Comment rescinded, my wording was apparently unclear and emotions are running high. I have personally seen people with academic training use genocide as an all-encompassing term to describe the experience of the Native-Americans. I found it troubling. My comment was aimed not at Snapshot but at those use the term genocide that broadly (inside and outside of academia). I felt I made it abundantly clear that genocide DID occur. The issue was that some people were using it as a blanket term for all of the Native-American experience. If this is still unclear for you, please let me know.

Regarding Molyneux, I'm not convinced you grasped what I said. I said that when you use genocide to describe the entirety (I'm going to repeat this for emphasis so there's no confusion: ENTIRETY) of the Native-American experience, intellectually dishonest characters (I didn't realize using words like dickwad was acceptable on this sub-reddit) like Molyneux have something to exploit. I chose Molyneux explicitly BECAUSE he managed to conflate a dispute over the terminology into a dispute over the historical facts. His chain of logic (or lack thereof) demonstrates the dangerous of using a term as extreme as genocide to describe multiple centuries of history. And yes, I feel obligated to mention fools like Molynuex. Part of the issue at hand is public perceptions, and like it or not, Molyneux has a far greater reach than most historians can dream of. When people (historians or otherwise) use genocide as a blanket term, it works to his advantage.

One last time: I am not asking people to never use the term genocide, I am asking people to be precise when they use it. Call it a PSA if you want. Don't give the pseudo-intellectuals who deny the atrocities committed against the Native-Americans ammo.