[scarby2]

genocide is an intentional act. Smallpox did 90% of the work and nobody lifted a finger, at the time nobody could have forseen the effect of smallpox on the native population.

After smallpox when the population of the Americas had been reduced by something like 90% they most certainly didn't need all the land.

[ConspiracyFact]

If the settlers had done what the first thousand or so invading cultures did and just exterminated the natives, they would have been able to cast them in whatever light they chose. Instead they gave them rather a lot of autonomous territory relative to their population, along with legal monopolies designed to prevent them from being forced into wage slavery.

Oops!

[fc417fc802]

> at the time nobody could have forseen the effect of smallpox on the native population

Are you really unaware that the colonials intentionally spread smallpox to the natives? This is not some obscure detail - it's in approximately all of the history textbooks in a fair bit of detail.

[IncreasePosts]

Sure, some tried, but smallpox and other diseases were doing a great job on their own. It didn't need a few blankets to make it a real pandemic.

[Aloisius]

The few references to potentially intentionally spreading disease, all well after they were spreading in the Americas, are unlikely to be the cause of more than a tiny sliver of deaths due to disease. The timelines simply do not match.

[watwut]

It was an intentional act. They wrote about it being an intentional act. The violence was not an accidental nor rare event either, it was an intentional act too.

The east expansion took a lot of time, involved quite a few massacres and invonluntary relocations.

[jfengel]

And yet we took 100% of it, and forcibly relocated the survivors.