Was it genocide?
Is accidental genocide a thing?
>>309982
is the unintentional (some intentional but for war purposes and not genocide) spreading of disease a genocide?
>>309994
>is the unintentional (some intentional but for war purposes and not genocide) spreading of disease a genocide?
That never actually happened in the Americas though.
Smallpox did 90% of it.
Certainly, being pushed onto reservations by European settlers didn't help the native Americans any.
>>309982
Sometimes.
There were a lot of different groups in a lot of different places wiped out by people with differing goals.
Early on it was as often as not just people realizing that native Americans could be sold as slaves and needed a smaller upfront investment to acquire than ones from Africa.
>>309982
The strong do what they can
And the weak suffer what they must
>>309994
No, but the subsequent massacres were. The whites were going to win anyway because of disease-shaped demographics, but they still sold into slavery or slaughtered the ones who survived once they crushed Metacom's polity.
>>309982
Yes.
European and U.S. settler colonial projects unleashed massively destructive forces on Native peoples and communities. These include violence resulting directly from settler expansion, enslavement, disease, alcohol, loss of land and resources, forced removals, and assaults on tribal religion, culture, and language. The configuration and impact of these forces varied considerably in different times and places according to the goals of particular colonial projects and the capacities of colonial societies and institutions to pursue them. The capacity of Native people and communities to directly resist, blunt, or evade colonial invasions proved equally important.
Disease did majority of the work by killing millions, which was unintentional - but examples of Europeans intentionally inflicting Indians with disease (usually through blankets inflected with smallpox) shows it wasn't always so. You can say such acts of intentionally spreading disease were rare, but there is something wrong from the start with the premise that the extent and intentionality of initial depopulation from disease is crucial to the question of genocide and American Indian history.
Assigning the majority of total deaths to disease would argue against regarding the last phase in depopulation as genocide, yet why should the number of Indians in that region who had died earlier from disease have any bearing on an assessment of whether the annihilation of the survivors would qualify as genocide or not? Whether the annihilated survivors were 10, 30, or 50 percent of a population is irrelevant. For a discussion of genocide, the issue is not so much the impact of initial epidemics but the effects of direct actions Europeans and European Americans took toward Indians through wars of conquest, enslavement, forced dispossession and removal, and destruction of material resources.
>>310145
Smallpox blankets are (mostly) a myth. It was tried one time to limited, if any success.
>>310121
What does that have anything to do with the question.
>>310167
It sounded cool when he said it.
>>309982
Honestly at this point it doesn't fucking matter
You can't change shit in the past, so just don't be an asshole today
The legacy of brutality really came from King Phillps War, the colonists were just caught up in local tribal politics.
Then came the French and Indian wars, were alliances were also mixed between european settlers and the natives.
The genocide didn't ramp up until the US was an established, independent nation. Then it turned into manifest destiny...that's when it got sketchy.
>>310167
>he wants to feel alpha on a philippino knitting website
>>309982
no friendly banter
>>309982
It was war, they only call it genocide because it fits the narrative. In reality the settlers were fighting factions that had been attacking their settlements and actually forming alliances with other more civilized tribes that wanted to trade instead of raid.
>>310289
Thanksgiving shouldn't be tarnished by revisionist history.
Smallpox did kill a shitload of natives but it's not like anyone knew what viral disease was back then
Wampanoabros welcomed their new friends and the Pilbros were greatful to have them. In those moments nobody knew what the future held. It was just neighbor helping neighbor.
Happy Thankgiving
>>310128
Anglos. Using whites before 1960 is anachronistic.
>>310289
>the narrative
What narrative? The one we can arrive to when we examine historical evidence? See >>310145
>>310311
>Thanksgiving shouldn't be tarnished by revisionist history.
You're right.
>Smallpox did kill a shitload of natives but it's not like anyone knew what viral disease was back then
Irelevant. See>>310145
>Wampanoabros welcomed their new friends and the Pilbros were greatful to have them.
Now there is some revisionist nonsense.
>In those moments nobody knew what the future held.
Exactly. The natives probably wouldn't have helped them if that weren't the case.
>It was just neighbor helping neighbor.
Yes, and that is what thanksgiving should be celebrated for, but that doesn't mean we should throw out actual historical events following the first feast.
>>309982
manifest destiny
>>310484
I'd like to colonize that ass
>>310520
What ass
