Originally Posted by
Ja'chyra
Does the US government actually call what happed to the native Americans genocide or do they call it exploitation and other non committal words?
Unfortunately, it's a little bit complicated. The word "genocide" wasn't an accepted term until 1948, whereas the Indian Wars were entirely over by 1895. So the legal frameworks and administrative bodies for handling the survivors were all in place well before the word "genocide" was being bandied about.
Another complicating factor is the "virgin soil epidemic" in North America. Put simply, European settlers brought some nasty pathogens with them, such as smallpox, measles, influenza, whooping cough, diphtheria, typhus, bubonic plague, cholera and scarlet fever. All of these diseases were minty-fresh to the Americas. The best estimates are that 75 to 90 percent of the deaths of Native Americans came from these pathogens. Entire tribes went extinct without any war or effort on the part of the Europeans. Does this qualify as a genocide?
And yes, there were deliberate efforts to spread disease among the natives, but the historical evidence is thin. Admittedly, people engaging in early biological warfare wouldn't be eager to document their actions, but given the morals of the time, I can't see that they would be worried about any efforts made to kill people they would have regarded as red-skinned, godless heathens, either. The only recorded incident where smallpox was deliberately spread among Native Americans was in 1763, when Sir Jeffrey Amherst ordered that blankets from the smallpox hospital be distributed among the Ohio tribes. What the British authorities did not know was that smallpox was already raging among the Ohio, so it's debatable whether Sir Jeffrey's episode of biological villainy had any effect.
Ye gods, this is a huge topic. Don't forget that the Indian Wars occurred over centuries, with many different tribes and many different Europeans battling or allying over a wide variety of causes.
I think by the 1800s, with the Europeans so entrenched and powerful, and the Native Americans so decimated and scattered, it became something very similar to genocide. A lot of politicians saw the Indians as a problem in need of solving. I can't seem to track down the exact quote, but a Civil War general was sent west to evaluate the Natives and see what could be done with them. Could they be integrated into American life? Could they be preserved? Could we co-exist or not? He wrote back a chilling letter with a line that burned itself into my brain: "If they are to survive, it will only be as a species of beggar."
That's getting close to calling for a Final Solution.
Many historians call it genocide, and the U.S. government has never disputed it. Some historians argue the accuracy of the term. Here's an example:
In the end, the sad fate of America's Indians represents not a crime but a tragedy, involving an irreconcilable collision of cultures and values. Despite the efforts of well-meaning people in both camps, there existed no good solution to this clash. The Indians were not prepared to give up the nomadic life of the hunter for the sedentary life of the farmer. The new Americans, convinced of their cultural and racial superiority, were unwilling to grant the original inhabitants of the continent the vast preserve of land required by the Indians’ way of life. The consequence was a conflict in which there were few heroes, but which was far from a simple tale of hapless victims and merciless aggressors. To fling the charge of genocide at an entire society serves neither the interests of the Indians nor those of history.
Personally, I think it was a genocide, if a complicated one that doesn't necessarily fit into our collective vision of total guilt on one side and total victimhood on the other. I don't know if the U.S. government has taken a particular stand on the issue, and would be grateful if anyone could dig up something official.
Re: Turkey Recalls Ambassador Over Genocide Resolution
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks