Dare Anyone Call It...Genocide?

[alfakilo]

Like most new folks to this subject, most of what I knew of the story was the result of movie and TV exposure. By the time Little Big Man and Dances with Wolves came out, I knew enough to separate fact from fantasy, yet there is enough in reading books like Donovan's A Terrible Glory to make me wonder...

...is there anything to the allegation that the US carried out a policy of genocide against the NA people?

My answer is that I think not. No US policy as such. But, having said that, I can see why those who would lean in that direction might do so.

Events such as Sand Creek and Washita and even LBH itself provide fertile ground for such thinking. One might judge that attacks such as these were attacks against the NA people as a whole inasmuch as NAs seemed to live in groups on the Plains. On the other hand, events such as the fire bombing of Tokyo in WW2 may have been more devastating and just as unmindful of the difference between combatants and non-combatants, however actions like that were still specific in nature...after all, we weren't firebombing the Japanese people as a whole, just their cities.

I wonder at the mindset of whomever it was that killed Deeds before Reno made his way into the valley. What was it that allowed the killing of a young boy to be included in whatever passed for ROE in those days? Was it a soldier or one of the scouts? Were it a scout, I might give the individual a pass on the basis that this was their culture...but what if not?

Apparently some had objections to such things...I've read where Benteen was challenged for his shooting of a teenager at Washita. In Benteen's defense, it seems he had little choice, but these challenges at least raise the idea that not everyone supported the wholesale killing of NAs.

Then there is the question of what Terry was sent out to do. Get the NAs back on to the reservation or simply kill them. I think the jury may still be out on that one.

But when Custer sent Reno in to attack a village rather than a force of warriors, I think the deal is done. Perhaps Custer's only option was to kill a few to capture the lot, but still, by today's standards, such an attack is pretty stark.

So, what say you?

Lastly, before anybody wanders off into ad hominem land, let me say this. Like some here, I've been in combat. I know what indiscriminate attacks are. Been there, done that, and I don't lose any sleep over it. It happened then and it still happens now. Such is life.

On a small scale. But as a national policy? I'm not convinced. But I might be...let me know.

[quincannon]

Charges of genocide largely revolve around the attacking of villages, such as those at Sand Creek, Washita, and at LBH.

The overarching objective in war, any war, at any time is to destroy your opponents ability to make war. One could engage any tribe existing in North America a thousand times on the field of battle, and not achieve a decisive outcome, that would destroy their ability to wage war. It is only by destroying their center of gravity, about which everything in their lives revolved, the village, that would accomplish that end and achieve decisive results.

That is reality and reality is sometimes very messy. So, while I do not think it was ever stated US policy to visit genoside upon any of the hostile tribes, I can readily see where some could come to that conclusion. In addition I should add that Dresden, Hiroshima, or Tokyo was not in furtherence of genoside either in my view. It was war, and war does not bring out the best in humanity, and there is no prize for second place. My only wish is that there were more people concerned about getting into war, than picking over the ashes and pointing fingers after the fact.

[Dark Cloud]

We've been here before, as wild brought it up years back. To get the bad out of the way, his interest in genocide is to lay the ground for supposed genocide against the Irish.

Lemkin invented the word in his consideration of the Axis rule of Europe. He said:

"Generally speaking, genocide does not necessarily mean the immediate destruction of a nation, except when accomplished by mass killings of all members of a nation. It is intended rather to signify a coordinated plan of different actions aiming at the destruction of essential foundations of the life of national groups, with the aim of annihilating the groups themselves. The objectives of such a plan would be the disintegration of the political and social institutions, of culture, language, national feelings, religion, and the economic existence of national groups, and the destruction of the personal security, liberty, health, dignity, and even the lives of the individuals belonging to such groups."

He'd thought what happened to the Armenians was different than to others, and then Hitler came along to do the same thing with the official backing of a major government.

When the UN came into being as the Holocaust came into view, people everywhere realized that genocide had been around for a long time and tried to apply it to virtually every group since it worked so well for the Jews. The Jews may not have been aware anything at all was working for them, but Israel came into being mostly out of American guilt for our incompetence and ignorance and not a little prejudice. Others took note, and genocide claims expanded.

But genocide is more than mass murder. It is more than Grand Theft Continent. Again: "It is intended rather to signify a coordinated plan of different actions aiming at the destruction of essential foundations of the life of national groups, with the aim of annihilating the groups themselves." The keys here are "coordinated plan" and annihilation of the target group. As such, after the hysteria has dissolved, there has only been one intended genocide of which history is aware: the Holocaust. Here is why.

Turks wanted the Armenians out of Turkey and unable to hurt Turks and Turkey again. They slaughtered the Armenians they could get their hands on and stole their land and forced them out, using Kurds who were just as enthused for the same reasons. Kurds and Turks are about 99% Muslim, Armenians are about 99% Orthodox. But Turks did not plan or want to follow Armenians to Latin America to kill them. They wanted them out of Turkey.

Hitler wanted a Final Solution and was altogether planning to hunt down and kill all Jews after he got Russia put to bed and Europe clean. He set up industrial and military and 'medical' units to do just that, and rebuilt the railroad lines for the camps and everything. That is genocide. That is coordinated, multi-branch action which detracted from the war and industrial effort to support the war.

While probably there were individual Turks and Kurds who probably would have thought Hitler wasn't adament enough, as there are deranged and sick people everywhere (Rwanda, et al), most so called genocides are land grabs and mass murder to achieve it. But genocide requires a world view and focus on genetics. Still, the word is misused, often in disgustingly inappropriate ways, such as the Irish have done and some Indians here claim.

But over half of our states are Indian names, a huge number of our cities, locations, sports teams, military unit nicknames and everything betray the fact that while there were genocidal thugs among us, the vast majority of America had a romantic and affectionate view of the Indian, made easier by not knowing any and relying upon books and religious enthusiasts. From the beginning, the New World was thought possibly Eden, or the home of Prester John, or the Indian was the noble savage of Rousseau.

If Hitler and Goebbels had attended Masada High School and played soccer for the school team, the Zealots, and had favorite Jewish restaurants and romanticized the heroes and heroines of the Olde Testament with children adventure books and kids dressed in Semitic clothing to play Israelites and Persians, then the parallel to how America wedged Indians into our lives might be somewhat closer. But it's well nigh offensive and stupid to even suggest such a thing.

That's the difference. We wanted the land. We thought they'd die off or blend in. Didn't care, but we were totally prepared to keep their accurate history, honor their great men, care for the kids, raise them as Christians. From the first Spaniard here, the cross and the book came with them as a 'blessing' we thought. But there was never any desire or momentum to slaughter all the Indians, and a lot of money and enthusiasm from back East thinking the other way. It was Grand Theft, Continent, with attendant mass murder, but it was not genocide.

For the record, the Irish have far less to build on.

[alfakilo]

QC and DC...excellent posts! My views also.

AK

[Gatewood]

AK,

I believe that your question really encompasses several different issues, and, in answering it, I will say some politically incorrect things and probably open up several cans of worms, but here goes.

To begin with, while genocide was never any sort of stated policy, there were undoubtedly elements within our government that desired just that. This included many prominent men within both the army and the Bureau of Indian Affairs, chief among whom was General Sherman, who would have probably been quite content to see large scale genocide occur. Along those lines, while it was not particularly widespread that I know of, there are documented instances of Indian agents having issued the Indians with blankets and such that had been infected with small pox and cholera, with the obvious hope being that the sicknesses would spread and result in large scale death among the Indians. While I am aware of no official policy or instructions countenancing this, it is difficult to imagine that a few rogue agents would have taken it upon themselves to have done so without some sort of direction from above. In that sense I would argue that these actions were not all that different from what the Nazis did a half century later, with the exception that, due to better technology, they were able to implement it more effectively and on a much larger scale, but the basic intentions were the same. Both the U.S, in regard to the Indians, and the Germans, in regard to the Slavic people of Eastern Europe, saw the current occupiers of the land as being primitive (subhuman?) creatures that were not utilizing their great wealth in land efficiently, so it was much better to replace them with those that would, for the benefit of society as a whole through more abundant crops, etc. The Wikipedia definition of the German policy of Lebensraum includes the following:

"The Nazis supported territorial expansionism to gain Lebensraum ("living space") as being a law of nature for all healthy and vigorous peoples of superior races to displace people of inferior races; especially if the people of a superior race were facing overpopulation in their given territories".

I would again argue that this was not that much different from the policy pursued by the U.S. in acquiring Indian lands and was keeping with the U.S.'s own policy of "Manifest Destiny" that we all studied and celebrated as school children.

Secondly, while there are those that disagree, I tend to see the typical soldiers of the day as being largely the gutter sweepings of the cities back east and, in that sense, not unlike the thugs that inhabit the inner cities today and place a low value on human life, especially those that are "different" from themselves. There are stories upon stories of how many soldiers considered the killing of Indians to be great fun, and, as an example, when Martini reported to Benteen he was almost giddy with excitement in describing how Reno (or so he thought) was killing every Indian in sight. Therefore, while again genocide was not an official policy, the actions of many within the army amounted to much the same thing.

[wild]

This issue is surely a trail of tears.
Main problem is can a law made in 1944 be applied retrospectively to the period under discussion here?
The US had some difficulties with the UN Convention fearing that it might be applied retrospectively to cover the Indian "difficulties".These difficulties DC quaintly describes as land grabs.Let's call a spade a spade they were wars of aggression now punishable by the death penality.
The issue is now raised by alfakilo with his
But when Custer sent Reno in to attack a village rather than a force of warriors, I think the deal is done.
8 years ago I raised the spectre of genocide posting [if my memory serves me correctly]"Custer was intending a spot of genocide".Not far removed from alfakilo's observation.But whereas alfakilo gets a polite hearing the roof fell in on me.So I hope he fares better than I and good luck to him.
Briefly best thing to do is check out the UN convention and tick the boxes that apply to US policy on solving the Indian issue.
I make the case for genocide based on war of aggression,killing,ethnic cleansing,transportation,corralling,destruction of the buffalo and policies of assimilation.All these crimes had one goal and that was the destruction of the Indian tribes.
DC as a defence offers the adoption of Indian names in sporting and military culture.I can suggest a lexicon of belittling terminology such as,wooden Indian.chief,being off the res,Red Skins.
But hey guys this is your history.It is a suitable issue for discussion. It is not as DC always maintains a spurious issue to foist Irish issues onto the stage.

[benteen]

Feb 5, 2013 12:11:37 GMT -6 Gatewood said:

Therefore, while again genocide was not an official policy, the actions of many within the army amounted to much the same thing.

Gatewood,

I tend to agree with you. In additon to Custers words to Dr Porter that "There will be a great killing' You have the CIC Gen Philip H. Sheridan when asked about the slaughter of children said "Nits make Lice"

also "The only good Indian I ever saw was dead"
(Not the only good Indian I ever saw was on a reservation)

I think the Army did in fact look at the Indian much the same as a plantation owner viewed a slave. They were less than human and you could do what you wanted with them.

Did it qualify as genocide, I dont know,but they were going to get them out of the way one way or another.

Be Well
Dan

[wild]

Gatewood
Therefore, while again genocide was not an official policy
Violence was the method employed to force the Indians into a human reservation system designed to destroy their way of life to wit genocide.

[Dark Cloud]

The goal was never their annihilation, the definition of genocide, and William TECUMSEH Sherman might be guilty of hyperbole - he wanted to fight Mexico to force them to take Arizona back - I don't think he desired to kill all the Indians because they offended him in general. Neither do I think he'd sob if it happened. He was pretty cold about life in many ways, as was Sheridan and any CW officers.

Never served, but I detect in these general officers a deep disgust with having to do stuff over and over but only they - the soldiers - have to live with the guilt, whereas the flapping jowls of the Chickenhawks - always with us - keeps getting them into it. Sherman was confounded with the western farmer issue. The western farmer had to provide the tax base to pay for the federal troops whose sole duty, in many ways, was protecting the farmer who objected to paying taxes (despite being near given the land....) and whose sole market till the railroads got going was the US Army. It's an issue with capitalism and socialism both - perpetual growth of population - to this day, only now we have environmental concerns of which we were not once aware.

Speaking of which, I don't think his view of the South was any different than his view of the Indians. He treated them much the same absent the ability to tell their sobbing women to get bent to their face and deal with their own roles in making the war. If you're going to go to war, make it short so people get used to peace and would regret losing it. To make it short, make it total. Something to be said for that, and to a large degree we're still saying it.

[wild]

To make it short, make it total. Something to be said for that, and to a large degree we're still saying it
A final solution?

The goal was never their annihilation, the definition of genocideThis is not accurate.The convention does not mention the word annihilation on the contrary it uses the term "in whole or in part"

[Gatewood]

Some insight into Sherman's views on the Indians and Indian warfare:

"Some Indians are thieving, killing rascals fit for death; all Indians look alike; therefore, to get some we must eliminate all"

"All Indians who are not on reservations are hostile and will remain so until killed off."

"It is one of those irreconcilable conflicts that will end only in one way, one or the other must be exterminated. We must act with vindictive earnestness against the Sioux, even to their extermination - men, women and children".

"The more Indians we can kill this year, the less will have to be killed next year. They all have to be killed or be maintained as a species of paupers"

"We are not fighting against enemy armies but against an enemy people; both young and old, rich and poor must feel the iron hand of war "

"The problem with the Indians is that they did not make allowance for the rapid growth of the white race, and both races cannot use this country in common".

Instructions to Sheridan as to how campaigns were to be conducted - "During an assault, the soldiers cannot pause to distinguish between male and female, or even discriminate as to age. As long as resistance is made, death must be meted out "

also in instructions to Sheridan - "authorization to slaughter as many women and children as well as men you or your subordinates feel necessary when attacking Indian villages"

Sherman was once brought before a congressional committee after federal Indian agents, who were supposed to be supervising the Indians who were on reservations, witnessed "the horror of women and children under military attack." Nothing came of the hearings, however. Sherman ordered his subordinates to kill the Indians without restraint to achieve what he called "the final solution of the Indian problem," and promised that if the newspapers found out about it he would "run interference against any complaints about atrocities back East" (Fellman, p. 271).


All of this sounds pretty much like a philosophy of genocide to me. Granted it was not "official", or at least "stated", government policy and represents the thoughts of one man, but he was the man that was largely calling the shots.

[Dark Cloud]

Sherman used the phrase ""the final solution of the Indian problem?" I'll be darned. I'll have to get the book.

As to the quotes:

"Some Indians....." would like to see whether this was in general or specific to a tribe at issue, as in relation to hostiles and not hostiles when found in camp and not reservation. Grant had a Cherokee on his General Staff that Sherman never threatened, and I doubt he is referencing the Indians in New York or New England.

"All Indians....." True.

"It is one....." The Sioux alone.

"The more....." and " We are...." quotes are exactly reflective of his opinion of the South as well.

"The problem....." True.

"During an assault....." Good advice, since women and the young fought as well, and the caveat "as long as resistance is made...."

Sherman may have had a wish to kill all the Indians, but I suspect this is all compatible with his views on the South as well. It was not reflective of Grant or the Government, and in any case, suspect there is context to some of the quotes not provided in lieu of space. Others are accurate observations. The Indians were maintained as a species of paupers in many ways.

[benteen]

Feb 5, 2013 20:44:10 GMT -6 Dark Cloud said:

Sherman used the phrase ""the final solution of the Indian problem?" I'll be darned. I'll have to get the book.

As to the quotes:

"Some Indians....." would like to see whether this was in general or specific to a tribe at issue, as in relation to hostiles and not hostiles when found in camp and not reservation. Grant had a Cherokee on his General Staff that Sherman never threatened, and I doubt he is referencing the Indians in New York or New England.

"All Indians....." True.

"It is one....." The Sioux alone.

"The more....." and " We are...." quotes are exactly reflective of his opinion of the South as well.

"The problem....." True.

"During an assault....." Good advice, since women and the young fought as well, and the caveat "as long as resistance is made...."

Sherman may have had a wish to kill all the Indians, but I suspect this is all compatible with his views on the South as well. It was not reflective of Grant or the Government, and in any case, suspect there is context to some of the quotes not provided in lieu of space. Others are accurate observations. The Indians were maintained as a species of paupers in many ways.

Dark Cloud,

I agree with you about Grant. I believe he was a decent man. One that hated war, that there was no glory in it. Just men being killed. But he knew that to win it and get it over with things had to be done.

I disagree with you as to the attitude of the Army towards the Southern people. They did not look at then the same as they did the Indians. Was there rape and looting, yes thats a known fact, but the idea that there was any policy or acceptance to kill Southern women and children, like they did the Indians, I disagree.

Be Well
Dan

[alfakilo]

Feb 5, 2013 21:45:53 GMT -6 benteen said:

I disagree with you as to the attitude of the Army towards the Southern people. They did not look at then the same as they did the Indians. Was there rape and looting, yes thats a known fact, but the idea that there was any policy or acceptance to kill Southern women and children, like they did the Indians, I disagree.

I have to agree with this. I can't imagine the typical soldier having the same view of NA noncombatants as he did of civilians in the South.

[wild]

Sherman was general of the army tasked with assisting the progress of the railways Westward through Indian lands.The quotes posted above [some used in reports to Grant]outline his intended methods.If allowed to remain in command and pursue a policy of extermination that is tantimount to offical approval.