Personal attacks? Shocker.

Oh come on, it's perfectly reasonable to get upset over history discussions. The fact that it never happened to you doesn't mean it isn't possible. I had an emotional breakdown in a bar once after a discussion about immigration that wasn't even very shocking or heated, I don't know why, things like that can happen.
None of this is very relevant to the content of the discussion though. Why did you bring up the Aztecs? What makes it impossible that the colonists used the spread of disease to their advantage on purpose after noticing what was happening?

Pointing out personal attacks pretending to be on some kind of moral high ground moments after handing out your own personal attacks?

Yup, phony.

Anytime anybody ever mentions the ****ed up things America does he gets offended and spouts off whataboutisms to defend it while pretending to be tone deaf and not understanding why people think it's gross.

People like you are how Hitler can murder millions, because they don't want to know and don't want to deal with it so they dissemble until everything is okay. You're clearly a lost cause so please don't have children. It will hopefully make the world a better place.

Ok this accusation is going down a slippery slope. Calm down

You gotta let it slip a little, Ant owes him a free come back.

Ant, insult Batlord.

Well, In my original post I disagreed that smallpox was initially or intentionally weaponized against the Native Americans. That may not have been the case later on, but I disagreed that smallpox was spread intentionally in the earliest years of colonization. I talked about it over multiple posts that supported this point since I had people disagreeing with me about it.

This led into my other point - that regardless of how someone "feels" about how things transpired, that I didn't see a version of history where smallpox or the Aztecs didn't kill off most of the Native American tribes, and that every timeline was probably ****ed in that regard. That's not me taking a side or making any kind of moral case - it's just an observation on what we know in general about that era of time. A single sniffling Spanish merchant had the potential to wipe out an entire tribe just for showing up and wanting to trade goods. And he would have had no idea he was even doing it, which is the worst part.

That led to a comment where I said that even if smallpox had not wiped out the various tribes due to early interactions with the Portuguese, Spanish, etc., the Aztecs would have likely conquered those tribes and erased them in their bid to take over the North American continent. They were already gradually moving north at the time Cortes arrived, so enslavement and/or being masscred was the likeliest outcome over a several century period. Assuming no Europeans showed up at all of course.

Eventually, the Aztecs would have grown into a Rome-esque sized empire and likely developed technology to cross the sea to Europe, probably by the early 1600's at the latest if Cortez had never showed up. This would have led to a very different world history than what we know now, but it's still likely smallpox would have been an issue if they tried to occupy and build a foothold in any part of western Europe or the Mediterranean. Or maybe they would have brought some other viruses that would have wiped out Europe at the time.

So my point was that for many of those Native American tribes to have not been wiped out from the 14th through 17th centuries, history would have had to play out very differently than it did and that it sucks that it didn't.

The genocide of Native Americans is not history but an ongoing process. Highest poverty and suicide rates of any ethnic group in country.

Mother ****er!