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

@Aktriaz Were talking about genocide not Jewish fairy tales.

Its not in the dictionary but its an often repeated definition from people on the left

its one reason im not solidly ethnonationalist when it comes to the united states, not till 5 thousand years of selective breeding turns me red due to the lower latitude than my genetic heritage evolved for.

DA JOOS

@Arch-Fiend American built America you have ties there because yo guys built America a country that wasn't their before the European settlers arrived.

The Anglos haven't been in England for 5 thousand years so by your logic they shouldn't be ethnonationalists.

Also why do you want Americans to become like the natives? Americans can build and maintain a civilization.

@Blackhawk342 I don't see forced relocation as genocide.

Well its just... Relocation really.

Unless its forced relocation to an environment that is extremely hostile then maybe theres an argument there?

The fact is that Americans were fighting with the natives over control of land and the Americans won so they forced the natives to move to land that they didn't want. If it was a genocide then the Americans would have just killed them all or otherwise wipeout whole or part of the native population not let them live on.

Generally I would agree, forcing someone to move to a different location even permenantly isnt genocide.

though as ginga said, if the land is somehow harmful to them there may be an arguement there

Cant force people to move to an active minefield afterall, that would be murder by proxy