That's also bad. But two wrongs don't make a right. Natives should have been afforded citizenship and constitutional rights also. The solution isn't to undo progress and take rights away from people again. I thought you were progressive?
> Our president wants to genocide brown people.
This discredits you quite a lot, since I've never heard even the most left-wing public figures insinuate such a wild unsubstantiated thing. If true, that would be deplorable also.
Whether what you're saying is true or false has no bearing on the truth value of what I said. You're just making unrelated angry hyperbolic claims that lack any nuance at all.
Whenever someone uses "we" to refer to a body politic, and doesn't otherwise specify, it's meant to refer to the collective polity throughout its history.
So, the democratic-republican "we". As compared to the royal "we".
As to why no one was behind bars? Because "we" also made those bars.
Their polities weren't then part of the US polity, so they'd have a separate we. Now they are part of the US polity, so they could include themselves in that we.
But to honestly answer your sarcastic question: There were a bunch of them, and they typically didn't include their fellow natives in their collective understanding of "we" until later years. At the time, and even prior to colonization, various tribes did indeed commit, or participate in, genocide on other tribes. Just like the pseudo-collective "Europeans" did among their tribes.
