Why do historians cry about WW2 so much but never about the genocides in Africa?

Jewish peoples hold influential positions in our society, therefore the event which was the greatest tragedy for them, the holocaust, becomes the greatest tragedy for our society at large.

Ebonics.

>mainstream history is biased and Eurocentric, specifically Western Europe

Oh golly gosh OP you sure are a smart one.

He asked why, you turbo autist. Go back to /k/ to discuss your pseudo history, sperg.

>and killed every last German man, woman and child.

This. Just imagine a world without anglos.

Literally what. I'm saying the reason is because mainstream history is biased towards Western Europe, you illiterate moron. This should also be common knowledge if you have any understanding of historiography.
Looks like OP isn't the only high IQ individual in this thread.

They cry about the German genocides of Africans.

>history is biased towards Western Europe
proof that Germany ain't western

Because Jews have a more powerful lobby.

>Rhodes killed 60 million people

Source?
People love to say we killed hundreds of millions of people, but never seem to have any sources to back up their claims (besides the Guardian).

Even if we did kill 60 million (which we didn't), all the hospitals, roads, schools and farms we set up resulted in hundreds of millions more Africans being shit out

Oy vey goyim only white people must be seen as murderous demons.

>African
>People

Cause they use history as a resource. The powers that be use the holocaust to push change in Europe but then when they interfere in Eastern Europe and Russia they'll move onto holodomor then when they go back into africa and are competing with the Chinese they'll play the african genocide angle

No, the image is made up bait. Lots of Africans died under colonialism but none of them were trucked into concentration camps and gassed.

Rhodes didn't kill 60 million people. He wasn't a good guy, but that's a ridiculous exaggeration.

Now if you want to blame a single person for mass atrocities, here's your man.

>recentness
Has nothing to do with how often crimes against humanity are discussed. The Holocaust receives more public and academic coverage than the Rwandan genocide or Saddam's displacement of the Marsh Arabs.
>consequences
Rhodes actions were just as influential in allowing the Western domination and exploitation of Africa as the Holocaust was in the creation of Israel.
>availability of sources
Rhodes' and other European imperialist's crimes are extremely well documented, both by the few sane enough to speak out against what colonial powers were doing in SA, the Congo and Nambia, and by their supporters.

What was the Namibian Genocide?
What was the Boer War?

>What was the Namibian Genocide?
nothing to do with Rhodes

>What was the Boer War?
Boer War concentration camps also had nothing to do with Rhodes

>What was the Namibian Genocide?
>What was the Boer War?
Yep, fair point about the Namibians, I'd forgotten about that. Nothing to do with Rhodes, though - I maintain OP's post is bait.

Don't think the Boer camps are really comparable even though the Boer victims were African in some people's definitions - the concentration camps weren't set up to murder people, it was just a consequence of the shitty conditions.

The guy I was arguing against never brought up Rhodes either.

>the concentration camps weren't set up to murder people

They're still a prime example of how the British used violence, or at very least the threat of violence against civilians to maintain their control of Africa. Nearly every account of the war agrees that the Boers wouldn't have surrendered if they didn't fear for the lives of their relatives keep in concentration camps.

>No, the image is made up bait.

that image being the OP, which is about Rhodes

Yeah, you're right, you brought up Rhodes.
Yes, the OP image is an exaggerated and simplistic look at genocide in Africa, and trying to pin all the blame on Rhodes is oversimplification. He certainly wasn't a Hitler figuire that set out to single mindedly kill black people.
That said, you can't deny that millions Africans were purposely killed during the European colonisation of Africa, and concentration camps played a part in that. Thousands certainly died as a direct result of Rhodes' actions as a both a business man and Governor of South Africa.

Well again, not really. Concentration camps were invented for the Boer war and the victims were mostly Afrikaners rather than indigenous people.
As someone else pointed out, Rhodes was criticised for being too peaceful in his approach to the African people, and by the standards of his time he was pretty progressive.

Because "muh billion trillion dead jews"

Do you actually want the truth? Because they deserved it. If there's a God then I highly doubt he would give a shit for a bunch of savages who didn't have sense enough to leave africa hundreds of thousands of years ago. It's the special ed continent for humanity's idiots.

>historians
Why do people who have obviously never actually read a history book written by a historian accuse historians of being this and that and the other thing?

But doesn't God also hate Jews also? I remember reading a seemingly crazy post on Veeky Forums about how God punished the Jews in the holocaust. I didn't screencap it, I wish I did, but is there some validity to this?

depends on what your preferred god is

The Abrahamic god I suppose

Because one was an actually targeted and planned genocide to exterminate a certain kind of people.

Two reasons. The first is just plain racism. Literally no one cared about Africans for most of modern history, and most people continue to not care. White people dying matters more. Wealthy, educated White people matter even more, which is why the focus on the Holocaust remains on the wealthy German Jews who died in Auschwitz and not the poor Soviet Jews who died in pits in forests.

Second, the fact that the Holocaust represented a different kind of killing that colonial oppression in Africa. Hitler attempted to totally destroy entire groups of people. European empires committed terrible atrocities including genocide, but there was never the goal of extinction that existed in the Holocaust. For that reason, the Holocaust was a new type of crime, whereas millions dead in Africa fits in with wider trends of violence.

you mean the christian god, the abrahamic religions are christianity, judaism, and islam

i don't think there's any specific mention of the christian god hating jews, just christians hating jews because they don't accept jesus

Because they were citizens of a state that mishandled them and contributed to a society, whereas Rhodes killed people who used spears not swords for stabbing due to not knowing how to refine iron and steel

such a braindead theory

Wait wasnt Rhodesia already depopulated by the Zulus genociding the shit out of all surrounding tribes?

SHHHHhhh, let them keep their victim mythology going

Can you refute it? Why does it lack merit?

Most of the southern Africa was only intermittently inhabited until whitey showed up and the funny part is that the blacks reeee-ing over "muh colonialism" and singing songs about how they want to kill all the white people are descended from blacks that moved down and genocided the actual native tribes AFTER white people showed up. Their entire argument is basically "you were here before we were, but because you're white and we're black it doesn't count so therefore all of this land belongs to us".

No, 600k at most and those incidentally not as a policy in itself.

why kill your labour force?

>60 million

Jews have more political influence, so when they bitch about it, it's louder.

Wut?

Leopold II was a kindly philanthropist who wished to help the congo. He was falsely accused of disgusting crimes by foreign agents who then invaded his wonderland in Africa and fucked it up.

lots worse than Hitler

t. Theophile Wahis

But Hitler was Austrian

that and Rhodes actually won unlike Hitler

victors write history and all that

Rhodes's bullshit was influential in South Africa

but to Europe? America? Aren't relevant at all. I mean how much history do you even know about Africa?

I'm including Austrians in that. The Eternal Teuton of all lands is an existential threat to Europe.

>history is biased towards Western Europe
Yea, that's because if it wasn't for Western Europe we would be stuck in the middle ages.

This picture is in fact incorrect.
I have learned about European imperialism [spoiler] this year [/spoiler] and we talked about Cecil Rhodes and imperialism in Africa. The teacher did in fact not say that he was a good person, and we even did a political cartoon analysis on him.

I think the picture is famous, it's of him standing from the Cape of Good Hope to Cairo.

DELET THIS

>go to English history class (English civil war to present)
>look at video about Rhodes
>basically treats the fucker like a supervillain

to this day I feel that all posh supervillains are based on this guy

I think there's a more balanced view to this. I could believe that there were some foreign interests in painting what was going on in the Congo as a bad light, but also things were not completely philanthropic in the Congo (or even profitable, actually!)

However Congo from 1909-1960 saw dramatic increase in population and living standards for all of its inhabitants, partially because it was governed by people with competence. 1950s saw significant rights granted to native population, like property rights, and it increased their standards too.

Congolese got independence later and things didn't turn out so well for them, but at one point they were a model colony where it seemed as if racial equality was becoming possible if under a very white paternalistic system.

>We wuz philanthropists an sheit, until the anglo came and took our justification for exploitating savages away.

AY YO HOL UP

SO U BE SAYIN

CECIL RHODES PUT BLACKS IN CONCENTRATION CAMPS

AND GASSED THEM LIKE JEWS?

>WE WUZ SS?

>African Public Relations
VERSUS
>Jewish Public Relations

Well gee, I wonder who will win the court of public historical opinion?

HURR FUCKING DURR

Because sub saharan africans are not "people"

well shit

This. Same reason nobody ever gave a shit about 2nd Congo War.

But I also think it has a lot to do with demonisation. It's easy with Hitler because he was a raving lunatic who destroyed both Europe and his own country. It's just as easy to demonise his fanatic supporters. It's harder with a mishmash of nameless colonial officials, missionaries and entrepreneurs without any single unifying ideology beyond a vague 'civilizing mission'. Same goes for the Congo War, just a bunch of equally bad militias fucking over everybody with no clear 'bad guy' to demonise.

It's also easier to focus attention on a single organized atrocity like the concentration camps than it is to study widespread sporadic atrocities like colonial massacres or those Soviet Jews dying in the middle of nowhere like you mentioned.

Africans attempt - and succeed at - genocide all the damn time, throughout pretty much all of recorded history.

Hitler had plans for Europe and the rest of the world. All the African genocides either didn't fit the definition (neglect isn't intent to wipe out a people group) or were not nearly so ambitious.

Also Hitler was the first to apply an industrial approach to the enterprise, which really underscored the level of dehumanization involved. Pretty stark.

Dafuck with moustache men?

Because Europeans care about Europeans and do not give a fuck about Africans?

the real answer is that hitler wasn't that bad

>The voyage to Durban took him seventy days, and on 1 September 1870 he first set foot on African soil, a tall, lanky, anaemic, fair-haired boy, shy and reserved in bearing.
wtf i love cecil now