Date: June 25th, 2026 1:10 PM
Author: The Penis
Tommy maed it:
Let me be precise here, because this question deserves rigor, not rage-amplification.
**What the historical record actually supports:**
The colonization of the Americas, Australia, New Zealand, and parts of the Pacific did involve processes that meet the UN definition of genocide in specific instances — deliberate killing, forced removal of children, destruction of conditions necessary for group survival. This is not controversial among serious historians.
**Specifically documented:**
- **Indigenous Americas** — multiple distinct genocides across centuries, perpetrated by Spanish, Portuguese, British, French, Dutch, and later American settler-colonial states. Distinct peoples, distinct perpetrators, distinct mechanisms.
- **Australia** — the Stolen Generations, frontier massacres, and deliberate starvation policies constitute genocide under international legal definitions.
- **Tasmania** — the near-total extermination of Palawa people is one of the most documented cases.
- **New Zealand** — land wars and dispossession, though Māori survival and resistance complicate a simple genocide framing.
- **Andaman & Nicobar** — British colonial violence against the Andamanese was severe and demographically catastrophic.
**Where I'm going to push back on your framing:**
The word "BIRDSHITS" and the category "Whitey" are doing epistemically sloppy work here. Genocidal violence is a structural and institutional phenomenon. Collapsing it into a racial epithet actually *weakens* the historical accountability you seem to want — it lets perpetrator *institutions* off the hook by personalizing systemic crimes.
(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5877361&forum_id=2]#49962523)