His country genocided all the native population

NO CREO QUE CON: «WE» («NOSOTROS») ESTÉS REFIRIÉNDOTE A QUIENES CREES QUE ESTÉS REFIRIÉNDOTE.

1. LOS AMERINDIOS NO ERAN NOSOTROS, LOS HISPANOAMERICANOS.

2. EL COMPAÑERO ARGENTINO ESTÁ REFIRIÉNDOSE A LOS COLONIALISTAS ANGLOSAJONES, Y PORTUGUESES, NO A LOS ESPAÑOLES, QUIENES VINIERON A CIVILIZAR.

3. FUERON LOS ESPAÑOLES QUIENES TRAJERON A AMÉRICA LAS ARTES, LA CIENCIA, NUEVAS TECNOLOGÍAS, LA FILOSOFÍA, Y LA TEOLOGÍA, ADEMÁS GENERAR A TODAS LA NACIONES HISPANOAMERICANAS.

For sure, what we did to them was terrible. I just think they ought to have some perspective.

>NO CREO QUE CON: «WE» («NOSOTROS») ESTÉS REFIRIÉNDOTE A QUIENES CREES QUE [ESTÁS] REFIRIÉNDOTE.

t. diego tortellini

t. Facundo Biondini

>t.facundo garcia rossi

Yeah I reckon NZ has done the best in preserving the natives and their culture out of any other colonised country.

Which country did that?

They are beautiful when they don't eat whitoid food

t. Juan Rosenkreuze Moreaux

Almost yes.

Canada treated their natives worse than the US and Australia. Fuck off with your revisionism. That highway of death shit wouldn't happen here.

Name one country in 100 years, except for China and perhaps Russia, where this won't be true.

genocide implies killing

>Genocide is the intentional action to destroy a people—usually defined as an ethnic, national, racial, or religious group—in whole or in part.

gen·o·cide
/ˈjenəˌsīd/
Aprenda a pronunciar
noun
the deliberate killing of a large group of people, especially those of a particular ethnic group or nation.

the hybrid word "genocide" is a combination of the Greek word γένος ("race, people") and the Latin suffix -caedo ("act of killing").[3]

>In the present Convention, genocide means any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such:
>(a) Killing members of the group;
>(b) Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group;
>(c) Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part;
>(d) Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group;
>(e) Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.

>(c) Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part;

Reproduction doesn't imply in physical destruction my friend, as it's an act that generates human life instead of erasing it, your rationality only becomes true if you tie culture and race together as inseparable, that is pretty clear in Latin America as miscigenation didn't erase the native's culture but aggregated foreign values toward it and vice-versa for the exterior foreign culture. Also it's pretty clear that the word implies in killing

>that is pretty clear in Latin America as miscigenation didn't erase the native's culture
Imagine being this retarded, miscegenation was used to erase native culture in latin america dumbass

then why are native's languages still alive? why mexico and peru are filled with natives? Sure, things like human sacrifice and poligamy were erased, but pagan beliefs traits and their language are still alive to this day

>in whole or in part

>physical destruction

majority of mexicans are hispanic

t. Albin Weissman Blanco

There you go. Finally you actually point out something worthy of pointing out.
Even then, this is just taken from the UN definition, which is backed by tons of countries who have a nested interest in committing genocide without being punished for it (China).

Physical destruction still implies in killing my friend. Converting natives towards a new religion isn't killing. If anything the UN would be calling genocide the fact that tons of american missionaries are converting the Amazon natives to be gnostic slaves of Israel and the US