Quote:
|
Originally Posted by SuchFriendsAreDangerous
"In 1891, as the so-called Indian Wars were drawing to a close putting an end to unabated carnage of the American frontier, columnist L. Frank Baum described what was then perceived as an American victory over the indigenous population writing that “the best safety of the frontier settlements will be secured by the total annihilation of the few remaining Indians. Why not annihilation?” [1] Baum was expressing the popular and political sentiment of that epoch, that is, agenda of the removal of the American Indian populations by any means necessary, including outright extermination! Future President Teddy Roosevelt, in his Indian Wars days as Rough Rider expressed this same inclination in his 1889 book The Winning of the West, saying, “I don’t go so far to think that the only good Indians are dead Indians, but I believe nine out of every ten are, and I shouldn’t like to inquire too closely into the case of the tenth.” [2]
From the outset of American colonial expansion up until the beginning of the twentieth century, the American Indians were viciously targeted by both the governments and the general populace, resulting in the deaths of hundreds of thousands and even millions of people! As with many historic incidences of mass murder and dehumanizing ferocity, it has been a struggle to exactly define this history and there has been much debate. However, it is clear from the evidence of history that, even according to criteria of the United Nations Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide of 1948, that the brutality inflicted upon the indigenous populations of the United States under either the auspices of the government or the actions of its citizens, constitutes the most heinous crime of genocide.
[1] Hewitt, 61.
[2] Meider, 46. |
its finished, and I am only left more ashamed to be an American, as usual. Bloodguilt can be a terrible thing I suppose, even if people believe that time heals wounds, wounds can remain scars just the same!
the conclusion:
These campaigns of mass murder and siege warfare, since 1948, have come to have a name of their own, which we collectively define as genocide. The only debate regarding applying the UN Convention definition of genocide to the American Indians’ experience is the defining of the intent of the perpetrators. The UN Convention is very specific in this regard, that the concept of genocide only be applied where the perpetrators had the specific intent to destroy all or part of a group, killing the members of that group solely in the grounds of their membership. This is where the debate centers with the American Indians, as many scholars and everyday Americans refuse to accept the possibility that the Americans intentions of that time could have been less than admirable. In truth, this could be considered sacrilege to the indigenous Americans who perished in this Holocaust, regardless of the offense it might cause to the present.
While not every killing of an Indian by the military or by Americans can be considered genocide, it is clear from the evidence of history that there were many instances of genocide committed. In this regard, specific historical instances of the Indian Wars can be identified as genocide under Resolution 260 A (III), however the distinctions must be made for the claim of genocide to remain a valid one. Still, as Russell Thornton concludes:
“the American Indian populations were reduced not only by disease, but also by both the direct and indirect effects of wars and genocides, enslavements, removals and relocations, and the destruction of ways of life and subsistence patterns in American Indian societies accompanying contact with Europeans.”
[1]
[1] Thornton, Russell. “American Indian Population Recovery”, 38-39.