i am not ranting, and i will thank you to stop attacking me in that fashion. it's getting old.
it's a perfectly calm description of enslavement of native americans in southeast north america.
" viewed the native people as nothing more than rocks to be moved out of the way or trees to be cut down to allow free passage. " I literally described it as genocide
i'm sorry, but it did not sound like that to me when you said:
I'm not even sure I would apply the term genocide to the horrors visited upon the Navajo over a period of decades. The people seeking fortunes in coal, oil and uranium from Navajo land viewed the native people as nothing more than rocks to be moved out of the way or trees to be cut down to allow free passage.
something about "i'm not even sure i would apply the term genocide to that" does not, to me, sound like "describing it as genocide". quite the opposite, in fact. i suppose it's possible that's an error on my part but it seems pretty clear to me.
I also said not to include any mention of the Spanish in any of your exaggerations.
they are not exaggerations, and i only mentioned the spanish again to clarify that no, i did not in fact say "south carolina in the tens of thousands".
speaking of which:
Also native slaves from South Carolina in the tens of thousands, you say you didn't say that and now you said it again.
no, actually, i didn't. again with the not reading posts thing.
i said "the carolinas" because that number applies to the entire "province of carolina", since we are speaking primarily about a period before the separation. this includes more than just south carolina, which you should very well know. how many of those 10-15 thousand were shipped out of south
carolina specifically i cannot tell you, but that's also not relevant because i never said a word about south carolina specifically.
and you can stop trying to deflect by talking about the spanish genocide, too. the spanish colonisers being responsible for genocide does not mean the english colonisers were not also responsible for genocide, a fact which has been sufficiently made clear in previous responses by myself and others.
edit: oh, and:
Did you even look at the charts Adorno found? Probably not because they conflict with your rants.
you clearly didn't actually read that wikipedia entry either, because no, it doesn't in fact conflict with what i am saying.
the actual chart explicitly contains only "some" cases and is very much not exhaustive, and the preceding paragraph mentions "more than 370 massacres" in 30 years in california alone, let alone the rest of the country.
you can take your nonsense of "it looks like an average of once every 50 years or so" and stuff it.