How about Union Carbide? How many Indians did they kill in Bhopal?
Well, 2sense, if your OP hadn’t specified “body count”, I’d have nominated every ridiculous cowboy movie ever made that had Indians dressed up in the wrong tribal costumes, going “how” and “ugh” and “white man speak with forked tongue” and performing spectacular “running-W” falls with their horses right in front of the camera. Talk about a “spirit killer”. I’m not even Native American and even as a kid I found Jay Silverheels embarrassing.
Not to mention all those episodes of “Da-vee, DA-vy Crockett, King of the Wild Fron-tiiiierrr!”. Thank you, Uncle Walt.
(I read somewhere recently that the Navajo Indians that John Ford used to hire as extras always got a big kick out of it, because whenever the script called for them to be talking among themselves in Apache/Comanche/Kiowa or whatever, they would just shrug and talk Navajo, and nobody ever noticed.)
Welcome aBoard!
Wow, am I reading your profile right?
You have posted 14 times in 1 day?
Woof.
Please feel free to vote for whomever you wish. Of course, you might feel that my candidate is worthy of this honor. In addition to the Creek War, there is his free-spirited participation in the 1st Seminole war. Also, there is the removal policies of his Presidency.
Thanks for the laugh.
This thread needed it.
-curtis
Thanks, 2sense, happy to be here! I hope you don’t really think I’m “robbing the carcass”…? It really always has been one of my favorite lines.
I always understood that the thing about Jackson that got everybody’s dander up was not so much WHAT he did, but THAT he did it at all. The Supreme Court told him, “No, you can’t relocate all these Indians,” and he went ahead and did it anyway, sent the Army in after them. I mean, what’s the Supreme Court, anyway, just these nine old guys up in Washington, it’s not like they’re gonna come after him or anything. I can just hear him shrugging, “Hey, so sue me.”
So in terms of actual body count, yeah, maybe there were worse atrocities elsewhere, but in terms of egregiousness of the offense, I think it’s right up there at the top.
And <<< impulse power only, shields up, Mr. Sulu… >>> I think you could possibly make a case that it might have been worse in the long run to uproot all these families and make them move a thousand miles away to a completely different climate, to what was basically a wasteland (apologies to all you Oklahomans), at least, it was land that the white man didn’t want, and expect them to put together a culture of some kind. Maybe it might have been kinder to just shoot them. <<< hard astern, Mr. Sulu! Warp factor 8… >>>
What do YOU think? “Life at any cost” or “Live free or die”?
I think that my thread hasn’t got enough bitterly sarcastic commentary on this issue!
I do not think that the Supreme Court should be the place to decide policy, so I am not offended that JCH flaunted the decision. I am upset about the Trail of Tears itself. I hardly think that an unconstitional political gambit which many, if not most, voters agreed with can be reasonably compared with ethnic cleansing. I am more of the “live at all costs” type of person. There is always the hope that someday things might change. The Natives made the same choice. At least, those with the strength to survive the deathmarches did.
I have changed my opinion of your graverobbing. I somehow think that NTM would not mind you using this quote. I hope it leaves you with more peace than it did in its last incarnation.
Peace and good posting
2Sense
I hope my posts do not come across as bigoted. I have absolutely no bigotry toward Indians, and have no tolerance for bigotry of any type.
I did quote a couple of contemporary accounts from the colonial era, which clearly reflect the prejudices of the day. I did not mean to endorse those prejudices, but only used the quotations to support my arguments that there were atrocities on both sides, and that (at least in the British colonies) it was the Indians themselves who were the first to make war on non-combatants (i.e., “women and children”).
There is no question that white settlers were encroaching on Indian territory. There is no question that the Indians were fully justified in opposing these incursions, by force, if necessary. (Though their methods were shockingly “savage,” for lack of a better word.)
On the other hand, for a fuller appreciation of history, I think you have to try to understand the perspective of the settlers as well. Many, if not most, of the early settlers on the frontier were indentured servants. Their circumstances in Europe had been so desperate that they were willing to sell themselves into servitude just to pay for the chance to come to America.
When their periods of servitude ended (usually after 4 years, but frequently as many as 7 years), the settlers moved west to build cabins and begin farming. Yes, they were moving into Indian territory; their dire financial circumstances gave them but little choice in this matter.
(An interesting account from the settlers’ perspective can be found in The Scotch-Irish – A Social History, by James G. Leyburn.)
Though initially shocked at Indian methods of warfare, the settlers quickly adapted and responded in kind. After describing the Native American approach (which, frankly, did include such things as night-time attacks on cabins, attacks from ambush, scalping, and the indiscriminate killing of non-combatants, including children), Leyburn writes:
(Incidentally, in response to your earlier post, scalping seems to have been a part of Native American warfare before Europeans arrived, though European settlers did adopt the practice. More information on that practice can be found here: Scalping During the French and Indian War )
People are people. They respond to the circumstances in which they find themselves, sometimes in predictably brutal ways. Native Americans are no better and no worse than anyone else. They are just good old homo sapiens sapiens like the rest of us.
Bigotry (like wartime atrocities) is a two-way street. In old movies and in the early years of television, Indians were often wrongly depicted as nothing more than brutal savages. That was a grossly unfair depiction.
On the other hand, since the sixties, the pendulum swung so far in the opposite direction that Native Americans are often depicted as “noble savages” - innocent and trusting victims of the depravities and depredations of evil white men (See “Little Big Man” and “Dances with Wolves”). That depiction is just as two-dimensional and inaccurate. There were good men and bad men on both sides of the line, and I think we would be well-served to try to understand all perspectives.
Again, my apologies for the length of the post, and for the hijack. Vote for Sherman. 
I saw a TV show about the American Southwest, and they showed the ruins of the cliff dwellings. Apparently, these dwellings were abandoned before the Spanish explorers came-some figure that the great cliff dwellings were empty by 1100 AD.
What happened to these people? They certainly were not wiped out by european diseases-did they just pack up and move?
As an interesting aside, the native tribes who still inhabit these areas are extremely reluctant to visit these sites-they seem to have a superstitious fear of these long-abandoned cities. Could it be a remnant memory of some terrible event?
I do not think that you are a bigot. If I did, I would not spend this much time talking to you.
I think that you raise a valuable point. I do not tend to see this historical period through the viewpoint of the “settlers”. I agree that horrible actions were commited by both Red and White people. I am not saying that Red culture is better than White culture. I might have a personal preference between 2 cultures, but this does not make the 1 I like better than the other.
I disagree with your point that the Natives response was savage compared to that of the Whites. The Whites found it convienent to think of the Indians as savages. This justifed the continued destruction of the Natives. I also disagree that Europeans were unfamiliar with the slaying of women and children. I note that Britian learned how to colonize the New World by “practicing” on Ireland. I believe that if I studied the history of this colonization then I would find examples that predate 1600. I will look into this.
The justifications for the ethnic cleansing of the Natives are still around, as I noted in a previous post. They still influence the way we think as Americans today. 1 example of this from James Loewen’s book is the term “settlers”.
“Settlers” is a poor choice of terminology for European immigrants of this period. The Natives were settled. The Europeans were invading. The choice of the term subtly marginalizes the Native. Since language shapes our thoughts, this is not an unimportant semantic point.
Most of the words we use in history and everyday speech are like mental depth charges. As they descend and detonate, their resonant power is unleashed, showering our understanding with fragments of accumulated meaning and association.
- James Axtell
BTW- Thanks for clearing up my misunderstanding of the scalping phenomenon. I was under the impression that it was introduced by the Whites. But if James Axtell says it was not, then I believe it.
Thanks for the thought provoking post.
Peace
Funny, that thought never crossed my mind. Now, if the thread had been called Most Awesome Exterminator of Whites . . .
… you would vote for Hitler? 
To answer egkelly’s question about what happened to the Anasazi:
I don’t have a cite for it offhand, but I believe the latest findings are that climate change during the 14th century led to considerably drier conditions, and they basically packed up and moved away. It was already a marginal environment to begin with, and with even lower rainfall, they couldn’t stay there, so they went somewhere else, nobody knows where. They probably assimilated with other tribes.
Also, there is a body of thought that maintains that they may have contributed to their own downfall by cutting down all the juniper and pinyon pine trees on their hillsides, for lumber, firewood, etc. This might have affected soil cover, water runoff, etc., and drastically changed their whole mini-ecosystem.
2Sense-
Well, no hard feelings here. Obviously, there were plenty examples of atrocities committed by settlers against Indians.
I do have a bone to pick with recent media portrayals of the colonial/frontier era, because it seems that all they ever depict these days are the white man’s atrocities. I think that, ultimately, the Native Americans have the moral high ground, but let’s at least show both sides of the story rather than spew forth two-dimensional propaganda.
As to the use of the term “settlers,” I think it is a fair term. As we discussed in earlier posts, large sections of America were vacant or at least sparsely populated at the time, as a result of the depopulation caused by European diseases. Therefore, there were areas to be “settled.”
Furthermore, there were plenty of examples of colonies purchasing land from the tribes. The Quakers in Pennsylvania, for example, were especially meticulous about this practice. (Unfortunately, settlers frequently expanded westward faster than the colonies made land purchases, to the understandable consternation of the tribes.)
(I am not saying that purchases were always made. Obviously they weren’t. I am also not saying that the purchase terms were always fair, though I do think the Pennsylvanians at least tried to be equitable, for moral/religious reasons.)
Much of Virginia east of the Blue Ridge was truly unsettled in colonial days (though Indians did pass through the area in hunting parties).
Quoting again from Leyburn’s book:
The Scotch-Irish – A Social History, James G. Leyburn, The University of North Carolina Press, 1962, pp. 223-24.
Dang! Another long-winded post. Sorry about that. I get carried away.
Oh yeah, egkelly, I was at the Anasazi cliff dwellings at Mesa Verde National Park last week. It is an awe-inspiring place. Everyone should see it. No one seems to have a definite answer as to why the original inhabitants left - just lots of guesses. They seem to have evacuated in a hurry, though, because they left a lot of possessions and food behind.
…HIJACK WARNING…
quote:“Few remained anywhere east of the Blue Ridge” …only the CHICKAHOMINY and the EASTERN CHICKAHOMINY as well as the MATTAPONI and the MONACAN,NANSEMOND,PAMUNKEY,RAPPAHANNOCK and the UPPER MATTAPONI not to mention Anishinabe, Mashpee-Wampanoag,Pocomoke-Occahannock,Powhatan, Haliwa-Saponi,Tuscarora…yeah…very few indeed. Two of these tribes, Mattaponi and Pamunkey,(which are sovereign nations) have treaties with the Commonwealth of Virginia that predate the United States. They are the oldest reservations in the country…and guess what… THEY ARE STILL HERE! THEY WALK AMONG US! THAT GUY AT THE NEXT CUBICLE (GASP) MIGHT BE ONE!!!
Sorry to get carried away, but it galls me to no end to hear natives spoken of as a relic of the past, arrested somehow in a pre-modern state, fated for extinction…END HIJACK
Interesting, writefetus. Where are those reservations located, out of curiosity. I pulled out the old atlas after reading your post, but couldn’t find 'em.
In fairness to Leyburn, I believe he was making reference to the later colonial period (early to mid-18th century). (Note that he wrote that few remained in eastern Virginia, not that there were never any there.) Also, after de-population resulting from European diseases, I expect that the numbers of individuals may have been seriously reduced (though the individuals remaining might belong to many tribes).
I would be interested to learn more, though. Do you have a source for your list of Virginia tribes? Are they all from east of the Blue Ridge? Are they historical tribes, or were they all still there in the latter colonial period?
Pamunkey Indian Reservation
Pamunkey Tribal Council
William P. Miles, Chief
Route 1, Box 2220
King William, VA 23086
Tel# (804) 843-3526, Fax#
The Mattaponi are also in King William, outside Newport News and substantialy East of the Blue Ridge ...no adress for them yet though...these are Colonial era tribes,Federal era tribes and(the point that I was attempting to make)MODERN DAY tribes, they have gone nowhere, they are in many cases EXACTLY where they were first reported as living in the colonial period.Unlike the extensive records to be found in the Five Civilized Tribes, there was a
deliberate effort of the United States to eliminate other tribes by officially eliminating them from the Federal
Census. In the early 1800’s it was not uncommon to learn that many tribes were simply “terminated”. As a result,
they were frequently listed as mulatto, or as white, depending upon the complexion of the individuals enumerated.
This official “termination” gave the impression that the
population was “free of Indians”.
Although disease brought by the European settlers had a
dramatic effect on the native population, and thousands of Indians died, thousands also survived. The references
made to the extinction of Indians are sometimes even more difficult to dispute due to an elimination on paper of
the Native tribes. When census counts were taken in the early 1900’s those with Indian ancestry were frequently
listed simply as mulatto, meaning black and white ancestry.
As I am short on time I would refer you to the work of Dr.Virginia Easley DeMarce published in the National
Genealogical Quarterly.
Thanks for the info, writefetus. In fairness to Leyburn (again)(and since he is not here to defend himself), he appears to have been focused primarily on the Shenandoah Valley from about 1700-1750, the period during which the Valley was being settled by the Scotch-Irish (as well as German immigrants). (That is the “Valley” to which he refers in the quote I cited above.)
I don’t have the evidence to prove or disprove his assertion that there were only two Indian settlements in that entire river valley (which covers a pretty large geographic area). Do you know whether he is correct?
As far as his comment about Indians east of the Blue Ridge being “few,” I can’t speak for Leyburn, but he may mean “few” in relation to the number of European colonists. And again, he is referring to the 1700-1750 time frame.
In other passages, he describes in more detail the use to which the Indians had put the Shenandoah Valley:
OK. I’ll quit hijacking the thread now. Vote for Sherman, the true perpetrator of Indian genocide.
I haven’t got around to looking up the Irish colonization yet. My computer is acting oddly. It took me long enough to get here. I do have a couple of books on the subject. They are biographical and do not place much emphasis on the small folk. Care to discuss The last Earl of Tyrone ( Tir Oen ) or the Great Rebel Earl of Desmond? As for propaganda, I don’t think that lies should be countered with lies. Lies must be countered with truths.
On the topic of the associations attached to words I think that your 2nd sentence seems harsher if we change the terminology:
Obviously, there were plenty examples of atrocities committed by invaders against settlers.
The Europeans were invading to settle. So it is correct to call them settlers. But this term does not differentiate them from the Native settlers. To use the term for Europeans but not for Natives in the same sentence is misleading.
Yes, there was land to be settled. After all, estimates of the mortality rate of the early plagues are as high as 95%. It is important to remember that Europeans can not be held responsible for this phenomenon.
If the Whites had come in the spirit of brotherhood then an society might have been built on this continent. A great opportunity was lost by the warfare that ensued. But the idea of open land where Whites could build in isolation from the Natives would not be accurate.
A quote from… You guessed it, James Loewen. ( If I had known how this was going to turn out I would have titled it Lies my Teacher Told Me.)
I hope that you understand my concern over the terminology used. I have no problem with the term Indian. It is based on the name given to the Caribbean islands, but so few people make this connection that it is not misleading. There is still the confusion with the natives of India, of course.
In the interests of time, I am going to forego commenting on the land “purchases” at this time, except to say that as far as I know, the Quakers ( Is this term derogatory? ) were scrupulously honest in their land deals. I have heard them praised for this more than once in my readings.
I thank you for this interesting discussion, spoke-.
I had heard the same analysis of the Anasazi as you. I was not sure if this was the latest paradigm or not. Thanks for the post.
Do you sometimes put on a superhero costume and fight crimes with humor?
Well, 2Sense, I can’t let your boy Loewen slide on this quote. It looks to me like he is subtly trying to perpetrate the old “Native Americans living in perfect harmony with nature” myth. You might want to ask the giant ground sloth, the giant armadillo, the American proto-horses, and the woolly mammoth about that “harmony with nature” stuff. Oh wait…we can’t ask them because they’re extinct. Well, you know how we homo sapiens are…
(As you say, lies shouldn’t be countered with lies.)
Also, to the European eye, there was a wilderness. Indian territory, to Europeans, was a “wild” place. (Any place where you stand a chance of getting scalped seems pretty wild to me, too.) If that offends politically correct sensibilities, then maybe the sensitivity meter is set a bit high.
One more thing…
I don’t agree with the way the word “lies” has been casually tossed around in this thread (and in Mr. Loewen’s book, apparently).
I am suspicious of anyone who claims to have the one “true” interpretation of history. Human relationships are complex. History is nothing more than the story of past human relationships viewed from our many, varied, present-day perspectives. There are far too many shades of gray involved (as I believe this thread illustrates) for anyone to assert that they have discovered the one “truth.”
(Didn’t the communists claim to have discovered the “truth” about human relationships? I believe the fascists thought they had a pretty good handle on “the truth” as well…)
Oh, and my dictionary defines “settle” as “to establish residence in” or “to come to rest”. The Indians had already “settled,” so to speak, while the immigrants were still in the process of “coming to rest” or “settling.” Therefore, I think it is linguistically correct to refer to the immigrants as “settlers,” and to think of the Indians as people who were already settled. (Perhaps the term “residents” would suit your needs.)
I will not call the settlers “invaders” as you choose to do, because that word (since we are talking about the politics of language) implies a malicious intent, which I do not believe most settlers possessed.