Was this genocide even avoidable? The two continents were going to meet at some point. Would it have been better or worse for the Native Americans if the Asians had landed on the west coast?
>>485099
Native americans having a shitty immune system does not constitute a genocide.
>the biggest genocide in human history didn't occur in Nazi Germany
I'm glad that they are at least aware of how blown out of proportion that genocide actually is
The only way to avoid it would have been if the encounter with other continents didn't happen until modern vaccines were developed. And even then, I am fairly sure nobody who met the Azteks would have just let them be.
>>485108
To be fair, it's right insofar that most of the people killed did not die on German soil.
>>485134
That's a pretty hip way of spelling Aztecs.
>>485195
Nazi Germany didn't even commit the biggest genocide of the decade nevermind in history
I made a thread about this on /his/ a long time ago, but an intriguing possibility is the New World getting Eurasian diseases via the Norse ~500 years before Columbus. The diseases would have done their damage early, giving the population time to rebound with some immunity in time for the real onslaught after Columbus.
That they might also have gotten horses early on from the Norse would also have been HUGE: maybe to the point of preventing European colonization altogether.
>>485228
You can't convince Marxists that Holodomor was a genocide
>>485099
>Slaughtered...
>...by disease and famine.
Funny how they always seem to omit that part.
Do these people even know what the fuck genocide is?
>>485108
Most Amerindian deaths weren't due to genocide, bro. Like, most if not 99% of deaths were due to disease and a little war on the side, not genocide.
>Spanish cause the Great Dying in the Americas
>Spanish flu is the worst pandemic in human history
Coincidence??? Yes. Yes it is.
If the "100 million" is genocide then HIV is literally a genocide perpetrated by gays (mostly against themselves at that).
>>485247
ever heard of the great leap forward?
>>485281
Great, now I'm going to spend all night writing a Wikipedia article about "auto-genocide".
>>485099
Nothing of the kind happened. Quit spamming this blood libel.
>>485316
Commie spotted
>>485105
1) Genocide against Natives is not limited to disease and you know this.
2) If someone knows another peoples have "shitty immune systems" and knowingly spread disease into those peoples' communities that is germ warfare and a means of committing genocide.
>>485337
>UN
>not a puppet of NATO
>>485343
>this is what reddit actually believes
>>485337
Sorry didn't mean to trigger you m8 :^) It'll be okay, deeeeeep breaths
>>485343
>knowingly spread disease into those peoples' communities
Literally happened only one time, and even then it was the Injuns that were besieging a fort and the pox blankets were a last resort
>>485343
>knowingly spread disease
Smallpox blankets are a myth my man. It was attempted once at some backwoods fort to limited or no success.
>I-It wasn't us!
Faggots. At least admit what you really think: I'm proud my ancestor slaughtered these motherfuckers for the land and that you would do it again.
>>485281
top fucking kek
>>485343
>knowingly spread disease
THEY FUCKING THOUGHT DISEASE WAS CAUSED BY FOUL AIR AND SINFULNESS! STOP SPOUTING SHIT!
>>485343
Please explain one thing to me :
The Spaniards invaded the Philippines and established a colony there in the 16th century. They established a brutal encomienda system similar to the one in their American colonies. Yet, there was no recorded population drop in the Philippines.
So please explain to me, why didn't the Spaniards manage to genocide the Pinoys?
>>485352
>Literally happened only one time
There are more than one known instances as early as the French-Indian War and at least once in the following Pontiac's Rebellion.
http://academic.udayton.edu/health/syllabi/Bioterrorism/00intro02.htm
>even then it was the [Indians] that were besieging a fort.
An act of germ warfare and an act of genocide may or may not occur during war-time.
>and the pox blankets were a last resort
Their Indian attackers in fact offered truce at the Siege of Fort Pitt. In fact, despite that the Indians could have easily kill them, they turned away in exchange for goods as a sign of friendship, which they, of course, betrayed with smallpox blankets.
https://books.google.com/books?id=UeaN0-Ra64oC&lpg=PP1&pg=PA151#v=onepage&q&f=false
It's like you have an agenda or something.
>>485316
>Even if you believe in the 500 gorillion death myth that's not a genocide.
It is still 18-42 million killed for the grorious leader. Makes it one of the biggest killings ever. What Greek word you use to describe it is just semantics.
>>485343
Your schooling was shit.
>>485432
>It is still 18-42 million killed for the grorious leader.
>that number disparity
>"killed for the grorious leader"
>Great Leap Forward
You don't even know what the Great Leap Forward is lmao
>>485425
>There are more than one known instances as early as the French-Indian War and at least once in the following Pontiac's Rebellion.
>links me to a page specifically about that one time
>An act of germ warfare and an act of genocide may or may not occur during war-time.
the smallpox had already killed most of them before that siege, to suggest that two blankets were responsible for committing genocide is laughable, the fact that it was not committed again proves that it was localized at best
>Their Indian attackers in fact offered truce at the Siege of Fort Pitt
Under the agreement that they'd have to leave the land.
I admit that what they did was a despicable dick move but it alone wasn't guilty for all the plague deaths
>>485385
Looks like the answer is "no".
>>485449
Oh I think I do know. Do you got any arguments or just greentext?
>>485439
Triggered
>>485454
>to suggest that two blankets were responsible for committing genocide is laughable
>two blankets
Maybe you don't understand how diseases work or what the point of negotiations is.
>Under the agreement that they'd have to leave the land.
Even if that's part of the negotiation, that doesn't justify germ warfare and attempted genocide.
>but it alone wasn't guilty for all the plague deaths
I'm afraid the coincidence doesn't change the intention, anon.
>>485425
>Their Indian attackers in fact offered truce at the Siege of Fort Pitt. In fact, despite that the Indians could have easily kill them, they turned away in exchange for goods as a sign of friendship, which they, of course, betrayed with smallpox blankets.
That never happened. One British officer wrote down his idea to use smallpox blankets to weaken natives but there is no evidence for them actually being used.
>>485481
>Even if that's part of the negotiation, that doesn't justify germ warfare and attempted genocide
The settlers were backed into a corner and went full Hitlermode, pretty justified from their POV
>I'm afraid the coincidence doesn't change the intention, anon.
It doesn't matter what they wanted to do, what matters are the consequences, which is that this backwards as fuck attempt at biological warfare only infected a tribe or two
>>485469
The Great Leap Forward was a program to industrialize and collectivize China. During the GLF a famine occurred from a combination of natural and policy deficits that results in deaths (but not nearly at the numbers claimed by cold warriors nor even the CCP). This doesn't fit the narrative of being killed for the glorious leader. Why would you characterize this event as some kind of purge or massacre if you knew what you were talking about?
>>485487
>That never happened.
It did.
>>485490
>pretty justified from their POV
Not by any standard except maybe Hitler's, which isn't something I'd hold to.
>It doesn't matter what they wanted to do
According to modern international law it does, and I'd say also according to very basic human reasoning.
>only infected a tribe or two
Which would constitute an attempted genocide.
There's really no reason to defend this.
>>485487
>One British officer wrote down his idea to use smallpox blankets to weaken natives but there is no evidence for them actually being used.
Except that he actually wrote down that he did it and hopes it has the desired effect, though he would have preferred hunting them with dogs.
It's like you need this innocence.
>>485506
>It did.
There is no evidence.
I bet Ward Churchill is behind this rumor.
>People ITT thinking the Trail of Tears, the Long Walk and the Hweeldi, etc. etc. didn't happen and aren't attempted genocides
>you will never genocide millions
Why even live?
>>485481
The initial claim was that smallpox blankets and other forms of biological warfare were responsible for a not-insignificant number of native american deaths. Enough to constitute genocide. Not that the commander at Fort Pitt wasn't an evil asshole and would have genocided the natives if it were possible.
The fact is that smallpox blankets are a horribly inefficient means of transferring the disease. The smallpox rate among the indians that received the blankets didn't change noticeably if at all.
>>485506
>Not by any standard except maybe Hitler's, which isn't something I'd hold to.
Do you seriously think that given the choice between the expulsion of your people from your lands and the death of your enemy, there would be leaders who would choose the first one?
How naive are you?
>According to modern international law it does, and I'd say also according to very basic human reasoning.
Literally bullshit, FDR interred all the Japs, and just because a majority of them didn't die he's still remembered fondly
>Which would constitute an attempted genocide.
Attempted Attack on an enemy tribe =/= attempted massacre of all and every member of the enemy tribe's people
>>485525
>The initial claim was that smallpox blankets and other forms of biological warfare were responsible for a not-insignificant number of native american deaths.
Where? I don't see that in the OP nor here:
>>485343
In fact the only claim about "numbers" is the denial that intended smallpox infection decimated "significant" populations.
>Enough to constitute genocide.
>The smallpox rate among the indians that received the blankets didn't change noticeably if at all.
Again, a failed genocide attempt is still a genocide attempt. And again, intentional smallpox infestation is not exhaustive of attempted genocides against Indian peoples.
>The fact is that smallpox blankets are a horribly inefficient means of transferring the disease.
Anything to back this claim up?
>>485537
I don't think you understand the definition of genocide.
The Holocaust was genocide, The Holodomor was genocide., The Rwandan genocide was genocide.
The settlers in that siege didn't want to "kill all Injuns", they wanted the siege lifted at all costs, and the Indians were the unlucky bastards besieging them
Really interesting thread. Is there any scenario where the Native Americans would not have been biologically killed because of their isolation from the other continents around the world? Would it have been more morally correct for the europeans to have never explored the land? I think so. But I don't think that they were directly responsible for the intentional killing of them. They made a mistake. There was no way for explorers to understand how these diseases worked on foreign populations, especially considering it didn't have the same drastic effect on what were considered other far removed peoples farther away in Asia.
>>485530
>Do you seriously think that given the choice between the expulsion of your people from your lands and the death of your enemy, there would be leaders who would choose the first one?
It wasn't "their" land, and any wise leader faced between annihilation and expulsion would choose to leave. If only to regroup with larger forces latter to retake the territory. But wise leaders don't generally take to genocidal intentions.
>Literally bullshit, FDR interred all the Japs, and just because a majority of them didn't die he's still remembered fondly
And? Completely irrelevant.
>Attempted Attack on an enemy tribe =/= attempted massacre of all and every member of the enemy tribe's people
Do you understand what germ warfare is?
This is getting silly. Why so much stake in this?
>>485526
That's odd. I read about his journal entry but I never saw that line. I concede the point.
The anon arguing that Europeans were evil and genocided the vast majority of natives is way out of line though.
>>485537
this post
>>485343
seems to be implying that the diseases that killed the majority of native americans were knowingly spread by colonists.
I'm not denying that it was a genocide attempt. What I am saying is that biological warfare was not widely used and is not responsible for a significant portion of native deaths. There's this one incident with questionable results and that's it.
Therefore grouping all native american deaths, including those from disease, as a result of genocide perpetrated by colonials is being disingenuous.
>Anything to back this claim up.
Thought I read something that the smallpox on those blankets would have died very quickly, too quickly to have spread successfully. But I can't find it, I'll search for it.
>>485544
>I don't think you understand the definition of genocide.
I do. You don't.
Here it is, posted earlier, maybe you didn't catch it:
http://www.hrweb.org/legal/genocide.html
>In the present Convention, genocide means any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such:
>(a) Killing members of the group;
>(b) Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group;
>(c) Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part;
>(d) Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group;
>(e) Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.
Under international law they would be charged with genocide, among other crimes.
>>485549
>It wasn't "their" land, and any wise leader faced between annihilation and expulsion would choose to leave
But why leave, when you could stay and eliminate the threat of the enemy?
>And? Completely irrelevant.
My point was that international law is hypocritical bullshit
>Do you understand what germ warfare is?
Do you think they did?
>This is getting silly. Why so much stake in this?
Same could be asked of you
>>485561
>seems to be implying that the diseases that killed the majority of native americans were knowingly spread by colonists.
I wrote that post and did not imply that, only that Europeans did, as a matter of fact knowingly, employ germ warfare against Indians.
>>485520
to talk about how your ancestors did it in a chinese cartoons website
>>485562
Wait, are you trying to use one instance of using smallpox against natives to damn all Europeans in the Americas? It's no like smallpox wasn't already rampant in the Americas before the French-Indian War.
>>485573
But you're speaking too broadly. "Europeans" is implying, whether you intended to or not, that this was a widespread attempt by colonial governments or settlers to wipe out the natives. When in actual fact it was one isolated incident. If you wanted to be crystal clear you should have said something like "There was a biological genocide attempt at Fort Pitt and that was despicable" and we all could have agreed and gone home.
>>485567
>But why leave, when you could stay and eliminate the threat of the enemy?
At Fort Pitt they couldn't, having been totally cut off and surrounded. That their attackers offered, for no reason other than historical allegiance and diplomacy, a means of capitulation without further bloodshed is the definition of honorable and magnanimity (I don't say this with delusions about Indians as "noble savages", only as an evaluation of this instance, though it's notable that Indian groups across the board were generally prone to reconciliation, but I digress). I forget his name now but the commander turned down this offer hoping that reinforcements were on the way and urged the Indians to leave or else they'd be killed instead. This could have been a bluff but anyway the Indians offered to leave in exchange for goods, which is not disagreeable. At any rate, at this point there is no more threat.
>My point was that international law is hypocritical bullshit
I don't necessarily disagree.
>Do you think they did?
Since they gave the blankets knowing they were infected and hoping it would wipe them out, yes, they understood the concept even if they had no word for it.
>Same could be asked of you
I just want the facts set out straight and I've got time to kill.
>>485497
>The Great Leap Forward was a program to industrialize and collectivize China.
Which horribly failed, they collectivization was the most total and radical campaign seen so far, millions of people where forced into communes, millions of buildings where destroyed, and a huge amount of workers where forced into backyard iron production.
>During the GLF a famine occurred from a combination of natural and policy deficits that results in deaths
Nature had nothing to do with it, weather was stable, Mao changed the entire agricultural production system of all China within 12-18 months, plus pulled millions of workers from agriculture for his industrialization which never materialized.
KPC cadres had strong incentive over estimate and report their production, Mao insisted on keeping the grain export quotas and all knew but none cared much. As a result millions died, most estimates it at around 30 millions. 90% by hunger and around 10% by violence
>(but not nearly at the numbers claimed by cold warriors nor even the CCP). This doesn't fit the narrative of being killed for the glorious leader. Why would you characterize this event as some kind of purge or massacre if you knew what you were talking about?
Because it was one of the biggest fuckups in History. Due to sheer mismanagement and neglect the biggest famine in human history happened. Mao's plan was idiotic to begin with, but instead telling him everybody followed the dear leader. They only stopped the bullshit when China was at the brink of rebellion.
>>485562
>causing mental harm to members of a group
Top kek I wonder how many genocides happen on twitter every day
>>485099
I think the genocide of the Kiowa, Omaha, Ponca, Otoe and the Pawnee could have been easily avoided if the Sioux were not such ass-holes and genocided them.
oh wait, forgot its dem racist white devils that did it all.
>>485596
>Wait, are you trying to use one instance of using smallpox against natives to damn all Europeans in the Americas?
No.
>>485599
I'm pretty sure Spaniards/Portuguese utilized some form of germ warfare if not in the North than the South Americas. Anyway, I think this is the first time I used the term European in the thread, but the term is probably necessary since we're referring to a pre-US formation period and the players are decidedly European, whether British, French, or whatever else.
>>485635
>No.
Okay, then we cool.
>>485623
>Which horribly failed
Immediate results were variable. In fact, in a bizarre twist to the popular claims, collective ownership can claim to have saved millions of lives that would have starved to death.
>Nature had nothing to do with it, weather was stable
In fact, drought and subsequent flooding preceded the famine. Which is not uncommon throughout China, nor its history. The history of China is the history of famine -- except, it should be said, until the Communists introduced modern agricultural science to the country.
You should read William Hinton's Through a Glass Darkly for a brief first hand account of the time period.
>>485266
The 99% figure is through a combination of disease AND warfare, famine caused by social collapse, and genocide.
>>485635
>than the South Americas
Smallpox had blown up in the Inca Empire long before any Spaniard had set foot in Peru.
>>485681
>and genocide.
Figure? Genocide? Did you even read my post? I was saying that genocide was a relatively insignificant part of the Great Dying.
>>485693
>Genocide?
Yes, several centuries of actions like the Trail of Tears constitute genocide.
>Did you even read my post?
Yes and you said
>most if not 99% of deaths were due to disease
But the 99% death figure comes through a combination of disease and genocide, not disease alone. 1491 by Mann is a good start to learn more on this.
>>485635
>I'm pretty sure Spaniards/Portuguese utilized some form of germ warfare
You are the worst kind of /his/ poster. You make up shit about half ignored school lessons and then argue it as truth.
>>485702
The Trail of Tears led to hundreds of deaths. The Great Dying was millions of deaths. You are fallaciously playing rare instances off as a significant part of the Great Dying.
>>485742
And various other events like the Sand Creek Massacre, the Mendocino 'War', etc. also lead to hundreds of deaths individually, but centuries of similar events add up. The fact that most people died of disease doesn't suddenly mean there was no genocide, like a lot of people on 4chan and elsewhere seem to think lately.
>>485343
I'm sure Europeans that thought cutting someone was a method of treating illness knew what an immune system was.
>>485757
Which post in this thread has made the claim that there was no genocide besides the diseases?
>>485407
It's because European and Asian diseases were well-exchanged, like they had been for 1000's of years(The Black Plague came from China). As you well know, the Philippines although remote, isn't as remote from Europe as the Americas.
>>485771
Literally every single thread like this where genocide is mentioned and people come out of the woodwork to say "but akshully... disease killed more!"
The fact disease killed more people has nothing to do with the fact that there was genocide.
>>485343
Germ theory wasn't even a thing yet, you expect Europeans to know about immune systems?!
>>485782
So nobody has claimed there was no genocide, and your post was full of emotionally charged bullshit. Got it.
>>485789
This entire thread has been filled with people arguing about disease.
>>485797
> arguing about disease is equivalent to genocide denialism
Got it.
>>485799
It's dragging the focus away from genocide and onto disease for no other reason than to say "but akshully..."
>>485802
Well, that's unfortunate, but you do not get to call people denialists just because they don't want to talk about what you want to talk about.
Words have meanings.
Wouldn't it be ethnic cleansing though?
>>485099
What is the difference between genocide and a lopsided war? The amount of resistance the losing side puts up?
>>485730
You're a triggered little cunt but I concede that I didn't source that one argument.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1200679/#sec1_1title
>Pizarro is said to have presented South American natives with variola-contaminated clothing in the 15th century
Cites three sources I can't find but feel free to contradict it with factual data.
>>485761
The effects of European diseases on American Natives was well recorded from Cortes on, brah.
>>485843
Read the definition posted earlier. Truman for example wouldn't be guilty of genociding Japanese but the bombing of civilian targets is a war crime (the opposite of uncommon action among US Presidents).
>>485860
>in the 15th century
Pizarro was so evil that he managed to infect the natives with smallpox 9 years before arriving to America.
>>485893
I think it's a misparaphrasing meant to be 1500s.
>>485763
Tens of hundreds?
>>486543
It killed 6,000 Cherokee alone.
>>485782
What you are failing to register is that there is that anything that could ever qualify as a genocide counted for very little in the grand scheme of things. Thousands died due to genocide. Up to one hundred million died due to disease.
Focusing on genocides as part of the explanation for the Great Dying is the wrong way to look at it entirely. The Great Dying was almost entirely due to disease and the Americas didn't suffer genocide any more so than any other part of the world at that point or after. Hell, infighting between tribes due to fighting over fur trapping grounds and the political upsets due to the acquisition of European firearms likely killed far more than all the genocides combined.
Think about it this way, if you wrote a post on the Great Dying that reached the word limit, genocide should at max get max one sentence if that. To give it any more time than that is obviously an attempt to vilify someone or simple matter of ignorance on the topic. You therefore deserve all the rebuttals. Next time make a note that disease caused the vast majority of deaths.
Native apologists are the worst fucking people to interact with on /his/.
>EVERYTHING IS A GENOCIDE
>IF THE DEATH TOLL OF A WAR ADDS UP FROM ENOUGH EVENTS THEN ITS A GENOCIDE
I guess literally every war ever was a genocide to /his/ now.
>>485860
>In addition, during the French-Indian War (1754–1767), Sir Jeffrey Amherst, the commander of the British forces in North America, suggested the deliberate use of smallpox to diminish the native Indian population hostile to the British
What the actual fuck! Did Sir Jeffrey Amherst or didn't use smallpox blankets against Amerindians? I originally thought he merely suggested it, then someone gave a google books link that said they carried it out, now this paper heavily implies it was merely a suggestion!
>>486549
So six tens of hundreds.
>>486636
If you want to be a semantic autist, yes.
>>486656
I'm just bending over backwards to make myself not entirely wrong. Don't hate.
>>485860
I'm sorry for saying those harsh words. If you are capable of posting a source then you are okay in my book.
http://www.bvsde.ops-oms.org/tutorial1/fulltex/armas/textos/chebio/chebio.pdf#page=424
>On several occasions, smallpox has been used as
a biological weapon in the New World. Pizarro is
said to have presented indigenous peoples of South
American with variola-contaminated clothing in the
15th century, and the English did the same when
Sir Jeffery Amherst provided Indians loyal to the
French with smallpox-laden blankets during the
French and Indian War (1754–1767)
I'm officially on the fence at this point about Europeans using smallpox against natives. Sources seem to conflict. One source says Amherst's plan was used while others says there is no actual evidence. There are claims of Pizarro using it but what is the actual evidence? Did Pizarro write about the action?
>>486730
*
>On several occasions, smallpox has been used as a biological weapon in the New World. Pizarro is said to have presented indigenous peoples of South American with variola-contaminated clothing in the 15th century, and the English did the same when Sir Jeffery Amherst provided Indians loyal to the French with smallpox-laden blankets during the French and Indian War (1754–1767)
I'm officially on the fence at this point about Europeans using smallpox against natives. Sources seem to conflict. One source says Amherst's plan was used while others says there is no actual evidence. There are claims of Pizarro using it but what is the actual evidence? Did Pizarro write about the action?
>>486730
Jesus Christ where did you find this? Brilliant that you did though, it actually quotes that article I posted above including the 15th century blip, but it gave a source to here, the Medical Management of Biological Casualties Handbook (pg 1, pg 12 in Adobe reader): http://www.usamriid.army.mil/education/bluebookpdf/USAMRIID%20BlueBook%207th%20Edition%20-%20Sep%202011.pdf
>Pizarro is said to have presented South American natives with Variola virus-contaminated clothing in the 16th century
which has the original quote but the correct timeframe (16th century, but note this is a later edition so I'm assuming the error was in the original and was later corrected).
I agree I'm not finding anything conclusive but was only that I recalled germ warfare employed by the Spanish or Portuguese somewhere. Though perhaps not definitive I think the reporting in the MMBCH is at least trustworthy that the idea is not unfathomable.
>>485099
100 million
yeah ok i doubt that if you even added every native american who has ever died and all who are alive now that you would get to even 70 million
>>485242
if those filthy skrealing didnt attack before the vikings even knew there other people there maybe they could have had that chance but they blew it.
If i could go back in time and somehow change something, that is what i would change.
>>485343
How the fuck did you come to the conclusion that Europeans knew about germs by this point?
How fucking stupid and uneducated do you have to be to think this?
>>485608
just because they know that contact with things that have been exposed to smallpox will give you smallpox does not mean they understood germ warfare at all.
Your argument would hold up if literally the entire weight of European medical history was not against it, because there is absolutely no reason to believe that settlers in North America had an understanding of germs that was hundreds of years more advanced than Europe's, and it is even stupider to think that they also had figured out a way to use this to kill an entire group of people across a continent.
>>485242
Immunity doesn't work like that. There would have to be sustained contact to spread the disease and also keep new generations immune.
Just a few points:
- blankets are a very shitty an ineffective method of biological warfare, as the virus dies pretty quickly outside of a host
- the Fort Pitt shit is the sole example of someone even mentioning such a method
- until the 19th century people really did know fuck all about the virus and how to utilize its effectiveness as a biological agent, so even if they knew they can spread it, deliberately mass murdering 100 million people would be downright impossible
>>485099
an aside but when you really start to dig into the history of actual conflict between the US Government and Native Tribes you see the scale was really quite limited.
>>487680
If smallpox and other diseases made it to population centres in the New World they could have sustained themselves.
>>485099
>100 million
[citation fucking needed]
>>488198
That number includes the Amerindians who died in America, the continent, the problem is that commies and hipsters google for "Native Americans" and they get the number for the whole continent, and because they think America = USA they think the USA government is responsible for all those deaths.
>>487685
Yeah, and even if biological warfare was used in one or two instances, they are inconsequential relative to the natural and unintentional spread of Afro-Eurasian diseases through the Americas. It's silly to even mention genocide when talking about the Great Dying.
>>488517
It doesn't help that a fraud of a professor lied and got "the American government gave smallpox blankets to Native Americans" into history textbooks.
I don't really feel like reading this entire thread, but has anyone here mentioned the mourning wars tribes conducted?
>>485099
I find that image funny because the majority of Native Deaths happened before the Plains Culture like pic related developed. It's a fucking shame peeps don't read up more on Native Americans, because there's some interesting stuff.
If anything, they're using a racist caricature of Native Americans "muh red man with a teepee" to promote their cause.
>>488543
I don't think so.
>>488625
Bam
>>485099
At a hunter gatherer population density, non-pueblo Indians could have supported 1 million population. Which is about the population in 1900.
The "genocide" was micegenation and abortion reducing the population over the 20th century.
>>485407
>So please explain to me, why didn't the Spaniards manage to genocide the Pinoys?
Because Pinoys are the most powerful race in the world.
>>485256
yeah nah, this shit never actually happened anywhere, right?
>>485099
But native americans are not a people, just an umbrella term for a lot of different peoples.
I'm sure we can talk about different genocides that happened in the Americas, but once you call it "Genocide of 100 million Native Americans" you've became a meme populist faux historian.
>>485517
I love how all the genocide apologists just skip over this post and pretend it doesn't exist so they can keep acting like the only example is "muh smallpox"
>>485629
The Sioux were brutal as fuck dude, I'm surprised there isn't an attack chopper named after them yet.
>>489312
>massacre in retaliation for raids, rapes and murders of white people
No, it happened. Just not for the reasons you think it did.
>>485517
Is it really genocide if they are unintended casualties?
