Well? Care to explain how this fit into God's plan, Christians?

There weren't 100 million Injuns. And the bulk of what natives there were were in Mexico.
And most of the deaths of those there were were due to disease.

Yes clearly they deserved it. Case in point: they weren't worshipping God.

Satan worshipers get their comeuppance

Hmmm

>worshipping one big creator deity (Manitou)
>satanic
Injuns were proto-christians, retard

b8
You could've picked more obvious choices such as the 30 Year's war or the Crusades. Get your meme ass out of here

Is the 100 million figure the key here? How many people have to die for there to be a genocide?

The Trail of Tears was genocide and that definitely happened. The Indian Wars were genocides and they definitely happened.

It's only genocide when it's jews, dumdum

Some are more obvious but all are still genocides.

>Is the 100 million figure the key here?
It is if you want to cast it as the "Biggest genocide in human history".

>How many people have to die for there to be a genocide?
While we're at it, the amount killed isn't so much the issue as the methods and motives.

un.org/en/preventgenocide/adviser/pdf/osapg_analysis_framework.pdf

>Genocide is defined in Article 2 of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (1948) as "Any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial, or religious group, as such: killing members of the group; causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group; deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part; imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group; and forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.

Spreading diseases because you're ignorant of germ theory, which is how the overwhelming majority of natives died, is not genocide. Neither are attempts to loot treasures in Tenochitlan or Cuzco.

>The Trail of Tears was genocide
No it wasn't. It was a displacement and would be ethnic cleansing, but since the goals were not to obliterate the Cherokee, Chickasaw, Choctaw, Seminole, or Creek peoples, it was not a genocide

>The Indian Wars were genocides
Show me an Indian war with the aim of "We're going to wipe out the X" tribe; as distinct from "We want this land and want to overrun it. The Indian Wars were no more a genocide than any border conflict in Europe. Are they all genocides too?

I'm just trying to get user to agree it was genocide. It wasn't the biggest because it wasn't one genocide against one people.

The stated aim doesn't matter. The process was to defeat a tribe, remove them from their land, and keep going. Just because the people carrying out a genocide keep saying it isn't one doesn't mean they are telling the truth.

In the case of native americans in North America, the intention was to reduce their population to zero in lands desired by American citizen settlers. They accomplished this.

Did you even read his post? By the definition of genocide, it wasn't a genocide.
You can call it a lot of things, but genocide is not one of them. You just make yourself look like an idiot.

But they did not know about God before that

>The stated aim doesn't matter.
The statement might not matter, but the actual aim does. It's not genocide unless it meets the bar of intent, namely that the actions are committed with intent do destroy said group. If destruction of said group is incidental to the action but not the intent of such, it is not a genocide.

>Just because the people carrying out a genocide keep saying it isn't one doesn't mean they are telling the truth.
Just because they wipe out a group doesn't mean that wiping out of group was the intente.

>In the case of native americans in North America, the intention was to reduce their population to zero in lands desired by American citizen settlers.
You'll note that location is not mentioned in the genocide definition. Again, you can use the same logic to say that every border war in the old world is a genocide as well.

It fits the definition of genocide.

>Any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such: killing members of the group; causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group; deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life, calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part; imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group; [and] forcibly transferring children of the group to another group. (Article 2 CPPCG)

They removed people from their land and stole it, specifically for the land, and specifically to remove people. Hundreds of times. user decided to not understand the definition.

Genocide is a systematic execution of a people with the sole intent of wiping them out. Most natives at the time died due to disease. This was not intentionally spread to them by the conquistadors, it was a by product of their encounter. No one coming from Europe aimed to kill them by spreading smallpox into their population, just like one of your friends who accidentally contracts the flu isn’t a victim of attempted murder. Furthermore, many subsequent deaths that were not related to disease came from violent conflicts, of which the Europeans were just as likely to have died had they been ill-equipped - and in some cases actually had.

A small minority of the total number killed (which was most definitely under 100 million btw) were nonviolent, and wrongfully murdered. This was not part of a systematic which hunt, but rather was just an interaction between the pillagers and the pillaged. This is not unique to native americans, and millions of innocents have died of every ahape and color. To imply that there was an overt intent present in Europe aiming to wipe out the entire race of natives is intellectually dishonest. Prairie niggers are just mad that they lost the evolutionary race and got fucked on all fronts - out manned, out gunned, no immunity, and no innovation. They were savages by and large who didn’t progress fast enough to survive an encounter with any foreigners. Had nothing to do with the Christian god.

The aim was to take land and remove natives. They accomplished it almost everywhere in North America. Natives did not simply decide to leave all of North America peacefully.

If their aim was not to take land they could have not taken the land after they conquered the natives. If their aim was not to remove natives they could have not removed the natives after they conquered them.

>with the sole intent of wiping them out

Not so. It's also genocide if I, for example, kill or exile every Canadian because I want their land, but don't care whether or not I wipe them out.

Is there a field with more wish-thinking and guilt than the recent pre-Columbian population revisionists?

It's literally only a genocide if you lose

>The aim was to take land and remove natives. They accomplished it almost everywhere in North America. Natives did not simply decide to leave all of North America peacefully.
While true, this is irrelevant to determining whether or not such acts are a genocide.

>If their aim was not to take land they could have not taken the land after they conquered the natives. If their aim was not to remove natives they could have not removed the natives after they conquered them.
This is again irrelevant.

You do not seem to understand the definition of genocide. Again, by your "logic" how do any of the Indian wars and displacements differ from any border war that had been going on in Europe or Asia for millennia? To pick a war out at random, are the conquests of Ivan the Third over the eastern areas of the Lithanian commonwealth in the 15th century a genocide? He moved in with an army, threw out all the Lithuanians, and killed a bunch, taking over the lands for the new Russian state. If they are, what value is calling something a "genocide" when apparently any state act of violence falls under it? And if they're not, how are they different from the Indian wars you keep harping on?

that's not genocide tho.
Outside of the 17th and early 18th cenutury on the eastern seaboard there were no deliberate exterminations of indians.
Displacing Indians is morally wrong but it's not genocide.

If the definition is about the sole motive being to kill members of an ethnic group, then it's never happened.

Every genocide involves stealing land, at the least. So there are none.

Then there are no genocides. It has never happened.

>If the definition is about the sole motive being to kill members of an ethnic group,
That is also not the definition. Where the hell did you learn to read? I literally posted the link.

>then it's never happened.
Of course it has.

>Every genocide involves stealing land, at the least
Wrong. For instance, you have that famous Holocaust one, where groups like the Jews and the Gypsies did not in fact control the land they were on and their mass murders were incidental to "stealing" the land. You have things like the Roman stamping out of the Druidic religion by murdering its practitioners, that were done in areas they had politically held for quite a while. If you believe stories in the Bible, the almost eradication of the Tribe of Benjamin was not in order to take any land. There are lots of more examples that I personally don't know of, because my knowledge of history isn't unlimited.

did they have light eyes?

I think you still don't understand what a genocide is. If I ordered my military to go to the neighboring country and steal the land, kicking any who disagree with our new authority out, and killing many, that isn't a genocide. If I ordered my men to go there, kill every last one of these people that they find, search them out, make sure none get away, then, even if I steal their land too, it is a genocide.

The definition includes causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of a group, to deliberately inflict poor living conditions, imposing restrictions to prevent births, and forcibly transferring children to another group - to destroy in whole OR IN PART.

In the Holocaust Jewish land and property was actually stolen. So killing them was not the sole motivation. So it was not genocide by your interpretation.

Then it's only genocide when there was nothing but killing, no stealing, no war, no expulsion. Then no genocide has never happened.

>killing them wasn't the sole motivation
It pretty much was, the rest was just SS officers stealing golden tooths you blistering barnacle. They didn't build death camps because they needed more fancy clothes.

There was literally nothing in my post to even imply such thinking. In fact, I said the opposite.
>even if I steal their land too, it is a genocide.
If you mean to kill someone and anyone who could inherit his land, obviously, you would take that land and give it to people that you don't want to be eradicated.

>Holocaust
A good bit of the holocaust was about seizing the jews property

Looks to me like the plan worked

It wasn't. If it was they wouldn't have stolen anything.

Then you still don't understand the definition of genocide.

If it's only about killing as the sole motivation, it has never happened.

Retarded argument.
Stealing valuables was a bonus, the nazis did not orchestrate the holocaust for any reason other than killing the undesirable minority groups and arguing otherwise is just you trying to cover the fact that you are completely wrong on this subject.

I never said that it was about killing as the sole motivation. I killing every member of a group is at least one of the motivations, it is a genocide. If taking land is also a motivation, that doesn't make it not a genocide.
Killing every member of any particular tribe was never a motivation of the US government. Taking their land was.

>Stealing valuables was a bonus, the nazis did not orchestrate the holocaust for any reason other than killing the undesirable minority groups
Are you retarded?

Sorry I forgot that taking the fancy silverware of rich jews was the cornerstone of nazi ideology.

Things happen in God's permissive will that will not happen in God's express will.

If you honestly think that the settlers killed 100,000,000 Indians, you need to refresh your history on the Indian Wars. I already tried to give you a clue.

>....and lost their homeland

And the taking of their gold teeth. And all artwork. And anything else worth anything.

Yes. They just stole it because they could. The reason was to kill the jews. That leaves some valuable property as an added bonus. Nazi Germany didn't rely on those stolen goods in any way. It was mostly just given to rich SS officers to keep themselves.

>bonus

Right but it still wasn't genocide because the sole motivation wasn't killing. Per your definition that doesn't match the UN definition you posted.

Then various groups of native Americans were routinely genocided by the United States.

Keep ignoring half my post. It won't change the fact that you're a literal retard who shifts goalposts.

>Nazi Germany didn't rely on those stolen goods in any way. It was mostly just given to rich SS officers to keep themselves.
The fact that the monetary value of all jewish property in Germany in 1933 was about 12 billion Reichsmark and the Nazis were practicing deficit spending pretty much from the beginning makes that seem rather unlikely

>the sole motivation wasn't killing
I'm sorry what?
are you stupid or just trolling?

Taking their land and killing them is genocide.

Stealing their valuables and killing them is genocide.

>killing them
1. 90% died of European diseases
2. After the early 19th century, there was forced displacement but no deliberate extermination, Stealing property and land is not genocide.

If you are stealing from people then your motivation is partly stealing from people. If you're killing and exiling a whole group of people to steal from them you are committing genocide.

>90%
Literally what? So if 90% of natives died from disease, this invalidates the claims of the ones who were killed by Europeans?

The ones who were killed and exiled in the trail of tears and indian wars were killed by the USA in genocides.

>forced displacement

Is covered under the UN definition of genocide. And it always involved killing people.

No serious historian claims there were anywhere near 100 million people in the Americas before Columbus

>Then various groups
Once again, you simply don't understand. The government of the United States never attempted to kill every member of any Indian tribe. They did steal the land, but they didn't care what happened to the people. Any who fought were killed, many just stayed where they were, and some fled. They didn't chase down any who didn't fight.
Taking land is not a genocide. Trying to kill every member of a group is genocide. Doing both is still genocide. The fact that you also take the land of those that you try to exterminate doesn't make it not genocide.
Are you mentally handicapped?

>forced displacement is covered under UN definition of genocide.
This is false.
Next post please.

The UN definition of genocide counts what you describe as genocide.

>Any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such: killing members of the group; causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group; deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life, calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part; imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group; [and] forcibly transferring children of the group to another group. (Article 2 CPPCG)

If you insist on your definition then there were no genocides.

You could try reading the UN definition of genocide that user originally posted.

>deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life, calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part

If you remove people from their land and property you have done this. Even if you keep saying you only want the property and don't care either way about the people.

Really all someone would have to do to get away with your form of genocide is for anyone involved to say at any time during the process 'I am doing this for profit'.

Our government didn't intend to destroy the Indians of any tribes. It intended to take their land. It killed those who fought, yes, but not those who surrendered or those who fled.
The intention was to take land. Any death that happened was an unfortunate byproduct to the acquisition of new land, in their minds.

>move people from land to different land
I'm sorry but you're going to have to lay down a citation on your assumption that the displacement was deliberately intended to cause significant loss of life.

>calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part
>calculated
The displacements weren't calculated to bring about their destruction. They were calculated to get new land.

>intend

They had a funny way of going about it. Why didn't American settlers take the land that they sent the natives to?

They killed those who fought and then exiled the rest. This is in the UN definition of genocide originally posted by user.

>>deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life, calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part

>calculated
The displacements were calculated solely to acquire new land. It didn't matter what happened to the Indians.

>intended

In the Trail of Tears they exiled people from their land and made them walk across half of North America. Any deaths on that march were deliberate on the part of the people forcing the march. The reservations were planned before the wars, they had already planned to

>>deliberately inflict on the group conditions of life, calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part

and then did.

>solely

Prove it was solely to get new land. Since they actually did lead a death march after they got the land from the five civilized tribes, it wasn't solely to get new land.

Sorry pal but it was never intended to destroy the natives, just to subdue them more effectively. There was no large scale killing sanctioned by the US government.

>deliberately inflict
Once again, I need a citation on your assumption that US government did it to deliberately bring around significant loss of life.

When you plan a war and then plan to steal land then plan to lead a death march to your planned marginal and undeveloped reservation, you have planned to bring about significant loss of life.

Prove that it was intended to kill as many as they could.
>Any deaths on that march were deliberate on the part of the people forcing the march
Prove this. They just wanted them gone, and didn't care about how safe the march was. They wouldn't have been upset if they had all survived.

>just to subdue them more effectively
>>>deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life, calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part

oh yeah and this is what you are describing

>undeveloped
Undeveloped by urban European standards, the natives lived a rural and agrarian lifestyle.
And they still did not deliberately plan a significant loss of life because that was not the goal.

>Calculated to bring around physical destruction
Explain how the natives still exist in the millions on their reservations. There are more efficient ways of committing mass murder.

The vast majority died of disease having never even seen a white person.

>Prove that it was intended to kill as many as they could.

They intended to remove all of them from their land and they did.

>Prove this. They just wanted them gone, and didn't care about how safe the march was. They wouldn't have been upset if they had all survived.

They wanted them gone and genocide was the result. They would only have been upset if many survived in the land they stole from them.

>Undeveloped by urban European standards, the natives lived a rural and agrarian lifestyle.

Undeveloped by Civilized Tribe standards. Europeans wanted their land for a reason, and didn't want the land allocated to them in Oklahoma for good reason. Until they did want it and then they took it again.

>And they still did not deliberately plan a significant loss of life because that was not the goal.

They planned a death march and ethnic cleansing and carried them out.

>Explain how the natives still exist in the millions on their reservations. There are more efficient ways of committing mass murder.

People have children.

So it's about relative population? Explain how natives are reduced to a small fraction of the population despite being a majority when European rule began?

>natives reduced to a small fraction
90% of them were killed by disease.

Is there anything more pathetic than conquered peoples whining about their fate???

>They wanted them gone and genocide was the result. They would only have been upset if many survived in the land they stole from them.
Yes, they wanted them gone. They wanted them gone from certain lands. They didn't really care where they were, otherwise. If the intention was not to kill them all, then it isn't genocide. It could be called ethnic cleansing, but not genocide.
I don't know why I'm arguing with you. You came in here believing something, and refuse to believe anything else, even if the truth contradicts what you believe. I'm done.

I know.

90% were killed by disease following the introduction of Eurasian disease.

And then the remaining natives were, at least in North America, genocided in stages.

How can Christians be this retarded?

Removing people from their land is a form of genocide. Not caring where they go doesn't cancel it out, only the deliberate and calculated effort to remove them counts.

in the early colonial years. Mostly in the 17th century.
For the entirety of the US's history it was pretty much just displacement an being outnumbered by whites.

>removing people from land is genocide
Incorrect, but you'll keep posting this.

Displacement involving invading treaty lands and removing the locals by force.

It's the UN definition user started with. Deliberately planning to remove people and then doing it is genocide.

>>>deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life, calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part

You can read it one more time if you like.

>Any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial, or religious group, as such.
Are you being dishonest or just stupid here with your taking shit out of context?

Lol did you know that Cortes practically invented racemixing and mestizos in the New World? All Americans are this illiterate? He's basically the father of mexicans.

Stealing land and death marching the survivors is an intent to destroy. In the end it destroyed PART.

Dude, shouting loudly that what you are doing is only for profit does not mean you do not intend to hurt anyone. They wanted land, and they intended to remove the owners, and march them across the country.

The definition user already posted counts this as genocide. It's not hard to understand. If the native American do not count as genocide then it has never, ever happened. In no cases was killing the SOLE MOTIVE.

Based, in whole or in part, on Spanish religious laws regarding Christians and Muslims.

>Stealing land and death marching the survivors is an intent to destroy.
No, it isn't. It's an intent to acquire some land. The U.S. government wanted control over territory in what is now the Carolinas. They wanted to do this with a minimum of fuss. They were not looking for piles of dead natives. Such a result was of course a logical, foreseeable consequence of their actions, but because their intent was not to kill natives "As such", it does not meet the standard of genocide.

>The definition user already posted counts this as genocide. It's not hard to understand. If the native American do not count as genocide then it has never, ever happened. In no cases was killing the SOLE MOTIVE.
You are once again making a stupid false equivalence. Nobody is bringing up sole motivations except you. It does not have to be the SOLE motive, but the bundle of motives that do exist have to include a wish of destruction of a group, in whole or in part, for its own sake. That is why something like the Rwandan genocide is genocide, but not something like the trail of tears. The former's primary purpose was to kill Tutsi and Batwa. The latter's primary purpose was to secure territory. The former counted each new body as further success. The latter did not.

Again, are you simply thick, or are you being intellectually dishonest? I and several others have explained this repeatedly.

...

The word "genocide" gets thrown around so much people seem to forget it requires legislature to support it, the native Americans only got that in California

>What is Smallpox

>If smallpox hadn't happened the spaniards probably would've just enslaved and subjugated them.

I'm telling you that you are wrong about the definition of genocide that you posted. I've explained it many times in different ways, and you still insist that a plan to steal land is not also a plan to remove people. Or possibly that if you make sure to steal something, it can't be genocide.

I don't even. The word requires legislature to have a legally defined meaning? WOW!

God moves in mysterious ways, now shut up and answer the door, the nice Mormons are calling again.

Heathens getting annihilated has been part of God's plan from the beginning.

Christianity draws heavily on stoicism.

May as well blame disease and plague as the biggest evil and cause of genocide.

No, I mean you need government backed orders to commit mass extermination for it to be a genocide, not subordinates going kill crazy on their own initiative, only legal brainlets like yourself equate every massacre in history with a genocide

The government is the one who planned the expulsion of the five civilized tribes. They planned the war to take their land, carried it out, planned to remove them from their land and claim it, carried it out, planned to march them across the continent, carried it out, and planned to confine them to the Indian Territories and carried that part out.