Fair enough, maybe the term "genocidal" is hyperbole. The fact remains that the US violently spread into and over indigenous nations, engaged in ethnic cleansing and forced relocation, and overall stomped out any real control that indigenous nations had over their politics and development, and justified this based on racist and nonsensical ideologies like "Manifest Destiny".

I will agree with everything except the idea of ethnic cleansing. Going back the Comanche, my grandmother was the Will Rogers County, OK school board with Quanah Parker. Yes, the school board for all schools; not just some weird Indians-only schools system. The same Quanah Parker that had led them in their final and, arguably, most violent days. If the ethnic cleansing had been the order of the day, surely the Comanche, of all the tribes, would have been targeted. As it turns out, though, that was not the case.

Slow down there buddy, I never claimed that all tribes were noble peaceful people who picked flowers all day.

Then please consider, if you do not choose to out-right agree, that it was not simply an exercise in Indian killing. It was a war fraught with the most cruel behaviors on both sides.

Winning wars don't have any bearing on the morality of the actions before, during, or after a war; and winning a war doesn't mean the victor was in the right.

And what of the cost of losing? Is a morally-right defeat any less of a loss? Why does this sense of morality only seem to be applied to the Americans? Quanah Parker, Comanche chief, himself was the child of stolen child (his mother) ...

Having said that, its too bad the Comanches and other tribes like the Seminole Nation couldn't halt the expansion of US setter-colonialism.

Do you say that because the Americans were the last? Or that, somehow, being subjugated by the Spanish, French, or British was somehow better?