https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bantu_expansion

http://africancurators.com/2017/10/10/the-genocide-of-the-khoi-sans/

you can cover any patch of ground on the world with a coating of lava, and afterwords eventually something will regrow, however if you cover it in concrete and asphalt, its chances of ever regrowing are highly deminished. to say that the native americans are not genocided throws out what actually occured to their native tarritorys which dispite how many of them died to diseases brought to the new world all native american tribes remained up until they were pushed farther and farther west by european encrochment. we know this because we know the names of every tribe in both the west and east north america, if they had all died we would never have learned their names. we also had atleast 3 wars with them, the revolutionary war, the war of 1812, and the indian war (basicly when we got fed up with skermishing them in the west and brought the military to give them the ultimatum to become registered to our country or be exterminated)

Yes Europeans did enslave africans but they weren't the frist and whites are the race solely responsible for ending slavery so if you are going to blame a race for slavery why are you blaming the race that ended it? The Arab slave trade enslaved millions more Africans than European slavery did, in fact the barbary slave trade enslaved more whites than there were black slaves in America. https://archive.org/details/TheHiddenHistoryOfArabSlaveTradeOfAfricans

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barbary_slave_trade

it was a genocide, it doesent matter how many people died, we killed the genetic to geographic connection between a group of people to the extent people who had a genetic tie to the entire north america are now religated to less than a quarter of its total landmass and to the most inhospitable locations among it

this is the FIRST successful genocide on an entire contanent

though one might argue australia did it to but abos have access to 50ish percent last maps i saw

mostly because australia is half wasteland

Yes Americans did take land from the natives like the natives toke land from each other all the time even before the Europeans arrived the only diffence was the whites were just more successful it wasn't a genocide.

it was by all best definitions a genocide

the only more successful genocide outside north america was tasmania

hey aussie can you define "white genocide" for me?

So the natives genocided each other than?

on small scales if they ever completely whiped a population out to the extent it never recovered then yes

but im mostly talking about the SCALE

were not just talking about single countrys and ethnicitys were talking about contanents and core race groups

Tasmania wasn't a genocide. The natives in Tasmania lost 90% plus of their population from diseases and they then didn't have a large enough population to keep their population going.

you put them into camps after their population dropped from 18000 to just 400. wonder what happened to them in those camps

Yes scale is important I agree with you their but their is also intent. If their is a deliberate attempt to wipeout whole or part of a population then it is a genocide. So if their is a massacre lead by a goverment or group of people then that is a genocide.

colonization and displacement is genocide my nigga

They died out no human population can survive with only 400 people.

not to mention my country did the intentional genocide too

[7:22 AM] Aktricast: hey aussie can you define "white genocide" for me?

So the natives genocided the natives. Why are you biching about American doing soming the natives did to eachother?

actually scientists beleive that the ashkanazi jewish population of europe began with only 400 population that fleed into europe from jaerusalem

Here is the UN Definition of genocide. Article II

In the present Convention, genocide means any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such:

Killing members of the group;
Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group;
Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part;
Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group; (e) Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group

White genocide is that to white populations.

im bitching about scale and also when natives war with natives and potentally cause genocide they are doing it to populations they have such a close relation to that their biology is still adapted to that envirnment and they maintain a genetic connection to the territory while when europeans do that shit, they dont

If you can give me a source on that I wold like see were you get the 400 number.

woops, that was 400 familys never mind

So fighting with another grop over control of land is genocide.

That would make more sence.

if you exterminate the population from that land, yes

Because the americans were sucessful

If you force them to leave like the trail of tears after you win wars against the your enemies for control of a territory then no that isn't extermination it's relocation.

that is part of the definition of genocide, forced relocation

No it isn't. If it is then show me where I can find it.

right the holocaust wasn't a genocide because the nazi's just relocated the jews to the ovens

not genocide my boys

look im not saying europeans need to be kicked back to europe and america needs to be handed back to natives, because thats both impracticle and doomed to fail, however europeans dont have genetic ties to north america we only have colonial ties here, sure we can stay, but its not as moral a fighting ground for ethnonationalism when your ethnicity isint native to a geography

i should have clarified