what technically defines a genocide? because i thought it should be considered too - a genocide because it was a sort of ethnic purification. white men killed natives for land. [watch me get -'d for this]

When Europeans moved into what is now North America (US) they did not kill all the Indians (Native Americans). In fact the natives had they upper hand because without them "white" people would not have survived.

That would make modern America look bad and make people have to open their eyes and look at a dishonorable past. It would tarnish the "glorious" history of this nation. Flat out... it was genocide, down to the biological warfare and more. It made the Holocaust look like a drop in a bucket. Personally, I do not use the word "colonization" either. I use the word "invasion".

I think the reason it's not recognized as a genocide is the fact that it took place over hundreds of years, rather than the usual genocide lasting a few years or so. Couple that with the way America has always glorified it's success in the New World and as a new Democratic country and it's not hard to see how such atrocity was swept under the rug.

1st of all, "we" were not Americans, when "we" came over here. If it weren't for Indians, "we" would not have survived. 2nd - As we moved West, there were fights for the lands. We did NOT kill "ALL the Indians" in any way. Yes... I agree there were quite a few killed, but ALL... Come on! (see more below) 3rd - "Genocide" (from http://www.ushmm.org/wlc/article.php?lang=en&ModuleId=10007043 ) "The term 'genocide' did not exist before 1944. It is a very specific term, referring to violent crimes committed against groups with the intent to destroy the existence of the group. Human rights, as laid out in the U.S. Bill of Rights or the 1948 United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights, concern the rights of individuals." 4th - As far as I know, "we" had MANY Native Indian friends, and did not attempt to "destroy the existence" of ANY of them. There may have been pockets of this happening, but it was NOT the intent or "with the blessings" of the majority of people. I don't really believe I saw any "sugar coating" in my history books in grade school. They simply reported that Indians were killed (as were many settlers) and treaties were signed to end hostilities against both. With the limited space in those books, they didn't report that much on a LOT of what we know as history.

It isn't like they landed and started killing off Indians. In fact the Pilgrims weren't the first white folks to visit the "new country" Italian fishermen came and went quite often and some of the Indians learned to speak English. Differing Indian tribes had always fought with each other and killed or took slaves. Heck the Cheyennes had black slaves pre and post Civil War. Yep there was a lot of killing Indians and some like Custer were must murderous monsters. And religion didn't help the Indians either as hoyte toyte xians thought of them as 'savages' and not really human. Thus the mistreatment. Also led to the killing of other white folks deemed witches and warlocks. ahhh religion, ya gotta love it. All our history books from the beginning of time have been altered to fit the wants and needs of those writing them. Hell we celebrate Columbus Day and he was a known butcher and slave trader.