What's the Worst Event in History?

^Speaking of unnoticed brutalities and genocides, nanjing rape seems to be awfuly unknown to people I spoke to. In the wikipedia article, the summary of the event doesn't seem as bad when compared to some other stuff we know of, but the horrific parts are further down in the text, mostly testimonies and descriptions.

Also, wikipedia seems to have left out the parts about evicerations and vivisections on live people and prisoners, as well as some questionable experiments. Although I could be wrong as I only skimmed through the article.

leaf's wierd:

I'm surprised you didn't pick the lynching of African-Americans that occurred up until the mid-1900's, but slavery was quite bad as well.

I honestly want to say lynchings though. Less people died from it than the holocaust or the middle passage, but those people weren't killed, they were tortured in the most inhumane ways with spectators numbering in the thousands. I'd rather not go into details as they are incredibly gruesome. Just... the fact that this happened, and it happened for centuries, makes me completely sick, knowing that humans knowingly did it and considered it a form of entertainment. The holocaust had more decency, and barbarism doesn't even come close to describing it...

Also a close runner up for me goes to the Armenian Genocide. Mainly because of how unnoticed it went and how few people are even aware that it happened. It's what directly inspired Hitler's holocaust, and though less people died in it than the holocaust, the holocaust only happened because the Armenian Genocide happened without any repercussions.

I guess I had slavery lead up to all of that madness.

And I hate that I never know anything about genocides but the Holocaust. I swear, American history is nothing but sugarcoated and censored truth of the ugly world and it's ugly people. I guess that's why I always did so poorly in history. We always learned about American or European history, and nothing on anyone else. I never really cared much about European history because I didn't feel represented enough.

ayanasioux:

I guess I had slavery lead up to all of that madness.

And I hate that I never know anything about genocides but the Holocaust. I swear, American history is nothing but sugarcoated and censored truth of the ugly world and it's ugly people. I guess that's why I always did so poorly in history. We always learned about American or European history, and nothing on anyone else. I never really cared much about European history because I didn't feel represented enough.

America censoring it? I wish that were the case...
Part of the reason the Armenian genocide isn't well known is because of how heavily censored it was, and still is, actually. Not by American though, by Turkey, the country responsible for it. They refuse to acknowledge that it even happened. I remember reading somewhere that Arnold Schwartzeneggar publicly called for a week of remembrance of it, and Turkey's government put a ban on all of his movies in retaliation.

I think it would even be fair to say Hitler's holocaust was the "sequel" to the Armenian genocide. The latter was committed during World War I, and was the systematic "cleansing" of the Ottoman Empire's population by killing off the Armenians, and quite a few other minorities. Hitler even said "After all, who remembers the Armenian genocide?" as part of his reason for doing the exact same thing to the Jews, only with a death toll about 10x larger.

ayanasioux:

I guess I had slavery lead up to all of that madness.

And I hate that I never know anything about genocides but the Holocaust. I swear, American history is nothing but sugarcoated and censored truth of the ugly world and it's ugly people. I guess that's why I always did so poorly in history. We always learned about American or European history, and nothing on anyone else. I never really cared much about European history because I didn't feel represented enough.

So while your 'not really caring' about European history because you 'didn't feel represented enough' is a completely genuine, apolitical and ideologically neutral feeling if Americans and Europeans 'don't really care' about non-American/European history they're 'sugarcoating and censuring truth of the ugly world and its ugly people'...

^ Your assumptions about me are kind of humerus. Its funny that out of everything I said, you're the only one that pinpointed that one thing. And I think you took that the wrong way, but I don't want to debate with you on it.

Worst event ever happened in history and why? Easy. European contact with the Americas. At least 90% of the indigenous population was dead within 40 years. General estimates say anywhere between 35 million - 70 million people inhabited North and South America at the point of European contact.

ayanasioux:

^ Your assumptions about me are kind of humerus. Its funny that out of everything I said, you're the only one that pinpointed that one thing. And I think you took that the wrong way, but I don't want to debate with you on it.

So funny that instead of explaining how I am wrong, you just said that you don't want to talk about it for no reason?

the sea:

Worst event ever happened in history and why? Easy. European contact with the Americas. At least 90% of the indigenous population was dead within 40 years. General estimates say anywhere between 35 million - 70 million people inhabited North and South America at the point of European contact.

Smallpox was responsible for most of those deaths and the disease would have been passed on even if contact had been made later or in other circumstances. Throughout the 18th century, on average 400,000 people died of smallpox in Europe every year, even in the 20th century (well, until 1977, the disease was eradicated then) when we had developed a vaccine and modern medical technology it still caused between 300 million and 500 million deaths.

kafka.:

Smallpox was responsible for most of those deaths and the disease would have been passed on even if contact had been made later or in other circumstances. Throughout the 18th century, on average 400,000 people died of smallpox in Europe every year, even in the 20th century (well, until 1977, the disease was eradicated then) when we had developed a vaccine and modern medical technology it still caused between 300 million and 500 million deaths.

There's also the Black Death, which killed off most of Europe's population.

kafka.:

So funny that instead of explaining how I am wrong, you just said that you don't want to talk about it for no reason?

I've grown to believe that debating with you is pointless because it seems that nothing I say gets through to you. All it does is upset me. I think you have your thoughts and beliefs set well, and I'm not going to overly exert myself to persuading you anymore. That's why I debate, to persuade people, not to do it just for the fuck of it.

Quote

Smallpox was responsible for most of those deaths and the disease would have been passed on even if contact had been made later or in other circumstances. Throughout the 18th century, on average 400,000 people died of smallpox in Europe every year, even in the 20th century (well, until 1977, the disease was eradicated then) when we had developed a vaccine and modern medical technology it still caused between 300 million and 500 million deaths.

But the disease is only the tip of the iceberg as to the things that were done onto the Native Americans upon arrival to America.

ayanasioux:

But the disease is only the tip of the iceberg as to the things that were done onto the Native Americans upon arrival to America.

Actually, the disease wiped out so much of the native population it allowed for the Europeans to come in and take the land much more easily. There were flourishing tribes on the eastern coast of America, at least one of which was on a similar level as that of the Aztec Empire, before Cortez conquered it. When the British got there, however, they saw it as open land, and took it without a second thought.

If the Native Americans weren't killed off by disease beforehand, I'd bet they would have been able to fight the British back, at least for a time. Cortez and Pizarro took armies with them in order to put a stake in the new world. The British didn't need that. The Native Americans were already dead when they got there.

^ Perhaps, but in some cases the small pox was deliberately given to them, and that's what I'm getting at.

ayanasioux:

^ Perhaps, but in some cases the small pox was deliberately given to them, and that's what I'm getting at.

This is absurd, back in the 16th century people didn't know how small pox was transmitted. That's why it killed so many people, if people knew how to the disease spreads, they'd also know how to protect themselves from getting it.

kafka.:

This is absurd, back in the 16th century people didn't know how small pox was transmitted. That's why it killed so many people, if people knew how to the disease spreads, they'd also know how to protect themselves from getting it.

There are written account of contaminated blankets purposefully being given to Native Americans by Jeffrey Amherst, who was a general or some British military rank. They may not have understood precisely how disease worked, but it doesn't take a genius to realize Native Americans die when they meet white people or use white people things.

leaf's wierd:

Actually, the disease wiped out so much of the native population it allowed for the Europeans to come in and take the land much more easily. There were flourishing tribes on the eastern coast of America, at least one of which was on a similar level as that of the Aztec Empire, before Cortez conquered it. When the British got there, however, they saw it as open land, and took it without a second thought.

If the Native Americans weren't killed off by disease beforehand, I'd bet they would have been able to fight the British back, at least for a time. Cortez and Pizarro took armies with them in order to put a stake in the new world. The British didn't need that. The Native Americans were already dead when they got there.

Just because disease made it easier doesn't mean nothing else violent or oppressive was done by the British towards native Americans. Tribes that fought along side the British during the French and Indian war were given false treaties and later cooerced with violence or killed when they were made to leave their land, and there was near constant low intensity conflict between settlers and Native Americans.

Though, it really all pales in comparison to what Americans did after independence with westward expansion.

Kurtini.:

Though, it really all pales in comparison to what Americans did after independence with westward expansion.

Yeah, that tops all.

Kurtni:

Just because disease made it easier doesn't mean nothing else violent or oppressive was done by the British towards native Americans. Tribes that fought along side the British during the French and Indian war were given false treaties and later cooerced with violence or killed when they were made to leave their land, and there was near constant low intensity conflict between settlers and Native Americans.

Though, it really all pales in comparison to what Americans did after independence with westward expansion.

Well... around 80% of the Native American population was killed off by disease, going from 1492 to the end of the 17th centurt. That's something to consider.

Though I agree with what you said. None of these points should be disregarded.

Personally I can't choose between these two events because in my book they are equally as bad.

The Rawandan Genocide: To kill 800,000 people in the course of one hundred days, in my eyes, is one of the worst things. It was the complete elimination, or the attempt of a complete elimination, of the Tutsi people by the Hutu without care if they were killing their own family.

The Crusades: To kill people because they are not your religion and to think that Christians are the only one's who should have complete access to the holy land is disgusting. Mainly because the three main religions of Judaism, Christianity and Islam had started from the same place which we call the Holy Land.

800 years of unspeakable injustices committed against a nation that wanted nothing more than the simple independence of their small island, by a nation that somehow manages to still come off as a protector of freedom and a great nation or even, at times, a victim.

The fact that Germany had one really terrible act that the country was responsible for, and I do understand that it was a very, very, very terrible act, and now is constantly considered so negatively for it, but another nation that has committed terrible act after terrible act and never truly shown any real remorse for it gets off free every time and the vast majority of the population never even understand half of the things that its done.

...I may be biased, but I'm just saying.

Dasha.:

Personally I can't choose between these two events because in my book they are equally as bad.

The Rawandan Genocide: To kill 800,000 people in the course of one hundred days, in my eyes, is one of the worst things. It was the complete elimination, or the attempt of a complete elimination, of the Tutsi people by the Hutu without care if they were killing their own family.

The Crusades: To kill people because they are not your religion and to think that Christians are the only one's who should have complete access to the holy land is disgusting. Mainly because the three main religions of Judaism, Christianity and Islam had started from the same place which we call the Holy Land.

I don't understand the value in choosing between horrific events like that in the first place which is why threads like this, and the slavery v. holocaust thread kind of irk me. Rather than playing out the suffering Olympics, it would be such a more substantial and useful discussion to compare these types of events, discuss why they continue to happen and things of that nature.

Kurtni:

I don't understand the value in choosing between horrific events like that in the first place which is why threads like this, and the slavery v. holocaust thread kind of irk me. Rather than playing out the suffering Olympics, it would be such a more substantial and useful discussion to compare these types of events, discuss why they continue to happen and things of that nature.

Even so, you have to be aware that the ultimate cause is that humans exist and can't play nicely. It's like when big accidents occur on aeroplanes or in nuclear power stations: ultimately, the cause is that planes and nuclear stations were invented.

Kurtni:

There are written account of contaminated blankets purposefully being given to Native Americans by Jeffrey Amherst, who was a general or some British military rank. They may not have understood precisely how disease worked, but it doesn't take a genius to realize Native Americans die when they meet white people or use white people things.

Yeah, but Jeffrey Amherst did that in the second part of the 18th century two centuries after smallpox was introduced to the American continents. At the time most of the Native American population had already died of smallpox and medical knowledge about how diseases were transmitted had advanced considerably (the first smallpox vaccine was developed in 1796).

addictedsevenfold.:

800 years of unspeakable injustices committed against a nation that wanted nothing more than the simple independence of their small island, by a nation that somehow manages to still come off as a protector of freedom and a great nation or even, at times, a victim.

The fact that Germany had one really terrible act that the country was responsible for, and I do understand that it was a very, very, very terrible act, and now is constantly considered so negatively for it, but another nation that has committed terrible act after terrible act and never truly shown any real remorse for it gets off free every time and the vast majority of the population never even understand half of the things that its done.

...I may be biased, but I'm just saying.

? just one really terrible act?

German empires dominated Central Europe from 961 until after WWII (some would argue that they still do based on what's happening in Greece right now), WWII was not a one of a kind event, it simply was the culmination of German imperialism stretching back in history for over a millennia.