility” is racist. Labeling these kinds of behaviors as “white” or “black” or whatever else is always racist. The psychological “fragilities” That these behaviors arise from are common to and observable in everybody.
How can Stefan be so confident about these so called "Rules of War"?
It's not a "rule of war" unless both sides agree to those. And obviously the U.S. was not interested in abiding by ANY rule, treaty, or laws that should have prevented these atrocities. Let's also be clear that these were not equally situated troops on each side.
One side was mostly women and children with nothing but bows & arrows. The other side was a coordinated assembly of troops with guns, cannons, and other weapons.
To call it a war is a mockery.
More to the point, the Sand Creek Massacre happened during the American Civil War. We have a war to compare it with. If Sherman had rounded up all the women and children of Atlanta and shot each and every one of them dead in cold blood, you can be damn sure nobody would niggle over whether that was justified.
Skill issue. It was a war,many great wars,actually. They had to fight huge empires,with thousands of vicious warriors. You're insulting them by reducing them to savages. Not to mention they ARE NOT NATIVES AT ALL.
My parents were teachers. We're white and we live in California. Every year we'd have to learn/take a field trip to the missions what was going on there (slavery). I never felt personally responsible for the genocide or ashamed of my skin color. It's just a fact that people were ungodly racist and cruel and that white settlers were the ones committing a lot of crimes.
I don't identify too much with my race, but I do my Californian culture. A part of accepting that culture is accepting that some really, REALLY awful things happened in this state.
One sure-fire way to tell if someone's insecure with their racial identity is if they're out to justify the crimes of a particular group and demonize those they were oppressing. It's the classic "everyone's wrong but me" argument most school yard bullies use to help them sleep at night.
Get rid of the monetary system on the planet, and everybody can live without all technology. Everybody will have to pitch in to clean up the environment. :)
People ought to look up the Mexican-Comanche Wars of the 1800s. I imagine Mexico would have been glad to take over more of the present day United States land. Before Mexico there were the Spanish and the Aztecs. History is one big sham. It is like people selling used cars.
@@booglegoo6526 Yes, History is a contiuing narrative. And no country has a 'perfect' history where they've done nothing wrong. It's fine to be proud of your country but it's inhumane to deny your own history
In regards to an apology, people probably have a concern about wanting money then. Many people are quite aware of preferences for jobs and opportunities given to women and minorities for many years. Also, a lot of people have immigrated from other countries in recent decades. Between the late 1800s and early 1900s a lot of ethnic groups came to the United States, including my hometown.
A federal botanist was working on invasive species. He told me of his western and eastern European ancestry. I am all western European ancestry. I told him we had to leave. He was amused. He did leave, but only to work in another state.
I don't understand how this is such a hard concept for some people to graps. Like... I'm German. How do you think I could live with myself if I felt _personally responsible_ for the holocaust? And also, who could possibly benefit from that?
Stefan: **puts someone in a cage with a hungry bear**
Bear: **mauls them**
Stefan: damn that sucks, wasn't my fault tho I saw the bear do it
"He seems to think that the only acceptable definition of genocide is the total, unanimous and unceasing attempt of one people to wipe out another people."
No, no. He only seems to accept it if they also _succeed_ in wiping them out.
*British colonisers:* "We're going to *deliberately* infect these blankets with smallpox as an act of biological warfare, while we pretend to make peace with these natives."
*Modern Brits:* "Damn, that's pretty messed up..."
*Stefan "But I'm not a Nazi" Molyneux:* _"I'm gonna pretend I didn't see that!"_
Just a minor correction: Our last residential school only shut down in 1996. ...Which is so many different kinds of fucked up. I was alive back then. This was in my lifetime.
I have two siblings born in 1978 and 1980 respectively. That was during a time when half of all countries in the world were dictatorships (or something like that, I don't remember in detail).
As an American, hearing the story of Sand Creek makes me ashamed and sad
Be shameful of your ancestors and be happy you're better than them.
Before Europeans came to North America, Natives were killing and torturing each other. This Shaun guy is just promoting white guilt.
Kauhma You fucking idiot. Europe’s history is that of bloodshed.
“B-b-but that’s because Europe isn’t culturally homogenous!!!!!11”
And neither were the natives of the Americas. The ink drying in the European history book is scarlet, courtesy of the blood of fellow Europeans and the collateral damage levied on foreigners whom Europeans exploited to get the advantage on one another.
Don’t act so high and mighty. Europe committed genocide on the natives, and that’s all there is to it.
@@kampakala1544 Its funny how you ignore the fact that literally any and all other races could be chalked up to that same consensus , unless you want to forget the people who created such wondrous contraptions of torture such as the Judas cradle , The Iron maiden , and literally have a term for doing something barbaric named after an era in which they existed..
And I sure as he'll am not talking about Native Americans.
@@charleswashington3973
"You fucking idiot." Is not an argument
There has been bloodshed in every part of the world. So, what is your point?
It is funny how you liberal better people always ignore the wrongdoings of non-europeans.
I can't find it now, but I remember some obscure politician arguing that talking about the treatment of the Native Americans (as well as slavery, for that matter), was inherently unpatriotic *even if true*, because if you loved your country you would never present it in a bad light.
I suppose these people are a step above Molyneux, as they at least admit it could all be true, and that they simply want to stop hearing about it.
no one A former prime minister of Australia is against what he calls "the black armband version of history".
That is a pretty common attitude actually, at least here in Texas. If you question the greatness or the goodness of the US, you are termed "unamerican." It's not even that they mean you are wrong, just that you are bad and should shut it.
I think examining the evils of all ancestry is helpful. Just as humans are 3 dimensional, so are societies. You take the good, but it's equally, if not more valuable to learn from the bad to protect the future. You say, "this general (or President, or leader) may have accomplished great things for one portion of a group here... But he did it using tactics that are in the least unethical if not downright vile to other portions. As much as we can celebrate the accomplishments, we need to examine for the future how we can diminish evils in the methodology" etc. You acknowledge to take responsibility. Hiding from it only hurts the future by risk of repeat.
In public school I was taught that the Natives started it and deserved what they got. I was horrified when I got to high school and started to learn some of the truth.
Oh God that's horrifying. What kind of public school did you go to?
@@Distimmer a small town one, like 160 kids in my grad class I think
They really did their best not to educate us. Also learned that slavery "wasn't that bad and people forget about Irish slavery so what about that, huh?????" Just really fucked up.
I was taught more that whites killing Indians wasn’t so bad because the tribes also fought with & killed each other. Goes with the argument that Africans sold other Africans into trans-Atlantic slavery, therefore white people doing it wasn’t that bad either. Small religious schools in my case, and my parents still believe both those points.
I remember that we learned that we started to get their gold by giving them shiny marbles.
The person that debunked this for us was our religion teacher. The priest asked us if we are really just going to assume these people were that dumb, and we discussed racism and colonialisation for a full day.
I'm no longer christian, but this man was just so great, for how he decided to have this talk with us 9-12 year old children. Only later in life I learned that this is not the norm for what christianity is about, but I think the fact that he told us that black people are black because they live closed to the sun and have therefore evolved like that, that is great.
As a Canadian native myself, all i can say is thank you for making this video.
I'm sorry
QuinnOMatic no need to be sorry, That has all been said and done. But the people that try to deny or justify this are the ones who should apologize
We should be conscious of how native Canadian peoples were and are treated here, and work to fix things. I had a client a few months ago who said he was an environmentalist, but disagreed that aboriginals are being affected by the tar sands in Alberta. I saw a documentary in college about how the fish in their streams are growing tumors, so I knew he was full of shit. One of my coworkers is currently suing the Canadian government for taking her away from her reserve as a baby and giving her to a white family. There's still a lot of work left to do it seems. I hope things are getting better :/
No sympathy from me. Canadian natives are causing their own downfall. I'll not have it blamed on me any longer. Not with all the special privileges native canadians enjoy.
Stellar Gnoma that's what's great about our country. nationalism made Nazism, neoconservatism, and Islamic extremism. we have no strong national identity to cloud our judgement and making us act like fascist morons (though there are still people like Alexandre bissonett and Lauren southeron). fuck nationalism, fuck tribalism, fuck tradition and xenophobia. let's all hug and sing kumbaya, and keep Canada open and free. :)
it's important to note that attempted genocide of native americans even reaches all the way to the 80s and 90s, at least. my mother was almost unwilfully sterilized after having my older sister in 1990. and according to my grandmother, that kind of thing wasn't uncommon in non-indian hospitals in the area
The last Residential School in Canada closed in 1996 actually, not the 80s.
Which actually makes things kinda sad about the Canadian Stanley Cup drought considering the fact that the last time that a Canadian team won the Stanley Cup was in 1993...
Glad someone mentioned this.
Excellent! ... There is no collective guilt. The fact that I, old white German man, benefitted from the horrible acts committed by my ancestors must not blind me to the historical truth.
25:05 - 25:56
Normally i am very happy to follow your advice to watch the original video but hearing stefan molyneux talk for half an hour is a lot to ask.
Too true.
I shudder at the thought of watching his 2 and a half hour long video on the fall of Rome
And Stefan Molyneux wonders why genuine academia don't take him seriously.
As a Canadian, I wanted to add a couple points about the Canadian Residential Schools. The last one closed a decade later than reported here. The last one was closed in 90's.
Recently, there were nearly 1000 unmarked graves of children at two of these schools.
Almost every single indigenous Canadian alive today either was a direct victim of this or is the child of direct resident of these schools.
I am repeatedly disgusted by people who insist that the horrors inflicted on people, particularly people of color, throughout American history were "not that bad" or "the sjws are lying about history." This lunatic is denying genocide, go to his video and people deny that slavery was horrific, plus they have interesting views on "The Jews," and etc. I feel defeated when I realize that this psychos actually exist, I thought no one could be this awful or willfully ignorant.
The implication that any perceived slight against white people is an egregious crime but natives and blacks "can take it" is also sickening.
Same with imperialism. Went to a Christian school in USA, had a BJU textbook on history, said imperialism is bad, but at least they're being converted. Sickened me.
@@alexanderchristopher6237 I've only gone to public "secular" schools and I've been taught that too. It's so depressing
Stefan is so wrong! I know this for a fact because my deceased husband went through hell in boarding schools, being taken away from his family and he ran away a lot, but in spite of that he grew to be an amazing strong person a fine athlete and a leader in the community. He was a veteran of Viet Nam where they made him a sniper and after three months they gave him some training. He was in college and had a family but they did it anyway. My name is Roberta Stone and I am so proud to be associated with him.
Your husband was Native American? It's not clear from your account as "boarding schools" are still around and a lot of rich European/American/Asian parents send their children to them. Did you mean Indian Schools or Residential Indian Schools?
@@jayviescas7703 they were called "boarding schools"
@@jayviescas7703 Yeah, these residential schools were known as "Indian boarding schools" in the US.
That feeling when you call Native American “gene pool” being diluted “flourishing” but you consider the same happening even hypothetically to Europeans a “white genocide”. :P
He obviously meant that it was increasing in total admixture. And btw, he's an individualist, not a white nationalist.
*+Jordan Myers* Not an argument!
Have you got any evidence for that? Also are you aware of the fact that Arabic people are a linguistic group not a genetically distinct racial grouping?
+Jordan Myers
Would you adhere to the same logic if you were on the other end of the stick? Let's say Aliens with superior Technology come to Earth and want to kill us all. Would you be okay with that?
Jordan Myers If we look at the rest of the world, it seems city building civilizations require large population growth which is sustainable through farming. Quite simply, if you can't feed a city, the city will fail.
Additionally, in colder regions people need to move to warmer regions with more food in the winter, unless they can store food in sufficient quantities to last through the winter. In case of a bad harvest, it needs to last through 2 winters. If it doesn't, the city will die. In warmer climates people can have more harvests per year, resulting in more food and a more stable supply of food. There were loads of different ways different tribes dealt with this.
Due to the winter, people also need to build shelters that are better at keeping the temperature, or they need to burn more wood. If they burn more wood than grows near the city, the city will die. Running out of wood is seen by some as a major reason for the fall of Cahokia, a large city near St Louis.
There was also the onset of the Little Ice Age from about 1300 onwards, which may have prevented further growth of existing settlements in colder climates, and even lead to their decline.
Solving these problems takes time, and chance. In Central America there were fewer problems to solve, so they had a better chance to reach the city building stage first.
Once all of these problems are solved, population growth will likely still be slower in colder climate, slowing down the time it needs to grow from small settlements to large city states. As the size of the settlements grows, trade between settlements is more likely to grow and therefore the rate of advancement of knowledge is likely to increase. These effects can be - and have been - countered through other effects such as traditions, caste systems, religion, government policy, wars, epidemics, natural disasters, etc. But these effects seem to be far less dependent on climate than the consumption of firewood and the amount of harvests per year are. For example the black death affected all of Europe, regardless of latitude.
In contrast, in Europe the knowledge of growing crops was imported as was much of the population, so they didn't have to solve all of these problems on their own. Add to that the Roman Empire and the Migration Period, and you see how these developments can very quickly become completely random and unpredictable.
Leave North America and go South and you'd have found some of the most advanced cities in the world if you were in the right time period, big buildings and agriculture isn't a European thing, you'll have to look elsewhere for supremacy, like genocide, Europeans probably out genocide anyone.
The residential school system was mandated in the US as well. In both the US and Canada, different armed forces were used to forcibly kidnap children from their tribes and send them to those schools.
Also happened in Australia. It was called the stolen generation and was really recent
On the topic of white guilt: I have found that right-wing people often conflate guilt and responsibility.
They argue that because you didn't comit past atrocities you are not guilty of them and therefore hold no responsibility towards them. What they don't seem to recognise is that guilt is not necessairy for responsibility. If you come from a culture that has commited atrocities in the past it is your responsibility to be sensitive, informed and critical about these issues. You're not responsible for what happened, but you're very much responsible for that never happening again. To admit that however would mean to admit that issue at hand has nothing to do with guilt. But I guess "white responsibility" doesn't have the same ring as "white guilt".
So, where is Asian or Arab guilt? They committed equal atrocities in the past.
I've also noticed that they take credit for the accoplishments of thier race, but flat out deny the atrocities it has committed
That’s pretty brilliant.
Jernej Blatnik it exists, see the Japanese government’s deliberate attempts to erase the existence of comfort women and other atrocities committed against other Asian nations, notably Korea in the 1900s.
BUT
that isn’t an excuse to say that all people are violent, all sides are bad. to use other nations to avoid feeling bad about the things your nation has done is cowardly and actual white guilt. like fuck off. I’m Korean and hate the Japanese government but that doesn’t mean that Native American genocide didn’t happen or that it’s some how justifiable. don’t use other nations histories as a catch all dipshit
@@gben82 I'd say it is rather a question of nationality and the respective affiliation to the group carrying out these atrocities. Boko Haram are a certain ethnic and religious group who call upon certain terms that imply certain values or meanings (these values can differ between individuals, e.g. Islam has a different meaning for a moderate Muslim than it has for an ISIS member). I believe that whoever belongs to that group or calls upon this specific term of values has the responsibility to define this term in morally sound way, aka be a decent human being. I personally am German, so I believe my responsibility is to show the world that being German does not mean being a fascist and genocidal monster. The big difference is however that Boko Haram are still active, while the German Reich does not exist anymore, so it is far easier to determine who is actually responsible (or guilty, for that matter) for Boko Haram's crimes, which of course does not include every African or even black person on this planet.
Even though you might not see this, as a Saulteaux-Anishinaabe native I'd like to express my thanks towards you shedding a light on history that many would otherwise prefer to censor and call CRT. Thank you💙
13:06 "You've been a very naughty boy, you tried to kill X million people!"
"But I only killed two."
"Oh, alright then. Get out of here, I never want to see you in this courtroom ever again."
It's really refreshing to hear logic applied to Stefan. I was unfortunately introduced to his videos by my dad who uses his Smart TV to binge watch them as well as other right wing and conspiracy videos. So much is wrong that it's hard to know where to begin to explain it to him, but he doesn't listen when I try anyway. Thanks for demonstrating sanity. ❤ It calms my nerves.
Wow I am so sorry, it's probably really difficult to love a person that has fallen down that rabbithole.
wow as a native myself i knew this vid would b hard to watch but im glad i did and im glad u made it ty shaun
Granted, when the US tried to remove my tribe there weren't any large scale massacres like Bear River, Sand Creek or Wounded Knee. Still they did confiscate or destroy food stores, livestock, and crops. This was very intentional and it resulted in a lot of people starving to death and being forced into surrender. The irony being that the Army basically said "surrender to us and we'll feed you", but of course the military didn't have any food either. Of the thousands who died during that time few of them were outright killed violently. Instead the real causes of death were starvation, exposure, and diseases. To put it in perspective the US government hanged the Confederate officer in charge of the Andersonville POW camp for failing to feed the Union prisoners there of which a third of them died. Of the near 10,000 of my forbearers who were sent to an internment camp almost half of them died there. No justice for that though the Army basically said "oops" and that was that.
Yes but you talking about it makes white people fell bad so SHHHHHHHH
What nation are you a part of?
As a Canadian, the prison/labour camps, previously known as residential schools were more than "harsh". They cruelly tortured children. Currently, in July 2021, there have been about three discoveries of unmarked graves, one a mass grave, which contained a child about three years old among the other dead children, and the other two were traditional graveyards but were also unmarked. If someone asks me, "were they really that bad?" I only have one sentence to demonstrate that they were: a nun built an electric chair as a "punishment" for the First Nations children. A nun... So far, I have not heard that any of the kids bore marks of deadly violence, so it's probable that some large fraction died of disease exacerbated by malnutrition and hunger. Some education and the reason I will not use "residential schools" and instead call them prison/labour camps because that's what they were. The last one did not close until 1996!
Liar! Provide proof for your acusations.
@@sessayu2502 which ones? Are the actual pictures of unmarked graves being dug up not enough to convince you that people died? How about the catholic church refusing to open their records? Not suspicious enough for you? Okay, are you going to tell me all those First Nations people who testified at the Truth and reconciliation hearings colluded and then lied en masse? What part do you think is a lie? And, for that matter, why do you think it's a lie? Are you going to spew some ignorant racist crap about status cards, taxes, and paying for distant, isolated communities? C'mon, Don't be the usual internet goof who just says "liar" and privides no context or evidence. If that's all you have, then I can only conclude you're a reactionary troll who never could get through high school and believes the only reason he makes minimum wage is "'Cause some immigrant stole my good job". But go ahead, surprise me...
It wasn't a prison because they weren't put there for crimes and they also didn't do labor (they did learn English but didn't produce anything)
@@LightPink their crime was being native american lol. you think the holocaust prison camps weren't prisons bc the jews did nothing wrong?
Residential schools were a tool of genocide themselves.
What the Old Cheyenne Women
at Sand Creek Knew
(Sand Creek Massacre: November 29, 1864)
by Red Hawk
All along the creek bank
they crouched holding the children
until the last warrior was dead
and the soldiers turned slowly towards them
like men in a bad dream.
The old women knew what was coming.
All along the creek bank
they tore off their shawls,
their shirts, their scarves,
anything close at hand
and they covered the eyes of the children.
The old women knew that if young children
saw what men in a bad dream could do
they would not die a clean death
so they covered the eyes of the children
and made no move to run.
The old women knew it was time.
All along the creek bank
they sat with their eyes wide open
watching and rocking the swaddled children
and when the soldiers opened fire
they tumbled into the creek,
the dead children in their arms
with eyes covered
so they would not see
what men in a bad dream could do.
All along the creek bank
The old women knew how to move
from one dream to another
And take the children safely through;
the old women knew
what men in a bad dream could do.
Damn, that massacre description...ugh. Even horror films can't top that.
Damn I got angry when i heard that.
I wish there was a way to watch these videos without having to hear Stefan's voice.
“Doesn’t Stephan realize his arguments could also be applied to the holocaust” I think he’s well aware of it, and he’s hoping his audience picks up on it.
I'm very interested in the truth about things!
Peter Coffin
NEEEEEEEEERD!!!
Free me from our marxist delusions!
Please do!
You like truth? I LIKE TRUTH ALSO! ALSO THINGS! What do you think about true things?!
that's ironic
Stefan: "'ATTEMPTED genocide?' Now honestly what IS that? Do they give a Nobel Prize for 'ATTEMPTED chemistry,' do they?"
"I am now convinced that the crimes of this guilty land shall never be purged away but with blood." -John Brown
The greatest American hero.
Shaun: "You don't get off the hook just because you're bad at genocide."
Perfect statement. 10/10
Failing to kill someone is till attempted murder. Why should Genocide be treated any different?
@@henrymudgett2646 exactly their point?
@@dontspikemydrink9382 Yeah, I’m adding to it
@@henrymudgett2646 understood
I know this video is old but I just want to give you a heartfelt thank you for making it. The modern rehabilitation of white supremacists like molyneux popping up like weeds is terrifying. These people rely on targeted history revisionism, and anyone who tears down there misinformation is greatly appreciated.
Lol Molyneux is not a white supremacist, and the fact that you think he is (and spread rumors to that affect) shows that you're either misinformed or otherwise intentionally disseminating bullshit. Stefan has repeatedly stated that he does not believe any race is superior over another. Actual white supremacists have no issue loudly and vocally telling everyone that they believe in white racial superiority. Stefan's not that guy.
snozzlehead92 shut the fuck up. How fucking stupid do you have to believe that someone can’t be a white supremacist unless they say “I’m a white supremacist!” Loudly. How fucking stupid.
snozzlehead92 he is a race realist. No question. Did he not say so himself? Are we not aware of the same Molyneux
@@cnacma LMAO 😂 can I ask you a question do you believe there are black supremacists? like Louis Farrakhan, Khalid Abdul Mohammed, Tariq Nasheed etc they are not called black supremacists?
@@snozzlehead92 Makes as much sense as me denying I'm a communist.
None of this surprises me about Stefan. He's broken many ethical (and probably legal) norms. The fact he's discussed the details of his wife's therapy sessions on his show kinda shows you the kind of creep he is. I have to wonder at what point are the legal authorities going to shut this dirt bag down? Time will tell.
Stefan Molyneux really exacerbates my tensions.
Satyr Ghost
( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°)
:P
Satyr Ghost there are many dogs & some pigs who SURF. I hope that undeniable truth relieves the tension.
I tend to avoid him, even criticism of him, because he is so intolerably repulsive and a disgusting human being.
lol nah
I've yet to see either Molyneux or BPS make anything within a multiverse of resembling so much as the whisper of a suggestion of a good argument. But you do you.
Stefan’s analogy of hugging a loved one while unknowingly having a disease aged like Fucking milk
Came to the comments just for this
Indeed
Oh yeah!
;-;
Native American history is so sad. So much cruelty has been inflicted on them.
Any feelings about the cruelty inflicted on them by OTHER NATIVE AMERICANS? The Sioux on the Pawnee? The Incas on everyone? The Aztecs on...etc, etc...
Native American warfare was far more cruel and barbarous than anything the white man.
@@LazlosPlane what Native Americans did to other Native Americans is no where near as bad as what the Europeans did to Native Americans (And a lot of other people), stop lying.
@@communismyes5607 www.amazon.com/War-Before-Civilization-Peaceful-Savage/dp/0195119126
@@communismyes5607 For example, at Crow Creek in South Dakota, archaeologists found a mass grave containing the remains of more than 500 men, women, and children who had been slaughtered, scalped, and mutilated during an attack on their village A CENTURY AND A HALF BEFORE COLUMBUS. The Crow Creek massacre seems to have occurred just when the village's fortifications were being rebuilt. All the houses were burned, and most of the inhabitants were murdered. This death toll represented more than 60% of the village's population, estimated from the number of houses to have been about 800.
Grow up.
@@LazlosPlane😂😂😂 no it isn't you f**king idiot. If they were more brutal to each other they wouldnt have lived coast to coast and not been wiped out 95% by American colonists. How do you come up with that logic numb nuts 😂😂😂
Stefan Molyneux is one of the few internet personalities that I can say I truly hate. Like I dislike Sargon, Undoomed, Blaire White, etc. But I HATE Stefan Molyneux.
He disgust me as well.
Translation: He obliterates my ideology with facts and I'm unable to present a valid rebuttal. As a cry-baby liberal, my natural response is to throw a temper tauntraum.
@@lylez00 it's kind of funny that you post this under a video of debunking Stefan's bullshit
@@lylez00 do you even watch the video?
@@MesaAufenhand I watched the first part of it. I've heard decades of white bashing, so it's easy to see where it's headed.
'I recommend you watch his video first' lmao no I'm not putting myself through that shit nothing surprises me with Stefan Molyneux anymore that guy is fucking insane
lmao his justification that genocide could not have happened because there were still some left afterwards kmn
Every genocide has to be completely successful to count, I guess...
No such thing as failed genocide. Lol.
You, a British man, are teaching me more about American history than any of the schools I went to (both in and out of the US). Never even crossed my mind to do in-depth research about how the Native Americans were treated, planning on doing that soon thanks to you!
I'm so glad we live in the age of information, nazis would've risen again in the U.S by now if we weren't able to educate ourselves through alternative forms of media and instead relied on big news sources.
Dude, read actual history and do not rely on Shaun. He has some good commentary but is way off and highly assumptive with much of what he has to say.
@@thomassenbart Yes, I'm aware. I looked into this subject after watching the video and then made my comment, don't worry :)
@@ernest73 Although technically correct, this ignores the differences in technology between the Native Americans and the Europeans and the disparity of sheer numbers. "BUT THERE WERE CASUALTIES ON BOTH SIDES" is genuinely stupid to say. It wasn't 50/50, not even fucking close. Did you even watch the video?
To be fair you have to be old enough to learn about war crimes to learn about war crimes
This is the first video I got to be a Patron of and I'm SO glad it's this one. Native American issues are near and dear to my heart and I appreciate Shaun's efforts to fight misinformation regarding them.
great analysis as always shaun, and you gracefully handled a very serious and upsetting topic
"Liberal leftist white guilt Marxist professor types."
Oh god... So many conflicting adjectives.
"I strongly recommend you go watch his video to make sure I don't take anything out of context"
Me: Okay
RUclips: The account this video is associated with has been terminated.
Me: Hmmm...I wonder why
Stefan Molyneaux is considered an intelligent and well-read person among the alt-right. What a low standard.
Edit: Just saw this video recommendation: "Stefan Molyneux - Why High IQ People Can Handle Free Speech & Low IQ People Can't". lol
More accurate would be "Why idiots think saying racist shit is part of free speech and the rest of the world doesn't".
Astralnaught What do you mean? Poland is currently being turned into a dictatorship, how the fuck is that helpful to a nation?
Astralnaught You must be a troll. Even the most ardent people on the alt-right aren't so quick to defend dictatorships. (So much for western values, huh?)
L0LWTF1337 I have an IQ of 135 and a PhD and I believe that racist speech comes under the provision of free speech, you are either free to have your own opinions and express them or not. Anything else is a slippery slope as it requires some authority to police what is acceptable and what is not. Watch some sargon and styxhexenhammer videos for a more elaborate explanation.
Ironic since he actively blocks anyone who doesn't follow suit from his channel and forum.