> It was never moralistically portrayed like you seem to want. How else do you portray an intentional and centuries long systematic genocide of an entire conti

> It was never moralistically portrayed like you seem to want. How else do you portray an intentional and centuries long systematic genocide of an entire continent of nations? How do you portray the greatest genocide in human history? > But definitely it was mentioned that 90% of Indians were killed by European diseases, sometimes intentionally delivered like the trail of tears, and additionally whenever gold was rumored to be on a site the indians would be pushed out. Nothing you listed indicate an actual genocide. You didn't read about actual hunting and raping and exterminating of natives that happened all across the country? You didn't read about actual statehood laws ( majority white ) which encouraged settlers to kill off the natives. You didn't read about the US government working with railroad tycoons to kill off the natives to build railroads? As I said, if the natives were in charge, how do you think the history will be written? We'd be portrayed as monsters far worse than nazis. That was my point. History is written by the victors. Which you proved with your comment but yet deny.