Why is the holocaust a bigger deal in the U.S. than slavery? ._.

Different. And tragic.

@KayraJordyn Indeed, neither one is pretty. I just think it's very obvious why the Holocaust, and WW1+2 in general, are as emphasized as they are when you start looking at the numbers. It's chilling to really try and put in perspective.

To put those Holocaust numbers in perspective, doing some back of the hand math, over the 12 year period of the holocaust there was a [i]fatality[/i] attributed to it every 22.222... seconds on average.

Over the course of the Atlantic Slave Trade's 300 years there would be an African enslaved every 3.32 days on average. On average there would be an African killed in the process of transporting or acquiring slaves every 10 days.

As said, [i]very[/i] different scales.

@UndeadPrivateer so it's the density vs time, I guess that's factored in :v

I was not discussing the whole holocaust or the whole African slave trade. Most of the history programs I have encountered talk with more detail and focus on the 6 million Jews that were slaugtered :/

I purposefully left out the 3 million slaves across the Red Sea (potentially 4 million), 4 million across Swahili, and the 8-9 million from the Sahara.

The tolls and scale of slavery vs holocaust as a whole are still different vs time, but considering time density is something I never considered that's actually huge. :v

Thanks

@SW-User The Jews were not the only victims of the Holocaust. The Siege of Leningrad is one of the largest single contributors to that 17 million number, with over a million people dying over the course of the four year siege. (About 20% of the city's population.) Those were not all Jews and it wasn't even a death camp. In Nazi occupied Poland there were about 6 million civilians executed by firing squads, about 3 million of which were Jews. In Poland one of the prime targets were what was referred to as the "intelligentsia" which refers to people with strong cultural importance and a highly educated background. They were trying to exterminate the Polish culture.

Even beyond that, though, the slave trade was a matter of business being conducted by a relatively small number of people for the purpose of monetary gain. Even just looking at those numbers, that would mean there was likely one maybe two slave ships that visited Africa, an entire continent, and took slaves a year. The Holocaust was a series of government endorsed acts of genocide intended to [i]exterminate entire peoples.[/i] If it had been allowed to continue for much longer they would have been successful in some areas and if allowed to continue for even half a century they would have completed their goal of exterminating Jews, Poles, Gypsies and several other groups from a large swathe of Europe. By the end of those 12 years some populations had been reduced by [i]80%[/i], and most targeted populations had at least reached 20% losses. Think about that for a moment and let it sink in.

@UndeadPrivateer true that :v
I knew about Poland, but not the forecasted population reduction. That's surprisingly bad ._.

@SW-User Genuinely deeply horrifying, there's not much to compare to the scale of attrocity in WW1+2 except for maybe the Crusades, Mongol Invasions, the Conquest of the Americas and various Chinese civil wars. Pretty much all of those were still over much longer timespans though.

@UndeadPrivateer then this leads to think, it isn't about how bad one is in comparison to the other. Let's say the Holocaust was completed. The answer is why? ._.

You don't know who you are even killing but you still kill them based on am arbitrary identity :v

Makes ya think. And this is why I like talking to you. You're real and don't ever take offense to my questions about OPENLY and unapologetically how I see things :v

Really, you change me broski

I appreciate it

@SW-User The Holocaust was a government endorsed systematic attempt to exterminate entire peoples for the purpose of acquiring political power and to enforce a racially based nationalistic ideology. One thing you're not getting is that they did know who they're killing, and that's [i]why they're killing them[/i]. It's not an arbitrary identity, they weren't just picking people at random, they picked specific groups that identified with specific cultures to exterminate them like you would roaches in an apartment complex. And that's exactly the kind of messaging that was used in the propaganda machine, to paint these groups as nothing more than pests in need of extermination. There were many cases of [i]families turning against each other[/i]. These were not all just strangers killing random strangers. And yes, not everyone was aware of the numbers of people being killed (though boy were there rumors, by all accounts), but the outright vilification was pretty relatively universal.

By comparison, slavery was just people exploiting others to make money. Some people died in the process, yes. Others were oppressed. It's highly unfortunate but it was not on the scale of the holocaust unless you are purposefully deluding yourself.

@UndeadPrivateer I know the targeted identities were not arbitrary, but what I was attempting to articulate and have t pay minute attention to now was that the selection of these identities was arbitrary. An idea was brought and it this idea encompassed a preferred race and classified the rest as defective. This aspect of it being literally chosen to be this way based on relatively subjective political perception and arguments is what makes the selection fundamentally irrational was what I was trying to say. Although the targets are clear, the selection of the targets was what I meant :p
You are gunna have a hard time dealing with my scrambling brain from these exams, but I find this healthy and very informative