Claim: the French-Indian War (by England) was justified

What's the definition of genocide? "The deliberate killing of a large group of people, esp. those of a particular ethnic group or nation." Granted, the English and Danes were extremely hateful of those they conquered by they didn't attempt genocide. By standards, they didn't commit genocide. Technology was not advanced to allow something like that to even happen. It wasn't possible, at least til the Nazis perfected that. What the English and Danish did a lot was massacring. I mean, real genocide really didn't exist until the Ottomans tried to deliberately kill Christians in the late 19th/early 20th century. OK, you're right, religion has nothing to do with it. Greed is a big part of what people do. I agree with you on that. But let's not overlook that England, Denmark and Sweden did very atrocious things. Denmark had a pretty big empire in its heyday (quite a couple of islands in the Caribbean, and Greenland) Anyways, my opinion stands with evidence. This war was about England warmongering to becoming a power. "In 1754, English forces under George Washington had begun their march to Fort Duquesne for the purposes of ousting the French from the region by force. On the way, they encountered a French scouting party near present-day Uniontown, Pennsylvania. Washington"s men massacred the party in what came to be known as The Battle of Jumonville Glen. Washington soon took camp at Great Meadows, a large natural clearing, and ordered the construction of Fort Necessity in anticipation of a French response. The French did respond, as 600 soldiers forced Washington to surrender the fort. The French and Indian War had begun." (http://mrnussbaum.com...) Mind you, the land England wanted was not the same as the land the colonialists had. The colonialists, British and French alike, were innocent of what the government was trying to do. I'm talking mostly about the Crown, being greedy, and wanting more land they can conquer. "The immediate cause of the French and Indian War was the British policy of ousting the French from the upper Ohio River valley. The French wanted this region because it would link their possessions from Canada to Louisiana. They planned a series of forts as connecting links. French control impeded British aims to expand westward. English merchants and Virginia planters, including George Washington's brother, Lawrence, formed the Ohio Company in 1749 to settle the Ohio area." (http://history.howstuffworks.com...). So overall, the English were greedy. Trying to take over land that was already French/Native American (specifically the Hurons and Iriquois, one of whom was against the French, the other who was neutral). Pitt the Elder "Pitt, the first real Imperialist in modern English history, was the directing mind in the expansion of his country, and with him the beginning of empire is rightly associated. The Seven Years' War might well, moreover, have been another Thirty Years' War if Pitt had not furnished Frederick with an annual subsidy of "700,000, and in addition relieved him of the task of defending western Germany against France: this was the policy that allowed Pitt to boast of having 'won Canada on the banks of the Rhine'. Contemporary opinion was, of course, incompetent to estimate the permanent results gained for the country by the brilliant foreign policy of Pitt. It has long been generally agreed that by several of his most costly expeditions nothing was really won but glory: the policy of diversionary attacks on places like Rochefort was memorably described as 'breaking windows with gold guineas'. It has even been said that the only permanent acquisition that England owed directly to him was her Canadian dominion; and, strictly speaking, this is true, it being admitted that the campaign by which the Indian empire was virtually won was not planned by him, though brought to a successful issue during his ministry. But material aggrandisement, though the only tangible, is not the only real or lasting effect of a war policy. More may be gained by crushing a formidable rival than by conquering a province. The loss of her Canadian possessions was only one of a series of disasters suffered by France, which included the victories at sea of Boscawen at Lagos and Hawke at Quiberon Bay. Such defeats radically affected the future of Europe and the world. Deprived of her most valuable colonies both in the East and in the West, and thoroughly defeated on the continent, France's humiliation was the beginning of a new epoch in history. The victorious policy of Pitt destroyed the military prestige which repeated experience has shown to be in France as in no other country the very life of monarchy, and thus was not the least of the influences that slowly brought about the French Revolution. It effectually deprived France of the lead in the councils of Europe which she had hitherto arrogated to herself, and so affected the whole course of continental politics. It is such far-reaching results as these, and not the mere acquisition of a single colony, however valuable, that constitute Pitt's claim to be considered as the most powerful minister that ever guided the foreign policy of England." (http://en.wikipedia.org...) That shows him for the piece of scum he was. "His first major piece of legislation as Prime Minister was the India Act 1784, which re-organised the British East India Company and kept a watch over corruption. The India Act created a new Board of Control to oversee the affairs of the East India Company. It differed from Fox's failed India Bill 1783 and specified that the Board would be appointed by the King.[28] Pitt was appointed, along with Lord Sydney who was appointed President.[28] The Act centralised British rule in India by reducing the power of the Governors of Bombay and Madras and by increasing that of the Governor-General, Charles Cornwallis. Further augmentations and clarifications of the Governor-General's authority were made in 1786, presumably by Lord Sydney, and presumably as a result of the Company's setting up of Penang with their own Superintended (Governor), Captain Francis Light, in 1786." (http://en.wikipedia.org...) He pretty much started the Raj if you wanna put it that way.