A lot lot lot more.
It’s sad you think you can reduce complex history to two sentences and sad you don’t think correlations should be inspected for validity.
You don’t think disease, land stealing, or war should be part of the picture?
You're not talking about it. You're using a classic deflection / distraction tactic.
You also don't seem to be aware that history is not absolute. In this case, there are *at least* three lens: the genociders, the genocidees, and the buffalo / bison.
You seem to be stuck on defending the genociders by demanding justification or some sort of analysis. But we know exactly what happened. We know why.
I'm afraid your reading comprehension needs work.
My whole point is you seems to be reducing the genocide to a single event "buffalo killing". Whereas I'm trying to say there are MANY different genocidal impacts on the Native Americans.
By the time the Americans had a program to slaughter the bison to get rid of the natives, many estimate the Native Americans had already lost 90% of their numbers.
I'm not saying there was no genocide, I'm saying it was going on long before buffalo killing was used as a tool for it.
And when someone asks for documentation (where this dispute started), it's unreasonable to claim "two things don't exist, therefor one caused the other". By the same logic I could say "the Tasmanian devil doesn't exist and Indians don't exist, therefore killing the Tasmanian devil was used to kill the Indians." what an absurd form of logic. Just because something is true, doesn't mean your logic or justification for it are valid or educating for others.
Have you ever wondered why the European North American settlers didn’t have a unified indigenous empire to contend with, such as could be found in Central and South America? (Ie Incan or Aztec).
I would posit that it was because the Hunter/raider/gatherer societies could not sustain growth beyond a certain point. For whatever reason, the North American indigenous tribes would not cross a threshold of government and infrastructure that is required to eliminate their reliance on raiding (the perpetual changing hands of limited refined resources), and game hunting (ie lack of livestock domestication and food storage that allow for permanent settlements, growth).
What the Europeans did to the Indians was as horrendous in execution as it was consequential to the decisions those tribes made during the hundreds of years leading up to the arrival of the Europeans.
Who knows what may had been if Columbus had been confronted with a unified indigenous empire with permanent settlements and defensive emplacements? Instead he found desperate tribes of marauding Indians, reliant on a singular food source and very willing to accept short term alliances for short term infighting advantages.
Its hardly a thing, IMO, for a descendant many generations removed to feel guilty over…let alone pay penance for.
That is correct, and I feel like it supports my point..in both of those examples the incumbent empire was weakened by infighting—-a non unified front.
I’m not as steeped on the Aztecs as I am the Incas, but Pizarro and Diego de Amargo arrived as conquerors in a company whose singular purpose was conquest. They were encircled and outnumbered 500 to 1 in what was effectively a kill box. Technology and horses gave them the upper hand, but the domino which instituted the downfall of the Incan empire is that the emperor himself was present _inside_ the killbox. Pride goeth before the fall. Which allowed Pizarro to charge through his soldiers and literally seize him from his royal litter…I don’t think this exception disproves that a unified front with defensive emplacements could have withstood a few hundred horse borne conquerors.
There were a lot of natives.
The European outsiders all but eliminated both. No guilt. No respirations.
What more do we need to know?