Did the US commit genocide against the American Indians??

right.

Creasy--

Have you ever read accounts about the systematic and brutal murders of Natives by the Spanish "discoverers"? I was wondering how you reconcile that with your statement.

The first problem with your question is the category you use to describe the inhabitance of the western hemisphere, "Indian". The western hemisphere was populated by a range of social groups from complex world class empires such as the Inca to simple hunter/gathers such as the Inuit. They cannot be lumped into a single category "Indian" . Different groups responded to and were treated by Europeans differently. For some group such as the tribes of the great plains, genocide might be an appropriate description. The Jackson administration's policy of removal and resettlement of the chiefdoms of the southeastern US came close to genocide. But for the most part disease was the major killer. Not having been subject to major infectious diseases, New World peoples had no natural immunity to them and in some cases the mortality rate approached 90 percent of the infected population.

I was speaking more about the present-day US territory as opposed to central or south america.

Lash, I realize that in certain instances, whole clans or tribes perhaps were wiped out. I was speaking in general terms of the entire native population of what is now known as the USA.

It is naive to say that the natives were just peacefully existing until the arrogant white man came along. They were constantly killing each other and often massacred the Europeans as well.

Certain leaders had different views and policies towards the natives. Some simply wanted them out of the way, some sought to live peacefully alongside them. It was much more complicated than the white man killing the Indians and taking their land.

I'm not a good person to try to convince of comparable Native guilt re Europeans v Natives. I'm writing a paper on this very subject right now, after a week or so of research.


The ways the Natives recieved the Spanish, the letter Columbus wrote to Isabella and Ferdinand about what good slaves they would make, and the outrageous, unwarranted attack against Natives, including the cutting off of their hands, in Columbus's absence, in addition to Columbus's decision to remove them from existence because they actually had the nerve to retaliate----may be something you should investigate before cementing your opinions.

Admitting the truth about the colonization of America is good for us and for America.

Anyway. Good subject for conversation.

With all due respect, you don't know what you're talking about. Peaceful tribes trying to obey the white government were exterminated. Granted, there was no written master plan, but it was certainly genocide of the most brutal kind. See for instance, the Sand Creek Massacre.

So this was done to every tribe in north america???

Was this a consistent policy of every American leader through the centuries??

I don't think you need to lump ALL tribes togethewr for it to be genocide. Some of these tribes were as different as isreal and palistine.

And, it certainly doesn't need to be going on for centuries to be considered genocide.

Re: Did the US commit genocide against the American Indians?


I don't think it fits this criteria. Convince me that I'm wrong.

I'll admit it wasn't a single master plan, but it was widespread and extremely consistent, the goal being both to drive the tribes west and to exterminate them.

American history is rife with thousands of acts of the most brutal slaughter of indians, including women and children, who were completely cooperative, and indians who fought only in self-defense. See, for instance, the murder of Black Kettle and his tribe, a Cheyenne chief who consistently counseled accomodation to the whites, and flew a white flag of peace, and a US flag above his teepee.

There were several separate plans of genocide--in California, the Southeastern coast, the SW... There was no single cohesive plan--but the ones that did exist were incredibly damn effective.

Brandon-- That was a strong example.

Fascinating reading.....

don't get me started, I may not be in control.

Walk it off, baby.

Some historians estimate that up to 80% of some Native populations may have died due to European diseases.

During the American Revolutionary War, the newly proclaimed United States competed with the British for the allegiance of Native American nations east of the Mississippi River. Most Native Americans who joined the struggle sided with the British, hoping to use the war to halt colonial expansion onto American Indian land. Many native communities were divided over which side to support in the war. For the Iroquois Confederacy, the American Revolution resulted in civil war. Cherokees split into a neutral (or pro-American) faction and the anti-American Chickamaugas, led by Dragging Canoe. Many other communities were similarly divided.

Frontier warfare during the American Revolution was particularly brutal, and numerous atrocities were committed on both sides. Noncombatants of both races suffered greatly during the war, and villages and food supplies were frequently destroyed during military expeditions. The largest of these expeditions was the Sullivan Expedition of 1779, which destroyed more than 40 Iroquois villages in order to neutralize Iroquois raids in upstate New York. The expedition failed to have the desired effect: American Indian activity became even more determined.

The United States initially treated the American Indians who had fought with the British as a conquered people who had lost their land. When this proved impossible to enforce (the Indians had lost the war on paper, not on the battlefield), the policy was abandoned. The United States was eager to expand, and the national government initially sought to do so only by purchasing Native American land in treaties. The states and settlers were frequently at odds with this policy.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Native_Americans_in_the_United_States

Dys, don't listen to Lash - you should TALK it off.... Seriosuly - why hold back?

It's the ones that didn't die due to disease that were butchered, murdered and exterminated.

An entire culture was annhilated. By European colonists. There's no other way to view it.

I don't think that you can discount the genocide just because many indians died from un-planned spreading of disease. And, I don't think that you can discount genocide by the fact that the indians fought back.