Please don't let me get into an argument about the definition of genocide, Gunfighter. I won't sleep for weeks.

As for something you pointed out - smallpox blankets - yes, those were absolutely the earliest forms of biological warfare that we're aware of today, and yes, the distribution of the blankets to the natives, who obviously hadn't built up countless generations' worth of "immunity" to smallpox and greatpox (syphilis), was quite intentional. One of my professors discussed this very ordeal in a class earlier this semester and quoted one of the masterminds behind the use of the blankets to effectively poison entire tribes at a time, and it's very clear that he knew what was going on. Moreover, if one of the two remaining living smallpox samples in the world (one at CDC in Atlanta, one in Russia) happened to get out, it would probably kill about 70-90% of the population born after the smallpox virus was officially eradicated, because that's when vaccination ended. With that in mind, it's pretty safe to say that something like 70-90% of the natives that contracted smallpox, probably closer to the latter, died, and that's only the one disease. There are, as has been mentioned, dozens of other European diseases that killed the natives too, and it's no surprise that so many died.

Because it was well known that the natives would die as a result of smallpox, because it was well known around Europe that both smallpox and syphilis were usually either scarring for life or deadly, and because the distributors of the smallpox blankets knew exactly what they were doing, yeah, I would certainly call European expansionism and imperialism a genocide, just as I would call those that died under slavery victims of genocide - it's no secret that whipping a man, starving him, and torturing him will kill him sooner or later.

Not the earliest. Plague ridden bodies were often thrown over the walls of cities before that and I think there may be earlier examples but I don't know them off the top of my head. Much more than 70-90% of the natives died of smallpox and it was largely unintentional at least at the beginning. The blankets that you are citing were only used in one war and were used by americans, though there is a chance I remember incorrectly and that america was still a british colony. I believe that they were actually used in a war against the indian allies of the british though it could have been the french. I agree about an argument about the definition of genocide but neither of yours are correct examples.

the deliberate killing of a large group of people, especially those of a particular ethnic group or nation.

Slavery---Yes, it killed a lot of people. But the goal wasn't to kill them. A genocide is when a group is trying to exterminate another group

Expansionism/Imperialism by Europe and America-- This one there is much more a case to be made for. America committed mass murder against the Indians from time to time which was partially fueled by expansionism and imperialism and could certainly be considered genocide and there were a few incidents that might be considered genocide by Europe in the New World. However for the most part those committing the genocides were committing them in the context(at least in their minds) of a war and, though expansionism and imperialism were both causes of the war, they weren't often the causes of the genocides

"Plague ridden bodies were often thrown over the walls of cities before that and I think there may be earlier examples but I don't know them off the top of my head"

Would love these examples. I'm curious as to whether this was fueled by the knowledge that the plague itself was within these bodies and that it would spread through contact or air or whatever or whether they knew exactly how these plague-ridden bodies had the potential to kill. If they simply knew that they would kill but not why they kill, that's not a biological weapon, but if they knew how, then yeah, it could be.

"it was largely unintentional at least at the beginning"

A lot of discoveries of this sort are unintentional, but the fact that it became intentional and when they began targeting a large group of people based on their physical characteristics rather than based on the fact that they were part of a militia fighting the imperialists is when this becomes genocide. Yes, the blankets were only used once, but the fact that the Europeans knew that their infections spread so easily to the natives and continued to knowingly expand and infect them anyway = targeting, even if the actual transmission of the disease to each individual was not intended. And yes, their use was part of British/French tensions. I don't remember when.

Genocide isn't limited to deliberate killing. The word itself is misleading in that way (especially to a Latin speaker), but that shows the progression of the word over time as the world has become more aware and continues to progress toward a world without genocide. In order to do so, we have to expand our definition over time. As such, genocide as I know it also includes forcible displacement, starvation, and enslavement of a particular group of people. I don't know where the "large" criterion in your post comes from, but I wholly disagree with that. Genocide can be small scale, with only a few hundred or maybe a thousand targets, so long as it is perpetrated on behalf of a legitimate world government against a specific group of people. Under that definition, which is more liberal but much more encompassing of present-day problems, slavery is very much genocide. Whether it was considered as such then is hardly relevant to me - I am happy to call slavery a defiling of the very name of the god they worshipped if someone were to ask. It may be the worst practice in world history because one is actually considered non-human and the slaveholders watch the toll of their actions on the subjects over time. It's the most monstrous thing I believe one can do to another human and I doubt anyone would disagree with me on that.

Why does genocide need to be committed by a legitimate world government? How do you define such a thing?

bo- I agree with you for once.

In general- I think what the US, England, France, Spain, and the Netherlands did to native people in the new world should be constituted as genocide but I will reiterate what I said before; as long we don't get caught up comparing genocides this conversation is actually very progressive (not in the political sense but in the progress sense) in that we are bringing more light to the reality of the plight of native peoples, and we are all agreeing genocide is bad.

@KC ... if a widely accepted international body such as the UN declares a government legitimate, it is legitimate in my eyes. As such, a group like ISIS is not legitimate but simply a group of filthy wannabes and their actions constitute little more than horrible and criminal vigilante behavior, not genocide.

I just realized how off this thread has gotten. Speaking of authoritarianism, then, in recent news, Putin has gone missing. Not Putin33 (though I haven't seen him in a while either), Vladimir Putin.

Putin is just hunting down the killer of Boris Nemtsov, as he promised to do. He needed to go off grid so that the killer wouldn't be onto him.

"Speaking of authoritarianism, then, in recent news, Putin has gone missing. Not Putin33 (though I haven't seen him in a while either), Vladimir Putin."

Thus fueling the humorous "suspicion" that 33's the genuine article, and we've all had the distinct honor of actually playing with and chatting against Big Bad Vlad. :p

I prefer the theory that he disappeared to be present at the birth of a secret child, myself.

33 or the real Putin?

@bo, and what about Rwanda?

Vladimir Putin has returned. He thought the rumors were all hilarious.

The Rwandan Genocide was organized by high government officials and had the backing and support of the national government. It was state supported genocide (yes CB, I said it).