[therealdrag0]

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?

[chiefalchemist]

It's sad you mucking in the details and ignoring the genocide.

Reducing? Beats ignoring

[therealdrag0]

What did I say that ignores the genocide?

[chiefalchemist]

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.

[therealdrag0]

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.