The History of Thanksgiving

[AlwaysAnarchy]

Hi guys. I wanted to know if someone could tell me the real history of Thanksgiving. I read in my school the old line about the Pilgrims coming in on the Mayflower, wanting religious freedoms, then coming to Massachusetts, then getting help from Squanto and the Native Americans who assisted them with planting and harvesting crops. They then shared a meal together and that is what we call Thanksgiving.

NOW, that's the traditional story taught in most schools in America. It was taught to me. Well, I immediately raised up my hand and said "What about the genocide? What about the millions of Native Americans killed by the Pilgrims and by Europeans?"

To which my history teacher responded with "Well actually, most Indians died because of disease from the Europeans, which no one knew how to cure at the time. Wars were faught, by both sides for the land in the Americas, although that was inevitable." :blink:

So I guess that brings up a few questions:

1. What was the real history of Thanksgiving?

2. Could the genocide of Native American been avoided? Was it "inevitable?"

3. And lastly, was it progressive as I hear a number of leftists claim that Europeans "evolved" Native American communities from the primitive societies they once were to something more "modern"?

[Whitten]

The genocide of the native americans cant be blamed on disieses. The complete and total annihalation of the native americans was planned by the US government, and carried out primarily though the destruction of the food source.

[AlwaysAnarchy]

Originally posted by Whitten+November 28, 2006 07:45 pm--> (Whitten @ November 28, 2006 07:45 pm) The genocide of the native americans cant be blamed on disieses. The complete and total annihalation of the native americans was planned by the US government, and carried out primarily though the destruction of the food source. [/b]
But how can that be? The US government did not exist until 1789, by that time most of the Indians had already died.


Wiki
The European colonists, whose Eurasion lifestyle included sharing close quarters with animal resevoirs of disease (cows, pigs, sheep, goats, horses and various domesticated fowl), introduced novel germs to the agriculturally-advanced indigenous peoples of the Americas. Smallpox (1525, 1558, 1589), typhus (1546), influenza (1558), diphtheria (1614) and measles (1618) epidemics swept ahead of initial European contact killing between 10 million and 112 million indigenous peoples of the Americas in the largest mass death of humans ever. These unprecedented epidemics, which killed between 95% and 98% of the indigenous population, subsequently facilitated both colonization of the land and conquest of these native civilizations.[1]

[manic expression]

Originally posted by PeacefulAnarchist+November 28, 2006 07:51 pm--> (PeacefulAnarchist @ November 28, 2006 07:51 pm)
Originally posted by [email protected] 28, 2006 07:45 pm
The genocide of the native americans cant be blamed on disieses. The complete and total annihalation of the native americans was planned by the US government, and carried out primarily though the destruction of the food source.
But how can that be? The US government did not exist until 1789, by that time most of the Indians had already died.


Wiki
The European colonists, whose Eurasion lifestyle included sharing close quarters with animal resevoirs of disease (cows, pigs, sheep, goats, horses and various domesticated fowl), introduced novel germs to the agriculturally-advanced indigenous peoples of the Americas. Smallpox (1525, 1558, 1589), typhus (1546), influenza (1558), diphtheria (1614) and measles (1618) epidemics swept ahead of initial European contact killing between 10 million and 112 million indigenous peoples of the Americas in the largest mass death of humans ever. These unprecedented epidemics, which killed between 95% and 98% of the indigenous population, subsequently facilitated both colonization of the land and conquest of these native civilizations.[1][/b]
One of the big reasons the American Revolution happened was because the British made an agreement with the Native tribes to NOT allow whites to settle past the App. mountains. The Americans were pissed that they couldn't steal other people's land (further). Do you think that after 1800, Americans just waltzed their way to the Pacific? Of course not, they systematically and consistently cleansed native populations (see Andrew Jackson's trail of tears, the defeat of the Miami, the "Indian Wars", etc...).

[chimx]

What your history teacher told you was basically correct. Pilgrims in Virginia had a day of celebration over the harvest, as was tradition in Britain. At the first harvest celebration in Virginia, local indians celebrated with the settlers, and by one source (written by one of the pilgrims), nearly twice as many indians as pilgrims were present for the first harvest feast.

When settlements continued to increase, and land became more and more occupied, that is when hostilities rapidly increased.

Also, genocide is a specific crime of intent. For example, Hitler tried to enact policy to exterminate the Jews of Europe. While British and French settlers and later the US government engaged in extremely unjust hostilities with indians, they were usually the byproduct of land disputes, and not "genocide". None of the groups put forth the policy of specificially wiping out the Indian polulation, which is necessary for it to be geocide (despite that the end result is the same).

That said, disease also played a major role in the depopulation of American Indians. Millions of Indians died from small pox, malaryia, etc. The epidemic's fatalities exceeded that of Europe's "Black Death" (aka, the plague). To simply blame the depopulation on battles and massacres is extremely unrealistic.

The atrocities that the US did do speak for themselves. By relying on these faulty arguments we undermine the real tragedys that did occur.

[bcbm]

The harvest celebration would've probably been after they failed their first round of crops and nearly froze to death, surviving off of corpses and stolen food and, later, sympathy from the native population... yeah?


While British and French settlers and later the US government engaged in extremely unjust hostilities with indians, they were usually the byproduct of land disputes, and not "genocide". None of the groups put forth the policy of specificially wiping out the Indian polulation, which is necessary for it to be geocide (despite that the end result is the same).

No, they just wanted to keep pushing them further and further West (land disputes? You mean theft...), murder them if they refused (sounds familiar), destroy their food source, then box them into little plots of land and completely destroy their culture and way of life. That certainly isn&#39;t genocide. And, of course, the smallpox blankets and forced sterilization wouldn&#39;t fit the bill either. <_<

[chimx]

just cause it was unjust, doesn&#39;t give you poetic license to use the term "genocide" as you see fit. the closest you could come to the argument is the forced sterilization that occured in the 1970s in the United States. Thousands of women were sterilized by doctors on reservations, but I seriously doubt this amounted to systematic "genocide", but rather an incredibly inhumane way of dealing with poverty on reservations.

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

Here&#39;s a good article on it from The Free Press:

Celebrate genocide? No thanks&#33;
On November 24, many in the U.S. gathered with their families to feast in (unintentional?) celebration of the worst genocide in human history.

Taught from childhood that the friendly Pilgrims invited the Indians to a great feast after surviving their first year in New England, little do most of them know that the real history of Thanksgiving is a story of mass murder and theft.

The Real Story Of Thanksgiving
For the entire story, we could go back to the first landing of Colombus in what is now the Dominican Republic in 1492; but being as though that is outside of the scope of this article, and that we&#39;ve previously covered the crimes of Colombus ("Columbus Day? There&#39;s Nothing to Celebrate&#33;", The Free Press Volume 1, Issue 5 ), we&#39;ll focus on the events in North America that lead to the creation of the modern day Thanksgiving holiday.

In 1614 a small group of English explorers sailed home from North America with a ship full of Patuxet Indians that were to be used as slaves. Those who escaped capture were virtually wiped out by the smallpox they had left behind.

One of the original colonists would later describe the mass deaths as a gift from God, writing "But for the natives in these parts, God hath so pursued them, as for 300 miles space the greatest part of them are swept away by smallpox which still continues among them. So as God hath thereby cleared our title to this place."

By the time the group of religious zealouts, called Puritans, arrived in Massachusetts Bay four years later, they found only one Patuxet survivor, a man named Squanto who had survived slavery in Europe and spoke the colonists&#39; language. He taught them how to plant corn and catch fish and helped negotiate a peace treaty with the nearby Wampanoag Nation. This enabled the Puritans to survive their first year in North America, quite a feat considering that previous settlements like those in Virginia had been completely wiped out in a few months time. At the end of the year they held a great feast honoring Squanto and the Wampanoags.

As word spread throughout England about the paradise to the west, religious exiles began heading to the "new world" by the boat load. They began discussing who exactly owned the land they had settled on. Their method of farming was based on individual ownership, as opposed to the Indians who practiced communal farming, and to whom land "ownership" was a completely alien idea.

A few of the Puritans argued that the land belonged to the Indians that inhabited it, but they were soon expelled from the settlements. Governor Winthrop of Massachusetts declared that since the Indians had not fenced in and cultivated all of the land, it was public domain, which under English Common Law meant that it belonged to the King. So then, it was decided that the local governor, not the Indians, would decide what would be done with the land.

The settlers then joined up in groups and seized vast stretches of land, captured strong young Natives for slaves to work it, and killed old men, women, and children for whom they had no use.

The Pequot Nation, who had never agreed to the peace treaty negotiated by Squanto, fought back. The war between the Pequot and English would be one of the bloodiest in North America.

In 1637 over 700 men, women, and children gathered near present day Groton, Connecticut to celebrate their annual Green Corn Festival. But early that morning they were surrounded by English and Dutch mercenaries who ordered them to come outside. Those who did were shot or beaten to death while the terror-stricken women and children who hid inside the longhouse were burned alive.

The governor of Plymouth wrote about the events, "Those that escaped the fire were slain with the sword; some hewed to pieces, others run through with their rapiers, so that they were quickly dispatched and very few escaped. It was conceived they thus destroyed about 400 at this time. It was a fearful sight to see them thus frying in the fire...horrible was the stink and scent thereof, but the victory seemed a sweet sacrifice, and they gave the prayers thereof to God, who had wrought so wonderfully for them."

The next day, the governor of the Massachusetts Bay Colony declared "A Day of Thanksgiving" for the massacre.

From then on, the colonists waged a vicious campaign against the Indians, attacking village after village. Women and children over 14 were captured and sold into slavery while the others were murdered. Boats full of "human cargo" regularly shipped out from the ports of New England. After discovering just how profitable the slave trade could be, the burgeoning capitalists would go on to enslave millions of Africans and Asians.

"Scalp bounties" were offered for Indian scalps by the local governments to encourage as many murders as possible.

Another "Day of Thanksgiving" was proclaimed in the churches of Manhattan after a mercenary hired by the governor set a village of hundreds of Indians of fire near what is now Stamford, Connecticut.

The killings continued to increase, and "day of thanksgiving" feasts were held after each successful slaughter. After a few years, there were almost no Indians left in the Northern English colonies.

George Washing finally suggested that one day of Thanksgiving be held per year, instead of celebrating each bloodbath individually. Later, President Lincoln would declare Thanksgiving Day to be a legal holiday during the civil war.

Since the first landing of Europeans in the Americas, hundreds of millions of human beings have been killed.

Thanksgiving has been celebrated annually in the United States since 1863.

A Day Of Mourning
The state of Massachusetts invited Wamsutta of the Wampanoag to give a speech during their 350th anniversary celebration of thanksgiving in 1970. However, when the planners reviewed his speech beforehand, they wouldn&#39;t allow it and instead wrote an alternative speech. Wamsutta refused to give the speech written by the planners and instead, to protest the continued silencing of the American Indians, he and his supporters went to neighboring Coles Hill. Overlooking the Plymouth Harbor and the Mayflower replica, Wamsutta gave his original speech.

In it he said, "Today is a time of celebrating for you -- a time of looking back to the first days of white people in America. But it is not a time of celebrating for me. It is with a heavy heart that I look back upon what happened to my people. When the Pilgrims arrived, we, the Wampanoags, welcomed them with open arms, little knowing that it was the beginning of the end. That before 50 years were to pass, the Wampanoag would no longer be a tribe. That we and other Indians living near the settlers would be killed by their guns or dead from diseases that we caught from them.

"History wants us to believe that the Indian was a savage, illiterate, uncivilized animal. A history that was written by an organized, disciplined people, to expose us as an unorganized and undisciplined entity. Two distinctly different cultures met. One thought they must control life; the other believed life was to be enjoyed, because nature decreed it. Let us remember, the Indian is and was just as human as the white man."

This marked the first National Day of Mourning.

The few Americans Indians that survived the 500 year genocide are the poorest ethnic group in the richest country in the world. Each year, a group of them, along with supporters of all shades, gather at Plymouth Rock on Thanksgiving Day for a day of mourning, during which they fast, remember what is lost, and protest against continued racism and injustice.

"Some ask us: Will you ever stop protesting?" said Moonanum James in a speech on the 29th National Day of Mourning in 1998. "Some day we will stop protesting: We will stop protesting when the merchants of Plymouth are no longer making millions of dollars off the blood of our slaughtered ancestors. We will stop protesting when we can act as sovereign nations on our own land without the interference of the Bureau of Indian Affairs and what Sitting Bull called the "favorite ration chiefs." When corporations stop polluting our mother, the earth. When racism has been eradicated. When the oppression of Two-Spirited people is a thing of the past. We will stop protesting when homeless people have homes and no child goes to bed hungry. When police brutality no longer exists in communities of color. We will stop protesting when Leonard Peltier and Mumia Abu Jamal and the Puerto Rican independentistas and all the political prisoners are free.

"Until then, the struggle will continue."

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

As usual chimx is way, way off. Many did openly advocate "wiping out the natives". What happened to the Indigenous peoples of the Americas was the largest genocide in world history. Between 80 and 100 million people were killed, and entire peoples were wiped out.

As David E. Stannard, a historian at the University of Hawaii, puts it, “[the indigenous people had undergone the] worst human holocaust the world had ever witnessed, roaring across two continents non-stop for four centuries and consuming the lives of countless tens of millions of people.” - Source (http://www.freepeoplesmovement.org/fpm/page.php?67)


"Scalp bounties" were offered for Indian scalps by the local governments to encourage as many murders as possible.

Small pox was spread many time purposely. Food sources of indigenous people were wiped out. Villages were attacked, many times when the young men were away (killing women, children and the elderly). This was done purposely, to remove the indigenous people from the land.

It was the same thing in the DR and Cuba, and a host of other places.

[bcbm]

Originally posted by chimx+November 28, 2006 08:10 pm--> (chimx @ November 28, 2006 08:10 pm) just cause it was unjust, doesn&#39;t give you poetic license to use the term "genocide" as you see fit. the closest you could come to the argument is the forced sterilization that occured in the 1970s in the United States. Thousands of women were sterilized by doctors on reservations, but I seriously doubt this amounted to systematic "genocide", but rather an incredibly inhumane way of dealing with poverty on reservations. [/b]

dictionary.com
Genocide: the deliberate and systematic extermination of a national, racial, political, or cultural group.

I suppose that giving smallpox blankets out wasn&#39;t a deliberate and systematic attempt at extermination? Or the massacres? Or the forced marches? The starvation? The entire reservation system?

Would you prefer ethnic cleansing? Either way, Anglos made a very deliberate attempt to remove the indigenous population of the Americas through a variety of means.

[chimx]

As you said, "this was done purposely, to remove the indigenous people from the land." While individuals at local levels may have advocated genocide, it was never official US policy:


From the word genus (race) and (cide), killing. Coined by Raphael Lemkin, a Russian Jewish jurist, in 1944, it refers to the intentional, systematic murder of all of the people in a targeted group. The 20th century is one of recurrent genocide including the Armenians in World War I, the Jews during World War II, and post-1945, genocides took place in many areas including Cambodia, Rwanda, Guatemala and the former Yugoslavia.

In every reply to this post I have stated that what occured to american indians was tragic. It was brutish, heinous, and completely unjust. Many of my close friends are Sioux and Blackfeet. But to trivialize the intricacies of their history and struggles as a simplistic genocide like that which occurred to Jews and other people&#39;s is to ignore the reality of their situation. I find that to extremely destructive to history, and experience of america&#39;s indigenous population.

[bcbm]

Trivialize? "Simplistic" genocide? <_< Get real.

It doesn&#39;t need to be "official" policy to be genocide. There was a systematic attempt by Anglos to destroy the indigenous population of the Americas.

[chimx]

And I&#39;m saying that this overlooks the material reality of western/indegnious conflict. The US government wanted the land that was occupied by indians. They US historically tried a variety of means of obtaining this land. Some of this experience was that of battles and massacres. But it also manifested itself in the form of forced assimilation (through schooling and loss of language), implementation of reservation treaty policies and the later invasion (and again forced assimilation) of white settlers to reservation land. It is quite frankly more complicated than "the US wants to kill indians" (ie. genocide).

Ignoring history and how it unfolded is extremely uhealthy, as it allows for the recurrence of tragedy.

[bcbm]

No one is ignoring anything.


No, they just wanted to keep pushing them further and further West (land disputes? You mean theft...), murder them if they refused (sounds familiar), destroy their food source, then box them into little plots of land and completely destroy their culture and way of life.

Gee, I already mentioned all the things you talked about, and I still called it genocide. :rolleyes:

[chimx]

Then you obviously don&#39;t know a god damn thing about history. During the early parts of the 19th century, the US government put a great deal of emphasis on maintaining the fur trade and keeping close contact with western indian tribes. It was at this time that the US moved the offices dealing with indian relations from the war department to the department of interior. There was a shift in policy, from viewing American Indians as a hostile threat to the governments hope of land expansion towards incorporating them into government regulation.

This is when treaties began to happen. Someone mentioned the Trail of Tears faced by the Cherokee, which was a treaty exchanging eastern land for western land (ie. relocation). By the 1870s and onward, the US government then forces indians onto reservations and enacted policies to force assimilation. The government began providing some funding for boarding schools, whcih essentially kidnapped children and tried to "civilize" them. BoIA representatives were set up on reservations and were allowed to give government loans to indians wishing to take up agriculture, though often times white settlers had already obtained much of the land best for crop cultivation.

Explain to me how the funding, albeit extremely poorly implemented, of assimilation programs to "westernize" American Indians can be construed as an attempt to systematically destroy a race of people? Answer: it wasn&#39;t ever about race. It was, and is, about land, money, and power. Indian autonomy stood in the way of this, and so the US fought to undermine it in a variety of ways.

Again, what you are saying is a gross simplification.

[freakazoid]

What do you people care what happened to the Native Americans? They were religious so doesn&#39;t that mean some of you think that they should be wiped out anyways?

[chimx]

no no no. we should place them in a reservation. maybe give it a name called "OI". :P

[bcbm]

Explain to me how the funding, albeit extremely poorly implemented, of assimilation programs to "westernize" American Indians can be construed as an attempt to systematically destroy a race of people?

How could wanting to destroy their entire way of life and their cultures be construed as such a thing, indeed.

Look, I understand your point and I apologize for being needlessly hostile, but I don&#39;t think it is incorrect to say that Anglos did practice a policy of genocide towards the indigenous population of the Americas, nor am I trying to ignore the complexities and shifts in US policy towards them, something I&#39;ve studied too.


Answer: it wasn&#39;t ever about race. It was, and is, about land, money, and power.

Genocide need not be about race: see the definition I offered above. Trying to kill off or otherwise remove people because you want their land is still trying to kill them off.

[chimx]

well i&#39;m glad we can at least agree to disagree. i think it is important to acknowledge though that a lot of white folk got involved in the BoIA, especially after 1876, with what they though were the best intentions. Poverty and disease had been a problem, and people tried to get the indian population to assimilate simply because they thought that it [u]would[/i] better the indian situation. It is a case of good intentions gone awry for a lot of the policies towards the beginning of the 20th century.

If you are into reading historical fiction, you should check out the book Wind from an enemy sky. It touches on a lot of these subjects.

[Phalanx]

The destruction of Native American civilizations was one of the largest human catastrophes in history. European (including Anglo) actions can definitely be called genocide. Massacres at Wounded Knee and Bad Axe were nothing less than systematic killings of groups of people. Small Pox blankets, the trail of tears, forced movement into the reservations all point to genocide, nothing more.

However, most of the 80-100 million people killed were killed not by European guns or brutality, but by European germs. Europeans wanted to see most live, not out of the goodness of their hearts, but because they wanted cheap slave labor.

A good book to check out is 1491 by Charles C. Mann. It gives a very plausible description of Native American life before Columbus sailed, and the effects of the invasion.

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

Wrong, at least in part. In many places, like Cuba, indigenous people were wiped out precisely because the Europeans didn&#39;t think they made good slaves (also, in many cases, in the Caribbean especially, indigenous people would kill themselves rather than becoming slaves).

[Phalanx]

Right, but when they got past the Caribbean (into Mexico, Peru, etc) their goal was to keep the indigenous population alive. They felt it was cheaper keeping them alive than kidnapping people in Africa and bringing them to the Americas.

[chimx]

so most europeans "wanted to see most live", but at the same time wanted to systematically exterminate the race? that must be hard.

[Phalanx]

Keeping in mind that the conquest of the Americas has now gone on for 500 years, it really isn&#39;t that inconceivable. Different European nations had different policies towards Native Americans. Spaniards favored first systematic destruction, then slave labor, England favored a systematic destruction of indigenous peoples, unless they fought against France, and France favored trading with Indians, although don&#39;t get France wrong, they too had horrible intentions.

[chimx]

first let me be clear that this conversation started as a discussion of pilgrims, and so we were talking about the native experience north of the Rio Grande. Nothing I have mentioned is directed towards Spanish policy in Latin America. People are still throwing around the term genocide and systematic mass-murder, and I have yet to see how any government advocated racial cleansing as official policy. Massacres happen throughout history. Their existence, no matter how unjust, doesn&#39;t automatically constitute genocide. Granted, the native experience spanned numerous centuries, and thus numerous centuries of severe repression, but it was never systematized mass-murder (ie. rounding indians up and sending them to death camps).

[Phalanx]

You don&#39;t think pushing Native Americans onto reservations is ethnic cleansing? What do you think the small pox blankets were? For warmth? It was a systematic destruction of an entire people, through massacres and uprooting people from their land. There were instances of rounding up women and children and massacring them. What happened cannot be called anything other than genocide.

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

Sure it can.. if you&#39;re a white-U.S.-chauvanist idiot like chimx.

[bcbm]

Originally posted by Compañ[email protected] 29, 2006 10:18 pm
Sure it can.. if you&#39;re a white-U.S.-chauvanist idiot like chimx.
:rolleyes: Oh please. He&#39;s saying that US policy towards the indigenous has been so complex that he feels the term genocide is too simplistic to deal with the intricacies of it, not that the US never killed any indigenous people.

[chimx]

the problem is that people in enacting these policies in the late 19th century were white male chauvinists. many people didn&#39;t see moving indian populations onto reservations as a cruel way to annihilate their people, but as a way to better their lives. plenty of folk were doing it as a solution to the hostilities that plagued the previous century.

again, genocide is a crime of intent. if the intent wasn&#39;t explicitly to wipe out the people, than legally that is not what occurred. personally i think it is one of the most tragic episodes of ethnocentrism that took place in human history--all for the sake for land expansion. millions upon millions of people died as a result.

[Phalanx]

Originally posted by [email protected] 30, 2006 05:17 pm
again, genocide is a crime of intent. if the intent wasn&#39;t explicitly to wipe out the people, than legally that is not what occurred. personally i think it is one of the most tragic episodes of ethnocentrism that took place in human history--all for the sake for land expansion. millions upon millions of people died as a result.
In many ways, the intent was to wipe out the people, either by death or destruction of their culture. Giving Native Americans smallpox blankets was an act with the sole intent of killing as many Native Americans as possible, and the Bureau of Indian Affairs&#39; attempts to &#39;christianize&#39; the population was an attempt to destroy their cultural lives.

[ComradeR]

Yeah people were killed and it was horrible, but it was mostly disease that killed them and it wasn&#39;t the governments policy to wipe them out, it wasn&#39;t genocide.
Hmm where have i heard talk like this before? oh yeah it&#39;s the same way (non neo-Fascist/Nazis) holocaust deniers talk.

[ComradeR]

so most europeans "wanted to see most live", but at the same time wanted to systematically exterminate the race? that must be hard.

Actualy it&#39;s the same thing the Nazis did, they kept a lot of jews alive to use as slave labor while those that couldn&#39;t or wouldn&#39;t work were shot or sent to the gas chambers.

[Tekun]

Whether the American gov planned a genocide or not, they for the most part accomplished it and are now enjoying the benefits from the absence of Native Americans throughout North America
Nuff said

[chimx]

while i generally agree with you tekun, my main concern is that the over simplification of US-Indian relations allows for us to ignore the intricacies of that relationship. I don&#39;t want tragedies like this to occur again, and that means knowing about the history of the American Indians and their complex relationship with white settlers.

again, from a legal standpoint though, the end result of having millions upon millions left dead does not in itself prove genocide. If you can&#39;t prove intent for all those left dead, it isn&#39;t genocide. while small pox were given to some tribes, it was hardly a *norm*. You can&#39;t use one mass murder to show intent behind another mass murder.

[midnight marauder]

Question for chimx to help me clarify your position: Would you object to using the term "democide" instead?

Thanks.

[Phalanx]

Originally posted by [email protected] 01, 2006 05:06 pm
again, from a legal standpoint though, the end result of having millions upon millions left dead does not in itself prove genocide. If you can&#39;t prove intent for all those left dead, it isn&#39;t genocide. while small pox were given to some tribes, it was hardly a *norm*. You can&#39;t use one mass murder to show intent behind another mass murder.
I agree, one instance doesn&#39;t necessarily make it genocide.

But it&#39;s a fact that massacres and deliberate spreading of diseases was a routine policy employed by the US government. Wounded Knee, Bad Axe, smallpox blankets, the Trail of Tears, the list goes on.

It was a systematic destruction of an entire people.

[Comrade-Z]

Originally posted by [email protected] 01, 2006 05:06 pm
while i generally agree with you tekun, my main concern is that the over simplification of US-Indian relations allows for us to ignore the intricacies of that relationship. I don&#39;t want tragedies like this to occur again, and that means knowing about the history of the American Indians and their complex relationship with white settlers.

again, from a legal standpoint though, the end result of having millions upon millions left dead does not in itself prove genocide. If you can&#39;t prove intent for all those left dead, it isn&#39;t genocide. while small pox were given to some tribes, it was hardly a *norm*. You can&#39;t use one mass murder to show intent behind another mass murder.
How do you judge intent, Chimx? Can we see inside people&#39;s brains? No. Do we take what they say at face value? No. Has George Bush said anything about the Iraq War being about imperialism? No. Do you have any doubt that the Iraq War is about imperialism? You shouldn&#39;t.

As for the history of U.S. genocide against the native populations, the actions of the U.S. people speak for themselves.

Does that mean that every single U.S. citizen was involved in the genocide? No. Still, did U.S., as a whole, perpetrate genocide on the native Americans? Undoubtedly.

"Land-disputes"? White anglos just "looking for a better life"?

Yeah, kind of like how "Hitler just intended to do the best thing for the German People." Unfortunately, that meant "getting rid of the parasitical Jew." Oh well. At least that wasn&#39;t the fundamental "intent." I guess in Chimx-land, this is just something that the German people felt "just had to be done." :angry: God-forbid we call it what it really was: a genocide&#33; :angry:

[chimx]

Juice: i think democide would be far more appropriate, but i don&#39;t know how commonly it is used. I just think it is important to bare in mind that the intentions of policy makers varied from person to person, state to state, reservation to reservation. plenty of people got interested in assimilation programs because they honestly thought they were doing what was best for american indians.

Tatanka Iyotank: don&#39;t get me wrong. i fully understand where you are coming from. i just don&#39;t think that the government sponsored loan programs to indians in the late 19th and early 20th century because they were trying to systematically exterminate their race.

Massacres and mass-murders occurred, but again, this had more to do with a history of land disputes. the US paid money to france for what was indian territory. because of continued land disputes, battles and massacres took place on both fronts (though it is obviously easier to be sympathetic to the side of american indians. my friend is part sioux and tells me about how it was his relatives a few generations back that killed custer at the battle of little big horn, which always makes me smile a bit). hell, if you believe the early pilgrim accounts, to tie it back to the original discussion, it was the eastern indians that originally shot arrows at the pilgrims. ;)

this is why originally indian policy was handled by the US dept. of war, to deal with persistent violent hostilities. the fact that it switched over to the department of the interior i think is extremely telling of intent--that there was an attempt to try and incorporate native land disputes into public policy and NOT just wipe them out as a people. thus assimilation programs, reservations. it was a pathetically stupid solution to problems that existed between indians and the us government. still, i would say this fact still argues against popular intent.

comrade-z: the fact that you are trying to compare the holocaust with the american indian experience is both insulting to the tragedy both groups lived and died through, and is quite telling of your own historical ignorance.

[ComradeR]

Massacres and mass-murders occurred, but again, this had more to do with a history of land disputes. the US paid money to france for what was indian territory. because of continued land disputes, battles and massacres took place on both fronts (though it is obviously easier to be sympathetic to the side of american indians. my friend is part sioux and tells me about how it was his relatives a few generations back that killed custer at the battle of little big horn, which always makes me smile a bit). hell, if you believe the early pilgrim accounts, to tie it back to the original discussion, it was the eastern indians that originally shot arrows at the pilgrims. ;)

Oh i guess that makes the extermination of the tribes that wouldn&#39;t submit ok. :rolleyes:

[bcbm]

Originally posted by [email protected] 02, 2006 02:26 am

Massacres and mass-murders occurred, but again, this had more to do with a history of land disputes. the US paid money to france for what was indian territory. because of continued land disputes, battles and massacres took place on both fronts (though it is obviously easier to be sympathetic to the side of american indians. my friend is part sioux and tells me about how it was his relatives a few generations back that killed custer at the battle of little big horn, which always makes me smile a bit). hell, if you believe the early pilgrim accounts, to tie it back to the original discussion, it was the eastern indians that originally shot arrows at the pilgrims. ;)

Oh i guess that makes the extermination of the tribes that wouldn&#39;t submit ok. :rolleyes:
Are you really that illiterate? One sentence quips that grossly misrepresent what the other person is saying are for idiots.

[chimx]

Originally posted by [email protected] 02, 2006 08:26 am

Massacres and mass-murders occurred, but again, this had more to do with a history of land disputes. the US paid money to france for what was indian territory. because of continued land disputes, battles and massacres took place on both fronts (though it is obviously easier to be sympathetic to the side of american indians. my friend is part sioux and tells me about how it was his relatives a few generations back that killed custer at the battle of little big horn, which always makes me smile a bit). hell, if you believe the early pilgrim accounts, to tie it back to the original discussion, it was the eastern indians that originally shot arrows at the pilgrims. ;)

Oh i guess that makes the extermination of the tribes that wouldn&#39;t submit ok. :rolleyes:
of course not. in fact if you read what i said, i specifically said that it is far easier to be sympathetic to indian land claims and the illegitimacy of the US&#39; movement west.

but this is the history forum. if you are going to discuss history, please leave your emotional baggage at the door. we are trying to objectively understand the experience of indian-american relations, not make martyrs out of them for the propaganda of the left.

almost every indian i talk to on the subject say it is simply insulting to view the indian experience as one of tragedy--as if there relations with the US government, however oppressive it was, signifies the totality of native experience.

again, the US wanted land, money, mining rights, and power. this is why they expanded west, and that there treatment of indians ultimately was to get at this aim. there was no single black and white way of getting about it. it was extremely complex. to view it simply as genocide glosses over the multiple facets of their experience, and is also close to being condescending to native peoples generally.

[Andy Bowden]

This is the definition of Genocide according to (bourgeois) international law,

"any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnic, racial or religious group, as such: killing members of the group; causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group; deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life, calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part; imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group; and forcibly transferring children of the group to another group."

That clearly covers what was done to the indigenous population of the Americas by white European settlers. It also covers what was/is being done to the Palestinians.

You don&#39;t need to kill a whole people to be guilty of genocide. Such a feat would probably be impossible and impractical. All you need to do is destroy them as a cohesive unit, destroy their identity, culture and history.

There should be no debate within the Left that that happened, and continues to happen to the Indigenous population of the Americas

[chimx]

i-n-t-e-n-t

[Inviction]

I believe the genocides came after the first Thanksgiving itself.

[Phalanx]

Originally posted by [email protected] 02, 2006 08:26 pm
i-n-t-e-n-t
Chimx, I know what you&#39;re trying to say, but the fact remains that the US government had a policy to rid North America of its inhabitants. Many deaths came from diseases that Europeans couldn&#39;t really control, but so many others were due to murder at the hands of Europeans and Americans.

[chimx]

i&#39;m not disagreeing that murders and massacres took place. again, i think simply labeling the actions as "genocide" is an over simplification of the facts, and allows for people to gloss over the reality of the intricate and ever-changing relationship between the US government and indians.

it is important to remember that power isn&#39;t always manifested in the form of bullets and guns. the cultural domination that occurred with the best intentions is equally as important to remember so as to now allow it to happen again. if we forget or ignore this type of ethnocentrism that occurred in history, we allow it to persist.

[Morag]

I don&#39;t think you can group up everything in the last four hundred years that occured and call it genocide. First of all, genocide is not committed by a group of people onto another. It is the specific policy of a government- at least, this was the intention of Lemkin; what happened to the Native Americans before the establishment of the colonies, and perhaps before the establishment of the USA, was at least crimes against humanity, but not genocide. Certainly what happened after the American Civil War is genocide- a sustained genocide, with peaks of activity and lulls- but genocide. chimx is correct in saying that not every thing that makes up the Native American experience is tragic or genocidal, and most Natives I know see their history as deserving the same nuances we allow European or Asian or Roman history. Why should all they get to hear about is what happened to them, and not what they also did? To squash the different nations and their intricate relations with the US government into one historical and political thread is mildly insulting- not every group was treated the same, not every nation was thought of equally, and it&#39;s damaging to their cultural strength to deny their differences from each other nation.

I personally don&#39;t like the definition of genocide. Mention is made of national, ethnic, racial and religious groups, but not of gender. There are ungoing occurances of what some have termed gendercide, when it is perpetrated only against women. So the definition isn&#39;t perfect, and I don&#39;t think that what occured surrounding the first Thanksgiving, or even what happened before the War of Independence can be classified genocide. Genocide is not just about the acts, but about the intent. I agree partially with chimx- to say it was simply a genocide makes it easier for people to deal with. To say there are ongoing genocidal acts occuring in the United States- or, perhaps more correctly that genocidal acts were occuring until at least the 1970s- is much more damning, and more correct. When people think of genocide, rightly or wrongly, they think of the Holocaust and the Armenian Genocide, and they can&#39;t imagine other forms, or that it could occur under their noses or that it could go on for centuries.

[Phalanx]

Originally posted by [email protected] 03, 2006 12:05 am
i&#39;m not disagreeing that murders and massacres took place. again, i think simply labeling the actions as "genocide" is an over simplification of the facts, and allows for people to gloss over the reality of the intricate and ever-changing relationship between the US government and indians.
It&#39;s not oversimplification if genocide actually happened. US policies towards different tribes differed greatly, but among those worst treated, such as the Comanche or Plains Indians, genocide did happen.

[chimx]

I essentially agree with morag. The only question I have is that am I right in assuming you are meaning to make a distinction between "genocide" and "genocidal acts"? If so, I certainly agree with the latter terminology, as it is more inline with the "democide" term used earlier, but allows for the political intricacies of the native experience.

I&#39;m sorry if it is a touchy subject for some of y&#39;all. I have tried to address it as carefully as one can without stepping on any toes--at least too hard. again, the only reason I want the discussion to take place is so we can better understand the indian-american gov&#39;t relationship and that power can manifest itself in multiple ways, not just through mao&#39;s gun barrell.

[Phalanx]

Originally posted by [email protected] 04, 2006 10:45 pm
I essentially agree with morag. The only question I have is that am I right in assuming you are meaning to make a distinction between "genocide" and "genocidal acts"? If so, I certainly agree with the latter terminology, as it is more inline with the "democide" term used earlier, but allows for the political intricacies of the native experience.
If you agree that genocidal acts occurred, why isn&#39;t it genocide? Genocide is when any genocidal act has been committed.

[Morag]

Originally posted by [email protected] 04, 2006 10:45 pm
I essentially agree with morag. The only question I have is that am I right in assuming you are meaning to make a distinction between "genocide" and "genocidal acts"? If so, I certainly agree with the latter terminology, as it is more inline with the "democide" term used earlier, but allows for the political intricacies of the native experience.

As an American journalist asked the US Press Secretary during the Rwandan genocide, &#39;How many genocidal acts are necessary before you&#39;ll call it a genocide?&#39; The answer is that a genocidal act makes something a genocide. Anyway, that&#39;s where the difference between &#39;crimes against humanity&#39; (also an international legal term, and also damn useful) comes in. Something doesn&#39;t need to be a genocide to be a crime against humanity. So, acts of genocide means that a genocide is occuring. Crimes against humanity is a much broader term that I believe is useful in describing what was occuring in the current USA before there was a government forming genocidal policies.

If that confuses anyone, apologies.

[chimx]

Well if that is the case than I&#39;m going to disagree, as nobody has shown historical intent. I was hoping you were using the term "genocidal acts" as something similar to "crimes against humanity", the latter of which could be applied at times to the American Indian population.

[Morag]

To say there are ongoing genocidal acts occuring in the United States- or, perhaps more correctly that genocidal acts were occuring until at least the 1970s- is much more damning, and more correct.

Was that the bit your refering to, chimx? Sorry, that was sloppy phrasing on my part- it was probably late. It should say ongoing genocide, or ongoing genocidal policies. The thing is, when you look at what happened, especially over 400 years, it wasn&#39;t uniform, and it&#39;s wrong to say that the entire period was one solid genocide. I&#39;d rephrase that now with genocidal periods interlaced with periods of crimes against humanity and other periods of disinterest. Or something. It equates to the same thing, I guess, just I no longer agree with the use of &#39;acts of genocide&#39; (guess who just wrote a long essay about why the west failed to intervene in the Rwandan genocide?). The term is beginning to aquire a bad connotation, I believe it&#39;s been used in relation to the Darfur as well.

[Invader Zim]

On November 24, many in the U.S. gathered with their families to feast in (unintentional?) celebration of the worst genocide in human history.

Quite how do you work that out?

The nazi holocaust killed a higher number of people than even existed in North America prior to the arrival of Europeans and even then it was not a genocide.