Historum - History Forums  

Go Back   Historum - History Forums > World History Forum > American History
Register Forums Blogs Social Groups Mark Forums Read

American History American History Forum - United States, Canada, Mexico, Central and South America


Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Old November 10th, 2012, 10:04 AM   #91

Rongo's Avatar
Historian
 
Joined: Dec 2011
From: Ohio
Posts: 5,685

Quote:
Originally Posted by Epix View Post
In commenting on the OP's question you do know that not all native tribes were agressive. Some had no interest in war unless provoked.
Absolutely. There were also white sects that were non-aggressive. Sects like the Quakers had no interest in war even when they were provoked.
Rongo is offline  
Remove Ads
Old November 10th, 2012, 10:07 AM   #92

Rongo's Avatar
Historian
 
Joined: Dec 2011
From: Ohio
Posts: 5,685

Quote:
Originally Posted by Nemotheelvenpanda View Post
...but the key difference is that white people tried to commit not only basic genocide, but cultural genocide too. Entire generations of children were stolen from their reservations and "americanized"against their will...
Native American tribes also routinely captured children, both of whites and of other tribes, and indoctrinated them into their own tribal cultures against their will.
Rongo is offline  
Old November 10th, 2012, 11:54 AM   #93

Sam-Nary's Avatar
Historian
 
Joined: Jun 2012
From: At present SD, USA
Posts: 2,451

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rongo View Post
Native American tribes also routinely captured children, both of whites and of other tribes, and indoctrinated them into their own tribal cultures against their will.
Best example of that would be the Parkers. The mother is kidnapped by the Comanche, and ultimately "marries" into the tribe and has a son, Quannah. And Quannah Parker fought fiercely to defend Comanche land.
Sam-Nary is offline  
Old November 10th, 2012, 12:01 PM   #94

AlpinLuke's Avatar
Knight-errant
 
Joined: Oct 2011
From: Lago Maggiore, Italy
Posts: 8,480
Blog Entries: 11

The point is that we are considering the perspective of one of the two involved sides ...

what do common Chinese think about Native Americans and European conquers?

I mean, it would be useful to hear the opinion of a third part.

This said, no one is an angel [by definition until we are alive!]. As someone has already underlined.

Regarding NA it's probable more interesting to note how their image has changed during last decades from the evil Natives to the good Natives [think to Hollywood].
AlpinLuke is offline  
Old November 10th, 2012, 12:10 PM   #95

Rongo's Avatar
Historian
 
Joined: Dec 2011
From: Ohio
Posts: 5,685

Quote:
Originally Posted by AlpinLuke View Post
The point is that we are considering the perspective of one of the two involved sides ...

what do common Chinese think about Native Americans and European conquers?
That would probably depend on whose propaganda they listened to.

The best way to look at it is objectively, that they were all human beings, neither evil nor angels. But when people start freely applying terms like "genocide" to one side and not the other, that obviously goes right out the door.
Rongo is offline  
Old November 10th, 2012, 01:30 PM   #96

Sam-Nary's Avatar
Historian
 
Joined: Jun 2012
From: At present SD, USA
Posts: 2,451

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rongo View Post
The best way to look at it is objectively, that they were all human beings, neither evil nor angels. But when people start freely applying terms like "genocide" to one side and not the other, that obviously goes right out the door.
According to legal definitions, describing the actions by the US as genocide is a perfectly objective statement.

Article 2 of the Convention defines genocide as
...any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such:
(a) Killing members of the group;(b) Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group;(c) Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part;(d) Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group;(e) Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.
Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide, Article 2[3]
Based on the legal definition of Genocide as adopted by the UN, what was done to Native Americans WAS genocide.

(a) Could be met through the introduction of European diseases that Native Americans had no defense against. However, in many cases this could be negated by a lack of intent to unleash smallpox on them.

(b) & (c) Are met through the Reservation System as employed in the 1800s through the early 1900s along with various laws that made it illegal for Native Americans to practice their own religions. The Ghost Dance was percieved to be a continuation of the Sun Dance, which had been outlawed to try and force all Native Amreicans to become Christians.

In addition up until the opening of Oklahoma Territory to White settlement, Oklahoma was used as the dumping ground for various Native American groups. The Cherokee and multiple eastern tribes were forced to go there as part of the trail of tears. Supposed "hostiles" were sent there after the wars ended. Chief Joseph and most of his Nez Perce were sent to Oklahoma, most died of disease and the elements there because they were judged to be hostiles. Similar fates were had by other northern plains groups. The only "hostile" to be brought there were Geronimo's guerillas, along with Geronimo, himself, but this was also after being imprisoned in Florida for many years.

Much of these conditions would be "relaxed" by FDR's Presidency and a major change in US/Native American relations, but by the wording of the convention, that change doesn't matter. The actions by the US government were intended to either remove Native Americans or deliberately destroy their culture in one way or another, and could be considered criminal.

(d) I don't know of any actions along this line...

(e) These actions are still ongoing in many cases. In the early 1800s through the early 1900s this was done as part of efforts to destroy Native American culture and trying to make them become "white." As part of the practice, if parent became drunk or considered incapable of raising the child, the child would be taken by Social Services and given to White families that would then educate and raise the child to reject their own cultural heratige. In time, the Federal Government changed policy and passed laws that forbade the removal of Native American children from their people and culture, to allow Native American children to grow up under the culture they were born to.

And since the wording of the legal definition left the US open to being accused and convicted of Genocide, the US refused to sign the convention and when it finally did, the US government ammended the bill so that America only approved of it when the defendent wasn't America.
Sam-Nary is offline  
Old November 10th, 2012, 01:34 PM   #97

Rongo's Avatar
Historian
 
Joined: Dec 2011
From: Ohio
Posts: 5,685

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sam-Nary View Post
According to legal definitions, describing the actions by the US as genocide is a perfectly objective statement.

Article 2 of the Convention defines genocide as
...any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such:
(a) Killing members of the group;(b) Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group;(c) Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part;(d) Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group;(e) Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.
— Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide, Article 2[3]
Based on the legal definition of Genocide as adopted by the UN, what was done to Native Americans WAS genocide.

(a) Could be met through the introduction of European diseases that Native Americans had no defense against. However, in many cases this could be negated by a lack of intent to unleash smallpox on them.

(b) & (c) Are met through the Reservation System as employed in the 1800s through the early 1900s along with various laws that made it illegal for Native Americans to practice their own religions. The Ghost Dance was percieved to be a continuation of the Sun Dance, which had been outlawed to try and force all Native Amreicans to become Christians.

In addition up until the opening of Oklahoma Territory to White settlement, Oklahoma was used as the dumping ground for various Native American groups. The Cherokee and multiple eastern tribes were forced to go there as part of the trail of tears. Supposed "hostiles" were sent there after the wars ended. Chief Joseph and most of his Nez Perce were sent to Oklahoma, most died of disease and the elements there because they were judged to be hostiles. Similar fates were had by other northern plains groups. The only "hostile" to be brought there were Geronimo's guerillas, along with Geronimo, himself, but this was also after being imprisoned in Florida for many years.

Much of these conditions would be "relaxed" by FDR's Presidency and a major change in US/Native American relations, but by the wording of the convention, that change doesn't matter. The actions by the US government were intended to either remove Native Americans or deliberately destroy their culture in one way or another, and could be considered criminal.

(d) I don't know of any actions along this line...

(e) These actions are still ongoing in many cases. In the early 1800s through the early 1900s this was done as part of efforts to destroy Native American culture and trying to make them become "white." As part of the practice, if parent became drunk or considered incapable of raising the child, the child would be taken by Social Services and given to White families that would then educate and raise the child to reject their own cultural heratige. In time, the Federal Government changed policy and passed laws that forbade the removal of Native American children from their people and culture, to allow Native American children to grow up under the culture they were born to.

And since the wording of the legal definition left the US open to being accused and convicted of Genocide, the US refused to sign the convention and when it finally did, the US government ammended the bill so that America only approved of it when the defendent wasn't America.
Yes, and by those definitions, virtually every cultural group that ever existed has been guilty of genocide, including many Native American tribes. So the word becomes meaningless, and serves only to sway opinion in favor of one's own agenda.
Rongo is offline  
Old November 10th, 2012, 02:13 PM   #98

Hresvelgr's Avatar
Historian
 
Joined: Mar 2012
From: New Hampshire
Posts: 1,015
Blog Entries: 1

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sam-Nary View Post
(d) I don't know of any actions along this line...
Not on a grand scale, but there were apparently many forced sterilizations of native people, primarily women, in the 20th century up until the 70's apparently. They had been specifically targeted, along with black people as well.

@Rongo: The scale an intent is important here. Wars were waged among rival tribes over things like resources, revenge, etc, same as everywhere else. But wholesale slaughter of entire peoples or forced assimilation of entire tribes was not practiced on a scale like what the colonists did to the natives. The only known examples of entire tribes being wiped out (violently, not talking about disease doing the whole job) that I can think of off the top of my head are the aforementioned Beothuks and Erie people. Both have Europeans involved in their extinction. Someone previously mentioned the Iroquois being responsible for the fate of the Erie, but that's only partially true. The Erie met their lamentable fate in a war started by European powers and it was the British who encouraged the Iroquois to wipe out their neighbors entirely in exchange for continued support. And I can think of no tribe that forced all rivals to be assimilated. Adoption of captives was not based on a desire to wipe out the culture of their rivals, but out of a sense of grieving, replacing their own losses with new people, who'd be eventually treated as family in every sense. It was also probably because like most people they were generally uneasy at the thought of killing everybody in a rival village, even if it sometimes happened anyways. One thing people ignore about the past is that for all of history wholesale slaughter has always been considered abominable, which is why so many people come up with elaborate ways to justify the wrongs they've done.
Hresvelgr is offline  
Old November 10th, 2012, 05:08 PM   #99
Scholar
 
Joined: Oct 2011
Posts: 620

Yes -some Indian tribes even had Afro-American slaves-that's why Chief Standwattie fought with the Confederacy during the Civil War but that does not mitigate or excuse the whites behaviour during the Sand Creek massaacre or the cynical multiple breaching of treaties with the Native Americans.Even when we Brits ruled the 13 American colonies we were no better. On one occasion British soldiers gave Native Americans blankets stripped from the bodies of whites who had died of smallpox knowing that the Indians would become infected and die -which happened.
Equally, British settlers in Massachussets in the 18th century carried out an attempted genocidal massacre of the Narrangaset Indians.
But as other American posters have said dumping Native Americans in reservations under the execrable Bureau of Indian affairs which was a by-word for corruption, is a stain on Caucasian American history-no White Americans were dumped in reservations by Native Americans.
Toomtabard is offline  
Old November 10th, 2012, 07:09 PM   #100

Panthera tigris altaica's Avatar
In latrine Rex
 
Joined: Aug 2011
From: Texas
Posts: 5,447
Blog Entries: 3

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sam-Nary View Post
According to legal definitions, describing the actions by the US as genocide is a perfectly objective statement.

Article 2 of the Convention defines genocide as
...any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such:
(a) Killing members of the group;(b) Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group;(c) Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part;(d) Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group;(e) Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.
— Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide, Article 2[3]
Based on the legal definition of Genocide as adopted by the UN, what was done to Native Americans WAS genocide.

(a) Could be met through the introduction of European diseases that Native Americans had no defense against. However, in many cases this could be negated by a lack of intent to unleash smallpox on them.

(b) & (c) Are met through the Reservation System as employed in the 1800s through the early 1900s along with various laws that made it illegal for Native Americans to practice their own religions. The Ghost Dance was percieved to be a continuation of the Sun Dance, which had been outlawed to try and force all Native Amreicans to become Christians.

In addition up until the opening of Oklahoma Territory to White settlement, Oklahoma was used as the dumping ground for various Native American groups. The Cherokee and multiple eastern tribes were forced to go there as part of the trail of tears. Supposed "hostiles" were sent there after the wars ended. Chief Joseph and most of his Nez Perce were sent to Oklahoma, most died of disease and the elements there because they were judged to be hostiles. Similar fates were had by other northern plains groups. The only "hostile" to be brought there were Geronimo's guerillas, along with Geronimo, himself, but this was also after being imprisoned in Florida for many years.

Much of these conditions would be "relaxed" by FDR's Presidency and a major change in US/Native American relations, but by the wording of the convention, that change doesn't matter. The actions by the US government were intended to either remove Native Americans or deliberately destroy their culture in one way or another, and could be considered criminal.

(d) I don't know of any actions along this line...

(e) These actions are still ongoing in many cases. In the early 1800s through the early 1900s this was done as part of efforts to destroy Native American culture and trying to make them become "white." As part of the practice, if parent became drunk or considered incapable of raising the child, the child would be taken by Social Services and given to White families that would then educate and raise the child to reject their own cultural heratige. In time, the Federal Government changed policy and passed laws that forbade the removal of Native American children from their people and culture, to allow Native American children to grow up under the culture they were born to.

And since the wording of the legal definition left the US open to being accused and convicted of Genocide, the US refused to sign the convention and when it finally did, the US government ammended the bill so that America only approved of it when the defendent wasn't America.
I appreciate the point, but i think this is rather irrelevant. The UN and the word genocide didn't exist in the 19th century. Rather, what i think is more relevant is how did this go so horribly wrong? And the root of that, imho, as far as European are concerned, can be found at the end of the 15th century. And for the native Americans a sincere need of reflection on their part as well, the way they had lived in all it's aspects was going to affect how the new arrivals were going to treat them as a whole.

Then again, perhaps it was inevitable. Two groups so different in almost every aspects, except in their humanity. All that was needed was some little spark to ignite it all into a contest of complete conquest and subjugation. In that, i think by the mid-18th century that it was far too late to correct any missteps and mistakes, made by both groups, to reverse what was coming in the 19th century.
Panthera tigris altaica is online now  
Reply

  Historum > World History Forum > American History

Tags
americans, angels, native


Thread Tools
Display Modes


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Legacy of Native Americans Rasta American History 65 July 19th, 2013 10:30 AM
Metal and Native americans? sturm American History 46 August 17th, 2012 11:18 PM
Native Americans and the civil war Theguy8882 American History 0 August 4th, 2012 11:23 AM
Native Americans in the Civil War Salah American History 6 June 1st, 2012 05:16 PM
northeast native americans oshron American History 3 March 7th, 2010 06:40 AM

Copyright © 2006-2013 Historum. All rights reserved.