> Nobody ever in any circumstances is stating or implying that native peoples did not engage in war, murder, etc before and during the arrival and colonization by Europeans

This is just demonstrably false (see, for one artistically valuable but hilariously naive example, the song "Cortez the Killer" by Neil Young), but will certainly be met by goalpost-moving of "nobody serious is saying that..."

It was a stupid way to phrase what I meant which is that when this silly response (“Native people killed each other you know!”) it’s almost never in response to someone saying “Native people never killed each other.” It’s in response to someone saying “European colonization of the Americas had disastrous effects on native peoples.” My point being when people are saying that, they aren’t saying or implying that native people didn’t kill each other. One does not follow the other.

I could have worded it better, but like I said original this particular silly talking point is hard to unpack and respond to since it’s such a non-sequitur.

You're conveniently implying that Europeans intentionally brought smallpox and other diseases to North and South America, as if it was a choice, which is ridiculous. That's like blaming the rats or the residents sanitary practices for spreading the black death which devistated European populations as well.

“The spread of disease from European contact was not always accidental. Europeans arriving in the Americas had long been exposed to the diseases, attaining a measure of immunity, and thus were not as severely affected by them. Therefore, disease could be an effective biological weapon.”

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Native_American_disease_and_ep...

The quote is from the section Disease as a weapon against Native Americans

Just because it was used on a few isolated occasions, but even then it was already well advancing on it's own. It was already a natural phenomenon.

The westerns saw the absolute devastation by their mere presences was causing unintentionally and occasionally decided to use it to their advantage purposefully...but I highly doubt that absent those occasions that we would have seen much different outcomes.

Absent total non-contact for the next two centuries...

The second two sentences in that quote do nothing to support the first. It's a total non sequitur.

1. I am implying no such thing. I didn’t bring up what was deliberate vs what wasn’t or anything of the sort. I said we should look at the results of colonization and learn from it. That’s it.

2. As already mentioned in the other response to your comment there are multiple documented cases of deliberate infection, if that’s where you want to go.

"Multiple documented cases" != the devastation of populations on every single island, and north and south America regions,

95-99% of the time they just had to show up for it to happen