I have been reading this thread over and over again and just want to answer the three or so questioned posed.
"AR has stated (and Thomas Bowden) that the removal of Native Americans was moral. Now, whether one considers this colonialism or not, was it moral?"
My opinion with relation to the above question is that the way in which the Native Americans were removed was immoral. I say this because the majority of teh Natives were killed of and brutally crushed by the Europeans who stole their land from them. In saying this there were a few cases where legitimate deals concerning land where the Natives agreed to relocate, this happened in a minority of cases but was none the less legitimate and moral. Howere on the whole the removal of teh Native Americans was done savagely, brutally, slyly and coercively. I beleive that this constitutes as being immoral with reghards to the removal of the Native Americans.
With regards to question 3 "If/if not for the cases listed, when is it moral?" I believe that the removal or relocation of an indegineous group of people by a foreogn body is moral when the natives engage in a fair agreement to move off of their land instead of being forced off of it e.g. if the foreign body decides to trade the land/ buy the land off of the indigenous population and they both come to an agreement.