The Trail of Tears wasn't a war, it was an unprovoked forced relocation, so it doesn't really follow the pattern. It was racist and ill-advised. A genocide though? It doesn't really fit the definition because there was no intentional -cide.
You aren't expecting me to defend the Trail of Tears and slavery, are you? They were both terrible. Also neither would be put into a textbook as examples of genocide because they are different sorts of atrocities.
I don't understand what's left to be resolved.
I always figured that they were weak and that's a reason why they were thinking of ethnic cleansing--they couldn't afford minority groups to become powerful antagonists and so they attempted to make their own population more homogeneous. So there was a tactical reason behind it, it wasn't just bigotry, but it still is what it is. Am I way off here?
Thanks
