who was the LEAST nasty imperialist overlord?

UK
france
spain
portugal
germany
russia
japan
china
turkey
the netherlands
USA
poland (ask the lithuanians or the ukrainians, if you don't believe me)
israel (hush yer mouths, likudniks)

as of now, my vote will probably go with the turks (at least in their ottoman period).

actually i'd go for us and uk

their actions have often been backed up by an ideology, not pure cruelty

although its record is being tarnished day by day, i guess israel also has much justification historically for its actons

exactly ... after yer post, i thought "wow, if there are any armenians here they would FLAY me alive for saying the ottomans."

another one i forgot ... the austro-hungarians. the habsburgs were relatively benign as far as imperialist dynasties go (though i'm sure that some yugoslavians would strongly disagree) -- better them than the germans or the russians, anyway.

What was the empire that allowed Christians to visit the Holy Land?

umn, did you read ANYTHING in this thread?

Others for consideration

Mongolians: brutal in conquest picked up civilization on the way
Mughals: decedents of the above, decadent and corrupt at the end but great art
Asoka: Brutal, found the buddah, brought law and order to india
Carloginians: First real empire in europe after the romans
Persian: several editions of
Babylonians
Egytians:
Zulus
Moors
Hitites
NormanMinoans
Maya
Aztec
Manchurians
Tibetan

On the whole empires go through better and worse stages the british was best as a trading empire in the late 18th and early 19th century before the 'white man's burden' stage, the turks were at the hight of tolerance and culture during the middle ages etc.

Although considered barbaric today, the Islamic civilization
was quite progressive in it's heydey.
The empire that emerged in the centuries after
Mohammeds death was VERY enlightened for it's time. In fact,
the various Muslim regimes were far more tolerant and free
then the Christian states. And generally speaking, they did not
force their religion on others at swordpoint;
they were often seen as liberators and this is what spurred
their growth.

Ironically, when the first crusaders reached Jerusalem to
"free" it from the infidel, there were many Christians already
living there! Many of them probably got killed by their own
"brethren" in the general slaughter.

The US and the UK committed incredible sins against indigenous
people and imperial serfs alike. Nevertheless, and not by way
of excuse, they were far outstripped in brutality by many other
imperialists.

While were on the topic, many people don't realize just how
evil the Stalin's regime was; he made Hitler look reasonable
and humane. But history hates a loser, so Hitler is considered
the worst of the worst. Then there's Mao, who is actually seen
by some as a kind of flawed visionary, despite an incredible
legacy of mayhem and desecration.

It survived, in divied form, for the next two hundred years.
In any case, what bearing does it have on the thread question?
The 'winner' to this thread will be a country who invaded somewhere else for five minutes, perhaps for altruistic reasons.

Just ask the Maccabees.

Huh? Except for that whole annihilation of an entire indigenous peoples thing, right? The genocide of the American Indians was equal to anything in history.

I don't think there was actually much genocide. Over 90% of the Native American population was killed by diseases brought over to which they had no resistance, rather than as a result of a deliberate slaughter.

Nevermind the American Indians, the ones in newfieland were the first and possibly only to be killed off completely down to the last one. Story has it one woman escaped and died of old age childless.

But even if the 90% number were correct (I don't believe it is, as the Spanish had 300 years of colonial power without the entire population dying off, the US had significant numbers of American Indians well into the 19th century), how are diseases introduced by Europeans in the process of conquest not their fault?

Even more recent, I think -- like mid-70s.

xxxxxpost

For the sake of argument, though, you think 'accidental genocide' is OK, so long as you don't do it on purpose? WTF?

then, there were other nasty colonial practices that cut down on the native populations -- namely, slavery (which is why the europeans started bringing in african slaves -- they were killing off the native americans through overwork), alcohol, arming rival tribes, etc.

"PC awe of genocide"!?!? You know, if there's one thing you wackjobs can't blame on political correctness, I'd think "awe of genocide" might be it.

But let's look at it:

- European setllers were directly responsible for the introduction of diseases that killed millions of American Indians. Intent is irrelevant, if not for the European desires for conquest, the diseases don't spread and kill.
- In numerous cases, settlers purposely took full advantage of these diseases (smallpox-blankets, alcoholism) for their own gain
- In addition to questions of how American Indians died, fulfilled every other aspect of "genocide," in their attempts to break apart and destroy American Indian cultures.
- oh, and hey, guess we shouldn't forget the millions who were killed and enslaved outside of 'quirks of biology,' right?

Under any definition you want to go by, the treatment of American Indians qualifies.

But, as Eisbar (and I) noted, it started out unintentional - but still fully the Europeans fault and became intentional when they realized that it could be taken advantage of.

Which other cultures came-a-conquerin' in the Western Hemisphere in the last millenium? It was a European(-descended) desire for conquest that led to the demise of the American Indian.

Trying to excuse European actions in the Americas as part of some universal human condition is the worst kind of moral relativism and political correctness.

That's pretty specious reasoning. How many other cultures were even logistically capable of such a thing? In all of history what culture has NOT tried to expand its land holdings?

likewise, I am not trying to "excuse European actions in the Americas".

De, I know exactly what you want political correctness to mean, my definition is much closer to the reality. It's not politically correct to talk about the settlers and, later, the founding fathers and early leaders of the US for what they were. It's not comfortable and it's not going to help you out socially.

You patronising cunt. If you see this message board as interfering with my life offline you are one sad fuck.

You've taken this thread in a whole other direction. You haven't even stuck your neck out and given an answer to the thread question.
If you can't accept this is a debate go touch your wang instead.

De, your relativism cuts every which way. If the genocide of American Indians was a 'whim of history' or 'historical phenomenon' that enables us to exist, then surely we can make the same judgement re: Stalin's purges and the Holocaust. Without World War II, many of our grandfathers would never have met our grandmothers. Without Stalin's rapid industrialization during the 1930s, the USSR would have been in no position to hold the Eastern Front and ultimately roll back the Nazis and win the war. Without the Nazis/Holocaust you don't get real international initiative for the formation of Israel (important to millions), without them/it the Soviets win the space race by a long shot.

'Historical phenomena' (per your statement) is worthless as a tool to view history. It resolves to "well, it made the world what it is today!" every time.

http://www.azgop.org/pics/officials/congress/hayworth.jpg

There's a good deal of Amerindian in the primordial soup of
my ancestry (Mayan tribe to be exact), and so I took pains
to point out that I'm in no way an apologist for the actions
of the white settlers[1]! But this extermination was committed
not solely by Americans, it was a collusion of American,
British, Spanish, Portuguese interests, so I'm not sure if
any one imperialist overlord can bear the full brunt of
the disaster.

I might add the "American Indians" didn't really exist, there
were thousands of completely independant groups so the issue is
even more complicated. I guess
the more I think about this question the dumber it seems.
So Eisbar, you truly are a shit-for-brains
.
Mark H: you're in a state of denial. Yes, disease was a major
factor. But as late as the 1880s and 1890s, U.S soldiers were routinely
slaughtering Indians in droves; men, women, children, infants, what have you.
This is well-documented.

And you cannot excuse these behaviors by saying "it was the cultural norm."
There were many, many good whites who were decrying these crimes and
trying to stop them - but they were in the minority, and in a democracy
majority rules.

Oh, and I should make it clear that I don't hold Americans TODAY responsible
for committing these depradations. Very few whites today would support such
policies (most of them live in Arizona, I think). Nor do I believe in punitive
"reparations," but I do believe in the U.S government paying it's debts to the
Indians, which it does try to do in a half-hearted and inadequate way.
The fact that all cultures everywhere seek to dominate over small,
different minorities- so what? Murder and rape are universal crimes too, but they
are still to be condemned, prevented, and punished where possible.

Oops: you are making obvious statements - OF COURSE rapine and
domination are not European perogatives. It is strange and disturbing that
you are getting so defensive. The arguments you're making
smack of a certain refusal to accept what our US government (the exact same
government, it hasn't changed) did in the recent past.

[1] I say this for purely informational purposes, so you can see where I'm
coming from. In no way do I imply that this gives me a superior view of
events, or a "moral high ground" but it does inform my opinion.

Or do they lose out on being explained away as 'historical phenomena' because they lost? (Well, actually, yes - we already willingly forget atrocities committed by the winners in WWII and the Cold War.)

And your 'tool to veiw history', pure condemnation, certainly is 'worthless'. What that resolves to is blind repetition of former mistakes. You would not choose to try and understand the mentality of people who lived in the past, why they did what they did.
Pure condemnation? Huh?

Everything I've said has been confined to "the LEAST nasty imperialist overlord" and statements to the effect that the US/UK wasn't so bad, and your denial of European fault in North American genocide. Nothing about pure condemnation or Europeans having no redeeming characteristics (my descendents on both sides are mostly from Ireland and Wales with a tiny bit of Cherokee - I'd have to be filled with a lot of self-loathing to hate Europeans) or anything of the sort.

Yeah, moral relativism has its degrees. Stealing bread to live vs. stealing money from the poor - I hold them to different standards. That's relativism.

Yours is a moral relativism that attempts to excuse - I'm sorry 'explain' and 'understand' the role of Europeans in genocide because "hey, other cultures did it too!" The fact that other cultures engaged in conquest and genocide is completely irrelevant to North America, where it's solely Europeans at fault.

The only reason to even bring up other cultures is to remove some of the stigma and guilt from Europeans. I've got a problem with that.

The "GOLD STANDARD OF MORALITY" stuff would be interesting and all, if I had taken any kind of moral absolutist position or asserted any kind of universal morality. Thanks, though.

Um, no. You think my "defensiveness" is strange and disturbing because you're trying to read bewteen the lines. Why do a lot of people here think they're so damn smart that they can MIND READ and DIVINE what someone REALLY is thinking. Fuck it's annoying. If you actually KNEW me at all, you'd know that I don't hold the US govt or any other in high enough regard to feel the need to make excuses for them.

wait, "the exact same government"??? we don't even have "the exact same government" as we did 2 years ago.

Err, yes dude. This is where studying history comes in.
Like it or not the Nazis and the nation of Germans which voted them into power were human beings. As I said, understanding them, compassionately and without rash judgement is the only way to prevent another Holocaust or similar evil. Millions of 'innocent' Germans were caught up in this horror. We owe them, and their children. Stalin, was the unforseeable result of a (supposedly) well-intentioned benign socialist revolution. A creed developed years before was the wellspring for that, its utopian ideals seemingly a tonic for disposessed humankind. But the ultimate reult was an extermination of those same oppressed people by a sadist. Why?
When all is said and done, whoever is the oppressor, and whoever is the oppressed, it boils down to human beings killing eachother.
Forget race. History is a bloodbath. And simply apportioning blame, and doing nothing else, is futile. The challenge is to understand why we do this. The social, psychological, historical and philosophical imperatives that make us kill and conquer.
That's what i mean by 'pure condemnation'. You seem unable to engage in a debate about this. You say shit like 'your denial of European fault in North American genocide' when i've written 'i'll agree with the application of 'genocide' to the gradual destruction of the native peoples of america by about six different nationalities'.
'

Referring mainly to the Kulaks

I don't see what you're even arguing - the "Germans were people too!" lines and "we need to analyze and feel compassion" and everything else are simply non-sequitur. No one's suggested otherwise, just as no one's suggested Europeans in-general are evil monsters for their role in North America or anything of the sort.

When all is said and done, whoever is the oppressor, and whoever is the oppressed, it boils down to human beings killing eachother.
No, when dealing with North America, it comes down to Europeans systematically eradicating indigenous peoples. All the other atrocities in human history, all the other evils done by cultures around the globe are irrelevant.

What is your argument here? You're banging on about condemnation and compassion and treating Germans like humans - none of which has thing one to do with what I've written.

(You might want to do a little research on your German history re: "nation of Germans which voted them into power," as that statement is factually inaccurate bordering on the ridiculous.)

De:

>In other words, now we've got to this stage, where we are
>enlightened and educated enough to contemplate the past at our
>leisure, let's be fair to our forerunners, whoever they happen to
>be. We owe them, and history that much.

Your segregation of "modern enlightened humans - us" and "savage
killers of the past" is unrealistic and unhistorical. There were
individuals alive and vocal during all phases of history who
fought for peace, cooperation and understanding among peoples.
You cannot excuse past generations (and by rejecting "pure
condemnation" you are indeed excusing them. their evil activities
should indeed be purely condemned, although that should not be
the extent of our study) by saying that they were merely following
the norm. Every society, every generation has it's moderates and
thinkers. Despite the misconceptions of some, our modern era
has no monopoly on enlightened thinking, far from it. Moral
progress can not be said to occur.

>An integral consideration of all these points is our luxury.
>It is, sadly, a consequence of conquest

This is incorrect, sir. You cannot reasonably say that the US
would not be prosperous and strong, even if it had not treated
so ill. Not only do the ends not justify the means,
in this case the ends cannot be indisputably linked to the means.
Bloody conquest and inhumanity does not always result in luxury.
Violence and hatred are actually counterproductive in a good
many cases.

The "to cook an omelette, you gotta crack a few eggs" argument
is has mastered as a justification by those who, by their
aggressive nature, naturally desire to crack eggs.

>And your 'tool to veiw history', pure condemnation, certainly >is 'worthless'. What that resolves to is blind repetition of former >mistakes. You would not choose to try and understand the mentality >of people who lived in the past, why they did what they did.

This is a silly web board thread; no one should have to defend
themselves for making true statements of fact about certain
campaigns of brutality; if you want a full examination,
read a history book. but no respectable historian would seek
to mitigate the actions of rapine and lawlessness by "placing
them in context" ; every society has in place a context of
treating others with fairness and morality. There are no
loopholes for barbarity.

As for your attempts to absolve the german people or Stalin's
followers; I vehemently disagree with this approach. Did
the german people act in good faith? Were they innocent? Or did
they love and support their demonstrably evil Fuhrer?

Was Germany led astray by Hitler? Or did Germany lead him
astray?

Some would argue that he merely
filled the position that his people demanded; and that if he
had not stepped up they would have chosen someone else.

Hitler and Stalin were individual men. Their power came from
the consent of those who followed them. by this token, their
supporters should be carefully examined; many of them had
to have been as evil as the tyrant who supposedly controlled
all.

that's good, SP, cause I don't wanna talk to you cause you're a dick. (yes, I love to lie and misrepresent myself so people won't know "the real me" when i'm posting under a pseudonym on a friggin' internet message board.)

What is my point, Oops? I dunno, I guess it would be exactly what I said to start with - the genocide of the American Indians ranks with any event in human history.

Are "missionaries" (ha, those poor ol' Christian missionaries just doing God's work!) equal to Stalin? Of course not - Stalin was an individual with unmatched power.

Let's try the opposite view - do you think Europeans were largely blameless? Do you think that, to the Europeans (incl. white Americans post-'76), the removal of American Indians from the scene was just an unfortunate accident? Of course you don't. No one with the ability to tie his own shoelaces would believe that.

If you 'accidentally' decimated a population of millions, the action is hardly blameless. The Europeans chose to colonize North America. It is their fault.

(And even if you wanted, God knows why, to ignore millions of dead, the conduct of the American govt. in the 19th century still amounts to genocide.)

but it wouldn't be labelled genocide. I dunno, maybe the terms here are too black-and-white to accurately describe what really happened. (ie some of it was almost certainly intentional, some of it wasn't)

I think assessing blame or trying to defend a group as large as "Europeans and Americans" is silly.

-- miloauckerman (suspectdevic...), April 5th, 2004.

The reasons for why are many and various. But the fact remains that the Nazis recieved 43.p% of the vote in March 1933, giving them 288 seats in the Reichstag, the largest of any party. Votes to their coalition partners gave the Nazis 51.9% majority. It was this slight majority that gave Hitler the power to ask the Reichstag to pass the Enabling Act, allowing him to govern without Parliament for four years. With the passing of the Act, elections were subsequently abolished.

No doubt Milo you'll manage to describe this as an unfair criticism of the German electorate or some such. It's not meant like that. My sentence was generalised, assuming you knew the details. But the way you dismissed it, well, it's 'factually inaccurate bordering on the ridiculous'.

Even though you've said it before, I'm still stunned by this.
Read the thread question again. 'who was the LEAST nasty imperialist overlord?' Now what kind of a question is that? That's right is a question BASED ON COMPARISM. UNDERSTAND? Eisbar is asking us to compare the records of empires in history in order to judge them individually and against eachother. I am not American, and I am not part Cherokee like you, so maybe I am missing a quality of emotion in your argument. If so, my bad. I too am of a blood race which has been sorely oppressed down the ages, it's country invaded many times(i shan't reveal it, if that's okay). A history which is not as catastrophic as the Native Americans, but just as emotive. However this doesn't change for me your stubborn refusal to answer the thread question. Why don't you try that?

Oh, you're not Irish are you?

Your segregation of "modern enlightened humans - us" and "savage
killers of the past" is unrealistic and unhistorical. There were
individuals alive and vocal during all phases of history who
fought for peace, cooperation and understanding among peoples.
You cannot excuse past generations (and by rejecting "pure
condemnation" you are indeed excusing them. their evil activities
should indeed be purely condemned, although that should not be
the extent of our study) by saying that they were merely following
the norm. Every society, every generation has it's moderates and
thinkers. Despite the misconceptions of some, our modern era
has no monopoly on enlightened thinking, far from it. Moral
progress can not be said to occur.

Well. First off I did no such thing. A cursory glance around the world shows us invasions, mini-wars, acts of terrorism, states in crisis etc. So to a large extent we are still living through "history" as I defined it. But the period from 1945 to the present is (excluding Yugoslavia/Kosovo) the longest period of peace in Europe, the period of greatest harmony, prosperity and cooperation since forever. Yes I know I'm Eurocentric. But we are discussing Imperialism after all. It's the legacy of philosophers, artists, statesmen etc. that's got us to this point, where we can be fairly certain that the major powers in Europe are not going to engage in ruinous wars over a disputed duchy or sectarian religious fever. The men posting here are unlikely to perish on a continental battlefield. We no longer regard our differences as more important than our similarities. That's advance, no? So essentially I am agreeing with you we are essentially standing on the shoulders of giants. We are 'savage killers' (your definition) tamed by reason.
A mixture of condemnation and understanding is necessary. We're judging ourselves, the contents of our head and soul. That's no facile task. Although I've used the word upthread, 'evil' is not helpful in this context. It doesn't help us to understand fear, suspicion, greif, resentment, all emotional reactions implicated in human beings committing 'evil acts'. This is the basis of much art and dialectical philosohy since the enlightenment. I would maintain that progress has been made. What's intersting is you saying that I'm calling people in the past 'savage killers' whilst 'excusing their crimes'. Erm, how can I be doing both?
As for your other points, I'll engage with them if I have time today, following no doubt a ridicule-infused post from you in response to this one.

erm as i said i'll keep it with mine, though thanks for asking

In other words, for the Nazis to 'take power' required them to ban and arrest opposition political parties, stage terrorist acts, intimidate 'allies' and foes with the SA, and ultimately suspend the Weimar Constitution completely.

This is not, by any stretch of the concept, being "voted into power" by means of democratic election. Hence "factually inaccurate bordering on the ridiculous."

However this doesn't change for me your stubborn refusal to answer the thread question. Why don't you try that?
Because I've never been responding to the thread question. I was responding to the assertion that the US/UK really weren't so bad and later your attempts to minimize North American genocide as not living up to the standards of the Holocaust or Stalin's purges (which I agree with - North America far surpasses either).

The GOLD STANDARD OF MORALITY and compassion and whatever else you've been rambling on about - well, I don't know where it's coming from.

Haha, good one - "emotive response." Obviously I'm opposed to writing off the genocide as "historical phenomena" because a tiny bit of Cherokee blood that's several generations past! A winner is you!

The press ask State Department spokeswoman Christine Shelly whether genocide is happening. Her response carefully tries to avoid the word: "…we have to undertake a very careful study before we can make a final kind of determination…."

Day 21
Estimated Death Toll: 168,000

Purposeful decimation of a population, forced removal, breaking up of cultures, destroying religions, etc. etc. etc.

Or we can follow the UN's def.

"The convention defines genocide as any act committed with the idea of destroying in whole or in part a national, ethnic, racial or religious group. This includes such acts as:

* Killing members of the group
* Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group
* Deliberately inflicting conditions calculated to physically destroy the group (the whole group or even part of the group)
* Forcefully transferring children of the group to another group"

Finally.

The Nazis bullied and blackmailed their way into power.
But they needed those votes. They got in at least partly through the system. There's no point trying to deny that.

'Because I've never been responding to the thread question. I was responding to the assertion that the US/UK really weren't so bad and later your attempts to minimize North American genocide as not living up to the standards of the Holocaust or Stalin's purges (which I agree with - North America far surpasses either).'

Well there we go. Final break away achieved. I take what you're saying seriously, don't worry about that, but I don't agree with it. Maybe I neeed to be educated. I'm going to bone up on my knowledge of this area. It's a shame you had to argue so kakhandedly. Like....

'Haha, good one - "emotive response." Obviously I'm opposed to writing off the genocide as "historical phenomena" because a tiny bit of Cherokee blood that's several generations past! A winner is you!'

.....this. You've actually put a two word phrase in quotes that...get this...I NEVER ACTUALLY USED. I was being absolutely sincere, not mocking in any way. I was NOT intimating that your heritage/blood was a barrier to reasoned debate on your part, I was wondering infact whether I wasn't taking seriously enough a subject that you'd suddenly revealed had personal import to you (but clearly not as much as I thought). It was, believe it or not, a humble gesture. Get me talking about my race, and, certainly I'll be passionate - whyever not?

You're a cold fish Milo. "It's not comfortable and it's not going to help you out socially."

I think many such acts were committed and resulted in many dead native Americans. There were also non-deliberate acts perpetrated by Europeans/Americans that resulted in many dead native Americans. Which acts had the greates negative impact on native Americans? Who knows? It's really doesn't matter, IMO. Like I said earlier, maybe the reality of what occurred in the Americas was't as 'neat', if you will, as the word genocide implies.

The Nazis bullied and blackmailed their way into power.
But they needed those votes. They got in at least partly through the system. There's no point trying to deny that.
Haha, "well, I was wrong, but, uh they used the system!"

Given another few years of the German depression, the Nazis might not have needed even the veneer of democratic activity to take part (threats by the Nazis and their allies to simply overthrow Hindenburg and the Weimar govt. by force got Hitler installed as Chancellor in the first place, when he never would have been selected otherwise).

Well there we go. Final break away achieved. I take what you're saying seriously, don't worry about that, but I don't agree with it. Maybe I neeed to be educated. I'm going to bone up on my knowledge of this area. It's a shame you had to argue so kakhandedly.

Nothing I've said has changed from first post to last. What I've taken is a very simple position, and responded to people attempting to minimize what happened over five centuries in North America.

Oops, it does matter. You were one of the people going on about 'intent' - how the Europeans destroyed millions of lives and hundreds of cultures, but they didn't really mean to. When you look at the actions and the history, it's hard to argue that it wasn't genocide. And that erases all questions of intent.

'Haha, "well, I was wrong, but, uh they used the system!"'

Like I said before you seem unable to debate. You're a fuckin baby.
Good luck dude! I am finished. with. you.
I hope you laugh to yourself all night.

why does it matter? what changes if we go from saying it wasn't genocide to saying that it was? if europeans are fully to blame and intended to exterminate them, what should be done about it? (not rhetorical)
I don't think anything changes. But I wasn't the one arguing that 'intent' gives Europeans an excuse, you know?

What should be done about it? Nothing. I haven't seen any call in this thread for action to be taken against any "imperialist overlord." Why would you even bring this up?

I bring it up because you say it matters. Why does it matter?

Okay so I said it was over but I have to just address this.
Why is this something to be proud of? This thread is a DEBATE.
People trying to persuade others of their ideas, listening to their responses, evolving their perceptions gradually and coming to intermittent conclusions. You are a monolith of blinkered ideology.
You do not will not change nomatterwhat. If someone disagrees you ridicule and laugh at them. You can't accept other people have other positions. I believe your position is just as valid as mine. You do not think that about me or anyone else. You're juvenile.
I have noproblemwhatsoever admitting to a change in my beliefs or understanding. For you that would be a blow to your self esteem.

Absolute trash you dishonest character. Sort yourself out. Ughh.

I bring it up because you say it matters. Why does it matter?
It doesn't matter to me. I didn't argue 'intent,' remember? But if you're going to deny European culpability based on intent, then the applicability of genocide becomes important.

***
Why is this something to be proud of? This thread is a DEBATE.
Well, no, this thread is a joke gone horribly wrong.

But I'm more than willing to engage in an exchange of ideas and modify my position if given a reason to. If anyone can show evidence as to how the decimation of the American Indian population wasn't genocide and that it wasn't the Europeans' fault, I'll be glad to hear it.

But no one's shown that. Pointing out that other cultures have done horrific things doesn't cut it.

milo where have you read about the blankets infected w/smallpox etc.? (this is a genuine question, not any kind of challenge.)

You can't just say "OK, the Germans didn't vote them into power, they had to destroy the system completely to take power," you blame it on using the system and how I can't deny that. (Which I, strangely, never indicated that I did.)

That's shuffling your terms and arguments rather than admitting error.

x-post, Amateurist, I've read about them in a couple of books. There are quite a few original documents referring to smallpox transmission dating from the mid-18th century.

One, turned up by Google:
This reference is from _American Indian Holocaust and Survival: A
Population History Since 1492_ by Russell Thornton, 1987 (Norman: U. of
Oklahoma Pr.) pp.78-79
"It is also during the eighteenth century that we find written reports of
American Indians being intentionally esposed to smallpox by Europeans. In
1763 in Pennsylvania,
Sir Jeffrey Amherst, commander of the British forces....wrote in
the postscript of a letter to Bouquet the suggestion that smallpox
be sent among the disaffected tribes. Bouquet replied, also in a
postscript, "I will try to innoculate the[m]...with some blankets
that may fall into their hands, and take care not get the disease
myself." ....To Bouquet's postscript, amherst replied, "You will
do well as to try to innoculate the Indians by means of blankets
as well as to try every other method that can serve to extirpate
this exorable race." On June 24, Captain Ecuyer, of the Royal
Americans, noted in his journal: "Out of our regard for them
(i.e. two Indian chiefs) we gave them two blankets and a
handkerchief out of the smallpox hospital. I hope it will have
the desired effect." (quoted from Stearn, E. and Stearn, A.
"Smallpox Immuninzation of the Amerindian." _Bulletin of the
History of Medicine_13:601-13.)

Thornton goes on to report that smallpox spread to the tribes along the
Ohio river."

Of course those arguments serve to limit the blame placed on Europeans. If what they're doing was just another in a long line of human atrocities, how can we blame them?

If that's not the purpose, why even bring the rest of the world into a scenario (North America) where they had no hand? Atrocities throughout history would be irrelevant, no?

That was in reply to your statement about "well no other cultures conquered America". Well, duh. That doesn't mean that Europeans were the only ones who would have done it.

Of course those arguments serve to limit the blame placed on Europeans. If what they're doing was just another in a long line of human atrocities, how can we blame them?

"there's plenty of blame to go around". did you not read that?

That's right. I am unsure, which like I said seems hard for people around here to fathom and tantamount to a cardinal sin. I wanted you to explain why you thought it was genocide, rather than just accept the fact a priori. When you are unsure of a position and you are discussing the issue with someone who has strong beliefs one way or the other, you usually have to argue points for the opposite side. Devil's advocate ring a bell for you?

You telling me to "go do my reading" exhibits my point that ILE is not a place to gain knowledge, just show off your own.