>95% of native american deaths were actually from disease
How is dying from disease thanks to a weak immune system considered as genocide by history?
>>386516
Most people pretend like it never happened though.
>>386516
Because people unironically believe that Europeans deliberately and knowingly spread those diseases as an early type of biological warfare. Despite the fact that there is literally no concrete evidence for the deliberate spreading of disease via "smallpox blankets," everyone believes it anyway.
>>386516
Because
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indian_massacre#List_of_massacres
>>386516
It was an unintended genocide
Europeans weren't away of the potential effects of disease to native populations
But deaths by disease occurred to due European arrival, but due to the continental scale of the impacts seems unintentional
>>386539
*aware
After disease had ceased the ravage north America ensued a prolonged period of two centuries characterized by dedicated efforts by both white settlers and the American government to kill and displace Amerindians that could rightfully be called "ethnic cleansing".
Saying "most indians died of disease" while numerically true, is more often than not used as a way to deflect or belittle the centuries of ethnically motivated violence that came after. It should be acknowledged and remembered that America was entrusted with stewardship over her Indian inhabitants and failed horrendously in that relationship.
>>386528
>Out of our regard to them we gave them two Blankets and an Handkerchief out of the Small Pox Hospital. I hope it will have the desired effect.
From the journal of William Trent, an 18th century trader and militiaman.
>>386516
Because it was the state intention of many, many colonists in power to exterminate or extirpate native peoples.
The fact that disease helped them, and they capitalized on that, does not make it better in any way.
>>386736
Cool, you realize that's literally the only documented instance of that, right? And even then scholars question the authenticity.
>>386529
>no reply
where are you white trash fags debunking anons list?
>>386516
The depopulation of the Americas was not genocide in and of itself, but there were certainly genocidal aspects to it. Many of those Indians who died of disease only did so after being enslaved and subjected to inhuman treatment (particularly in the Spanish colonies). In North America many Indians also starved to death due to displacement, and these deaths are lumped in with that "95%" that gets thrown around.
>>386743
> The fact that disease helped them, and they capitalized on that, does not make it better in any way.
Really? So if I poison someone and know they'll be dead in a few days, but the guy I poisoned got ran over by a car before it kicked in, should I still be accounted for murder? I'd be accounted for a murder I didn't committed.
>>387416
A more logical analogy would be you poisoning 100 people and then 70 of them dying by accident before poisoning.
If the intention to kill is there it's genocide, by the logic of your analogy the holocaust wasn't a holocaust because it didn't get every single jew.
![buffalobones1[1].jpg](https://i.imgur.com/f1hSN3G.jpg "buffalobones1[1].jpg")
>>386516
The genocide happened later.
>>387431
Mo0re like the Holocaust wasnt a Holocaust, because some jews died of the hard work and starvation before they could be gassed.
>>386529
>>386773
The depopulation of the native peoples of the Americas was a process that lasted nearly 400 years and involved millions of people with different ideologies, motivations, actions, etc. It was not a concerted by any single entity towards a single goal. Some tribes were victims of ethnic cleansing but few (none that I can name off the top of my head) were intentionally eradicated.
It really shouldn't be.
Because after the American Independence some Native Americans had rebuilt their population, become farmers, but they were still run off their lands by the government and killed.
Because the Native Americans in Hispaniola were hunted down and exterminated.
Because during Spanish colonization the living conditions of some Native American workers were so terrible that they endured
>>386516
Who are you quoting?
>>386743
>Wanting someone dead is the same as killing them
>>386529
Now post a list of Indian raids and massacres.
>>387432
Native American only started to hunt the buffalo at earnest , forsacking everything else, until the introduction of Horses than made hunting them a lot more easier. Lots of other tribes adopted the nomadic lifestyle later and jumped in the horse life bandwagon, than did create a great presure in the buffaloes and were dwinling in size even before settlers started to hunt them.
>>387614
>that they endured
that they endured fatality rates that made keeping their population levels unsustainable.
oops
>>387632
ill see you shitting your pants at court when you explain the judge how you just wanted someone to die
>>387373
>Many of those Indians who died of disease only did so after being enslaved and subjected
>after
its funny, I have read many claims that the spaniards only managed to conquer them because they had alredy been wiped by diseases before the armed comfrontation began
>dying to some random disease
LITERALLY unfit to live.
>>387672
That's bullshit tough, the disaes started only after they had initial contacts with them, the first european disae to hit the Aztecs was during the siege of tenochtitlan than wrecked them even more. But the Aztec empire was in they knees already and it affected the allies of the spaniards like the Tlaxcalans or Otomi.
>>387670
Another equally terrible argument. Two cultures that didn't like each other, one of them vulnerable to diseases gets wiped out and rolled over when they became an inconvenience. Happens all the time in history. Keep your modern college hipster morality out of it.
>>387697
Not anything different in how the bantu-speakers have displaced or exterminated the bushmen/san/pigmies, but for some reason no one bitch about it.
>>387672
>>387692
The Inca Empire was affected by a mysterious plague from 1525 to 1528.
This plague led to a civil war, which led to tens of thousands of deaths and fragmented the loyalties of some subjects in the Inca Empire
The Azteks had already been obliterated 5 years before, and the first contact between Spaniards and the inhabitants of Hispaniola was over 30 years before.
It is known that there was a lot of trade between the Fishing villages in the Pacific that covered all the way from Ecuador to Costa Rica, since artisan pieces from all these cultures have been found spread out throughout these villages.
Thus, it is a common theory that the mysterious plague that spread throughout the Inca Empire was a form of flu. Possibly spread from Spaniards to Mayans to fishermen in Costa Rica or Panamá who spread it to other fishermen in Colombia and so on until it reached Ecuador and then the bulk of the Inca Empire.
>>387674
So dying from Ebola, Cancer, HIV/AIDS, or hell, the Plague made people unfit to live?
>>386516
Most objective historians do not call it genocide. Those that do are trying to push an agenda. This is not to say that abuse and murder never happened, but the scale and organization of the massacres do not constitute a systematic concerted effort to eradicate the Native Americans, especially when there were widespread, well-acknowledged, but failed attempts to integrate Indians into the cultures that were replacing theirs. It is not that different than massacres at any other time in history prior to the 20th century.
>How is dying from disease thanks to a weak immune system considered as genocide by history?
The europeans did genocided the natives that remained, but yeah, this is overestimated because people are ignorant.
>>386539
>unintended genocide
There is not such a thing.
>>386751
Amherst wrote about it, too.
>>388436
>The Europeans
