PDA

View Full Version : Putting the American Genocide myth to bed.


FeatsofClay
09-20-2007, 08:30 AM
http://townhall.com/columnists/MichaelMedved/2007/09/19/reject_the_lie_of_white_genocide_against_native_am ericans

Reject the Lie of White "Genocide" Against Native Americans
By Michael Medved
Wednesday, September 19, 2007

Few opinions I've expressed on air have produced a more indignant, outraged reaction than my repeated insistence that the word "genocide" in no way fits as a description of the treatment of Native Americans by British colonists or, later, American settlers.

I've never denied that the 400 year history of American contact with the Indians includes many examples of white cruelty and viciousness --- just as the Native Americans frequently (indeed, regularly) dealt with the European newcomers with monstrous brutality and, indeed, savagery. In fact, reading the history of the relationship between British settlers and Native Americans its obvious that the blood-thirsty excesses of one group provoked blood thirsty excesses from the other, in a cycle that listed with scant interruption for several hundred years.

But none of the warfare (including an Indian attack in 1675 that succeeded in butchering a full one-fourth of the white population of Connecticut, and claimed additional thousands of casualties throughout New England) on either side amounted to genocide. Colonial and, later, the American government, never endorsed or practiced a policy of Indian extermination; rather, the official leaders of white society tried to restrain some of their settlers and militias and paramilitary groups from unnecessary conflict and brutality.

Moreover, the real decimation of Indian populations had nothing to do with massacres or military actions, but rather stemmed from infectious diseases that white settlers brought with them at the time they first arrived in the New World.

UCLA professor Jared Diamond, author of the universally acclaimed bestseller "Guns, Germs, and Steel: The Fates of Human Societies," writes:

"Throughout the Americas, diseases introduced with Europeans spread from tribe to tribe far in advance of the Europeans themselves, killing an estimated 95 percent of the pre-Columbian Native American population. The most populous and highly organized native societies of North America, the Mississippian chiefdoms, disappeared in that way between 1492 and the late 1600's, even before Europeans themselves made their first settlement on the Mississippi River (page 78)....

"The main killers were Old World germs to which Indians had never been exposed, and against which they therefore had neither immune nor genetic resistance. Smallpox, measles, influenza, and typhus rank top among the killers." (page 212).

"As for the most advanced native societies of North America, those of the U.S. Southeast and the Mississippi River system, their destruction was accomplished largely by germs alone, introduced by early European explorers and advancing ahead of them" (page 374)

Obviously, the decimation of native population by European germs represents an enormous tragedy, but in no sense does it represent a crime. Stories of deliberate infection by passing along "small-pox blankets" are based exclusively on two letters from British soldiers in 1763, at the end of the bitter and bloody French and Indian War. By that time, Indian populations (including those in the area) had already been terribly impacted by smallpox, and there's no evidence of a particularly devastating outbreak as a result of British policy.

For the most part, Indians were infected by devastating diseases even before they made direct contact with Europeans: other Indians who had already been exposed to the germs, carried them with them to virtually every corner of North America and many British explorers and settlers found empty, abandoned villages (as did the Pilgrims) and greatly reduced populations when they first arrived.

Sympathy for Native Americans and admiration for their cultures in no way requires a belief in European or American genocide. As Jared Diamond's book (and countless others) makes clear, the mass migration of Europeans to the New World and the rapid displacement and replacement of Native populations is hardly a unique interchange in human history. On six continents, such shifting populations – with countless cruel invasions and occupations and social destructions and replacements - have been the rule rather than the exception.

The notion that unique viciousness to Native Americans represents our "original sin" fails to put European contact with these struggling Stone Age societies in any context whatever, and only serves the purposes of those who want to foster inappropriate guilt, uncertainty and shame in young Americans.

A nation ashamed of its past will fear its future.

One of the most urgent needs in culture and education for the United States of America is discarding the stupid, groundless and anti-American lies that characterize contemporary political correctness.

The right place to begin is to confront, resist and reject the all-too-common line that our rightly admired forebears involved themselves in genocide.

The early colonists and settlers can hardly qualify as perfect but describing them in Hitlerian, mass-murdering terms represents an act of brain-dead defamation.



I am slowly seeing this info passing further and deeper into mass culture. Nice to see this one being stapped on a little quicker than most.

Kwalish Kid
09-20-2007, 09:11 AM
True. We should be focusing on the miltary conquest of the native americans and the broken treaties.

Scutisorex Shrewlord
09-20-2007, 09:17 AM
They are just one of many defeated people's throughout history. So what?

Northcott
09-20-2007, 09:18 AM
Yeah, I've run into a number of really jumped-up natives who were adamant about the "fact" of evil whites and our vast conspiracy to either keep them down or kill them all. The opinion of blacks and orientals wasn't too high on the Rez, either. The racism was of an absolutely staggering level. White Supremacist level... just with a different colour of skin, and a penchant for screaming about how they're unfairly stereotyped (by evil Jews, too).

The current political climate would make it suicidal for a politician to say such things, however. The conflict and subsequent isolation of cultures through the Rez system has been a damned mess, and very possibly the biggest mistake of governments in the history of North America.

TiQuinn
09-20-2007, 09:18 AM
True. We should be focusing on the miltary conquest of the native americans and the broken treaties.


Would they have received better treatment from Spain? Or France? Or England? Oh wait.....they didn't. :)

The Indians fates were sealed the instant Europeans discovered America. I don't see why there needs to be apologies for that.

Utrecht
09-20-2007, 09:25 AM
True. We should be focusing on the miltary conquest of the native americans and the broken treaties.

Plus the author acknowledges that tacitly in the article - just as there was broken treaties on the Indian side.......

Bottom line - this is no different that happened to say the Scythians or the Macedonians or the Huns or the Choala or the......

Northcott
09-20-2007, 09:31 AM
Plus the author acknowledges that tacitly in the article - just as there was broken treaties on the Indian side.......

Bottom line - this is no different that happened to say the Scythians or the Macedonians or the Huns or the Choala or the......

True. The difference is, however, that we are a different society with different values -- one would hope. :)

As an aside: I tend to break out in laughter when people start talking about how 'cool' it would be to live in some distant period of history, or how the world has changed so much for the worse, etc. Really, it's never been better than it is right here, right now. The evolution of a society where justice for all is a goal openly and desperately reached for is something that would have been alien to our ancestors. It's fucking brilliant. :) Bits and pieces falling into place throughout history, brought on by common man and king alike, added one brick at a time to build a vast wall over millenia.

IIRC, and I can't remember for the life of me where I read this, Washington's solution to the "Indian problem" was to round them all up, segregate them, and there was some hint that the thought of extermination was on his mind -- but like I said, memory's fuzzy, and I don't know if that was my interpretation, the author's, some direct implication from a period document, etc.

Just thinking about how much our society has changed in the last couple hundred years is kind of staggering. Some things remain the same, of course, but in other ways the shift is amazing.

TiQuinn
09-20-2007, 09:34 AM
True. The difference is, however, that we are a different society with different values -- one would hope. :)

Now it's different.

Northcott
09-20-2007, 09:41 AM
Now it's different.

True. But they were fumbling with the ideas even then, reaching toward concepts not yet quite framed in the human experience. Touched upon, but undeveloped. The funky part is that we're still in the developmental phase. History's being made all around us, though it's nigh impossible to seperate the wheat from the chaffe in looking at the news media.

TiQuinn
09-20-2007, 09:54 AM
True. But they were fumbling with the ideas even then, reaching toward concepts not yet quite framed in the human experience. Touched upon, but undeveloped. The funky part is that we're still in the developmental phase. History's being made all around us, though it's nigh impossible to seperate the wheat from the chaffe in looking at the news media.

Developmental phase of moving away from Imperialism?

Northcott
09-20-2007, 11:26 AM
Developmental phase of moving away from Imperialism?

Perhaps. Sometimes it's tempting to draw an analogy between the human race and the development of an individual human being. Going through phases of raw selfishness, eventually learning that there are certain rules for interacting with others, learning to avoid behaviours because of punishment, and hopefully evolving into a personality type that avoids certain behaviours because of ethical implications. This might be adolescence or early adulthood: the "holier than thou but full of angst" period.

More likely that's a crock of shit. :D But there does seem to be a pattern of development throughout history. Here and there somebody with vision gets into power, and/or political circumstances force a change of a certain stripe. The change bears a certain amount of power and responsibility, so people cling to it and try to keep it whole in the face of the coming changes. These ideas we have of innate human dignity, a right to freedom... all this shit, this is radical stuff. It may not be sustainable, but we've made a grand try of it.

TiQuinn
09-20-2007, 11:55 AM
Perhaps. Sometimes it's tempting to draw an analogy between the human race and the development of an individual human being. Going through phases of raw selfishness, eventually learning that there are certain rules for interacting with others, learning to avoid behaviours because of punishment, and hopefully evolving into a personality type that avoids certain behaviours because of ethical implications. This might be adolescence or early adulthood: the "holier than thou but full of angst" period.

More likely that's a crock of shit. :D But there does seem to be a pattern of development throughout history. Here and there somebody with vision gets into power, and/or political circumstances force a change of a certain stripe. The change bears a certain amount of power and responsibility, so people cling to it and try to keep it whole in the face of the coming changes. These ideas we have of innate human dignity, a right to freedom... all this shit, this is radical stuff. It may not be sustainable, but we've made a grand try of it.

I'm much more cynical on the subject. My personal take on it is that it has less to do with moral development, as it does learning from the consequences of actions. Imperialism led to massive bloodshed and two World Wars, but it also led to exhaustion of resources and destruction of infrastructure that benefited nobody. We reached a point where we realized that more money could be made through "peaceful" means than through waging war over resources, i.e., good ol' capitalism.

I put "peaceful" in quotes because it's still not altogether peaceful, obviously.

Northcott
09-20-2007, 12:05 PM
I think that's how people develop as individuals, too: beginning with a point of self-interest, moving into realizing the benefits of caring for others in relation to self-interest, and eventually (ideally) moving into a stance based upon empathy and ethics. Of course, there's a lot of people who never move past part "b", which is where the law comes in; the stick with which to beat those who need external reinforcement of basic social behaviour.

TiQuinn
09-20-2007, 12:15 PM
I think that's how people develop as individuals, too: beginning with a point of self-interest, moving into realizing the benefits of caring for others in relation to self-interest, and eventually (ideally) moving into a stance based upon empathy and ethics. Of course, there's a lot of people who never move past part "b", which is where the law comes in; the stick with which to beat those who need external reinforcement of basic social behaviour.

So the question becomes should countries take responsibility for actions in the past that are viewed differently in terms of morality? You can reduce the argument today to this: "But everybody does it! So it's okay!" On an individual level, we typically say that argument holds no water, yet on a national/political level, that argument has considerable weight.

Northcott
09-20-2007, 12:36 PM
So the question becomes should countries take responsibility for actions in the past that are viewed differently in terms of morality? You can reduce the argument today to this: "But everybody does it! So it's okay!" On an individual level, we typically say that argument holds no water, yet on a national/political level, that argument has considerable weight.


I think that's precisely what's being argued right now with the native treaty issues. The problem is that nations are, of course, not defined by borders, but by the people who inhabit them. Is it fair to hit a current generation with punitive payments for the deeds of a prior? Particularly given that much of the current population is descended from immigrants who arrived after those actions and/or had nothing to do with them.