From my understanding, Native Americans did face a lot of deaths due to diseases and whatnot brought by Europeans, but Germ Theory wasn't discovered until much later, so is it reasonable to believe that diseases were given to the Natives on purpose, or should it be considered a misfortunate effect of settlers interacting with the Natives? On top of that, weren't most of the conflicts that involved relocation usually fought out between European Settlers (eventually the U.S. government) and the Native Americans, hence the category of the American Indian Wars? If casualties of war are supposed to be accounted for when deciding what is and is not genocide, should we also colloquially consider the Russians victims of genocide in the World Wars? Millions of soldiers died fighting against foreign invaders, and many POWs were also killed in death camps during the Second World War. Please, do not take this the wrong way. I do not want this post to be removed for mis-identified racism, as I am just having a tough time understanding.
Because it was a genocide(s). The following information will be compiled from previous answers of mine.
From my understanding, Native Americans did face a lot of deaths due to diseases and whatnot brought by Europeans, but Germ Theory wasn't discovered until much later, so is it reasonable to believe that diseases were given to the Natives on purpose, or should it be considered a misfortunate effect of settlers interacting with the Natives?
It didn't take the development of Germ Theory for Europeans to understand cause and effect. This portion of an FAQ relates also how disease alone wasn't responsible for the many deaths, but was a colonial cocktail of war, slavery, and neglect that exasperated the impact of the diseases. This post by /u/Reedstilt identifies the observation of this cause and effect method via diseases by Europeans.
Additionally, as I describe in this Monday Methods post on genocide denialism, the scapegoat of disease is often used to deny that any genocides could possibly have occurred.
On top of that, weren't most of the conflicts that involved relocation usually fought out between European Settlers (eventually the U.S. government) and the Native Americans, hence the category of the American Indian Wars?
Wars did happen. Problem is, many atrocities continued to happen outside of war. It's common to hear "oh, the Indians lost the war!" But as I highlight here, many genocidal actions occurred when Tribes were already on reservations outside of a war context, when under treaty protection, or even the 1970s when Tribes were already fully subjugated.
If casualties of war are supposed to be accounted for when deciding what is and is not genocide, should we also colloquially consider the Russians victims of genocide in the World Wars?
That isn't a criterion for genocide. See here for an explanation of conceptual genocide and genocide in law.
Further explanations of this question can be found here: