Keep the presses rolling...

[sesamosinsal]

I can't edit my post Why does the count matter if the reasons behind the murders are the same?*

 

[Iznogud]

So how come we're now discussing "Lebensraum" when the fact is they were running out of letters to print more series of Roca notes and used that as an excuse to push the Evita/Kristina "new and improved" $100 bill?

 

[jp]

Found this, published in January 2011.

Seems this isn't exactly a spur of the moment decision, and is part of a general drive to reassess Roca's glorious slaughter of the savages in the name of blah blah blah

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/jan/13/argentinian-founding-father-genocide-row

 

[sesamosinsal]

So how come we're now discussing "Lebensraum" when the fact is they were running out of letters to print more series of Roca notes and used that as an excuse to push the Evita/Kristina "new and improved" $100 bill?

You might want to go back to the beginning of the thread. The OP seems to think that Roca is a better candidate for the 100 peso note. (We all know that they're printing pesos like mad, and that there's wild inflation.) He asked, "Seriously, replacing Julio Argentino Roca, a two-term President who vastly expanded Argentina's national borders and solidified its dominion over all of the Patagonian region with Evita, who did what exactly?" I'm sure Julio Roca and Evita both did bad and good things in their days. However, last I checked, she didn't massacre thousands of indigenous people. So why is he more deserving than she is?

And now the OP has objected to my comparison of Roca to Hitler, which evidently you can't do until the person being compared to Hitler kills more people than Hitler. I guess the fact that they had similar motives (i.e. to exterminate a particular group of people in order to "build a nation") doesn't matter?

 

[scotttswan]

This is America. Every country here was built over the subjugation of the natives. If Roca hadn't done what he did the natives still would have ended up the same but we'd be paying taxes to santiago.

and be better of now probably.

 

[BASailor]

So, how many people have to be killed before genocide/ethnic cleansing matters? In Bosnia, the highest estimates are 66,000 people. In Rwanda, 800,000. In the Desert Campaign, ~100,000, according to highest estimates. So how many people have to die in a genocide before it matters? What's the barrier? More than a million? Why does the death count matter?

According to your view Irak and Afghanistan are also a genocide? They are, to me.

 

[solerboy]

According to your view Irak and Afghanistan are also a genocide? They are, to me.

The definition of genocide is

"the deliberate and systematic destruction, in whole or in part, of an ethnic, racial, religious, or national group",

However many people may have died in Iraq or Afghanistan, at no time have these conflicts been about the destruction of a specific group.

The word Genocide is used far to often when better words could be used.

 

[el_expatriado]

Roca was not some genocidal maniac who set out to liquidate the indians for no good reason. The Mapuches attacked a number of settlements in 1872 (such as General Alvear) with an army of 6000 warriors and killed over 300 settlers and stole 200,000 cattle. This is what prompted the conquest of the desert.

So there were deaths on both sides and no one has their hands clean. Things are never black in white during a war. The problem is that all of you have been brainwashed by the K propaganda to believe that Roca was a bastard who killed poor little indian women and children for fun.

That's not the case. That is leftist revisionist history. Roca protected the criollo settlements from indian agression and in the process expanded Argentina's borders and defended against Chilean expansion in Patagonia.

 

[BASailor]

The problem is that all of you have been brainwashed by the K propaganda to believe that Roca was a bastard who killed poor little indian women and children for fun.

That's not the case. That is leftist revisionist history. Roca protected the criollo settlements from indian agression and in the process expanded Argentina's borders and defended against Chilean expansion in Patagonia.

That's right. Eventhough I don't agree with wars in general, sometimes people forget the historical context.

 

[Iznogud]

You might want to go back to the beginning of the thread. The OP seems to think that Roca is a better candidate for the 100 peso note. (We all know that they're printing pesos like mad, and that there's wild inflation.) He asked, "Seriously, replacing Julio Argentino Roca, a two-term President who vastly expanded Argentina's national borders and solidified its dominion over all of the Patagonian region with Evita, who did what exactly?" I'm sure Julio Roca and Evita both did bad and good things in their days. However, last I checked, she didn't massacre thousands of indigenous people. So why is he more deserving than she is?

And now the OP has objected to my comparison of Roca to Hitler, which evidently you can't do until the person being compared to Hitler kills more people than Hitler. I guess the fact that they had similar motives (i.e. to exterminate a particular group of people in order to "build a nation") doesn't matter?

Roca is on the way out for practical reasons, not lack of merit or other BS.

"Las tribus son una gran potencia respecto de nosotros, una república independiente y feroz en el seno de la república. Para acabar con éste escándalo es necesario que la civilización conquiste éste territorio: llevar a cabo un plan de operaciones que dé por resultado el aniquilamiento total de los salvajes. El argumento acerado de la espada tiene más fuerza para ellos, y éste se ha de emplear al fin hasta exterminarlos o arrinconarlos en el desierto(...)". Pdte. Mitre, 50+ years before Roca.

Rule is they should now pick another dead President in chronological order. No vice president, no Maradona, no Gardel, Patoruzu or Mafalda.

Roca and Hitler, seriously?