Pol Pot? This was something that was literally covered in my World History class in high school. I remember that mostly because we watched "The Killing Fields" and I was happy to have what I assumed would be an easy week, but that movie is pretty profoundly impressive.
We also covered Native American atrocities and read "A People's History of the United States", which at the time (20 some years ago) might have been out of the norm but now seems relatively common.
None of this is to condescend to you or to suggest you are uneducated generally, but rather to point out that something you are extrapolating as systematic in education is not. And for what it's worth I went to public high schools and public college in a not too progressive place.
I also didn't mean to imply you were aligned with anti-semitic groups, rather that anti-semitic groups use that misunderstanding as propaganda and you should probably be aware of that.
The US stance on the Native American genocide(s) is basically denial that it happened, or at minimum, failure to admit it.
It has never been officially recognized by the US government. It's not "simply a false statement," it's a fact. Yes, we both learned about the Trail of Tears, but we don't recognize Native American genocide as what it is. Your presenting the Trail of Tears as a strawman for Native American genocide.
There are a lot of people saying this.[1] I'm sorry you felt the need to write such a condescending remark about internet message board arguments, that in combination with a straw man argument is really low.
1-http://www.latimes.com/opinion/op-ed/la-oe-madley-california...
More importantly: recognition of human suffering isn't zero sum. Acknowledging the scale of what happened to European Jewish people doesn't take away recognition of what happened to Native Americans --- in fact, in my experience, the genocide of Native Americans and European Jews are usually the two textbook examples of nationally-sponsored genocides.
Finally, I'll observe that nobody has condescended to you here.
I didn't learn about the Khmer Rouge in school (high school in Texas, graduated 2004). But I learned about it quickly afterward.
The Native American genocide is barely recognized as even being real (and never officially in the US), even though it was directly funded (paid dollars per head killed--pretty blatant, isn't it?) by the US and California governments.
And for God's sake I'm not trying to say anything in support of racism or Nazis, as you alluded to, that's ridiculous and awful.
I find that in mentioning atrocities we don't even recognize as ever happening (Native Americans) as a really hard mental gymnastic maneuver required. How is it logically any different than Holocaust denial? I literally never covered the Cambodian or Native American genocides in school. I find it hard to believe others have had much different experiences in their educations as mine was very vanilla at large public schools and universities, but I would certainly like to know if that's the case or not.
I don't have any tolerance for racism myself, and please stop speaking in a condescending tone. It's unnecessary at this point as you've already made yourself clear that you view yourself as righteous and my comments as uneducated, and further doing so is not productive.
Can't we do more for Native American peoples? Isn't this a step in the right direction away from racism? Or, is their attempted-genocide deserving of continued denial? What do you think?
1-reloading the page shows karma is changing rapidly with a consistent average
2-http://www.latimes.com/opinion/op-ed/la-oe-madley-california...