Yes, it does, but you give at best example exceptions that prove the norm. Small isolated incidents (never mind how common Indians fought each other and DID massacre whites). Versus massive killings without reason besides dislike, under no threat from said other side.
Of course the other thing about the German actually used them as slave labor, not simply executed en mass as many such events are.
Then one has to ask, is it really worse to be killed immediately, or used up until no longer useful? Is it better to target “groups”, or randomly kill anyone?
Arguments like this bring to the fore these questions. Often, the implication is it’s worse to target “other”, yet I’m not sure I feel better being in a society that will randomly kill anyone regardless of their status.
Small isolated incidents (never mind how common Indians fought each other and DID massacre whites).
There are no more Delaware or Susquehano. They were killed off in a single night, having cheerfully entrusted themselves to what they believed were fellow Christians, and allowing their hands to be bound “for their own safety”. There are no more Osage. They died wealthy, but left no heirs, unless you count whichever robber baron profited from their demise.
Indians massacred whites, all right, but deliberate genocide is no “small isolated incident,” and while Indians did massacre whites, there were still plenty more whites around afterwards. The same cannot be said for the Delaware, the Susquehano, or the Osage. Granted, Col. Chivingston failed to annihilate the Cheyenne, and Senator/Chief/Judo expert Charles Nighthorse Campbell has not given us cause to regret that fact. But Red Lives Matter, too, and facts are stubborn things.