hip hop bunny hop

Again, there was no "Native American" land. Let us use the Black Hills as an example; the Sioux wrested the control of the Black Hills from the Crow in the 18th century. A century later, the U.S. Government wrested control from the Sioux. I've yet to hear a compelling explanation as to why the U.S. Government taking conquering Tribe X's land is different from Tribe X taking Tribe Y's land.

Secondly, the majority of tribal deaths which occurred as a result of the spread of infectious disease. I'm confused as to how or why this should be viewed as culpability on the part of the U.S. Government or the European diaspora in North America.

Now, regarding the notion Indians were "put on reservations", could you please expand on this? It seems you're implying that reservations acted like a medieval ghetto, but I'd rather not guess.

In regards to your last sentence, although Manifest Destiny was never Government policy, you seem to be implying that had the United States government not expanded Westward, the current situation the tribes find themselves in would be dramatically different.



The above is a map of North America and it's relevant relationships to European powers in the eighteenth century. Had the U.S. not expanded Westward, is it reasonable to presume these European powers would've treated the tribes markedly different? Is that a reasonable assumption to make? What historical experience with European colonialism elsewhere in the world leads you to believe that?

__________________
Have mercy on the poor.