Another Stereotype of the Month entry:
Reject the Lie of White "Genocide" Against Native Americans
By Michael Medved
Wednesday, September 19, 2007
Few opinions I've expressed on air have produced a more indignant, outraged reaction than my repeated insistence that the word "genocide" in no way fits as a description of the treatment of Native Americans by British colonists or, later, American settlers.
I've never denied that the 400 year history of American contact with the Indians includes many examples of white cruelty and viciousness —- just as the Native Americans frequently (indeed, regularly) dealt with the European newcomers with monstrous brutality and, indeed, savagery. In fact, reading the history of the relationship between British settlers and Native Americans its obvious that the blood-thirsty excesses of one group provoked blood thirsty excesses from the other, in a cycle that listed with scant interruption for several hundred years.
But none of the warfare (including an Indian attack in 1675 that succeeded in butchering a full one-fourth of the white population of Connecticut, and claimed additional thousands of casualties throughout New England) on either side amounted to genocide. Colonial and, later, the American government, never endorsed or practiced a policy of Indian extermination; rather, the official leaders of white society tried to restrain some of their settlers and militias and paramilitary groups from unnecessary conflict and brutality.
Moreover, the real decimation of Indian populations had nothing to do with massacres or military actions, but rather stemmed from infectious diseases that white settlers brought with them at the time they first arrived in the New World.
UCLA professor Jared Diamond, author of the universally acclaimed bestseller "Guns, Germs, and Steel: The Fates of Human Societies," writes:
"Throughout the Americas, diseases introduced with Europeans spread from tribe to tribe far in advance of the Europeans themselves, killing an estimated 95 percent of the pre-Columbian Native American population. The most populous and highly organized native societies of North America, the Mississippian chiefdoms, disappeared in that way between 1492 and the late 1600's, even before Europeans themselves made their first settlement on the Mississippi River (page 78)....
"The main killers were Old World germs to which Indians had never been exposed, and against which they therefore had neither immune nor genetic resistance. Smallpox, measles, influenza, and typhus rank top among the killers." (page 212).
"As for the most advanced native societies of North America, those of the U.S. Southeast and the Mississippi River system, their destruction was accomplished largely by germs alone, introduced by early European explorers and advancing ahead of them" (page 374)
Obviously, the decimation of native population by European germs represents an enormous tragedy, but in no sense does it represent a crime. Stories of deliberate infection by passing along "small-pox blankets" are based exclusively on two letters from British soldiers in 1763, at the end of the bitter and bloody French and Indian War. By that time, Indian populations (including those in the area) had already been terribly impacted by smallpox, and there's no evidence of a particularly devastating outbreak as a result of British policy.
For the most part, Indians were infected by devastating diseases even before they made direct contact with Europeans: other Indians who had already been exposed to the germs, carried them with them to virtually every corner of North America and many British explorers and settlers found empty, abandoned villages (as did the Pilgrims) and greatly reduced populations when they first arrived.
Sympathy for Native Americans and admiration for their cultures in no way requires a belief in European or American genocide. As Jared Diamond's book (and countless others) makes clear, the mass migration of Europeans to the New World and the rapid displacement and replacement of Native populations is hardly a unique interchange in human history. On six continents, such shifting populations – with countless cruel invasions and occupations and social destructions and replacements — have been the rule rather than the exception.
The notion that unique viciousness to Native Americans represents our "original sin" fails to put European contact with these struggling Stone Age societies in any context whatever, and only serves the purposes of those who want to foster inappropriate guilt, uncertainty and shame in young Americans.
A nation ashamed of its past will fear its future.
One of the most urgent needs in culture and education for the United States of America is discarding the stupid, groundless and anti-American lies that characterize contemporary political correctness.
The right place to begin is to confront, resist and reject the all-too-common line that our rightly admired forebears involved themselves in genocide.
The early colonists and settlers can hardly qualify as perfect but describing them in Hitlerian, mass-murdering terms represents an act of brain-dead defamation.
Michael Medved, nationally syndicated talk radio host, is author of 10 non-fiction books, including The Shadow Presidents and Right Turns.
A Native replies
Harjo: Reject genocide-denier's propaganda
Posted: September 27, 2007
by: Suzan Shown Harjo / Indian Country Today
Michael Medved wants his audience to "reject the lie of white 'genocide' against Native Americans" and says this is one of the "most urgent needs in culture and education." The neocon author blogged on Sept. 19 that "the word 'genocide' in no way fits as a description of the treatment of Native Americans by British colonists or, later, American settlers."
Colonial and American government "never endorsed or practiced a policy of Indian extermination," wrote Medved. Rather, "official leaders of white society tried to restrain some of their settlers and militias and paramilitary groups from unnecessary conflict and brutality."
Medved rose to national prominence as guest-host for talk radio star Rush Limbaugh and as a movie critic who defended director Mel Gibson's "The Passion of the Christ" when many other Jewish-Americans denounced it as anti-Semitic.
Medved claims that the "real decimation of Indian populations had nothing to do with massacres or military actions, but stemmed from infectious diseases that white settlers brought with them at the time they first arrived in the New World." Would that Medved were correct in his use of the word "decimation." That would mean that only 10 percent, rather than 95 percent, of Native people actually died by 1900.
Medved is wrong about his main point, too. While many Native people died of foreign diseases, non-Natives killed and nearly killed entire nations and cultures, and meant to do so. Thus, genocide is the right word.
The most widely accepted definition of genocide is in the United Nations' 1948 Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide. Article 2 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."
Article 3 lists the following punishable acts: (a) Genocide; (b) Conspiracy to commit genocide; (c) Direct and public incitement to commit genocide; (d) Attempt to commit genocide; (e) Complicity in genocide. Article 4 states, "Persons committing genocide or any of the other acts enumerated in Article 3 shall be punished, whether they are constitutionally responsible rulers, public officials or private individuals."
A reasonable person (or even just a reading person) would be hard-pressed to make a case that there were no European or American genocidal crimes committed against Native peoples. Did officials, entities or individuals intend, direct, incite or conspire to commit genocide? Yes. Were some complicit in genocide? Yes. Did they succeed in genocide in some cases? Yes. Did they attempt genocide without actually succeeding? Yes.
That about covers it.
Medved claims that describing early colonists and settlers in "Hitlerian, mass-murdering terms represents an act of brain-dead defamation." Official colonial and territorial bounty proclamations, which announced pay scales for scalps as proof of Indian kill, were Hitlerian, mass-murdering edicts that produced Hitlerian mass murders.
All the forced marches of Native peoples under President Andrew Jackson's Indian removal policies — notably, the Muscogee and Cherokee Trails of Tears, the Potawatomi Trail of Death and the Navajo Long Walk — resulted in Hitlerian mass murders, ethnic cleansings and generational dislocation and damage that continues today.
It is more precise chronologically to say that Hitler's Holocaust or the genocides in Rwanda or Cambodia may be described in Jacksonian or Sheridanesque or Custerish, mass-murdering terms. In analyzing genocidal plans, it is fair to compare the "Final Solution to the Jewish Question" to the federal "Indian Crania Study" or to the "Civilization Regulations" that brutalized, confined and killed American Indians, criminalized traditional ceremonies and customs and wrenched Indian children from their families.
The world knows there was genocide and attempted genocide against Native peoples. Only fools and propagandists would make a claim to the contrary, which brings us back to Medved, who is no fool.
We need not guess why he is raising this issue now. He tells us. And he reveals much along the way: "The notion that unique viciousness to Native Americans represents our 'original sin' fails to put European contact with these struggling Stone Age societies in any context whatever, and only serves the purposes of those who want to foster inappropriate guilt, uncertainty and shame in young Americans. A nation ashamed of its past will fear its future."
Where to start? Let's jump right in at "Stone Age societies," shall we? Medved is very smart, so he probably knows about those Native peoples who perfected irrigation systems, performed brain surgery and formed democracies and confederacies, which some Europeans dreamt about but never saw until coming here. He might respond that only some Native peoples did that. And I would like to say to him that, of all the ships and wagons filled with white folks, there wasn't a Shakespeare among them.
Medved uses that "Stone Age" term to plant a falsehood in readers' minds that advanced Europeans simply had to do something about the backward Native peoples — kill them or tame them. Using this "context," Medved actually pins genocide on the colonists and settlers. As Christians, they were supposed to help struggling societies, not try to exterminate them.
I don't know what "inappropriate guilt" means, but a quest for historical truth is not the same as a guilt trip. Honorable people are strengthened by facing their fears, even if acknowledging past shame is part of it.
Medved calls on his readers to discard the "stupid, groundless and anti-American lies that characterize contemporary political correctness" and "to confront, resist and reject the all-too-common line that our rightly admired forebears involved themselves in genocide."
The truth is that many admired forebears did involve themselves in genocide. Georgians and Coloradoans and Californians and all those who killed Indian people in their rush for gold were involved. Those who massacred innocents at Sand Creek and Wounded Knee were involved. Those who raped Native women and children were involved. Those who killed Indian people for praying, decapitated them and robbed their graves were involved. Anyone who looked the other way was involved.
Here are a few lies that are anti-American Indian: that Native children and women and men had it coming; that massacres were battles; that "harvesting skulls" was science; that torturing little kids for speaking their mother's language was OK in anyone's culture; that genocide wasn't genocide when it was committed against Native peoples.
Suzan Shown Harjo, Cheyenne and Hodulgee Muscogee, is president of the Morning Star Institute in Washington, D.C., and a columnist for Indian Country Today.
In her excellent response, Harjo provided most of the key counterarguments to Medved's screed. Here are a few more points:
What he neglects to say is that Euro-Americans were bent on stealing the land and killing its inhabitants while the Indians were defending their homelands. Morally speaking, the two positions aren't even remotely comparable. The Indians' position is clearly superior.
Genocide by any other name...
Those evil European invaders
Guns, Germs, and Steel
. . .
All material © copyright its original owners, except where noted.
Original text and pictures © copyright 2007 by Robert Schmidt.
Copyrighted material is posted under the Fair Use provision of the Copyright Act,
which allows copying for nonprofit educational uses including criticism and commentary.
Comments sent to the publisher become the property of Blue Corn Comics
and may be used in other postings without permission.