Why only 100 years back?

Is that because your own country did actually enslave a people all because you wanted their lands & the minerals on that land 50 years earlier than your parameter?

Again... $$$ Crimes are 'Less Bad'.

Surprising coming from a retired police officer - a crime's a crime? Correct?

Whether they were a hate or religious war, the main reason behind both was to enforce servitude so that the "master" gets rich.

Again... $$$ Crimes are 'Less Bad'.

Surprising coming from a retired police officer - a crime's a crime? Correct?

Whether they were a hate or religious war, the main reason behind both was to enforce servitude so that the "master" gets rich.

As a Recently Retired Academician, for a longer period of time than Law Enforcement...

What was the Foundation of your question?

But... Money Cultures haven't resulted in over 1 Billion People Murdered and Enslaved by Secular Ideologies over the past 100 years. Nor Mass Murdering/Enslaving, by their cousins in Hate, Religions. Over the course of Human History.

Whether they were a hate or religious war, the main reason behind both was to enforce servitude so that the "master" gets rich.

Why only 100 years back?

Is that because your own country did actually enslave a people all because you wanted their lands & the minerals on that land 50 years earlier than your parameter?

Sorry, I should have included Enslavement in America and European Mercantile Class Profits (Cotton), from American Enslavement.

But, going back, let's say 400 years.

$$$ Crimes have not approached 1 Billion People Murdered and Enslaved.

Again... $$$ Crimes are 'Less Bad'.

Why limit it to 400 years? 524 years (1492 CE to Present) would be more appropriate, if one is talking about Genocide and Enslavement in the Americas by Europeans.

Remember, within 100 years after 1492, >90% of the people living in the Americas were dead, either at the hands of Europeans or from diseases the Europeans brought over (~ 135 million+ dead).

And, yes... The European colonization of the Americas was VERY MUCH a $$$ crime. The initial reason was to find a sea route to 'India' for the spice trade (to cut out those pesky Arab middlemen -- oz per oz, pepper was worth more than Gold). Then, they found Gold and Silver over here on the land mass that they found that was 'in the way'. Ka-ching!! The Spanish monarch, for instance, got VERY VERY rich.

---

https://youtu.be/iY57ErBkFFE

#Texit

Don't blame me, I voted for Johnson(L) in 2016.

Truth is dangerous... especially when it challenges those in power.

What about the treatment of the First Nation peoples post 1776. Surely genocide.

---

What about the treatment of the First Nation peoples post 1776. Surely genocide.

Why the change from 1830 to 1776?

Works equally well on both dates, though.

Yes, it was Genocide.

---

https://youtu.be/iY57ErBkFFE

#Texit

Don't blame me, I voted for Johnson(L) in 2016.

Truth is dangerous... especially when it challenges those in power.

What about the treatment of the First Nation peoples post 1776. Surely genocide.

Why 1776? Don't want your hands dirty? 1492 on. Didn't hear much about northern Europeans who came earlier. Don't forget the Russians who invaded the other side either.

All genocide of heathens and make money fast.

---

What about the treatment of the First Nation peoples post 1776. Surely genocide.

Why 1776? Don't want your hands dirty? 1492 on. Didn't hear much about northern Europeans who came earlier. Don't forget the Russians who invaded the other side either.

All genocide of heathens and make money fast.

Prior to 1776, were not the First Nations on the British side against the French. Didn't the British try to protect the First Nations against American Settlers. And during the Independence War why were the First Nations, such as the Iroquois and Cherokee, on the British Side.

And in Canada during that period it is quite clear the British and First Nations were close allies.

---

Like all people caught in the middle of larger conflicts, the "first nations", what was left of them, did choose the side they thought most likely to win so as to insure their own future.

What is so difficult to comprehend about that FACT?

Like all people caught in the middle of larger conflicts, the "first nations", what was left of them, did choose the side they thought most likely to win so as to insure their own future.

What is so difficult to comprehend about that FACT?

But that doesn't explain what happened post 1776.

---

Like all people caught in the middle of larger conflicts, the "first nations", what was left of them, did choose the side they thought most likely to win so as to insure their own future.

What is so difficult to comprehend about that FACT?

But that doesn't explain what happened post 1776.

I thought that was already answered for you.
It was a continous war with indigenous people. When they attempted to treaty, the treaties were quickly broken by the expansion of european imigrants and existing populations.
The genocide that took place on the north american continent was noteworthy because it continued through the 19th century.
It was not unique to history of the world at large, nor has genocide in the world ceased to this day.
The scale of the combined illness born deaths and outright murder of north and south american peoples from first european encounters through 1900 is unique to history.
[edit: sp]

Prior to 1776, were not the First Nations on the British side against the French. Didn't the British try to protect the First Nations against American Settlers. And during the Independence War why were the First Nations, such as the Iroquois and Cherokee, on the British Side.

And in Canada during that period it is quite clear the British and First Nations were close allies.

That does not turn out to be totally the case.

By and large, the 'First Nations'/Native Americans were used as pawns in the ongoing war between the British and the French.

Just as in the post-WWII 'Cold War' between the USA & USSR divided the rest of the world into 3 'camps' (pro-USA, pro-USSR, and neutral), the European arrival in North America divided the various native tribes into 3 groups... Pro-British, Pro-French, and Neutrals. Sadly, all three Groups wound up getting screwed.

And don't forget... Canada was FRENCH prior to the Treaty of Paris (Feb. 10, 1763) which ended the Seven Years' War. And much of the current USA was also French prior to the Louisiana Purchase of 1803.

Of the three main European Colonial Powers in North America, Spain, France, and Britain, the French were the least destructive to the Natives' way of life. Unlike the Spanish and British practice of mass colonization, enslavement of the Natives, eviction of the Natives by violence, and outright theft of the Natives' natural resources, the French only made a few small settlements in much of North America as shipping ports and engaged in trade with the Natives trading various animal furs for what the Natives wanted.

---

https://youtu.be/iY57ErBkFFE

#Texit

Don't blame me, I voted for Johnson(L) in 2016.

Truth is dangerous... especially when it challenges those in power.

Prior to 1776, were not the First Nations on the British side against the French. Didn't the British try to protect the First Nations against American Settlers. And during the Independence War why were the First Nations, such as the Iroquois and Cherokee, on the British Side.

And in Canada during that period it is quite clear the British and First Nations were close allies.

That does not turn out to be totally the case.

By and large, the 'First Nations'/Native Americans were used as pawns in the ongoing war between the British and the French.

The phrase canon fodder comes to mind ...

---

Prior to 1776, were not the First Nations on the British side against the French. Didn't the British try to protect the First Nations against American Settlers. And during the Independence War why were the First Nations, such as the Iroquois and Cherokee, on the British Side.

And in Canada during that period it is quite clear the British and First Nations were close allies.

That does not turn out to be totally the case.

By and large, the 'First Nations'/Native Americans were used as pawns in the ongoing war between the British and the French.

The phrase canon fodder comes to mind ...

Yes, it does... literally.

---

https://youtu.be/iY57ErBkFFE

#Texit

Don't blame me, I voted for Johnson(L) in 2016.

Truth is dangerous... especially when it challenges those in power.