What would Jesus think of what European Christians did to Native Americans?

Christ is God's messenger, reverberating many common religious themed and re-established and reformed many themes as well. Killing in the name of God is not worship, but is an excuse to imperialism a nation using God as your excuse to cause harm.

The Natives were killed by the Europeans, not the other way around. We even use Indian names of States to identify US citizens who are not of that origin at all, think of how many people in ignorance identify themself with the name of the state that has zero part of their heritagr, for the names of states are from the Native tribes, whose land the Europeans stole.

do you even know the Ten Commandments>

>excuse to imperialism
Jesus himself was basically for all intents and purposes an imperialist himself. Going up to people who are working and taking away their time is literally just as bad as killing them. Jesus probably countless individual people a vast amount of many by distracting them from work.

He would think it was horrible, but he was a homeless beggar who never had any kids, so why do you care what he thinks.

Also the peak native population of us&canada was 7 million so your 100 million figure is bullshit

Christ does not start wars, no where does He teach disciples to kill others. Killing a body is worse than challenging others teachings. Christ taught spiritual work.

God has more messenger's than I have fingers, stop posturing over some religion you don't believe in or never read about

This.

More would have been killed in South America regardless.

>Preventing others from work and effectively stealing their money is good
Great logic *sarcasm*

>muh 100 million

I would gladly kill another 100 millions

Christianity is not a religion, but is Christ's teaching about God and consciousness, which He does not exclusively hold as His own. This message of Christ is important to any person of any faith.

The message of Christ was corrupted by Paul, check out the Quran for the real deal dude.

>100 million
where did this person pull this retarded number from?

how could ANYONE know how many there were in america before the census

I wasn't aware smallbox is a Christian virus.

Paul's message is actually corrupted by the successors of religion that came after him, and Paul is killed for a reason. It is interesting to take note that Paul and Christ are killed for spreading a message, and it is the meaning of that message that is important. The same with the Quran, it is a message that teaches. Neither is exalted over the other, and self-analysis is more important than agreeing with the religious scholars opinions without any questions.

Christ is also a forgiving pussy. He should be more stern like his old self. Fuck those heathens good with the wrath of God, or maybe he did through the spaniards, since God has it all planned and knows it all.

Maybe God is ok with these events. He hasn't done much about it as far as we know.

>never forget the 100 trillion goy killed by the evil white men, goy!

Christ is a forgiving person, so each person has their own dealings to deal with. God gives free will to the Natives and the Spaniards, so they chose to kill the Natives. The Ancestor Spirits of the Natives tribes may have very well been often times forgiving, even to those who killed and raped them, and also claim authority over land that was God's and not theirs.

Are you guys justifying the treatment of natives because it could have been worse..

Didn't communists kill like 5 billion though? Surely that counts for something

>21 Leaving that place, Jesus withdrew to the region of Tyre and Sidon. 22 A Canaanite woman from that vicinity came to him, crying out, “Lord, Son of David, have mercy on me! My daughter is demon-possessed and suffering terribly.”23 Jesus did not answer a word. So his disciples came to him and urged him, “Send her away, for she keeps crying out after us.”24 He answered, “I was sent only to the lost sheep of Israel.”25 The woman came and knelt before him. “Lord, help me!” she said.26 He replied, “It is not right to take the children’s bread and toss it to the dogs.”27 “Yes it is, Lord,” she said. “Even the dogs eat the crumbs that fall from their master’s table.”28 Then Jesus said to her, “Woman, you have great faith! Your request is granted.” And her daughter was healed at that moment.
Maybe something along the lines of
>you dun good

What would Santa think of the Holocaust

Well he was the one that killed them seeing as he was the one that chose not to protect them from plague. Presumably Jesus either approved or was ambivalent.

This is a history board. Just incase you didn't know.

>Maryland

Gotta love those Catholic natives

Saying that a certain number of people were "slaughtered by Europeans" when most of the number cited were killed by disease is dishonest. You might as well say 200 million Europeans were "slaughtered" by Asians when the Black Plague hit.

It'd be hard to get down the chimney.

I definitely concede disease did them in the most. Doesn't justify the trail of tears or umpteen billion broken treaties.

Neither of the people you quoted were saying "euros dindu nuffin dey wuz good boys"
You can probably find plenty of /pol/lacks that will, though.

>Trails of Tears

Probably the best thing that could have happened to Native Americans during the early 1800s.

What were the options? Completely wipe out the people or move them somewhere else. Jackson could have easily commanded the US military to slaughter on sight. In the late 1700s, that was the rule in some parts.

The Oklahoma territory then sprouted into many other territories across the nation.

No, wait....I'm sure Jackson was just a mean idiot and stupid and a dumb dumb, and Reddit probably knows more about early 19th century politics than the fucking President

They weren't killed in the name of God, unlike Muslims killing today.

>Jesus himself was basically for all intents and purposes an imperialist himself.

>Analyzing history through a modern lense
You are the reason leftist and relativism have permitted every aspect of education.

No but they pointed out that disease fucked them the most. In other words it seemed as though they were lessening the blame on those who did do shitty destructive things to the natives.

>they were lucky we marched them out of their homeland, we could have just gone straight genocide

Nice rationalizations. What's with your white guilt? You didn't march anyone anywhere.

I have none. I'm also sympathetic to the Indians. I also realize that the Trail of Tears was a necessity.

This was during a time before mass communications. Georgians or Alabamites could have easily massacred entire Indian villages, and no one in Washington DC would have heard about it.

By moving Indians to their own territory, it set a precedent of
A) This part is theirs and
B) If you attack them, your breaking the law

pls tell me you're trolling. no one can be this dumb.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Population_history_of_indigenous_peoples_of_the_Americas#Depopulation_from_disease

...

>a necessity

I imagine you suppose there's no way both groups could cohabitate. Which is a reasonable assumption.

Your assertation that the natives now had a place of their own and were protected by the government is dubious at best. The treaties Americans made with native groups were a joke, and taken as seriously as the Chinese take the ruling on the South China Sea.

No idea what you mean by protection. I highly doubt before or after that march were local authorities at all concerned about protection, or their general welfare whatsoever.

I also love how you keep saying the settlers could have done so much worse. Just so you know, that is a meaningless statement if you're trying to justify how the government mistreated Indians.

Jackson did not move them to protect them. You must be a product of the American educational system.

>No but they pointed out that disease fucked them the most.

It did.

> In other words it seemed as though they were lessening the blame on those who did do shitty destructive things to the natives.

That's your interpretation, I personally don't believe that saying disease killed more people suddenly means that the people Europeans did kill matter less. It lessens the blame to the extent that it distinguishes the death toll between disease and the direct action of colonists, which is a perfectly fair distinction. If, for example, Jim and Francis rob a bank, Jim shoots 2 guys and Francis shoots 10, saying "Jim shot 12 men" is false. Just by virtue of mentioning that fact doesn't inherently mean you're trying to reduce the blame for what happened, Jim still shot two people.

In regards to the disease being the European's fault, sure, they transmitted it, but not with the intent of genociding natives. Sometimes people whip out the "smallpox blankets" argument but as far as I can gather the intentional use of disease to kill natives is a meme and the only example of intentionally distributed smallpox blankets I found was when the British in fort Pitt were being beseiged by natives, and that was in 1763. In that one case, yes, and even then it was used to relieve a siege, not kill natives indiscriminately.

To add on to that blanket thing user, it didn't even work. Not to mention people back then had very little understanding of diseases and the Americans using biological warfare on a group of people beyond simply using diseased corpses or mixing them with already infected people is a bit far fetched and under examination nobody has any evidence of it besides the one failed attempt at Fort Pitt you mentioned.

Ugh I conceded right away disease was the biggest issue. Not my point. That's your point to avoid admitting they were regularly screwed.

The rest of your rant is mental gymnastics trying to free any responsibility that the early settlers did shitty things to the natives. Who knows why you're wasting time doing that, on a history board no less.
The prez himself marched them out of the ancestoral homelands. But that's ok because... I'm not sure how you justify that being ethical. You 'tried'?

No the settlers didn't kill them all
Yes they did terrible things.
I have no idea how your example makes that ok. I am only saying they suffered what we would consider serious injustice today. Disagree?

Yeah, but most settling in North America happened after native society collapsed. Spain and Portugal did horrible things while Native society was still intact.

bruh
>en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iroquois
>The history of the Iroquois Confederacy goes back to its formation by the Peacemaker in 1142, bringing together five distinct nations in the southern Great Lakes area into "The Great League of Peace"

It's really simple:
>some people did 1 bad thing
>you claim they did 2 bad things
>Others point out they only did 1 bad thing and you can't refute this, but you don't accept it either

You're the only one engaging in mental gymnastics. That user and I are arguing very specific things which are factually incorrect.
You want the settlers to take responsibility for every bad thing you ascribe to them, regardless of whether they did it or not and that's just incorrect.

It's scapegoating to relieve your own anger and what's more, scapegoating allows you and whoever else to ascribe responsibility for all society's ills on a select few "evil perpatrators" which does a great job of abnegating the responsibility you have for own little sins.

I don't like catastrophising and I don't like scapegoating because it's exactly what people use to justify their violent actions towards others.

Who the fuck mentioned feeling bad? Facts are facts, shitty things were done to the natives. It is what it is. You wanna feel white guilt? Go ahead, it's probably because had you been there you'd have gleefully participated in the destruction. You know it's wrong on some level but I bet it suits your worldview.

>Americans.

>genocide peaceful natives but let niggers breed and import them all across the world

Fuck America.

What gibberish are you spewing?
Settlers and their government forced them from their land. Surely violence or at least outright cruelty had to be used from time to time. Surly other crimes were committed against them by individuals. The government broke dozens of treaties.
Why are you insisting they were benevolent?
Who the fuck said i wanted anyone to take responsibility? They're all dead moron. Do you just read what you want to see? Why are facts so hard?

To make it simple. They were forced off their land. There were Indian slaves. There were a myriad of shitty things done to them. This is known.

You wanna feel guilty I guess. I sure as hell don't. I just am saying it is what it is. I'm not sure if you're the one who justified the trail of tears because 'it wasn't genocide'. If that's how you feel, fine. But it makes you a huge prick. It may have been the best option as the locals may have destroyed them. Doesn't make the march ethical.

Why are you denying shitty things were done to natives? All the treaties broken is enough evidence, pissing on their sovereignty like its nothing. I don't have news clippings ascribing a white settler cold bloodily killing a native. However we do have the march, and the documented opinions of Jackson, and a list of sham treaties.

Tell me about these 2 things, and the other 1 thing I'm so wrong about

For fuck's sake. 100 million DIED, mostly from diseases unintentionally introduced by the early settlers. A few ten thousands max were actually SLAUGHTERED, as in killed by violent means.

Yeah theres a lot of debate about how many people actually lived in the Americas, but I've never seen an estimate get anywhere close to 100 million.

In any case, most of those people werent actually killed by europeans, they died from disease.

Jesus wouldn't be happy with those few thousand. I don't know exactly at what number he draws the line though.
This thread is bait though, I'll agree to that.

I'm actually a bit surprised by how dense and excitable you are.

First thing:
>15,000 Indians killed by white settlers
Second thing:
>millions more die from disease unintentionally introduced by white settlers

Now with this crucial information that was already held within the posts you replied to, and following the sequence of words and punctuation that forms sentences, even you should be able to understand what's been said.

>five distinct nations
Tribes. They weren't nations.

>I have no idea how your example makes that ok.

I literally said it doesn't make it ok.

>Why are you denying shitty things were done to natives?

I'm not.
I tried to spell this concept out in a way a five year old would understand with the analogy. I'll repeat it - Jim (the settlers) and Frank (the disease) go somewhere (America), Jim kills 2 people (natives), Frank kills 10 (natives). Jim is still a fucking murderer, the fact that somebody corrects you ascribing 12 dead men to Jim by saying Frank killed ten of them doesn't magically mean they're saying Jim isn't a murderer or that he didn't kill two people. How do you not understand this very, very simple idea? This concept isn't mental gymnastics, it's basically a mental walk in the park, the fact that you struggle so hard to grasp it makes me worried for you.

You can make the argument that because they transmitted the disease, the smallpox deaths are "the settlers' fault" but you can't just go and say that's genocide, there was no intent to spread disease, the disease was in no way manufactured and it was only weaponized in a specific circumstance that didn't really do much.

And also, just to be clear, I'm not accusing you of calling the disease genocide, I said it more as an afterthought. The importance of the statement can be condensed into the statement "Saying that disease killed more natives is not excusing the settlers for their actions, nobody said that, you just read into it that way."

Who's got that video where a Union general and a Lakota chieftain sit down to talk and the general says the Lakota are no better than the Americans when it comes to conquering shit?

Why are you spitting out numbers I never disputed? How are YOU calling ME dense..
I never disputed this. Can you seriously not read? First post I conceded disease fucked them by far the hardest.

How does this justify the treatment of the natives? Notice how the thread is what would Jesus think, encouraging the discussion to center around ethics. You think cause it was mostly disease, settlers and their govt of the time did nothing wrong. I have to keep repeating myself apparently: They were force marched off their lands, killing many. They were given treaties that were worthless. And surely there was small scale violence. Jesus would not like. Kinda obvious.

Just because your stupid ass wants to keep taking about disease like that faggot Jered Diamond, has nothing to do with other injustices they experienced.

I can't believe you don't understand this. I'm guessing it doesn't fit your narrative of 'whitey didn't do nuffin' or you're trolling in a stupid fashion.

>injustice
>especially regarding the Plains and Southwestern Tribes
Nope.

>You think cause it was mostly disease, settlers and their govt of the time did nothing wrong.

You keep putting these words in people's mouths because you're apparently so retarded you can still totally have the point fly over your head, because you INSIST on inferring things when people are giving you the most explicit statements they feasibly can.

This entire argument stemmed from you saying this where you were very quickly told "no that's not what they're saying" but you keep INSISTING that's what everyone is telling you. Nobody is saying "whitey dindu nuffin", they're disputing you saying
> In other words it seemed as though they were lessening the blame on those who did do shitty destructive things to the natives.

Because that isn't what anybody is saying. Nobody said "whitey dindu nuffin it was all disease"

Get that through your head.

Nobody. Nobody in this entire discussion chain has at any point made any effort to dispute broken treaties, the trail of tears, or white abuse of natives. I'll say it again.

NOBODY.
SAID.
THAT.

How do you think that example applies at all? It seems like you can't/won't read what I keep saying and you don't want white people accused of any misdeeds. Disease killed them all, the end. That's your spin. I just said they experienced many injustices. Your example is mind numbingly stupid because:

I've said a hundred times disease killed harmed them far more than settlers. I conceded that first post, it was an opinion I held to begin with. Prove me wrong, I know exactly what I've been saying. Maybe you got a post mixed up that wasn't me.
How do you not understand I know disease killed most of them, yet I also know they suffered injustices at the hand of settlers and their government? This is outstandingly simple.

I can't explain that simpler. Seriously I'm not worried for you cause youre a lost cause on a few levels.

Disease killed 90% more of them.
Settlers did shitty shit and their government facilitated it. I did not bring up blankets. Clearly did not bring up genocide. I brought up forced removal from their homelands. I brought up broken treaties. Natives died through these policies. Surely some were outright murdered, but I've conceded that number is small.

The fact that this is beyond you is indicative of white guilt I guess. Why you can't acknowledge they suffered crimes, why you can't read my simple words... I have no idea but I've repeated myself 10 times. You cannot be this stupid and turn on a computer. Apparently you want to set a narrative that forgets all the wrongs the settlers/govt did to the natives, and focuses on smallpox as the reason they were all but exterminated. And that's correct, disease killed the majority of them. Doesn't change what I said.

Did the native civilization create anything of value that was worth preserving?
They were shitty nomad barbarians, nobody cares.

Good argument dipshit. Yeah I heard the trail of tears was just like marti gras.
My general point is that many different natives experienced injustice. No one in the academic community would give it a second thought. The US govt itself has admitted as much

>trail of tears
>Plains tribes
Fucking wew. You are way out of your element.

mexica-movement.org/ACCOMPLISHMENTS.htm

Sure man. I just keep saying disease killed most of them but the settlers and their govt screwed them. And people are arguing with that. Mostly by calling me dumb. So you do the math.

How in the fuck do you know what another pol/ack is trying to say? I suggest you reread the thread. My only assertion is injustices were done, that the whole chapter was ethically dubious. People keep arguing with me. So again do the math. What does everyone disagree with that I said? History is meant to encompass as much as we can know, I just wanted to point out the settlers did shitty things, that Jesus wouldn't like, per the thread question. And I got a million Yous. This isn't rocket science.

Tell me about these explicit statements. That disease killed the majority. Yes I know, I have to keep reiterating that I know that. I agree with that. If you look at the thread, shit you surely said, you would emphasize that disease killed most of them. I point out settlers didn't help and did unchristian like things and a shit storm erupts.
I can't explain that. If you're really right, I cannot believe this thread is still active because we all agree. Apparently you all don't want to hear about the atrocities the settlers did, and want to focus on disease. Which is benign as far as Jesus is concerned. Do you know the thread question even?

Nice of you to get your jimmies rustled though.

Yeah they ended up in Oklahoma. Marched through the south east

Jesus Christ dumbass. Nice post

The term nation is applicable as well, whether you like it or not.

See: 'Iroquois Diplomacy on the Early American Frontier' by Timothy Shannon; 'First Peoples' by Colin Calloway; or any other authoritative source covering the Iroquois.

The Southeastern Tribes, whether they ended up in Oklahoma or not, were not Plains Indians. Again, you're out of your element. Stop posting.

>fail to meet basic criteria of a nation
>magically a nation because you say
That's not how it works. Academics refer to them as nations as a form of uplift, but tribes are not nations. They never have been and they never will be. In fact, every political scientist will tell you this.

He wouldn't have approved of enslaving and stealing from the native population.

He would, however, have approved of going to the new lands and spreading Christianity.

"Therefore go and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, and teaching them to obey all that I have commanded you."

There will never be any apology for the spread of Christianity, and whatever "destruction of culture" it might have caused. It is what we as Christians are called to do. When talking about 'culture,' remember, the spreading of the faith is part of OUR culture. Who are you, who is anyone, to criticize it?

I never fucking called the plains Indians you fuck. I know the Cherokee are from Georgia. I know they were marched west.

More importantly how are you contributing to the thread? You think you caught me? Oh shucks I'm just a Jim Bob. Get out storm fag. You probably googled the trail of tears before posting

Also you don't know the definition of nation. Google it.
Then go back to your safe space.

he makes a good point senpai

>tribes are not nations. They never have been and they never will be.
>what is tribal sovereignty
>what are domestic dependent nations
>b-but political science!

I'm afraid you're out of your element as well.

>My only assertion is injustices were done

No, you repeatedly made the assertion that people were denying that, when they weren't. That's what people were arguing with you over.

It rustles my jimmies because people have been very, very clear with you and then you turn around and make the same stupid fucking accusation that they're just trying to justify settler actions when their entire post is specifically about telling you that's not what they're saying. You keep putting words in people's mouth and by some miracle totally missing the point. See where you say my example doesn't count and follow up with
>Disease killed them all, the end

Which is EXACTLY NOT what my example stated. My example said the OPPOSITE. It OUTRIGHT ACKNOWLEDGED disease did not kill them all. I'm putting it IN CAPS so that you UNDERSTAND THE WORDS I AM SAYING.
The example OUTRIGHT STATED something that CONTRADICTS "disease killed them all" EXPLICITLY.

You're a fucking retard. You're just totally fixated on shoving words in people's mouth.

>specifically refer to Plains Indians and Southwestern tribes
>you bring up the trail of tears as if it's relevant
Literally fuck off.

>A nation (from Latin: natio, "people, tribe, kin, genus, class, flock") is a large group or collective of people with common characteristics attributed to them - including language, traditions, mores (customs), habitus (habits), and ethnicity. A nation, by comparison, is more impersonal, abstract, and overtly political than an ethnic group. It is a cultural-political community that has become conscious of its autonomy, unity, and particular interests.[1]
>Stalin's Marxism and the National Question (1913) declares that "a nation is not a racial or tribal, but a historically constituted community of people;" "a nation is not a casual or ephemeral conglomeration, but a stable community of people"; "a nation is formed only as a result of lengthy and systematic intercourse, as a result of people living together generation after generation"; and, in its entirety: "a nation is a historically constituted, stable community of people, formed on the basis of a common language, territory, economic life, and psychological make-up manifested in a common culture." [2]
Tribes are not nations.

The tribes BECAME nations. They were not nations in the period were are discussing and didn't become nations until well afterward.

Hey look stormfags, an actual answer to the thread question.

Good post

>They were not nations in the period were are discussing and didn't become nations until well afterward

The fact that U.S. government entered into formal treaties with Indian peoples as they would with any other nation speaks otherwise.

Also

>Cheroke Nation v. Georgia
>Chief Justice John Marshall recognizes them as domestic dependent nations
>They were not nations in the period were are discussing
>1831
>Trail of Tears not until 1838

They were nations; you just like to deny it, like Andrew Jackson did.

>referred to as nations for legal purposes is the same thing as them being a nation
Again, that's not how it works. You can call anything a nation. That doesn't make it so.

Also they were referencing them as a state, which also does not necessarily denote nationhood.

>getting defeated by blankets
LOL

Never asserted anyone denied it. I may have generalized on the fact all the pol/acks wanted to focus on disease and continually tell me about it, right after I acknowledged it. Welcome to the Internet. Everyone wanted to focus on the disease. Which wasn't the idea of the thread. Talking about the disease literally takes focus from the dubious ethics of the settlers/govt of the time. You're the type of person who thinks black lives matter means their lives matter more than others.
Sorry you're a child and this hurts so bad. Welcome to earth. Congratulations for understanding with such depth the plight of the native Americans.

I've been strawmaned a thousand times in this thread. The thread question is clear. Please be more specific in your criticisms. I don't doubt I used hyperbole in a post up there. Why this is so important is beyond me. I've spent the whole thread stating simple facts. Pol/acks or whoever wanted to stress it was mostly disease seemed intent on shit flinging when I pointed out injustices were done against the natives.

Yet you all, especially you, are irate that I keep reiterating disease killed most of the people BUT they suffered in other ways. Disease has nothing to do with ethics, whereas the treatment of the natives does.

really shouldn't take this so personally. The thread didn't focus on the question, which apparently makes some uncomfortable.

Jesus Christ it's simple. I'm so sorry you feel like I shoved words in your mouth. On an user image board. First world problem dude.

Again I believe you have a deep understanding of their plight. Fucking happy?

Someone else replied to you to correct your pleb understanding of nation

As far as plains Indians and whatever gotcha crap your spewing, you missed the mark entirely. This thread isn't even about the Cherokee moving from Georgia. This is about, supposed to be about, the ethics of how the natives were treated by settlers and their representive government.

12 year old gotcha shit. Your the type of faggot that thinks someone makes a typo and you "win" the "argument"

There's a couple idiots here who in no way will understand the difference between a nation and a nation state. It's futile senpai

Why don't you actually try and offer up some arguments/evidence that Indian nations were/are actually not nations and explain your criteria of "nationhood" instead of just saying other people are wrong.

::crickets::

>Natives die out from disease
>Blame evil Christian gas-chambers

"Night Whisper." Painting by Kirby Sattler (1950-).

>I've spent the whole thread stating simple facts.

So has everybody else, the point is you're repeatedly inferring meaning, and then apparently exaggerating it by your own admission, while refusing to actually acknowledge the substance of their post (and, in fact, on several occasions accusing them of saying the opposite of what their post states).

I'm calling you stupid, not taking it personally, acting condescending doesn't make you less stupid. I'm going to break it down one more time, I'm not optimistic.

>Yet you all, especially you, are irate that I keep reiterating disease killed most of the people BUT they suffered in other ways.

I'm not irate that you're stating they suffered in other ways but that you think people are disagreeing. This discussion started, I'll remind you, because of this post:

Which I replied answering you question with "no." and that nobody made that argument, then the rest of the shitshow was trying to hammer this simple concept into your head while you repeatedly said shit like this:

>In other words it seemed as though they were lessening the blame on those who did do shitty destructive things to the natives.

No, that isn't what they said.

>That's your point to avoid admitting they were regularly screwed.

No, that isn't what I said, and I admitted that they were regularly screwed. Outright. I also outright said it wasn't ok what they did. Like, in plain English, at the start of my post. You reply with this, where you read my example where I outright agreed white people killed people and in very simple terms explained to you what people were correcting you about, then you inferred the opposite of the statement and delude yourself to think I said "disease killed them all". Then you said:

>How does this justify the treatment of the natives?

It doesn't. Nobody said it does.

>You think cause it was mostly disease, settlers and their govt of the time did nothing wrong.

No, nobody said that.

>wage total war with one another for centuries, killing and eating your enemy's children solely because he's on land that you want
>try to do the same to the white colonists
>get annihilated
>BAWWWWWWWWWWW MUH POOR DESTROYED PEOPLES, GIB RESERVATIONS PLEASE

Most tribes didn't even have a word for "Genocide", because to them "Genocide" and "War" were completely indistinguishable concepts.
When Native American tribes went to war, they killed their opponents to the last man. That usually included slitting the throats of their infants.

Go back to drinkem that fire-water, Shitposts-with-Cheeto-stains.

>Native Americans was one culture!
Ayy lmao.

>Only MOST native-americans killed and ate people! Not ALL of them!

Whoopty friggen' do. Let's give them a medal.

Also, not ALL Christians waged war with native-americans.
I guess OP's argument is moot then.

>Most tribes didn't even have a word for "Genocide", because to them "Genocide" and "War" were completely indistinguishable concepts.

The word in English is like a hundred years old.