>"The European habit of indiscriminately killing women and children when engaged in hostilities with the natives of the Americas was more than an atrocity. It was flatly and intentionally genocidal. For no population can survive if its women and children are destroyed.
>"The destruction of the Indians of the Americas was, far and away, the most massive act of genocide in the history of the world. That is why, as one historian aptly has said, far from the heroic and romantic heraldry that customarily is used to symbolize the European settlement of the Americas, the emblem most congruent with reality would be a pyramid of skulls."
Most of the deaths were due to disease. Don't forget, it was common at the time for civilizations to extirpate other civilizations.
I'm not a white man dindu nuffin, but everyone was more or less constantly at war all the time with anyone they thought they had the upper hand over, via right of conquest.
The natives just happened to get their shit kicked in way worse than anyone else.
There was no express intention of wiping natives from the continent, completely. Most of these stupid and false numbers can be attributed to communicable disease that wasn't spread on purpose, from the Spanish.
>slaughtering women and children
Sometimes, when a tribe was being overly hostile, and that was a bid to encourage them to either give up or move. Then you have Custer, who more or less used them as a shield against dog soldiers and the like. Let's not forget that natives had very few qualms about killing women and children, or keeping them as slaves.
What cucks tend to forget is that native had been wiping out rival native tribes after the horse was introduced, not while whites were populating the eastern seaboard.
Overall, it's a rather stupid charge, and history gets this shitty tint of moral relativism that can easily be countered references to native morality. Since these fuckers are just "historic" pundits on paper, they should be disregarded.
It's now thought that up to 96% of native inhabitants were killed by diseases that, while brought from Europe, raced ahead of European contact. When whites eventually did trek inland they found not the small isolated groups living a nomadic existence as originally thought, but the survivors of the most devastating plague in human history.
The "pristine" myth of Indians living in harmony with nature started because of this, and indeed in 1750 it was probably an easy conclusion to make. Had Europeans visited the same lands in 1492, however, they would have seen forests cleared and modified for farming, large agricultural settlements and communities, earthworks and even roads were also ubiquitous.
Read an article by Riley once that discussed this, only the diseases were intentionally transferred [smallpox on blankets, etc]. Also the first act of biological warfare.
To the OP, it does seem like the American removal of Natives was deliberate, and was considered genocide by our standards. It's retroactively trying to make an assessment, but, there was intention to remove the Native population, as well as their customs. If it was just amalgamation, that's one thing. That's be done and tried everywhere. But to kill them in the way it was done was genocide.
>considered genocide by our standards
This is the issue. Trying to judge the intent of those in the past while comparing them to our standards is folly.
It's easy for us to conclude their intent was genocide as means to conquer, but that would be ignoring the 'Doctrine of Discovery' mandated by the church, essentially a holy version of manifest destiny.
When women and children were killed, for example Wounded Knee (90 men, 200 women and children), it was considered collateral damage of the Indian Wars and therefore militarily justified. The first 20 Medals of Honor recipients in our history were all for Wounded Knee.
Black Buffalo Soldiers were also involved in a lot of the killing of Indians during those wars. Revisionists today like to paint Buffalo Soldiers as some noble example of early American blacks serving their country but Indians don't exactly share that view. They protested the Buffalo Soldier museum and parades quite often.
This is how warfare has always been conducted and it's so amusing/frustration to see SJWs act like its some crazy thing that only whites did to non whites.
Do you think Charlemagne spared the Saxon women and children?
Did Sherman show mercy to the South?
Give me a break.
I don't think this book is implying that kind of idea. It is true that genocide has been historically typical, but when an industrialized force comes up against one that is not industrialized, the shear scale of the devastation emphasizes the tragedy inherent in all genocide.
No I don't actually. The Indians had access to firearms and other Western technology. What they didn't have was a tradition of organized military discipline although they were obviously talented warriors.
Indian wars had been raging since the 17th century. By the time industrialization occurred they had already been defeated and it was just a mop up at that point.
Fair enough but then again they also had a much more intimate knowledge of the local terrain. I don't mean to suggest that it was an even fight by any means, the natives never stood a chance, what I'm getting at is that each side had unique strengths but the Europeans were just superior.
90%+ of them died in plagues well before they ever saw a white man and the more warlike peoples displayed brutality easily on par with anything that Europeans exhibited and frequently attempted and occasionally succeeded in committing genocide upon one another.
But on the other hand, until after the Mexican-American war there was always one European power or another in northern North America who would be happy to give guns to natives with the understanding that they'd be used on the enemies of said European power and in addition a number of tribes survived almost entirely on taking from others by force and were warriors from cradle to grave much like the mongols.
Not that they could ever have won, mind you.