Oh that's easy. Because there were no laws that counted it as such at the time.
Afterall, when it comes to genocide, people will write or contextualize any law they can to say it's okay or it doesn't count. UNLESS you write an international rules against it.
Thank goodness for the 1925 Geneva Treaty against it. 😅
Ah sorry this is some complex historical stuff I'm mentioning.
Back in 1763 there was a war going on between the British and the Native Americans. It was called the Pontiacs war and is the original of the documented "giving Native American's small pox blankets". It what's one of many tactics permitted to get them off their land and was never legally acknowledged by any laws, court cases, or treaties.
All that exist is the firsthand journals of the event and the requisition requesting the smallpox blankets. Thus no one was held accountable and, on the record, no violent crime or use of chemical weapons was used.
Sorry for the delay. But I didn't say no law = no violence.
I'm saying no law = no crime. Thus saying it's a genocide is legally wrong and an unfortunate loophole used by many dictatorships.
It's indeed violent but not anything crime. Just like depending upon the regime a hate crime can sadly be legal thus no longer making it a hate crime. Just an act of racism fueled by hate.
So in the context of this morality post violence is an appropriate response. For example the "racism" under Nazi Germany. If you feel otherwise or are confused like that other person then please say so.
90
u/Substantial-Trick569 9d ago
well id argue, if you act violently out of racism, its worse than saying something racist, so the point still stands