You made a general statement without proving anything. I proved the only time it happened here was between members of the same race.
Really, WHAT proof?
You called that a qualifier without saying when or where it may have happened. I referred to an era when it may have happened. You replied it happened much later without saying when or where without proving anything. I countered with an era much later with historical facts that did not fit your agenda.
By suddenly interjecting New York State into the argument, you most CERTAINLY added a qualifier.
Then you ask what difference does it make; again claim it happened without saying when or where and reply that I was proven wrong, again, without proving anything and start name calling proving that you had lost the argument because you had no facts to back anything up.
How about the fact that virtual every plains indian tribe/nation was removed from the interior. White man killed by the tens of thousands, native americans by rifle, by small pox contaminated blankets and clothing, by death marches and by starvation. Perhaps a visit to the website (or in person) of the National Archives for photo, audio, video, scribed, printed, copied and cataloged content las waiting for your dissemination, if you have the will to allow the facts to enter you squelched little mind.
I have been involved and listened to similar garbage long enough to know that those opposed to equality under the law refer to any laws which counter racist privilege tribalism as genocide, even though that is not the definition of genocide.
Then it would appear that I'm not the only one who knows your argument is BS.
"genocide noun the deliberate killing of a large group of people, esp. those of a particular ethnic group or nation.
ORIGIN 1940s: from Greek genos 'race' + -cide.
a tyrant guilty of genocide: mass murder, mass homicide, massacre; annihilation, extermination, elimination, liquidation, eradication, decimation, butchery, bloodletting; pogrom, ethnic cleansing, holocaust."
Looks like a perfect match, to me.
Back and forth with others you claim you are getting smarter (or drunker) and are getting hours of entertainment (proving nothing to anyone).
I claimed that, did I? WHERE?
The only thing you have proven is that the dummying down of America is working, that with so much time on your hands you likely do not work and likely your drinking buddy is Hocks N Rice.
At least Hocks TRYS to prove his statements, whereas you have succumbed to incoherent ramble. That is what you get for drinking at home as opposed to where a bartender could cut you off.
Though my hard livin' days are well behind me, it's a safe bet that whatever position I might take up while inebriated, would likely be more coherent than any sober arguments, you currently have.
Everyone's entitled to their own opinions, but not their own facts.