There's no meaningful equivalence between the US's deliberate and considered 400 year long campaign of extermination of Indigenous American people and the raucous brawling of dozens of different barely Christianized fratricidal ethnolinguistic groups with wildly different political and economic organizations haphazardly integrating, marrying in to, fighting, conquering, being conquered by, exterminating, or peacefully syncretizing with their neighbors. Europe did not exist until fairly recent history. Idk, maybe Napoleon or something. Christianity in the medieval period was a complete mess of idiosyncratic regional practices and petty heresies with very little central control and authority. Like sometimes the pope could flex, depending on the situation.
You want to talk about, idk, the Teutonic Knights being murderous psychos, we can talk about that. if we limit the discussion to like a specific handful of decades. But Europe and Christianity did not exist in the way they do now.
Like the Crusades? Absolutely not a genocidal campaign of whatever, and they weren't viewed as such by the people at the time. Arab writers of the time considered the invasion of the Franks as just politics as usual. The idea that it was an campaign of extermination waged between ideologically coherent factions is modern nonsense.
i already said that it is substantially different in many ways, but the fact that the cultural imperialism wasn't as unified doesn't make it not cultural imperialism. just because, for example, the christianization of scandinavia was headed by internal forces, doesn't mean it didn't involve some pretty horrific violent persecutions. it wasn't genocide in a physical sense but it was in a cultural sense, forcibly assimilating people into a belief system for political advantages. obviously what the US would do later to its indigenous people is much worse and more unified and insutrialized, but that doesn't make lesser crimes against humanity acceptable. idc about 'europe' or 'chrisitanity' as they are now, i'm just pointing out that it was at times a very forcible conversion. idc how people at the time would categorize events, if something like the crusades were to happen these days we would absolutely call it a war crime akin to genocide if not genocide itself, its the intentional destruction and repression of a culture.
edit: like the civil war in sweden between indigenous belief proponents and christians wasn't as horrific, bloody, and mercilessly efficient as america's ethnic cleansing of the native americans, but it was still obviously fucked up, and is similar in the sense that a socio-cultural hegemony is being violently established/maintained, where a less advantaged cultural/ethnic group is destroyed by a dominant cultural/ethnic group. it was based on different lines than the race realist science of genocidal america but it shares at least some qualities.
There's no meaningful equivalence between the US's deliberate and considered 400 year long campaign of extermination of Indigenous American people and the raucous brawling of dozens of different barely Christianized fratricidal ethnolinguistic groups with wildly different political and economic organizations haphazardly integrating, marrying in to, fighting, conquering, being conquered by, exterminating, or peacefully syncretizing with their neighbors. Europe did not exist until fairly recent history. Idk, maybe Napoleon or something. Christianity in the medieval period was a complete mess of idiosyncratic regional practices and petty heresies with very little central control and authority. Like sometimes the pope could flex, depending on the situation.
You want to talk about, idk, the Teutonic Knights being murderous psychos, we can talk about that. if we limit the discussion to like a specific handful of decades. But Europe and Christianity did not exist in the way they do now.
Like the Crusades? Absolutely not a genocidal campaign of whatever, and they weren't viewed as such by the people at the time. Arab writers of the time considered the invasion of the Franks as just politics as usual. The idea that it was an campaign of extermination waged between ideologically coherent factions is modern nonsense.
i already said that it is substantially different in many ways, but the fact that the cultural imperialism wasn't as unified doesn't make it not cultural imperialism. just because, for example, the christianization of scandinavia was headed by internal forces, doesn't mean it didn't involve some pretty horrific violent persecutions. it wasn't genocide in a physical sense but it was in a cultural sense, forcibly assimilating people into a belief system for political advantages. obviously what the US would do later to its indigenous people is much worse and more unified and insutrialized, but that doesn't make lesser crimes against humanity acceptable. idc about 'europe' or 'chrisitanity' as they are now, i'm just pointing out that it was at times a very forcible conversion. idc how people at the time would categorize events, if something like the crusades were to happen these days we would absolutely call it a war crime akin to genocide if not genocide itself, its the intentional destruction and repression of a culture.
edit: like the civil war in sweden between indigenous belief proponents and christians wasn't as horrific, bloody, and mercilessly efficient as america's ethnic cleansing of the native americans, but it was still obviously fucked up, and is similar in the sense that a socio-cultural hegemony is being violently established/maintained, where a less advantaged cultural/ethnic group is destroyed by a dominant cultural/ethnic group. it was based on different lines than the race realist science of genocidal america but it shares at least some qualities.