Ethnic cleansing myth

I know that this is off topic, but Steve made a comment that I think should be addressed. So i've moved this discussion to the off topic forum.
--------------------------

In ironic choice, considering that General Washington was nicknamed "Town Burner" by the Iroquois because of his ethnic cleansing campaign against them during the American Revolution.

-=Steve=-
----------------------------------

Here is a biography of Joseph Brant, Mohawk Chief of the Iroquois nation.

<http://www.indians.org/welker/brant.htm>

-------------------------------

Here is a photo from the Orangemen site of Mohawk Orangemen.

<http://orangeroots.tripod.com/photo1.htm>

---------------------------

Here is an older version of an Orangemen's obligation.

Obligation of an Orangeman, 1869
Below is the Obligation recited by all new candidates to the Orange Association in Canada in 1869. Source: "The Sash Canada Wore" by Cecil J. Houston and William J. Smyth, University of Toronto Press, 1980.


I, A.B., do solemnly and voluntarily swear, that I will be faithful, and bear true allegiance to Her Majesty Queen Victoria, and to her lawful heirs and successors, in the Sovereignty of Great Britain and Ireland, and of these Provinces dependant on, and belonging to, the said Kingdom, so long as she or they shall maintain the Protestant Religion and the laws of the country: that I will, to the utmost of my power, defend them against her or any of them; that I will steadily maintain the connection between the Colonies of British America and the Mother Country, and be ever ready to resist all attempts to weaken British influence, or dismember the British Empire; that I will be true and faithful to every brother Orangeman in all just actions, neither wronging him nor knowing him to be wronged or injured, without giving him due notice thereof, and preventing it, if in my power. I swear that I will ever hold sacred the name of our Glorious Deliverer, King William the Third, Prince of Orange; in grateful remembrance of whom, I solemnly promise (if in my power) to celebrate his victory over James at the Boyne, in Ireland, by assembling with my brethren, in their Lodge Room, on the 12th day of July, in every year; I swear that I am not, nor ever will be, a Roman Catholic or Papist; nor will I marry a Roman Catholic or Papist, nor educate my children, nor suffer them to be educated in the Roman Catholic Faith; nor am I now, or ever will be, a member of any society or body of men that are enemies to Her Majesty and our Glorious Constitution; that I never was, to my knowledge or belief, rejected in, or expelled from, any Orange lodge; I further declare, that I will do my utmost to support and maintain the Loyal Orange Institution: obey all regular summonses, and pay all just dues (if in my power) and observe and obey the Constitution and Laws of the same; and lastly, I swear that I will always conceal, and never in any way whatsoever, disclose or reveal, the whole or any part of the signs, words, or tokens, that are now about to be privately communicated to me, unless I shall be duly authorized so to do by the proper authorities of the Orange Institution, of which I am now about to become a member. So help me God, and keep me steadfast in this my Orangeman's Obligation.

-------------------------

Steve,

Sometimes what you've been told is not what reality is. There was no mass extermination of Indians in North America as what took place in South America.

Marty

 

Civilian casualties are abhorrent, but they are simply a necessary consequence of war. Civilians provide aid and comfort to the enemy, they enable the enemy to continue the campaign against you and kill your soldiers or civilians and burn your things.

If you dive into a nasty little operation such as war, you must recognize that the war is against both those who are shooting guns at your soldiers and those who are providing the enemy food and clothing and shelter. If you cannot stomach a fight against the latter as well as the former, then you should not go to war in the first place. Sherman understood this, as do modern warriors.

I believe that some moderns, particularly those with a major ethnic chip on their shoulder--the Russell Means of the world--are too quick to shout "ethnic cleansing" when what is really going on is war. No one says that the carpet bombing of Dresden that created firestorms so horrific that they literally sucked the oxygen out of the air for miles and suffocated German non-combatants was "ethnic cleansing". Some say it was evil, but what it was was a military strategy--quite possibly of dubious morality--to force a very evil enemy to surrender by cutting off all aid from civilians.

What Washington did was engage in an extended war against an enemy that had the upper hand almost from start to finish. That war lasted 6 years (really longer than that, as the British didn't immediately just pull out of New York and call it a day), and for most of it, it really looked like the British would prevail and the Patriots--including Washington--would be summarily executed in the wake of humiliating defeat. If he used modern tactics against tribal combatants or civilians in that environment, that may have been questionable morally, but it's an after-the-fact stretch to call it ethnic cleansing.

There was little about the man, when you read of his life, his beliefs, his non-military actions, that would lead to the conclusion that he was a screaming racist who want top cleanse the indians from this continent. And my question for his detractors on this forum is, have you read book one on his life, or is your knowledge primarily gleaned from a few agendized websites of dubious distinction and authority?

 

David E. Stannard, "American Holocaust: Columbus and the Conquest of the New World," Oxford University Press, (1992)

 

..and let's not forget about the stake burnings, wholesale torture/slaughter/rape that the Iroquois visited upon "white settlements" whenever they were at "war" (which was pretty much all the time!). Hard to feel any sense of compassion against an enemy where upon capture you were 1) forced to run a gauntlet, sometimes many hundreds of yards long, where you were beaten, had feces tossed at you, and whipped by every man, woman, and child in the Indian village, 2) were then tied to the ground and tortured by the women of the village with sharp needle like sticks punched into your body and lit, and then 3) tied with a leather thong / leash stark naked to a post, around which brush piles were strategically placed JUST far enough to not burn you instantly, but to cause a long, roasting, and agonizing death. Sometimes this execution was preceded by the "braves" of the village firing guns (without bullets, just the gunpowder) at short range at your private parts, prior to lighting the whole brush pile/circle on fire and watching you slowly die and turn to a screaming roast crisp over hours, walking around the post like some horrifying charred zombie for the entertainment of the Indian village as a whole.

Yes, if I were Washington, or I had lived in those times with those threats, I might have had a slightly less sympathetic attitude towards the "noble red man". Sometimes today in America we forget that, although we did "steal their land", there were huge reasons why meeting violence with violence was the only possible strategy against savages such as the ones described above.....

 

What that (futile) attempt to discredit that source of information? All claims posted in that webpage you unfairly call dubious are referenced. So far we have had to believe your words as if they were the word of God and thus not needing further justification. Amen.

 

Benjamin Franklin was also a strong advocate of ethnic cleansing! I don't see where this defense of the founding fathers has anywhere to stand. These people lived in the 18th century, held some very enlightened, forward-thinking views and also other views that we consider very backward. They were pretty much all racists as well.

On the other hand, it's not like there was much of a contemporary standard to judge them against. It's not just people of European origin who are guilty of ethnic cleansing and genocide throughout history. For example, in the 19th century a big force of Maori armed with Western weapons sailed over to the Chatham Islands, conquered it and wiped out all the indigenous inhabitants. There are examples like this in all areas throughout history; some of them make it into the books and some don't.

 

A little backup....

Here's a little backup info to what I just posted. There are many examples available in literature, history, and accounts from that time period - all with nearly equally grisly details.

War on the frontier was not pretty.....

http://etext.virginia.edu/journals/EH/EH40/barr40.html

 

Thank you very much, qvatlanta . I agree with you 100%. We can´t extrapolate our current ideas of justice, and apply them to those men. My son is about to be born and will be called Samuel to honor Samuel Adams (and Samuel Clemens, another of my American heroes), even though I am aware of his imperfections.

 

You reference one point I made, but you ignore the body of it. Washnigton was not a racist, certainly not by his era's standards. I believe the rest of what I said stands up, and you utterly ignored it in your post.

As for Stannard, see the other post on the other thread, I retracted my comment that he belonged in the Churchill camp. There are few who sink so low as our friend from the U of Colorado, and it was wrong for me to treat a serious historian--even a controversial one with whom many disagree--as Churchillian. I was wrong.

 

Mike, I just quoted directly from what seems to be a book by Oxford Press by Stanmanrd and referenced in that webpage. I don´t draw any judgement on that man, Washington, or any other. I decided to intervene in this discussion because someone said that there was an extermination of native Americans in South America, which didn´t take place in the North. And that´s wrong. As I said Europeans went to both Americas with identical intentions and used identical means. That´s as far as I go.

We can be discussing this for weeks, and not reaching a conclusion. Not even Turks recognize the Armenian genocide that took place only 90 years ago, and there is plenty of documented evidence. There is a mix of nationalism and long-held, but inexact convictions that make the discussions turn somewhat passional.

 

Actually JLV I have to disagree with you on that. The Spanish used somewhat different techniques, although the aim (land, power, money) was the same. Instead of taking the Indians' land and killing them all or kicking them off to less desirable land, they generally killed only their leaders, and turned the rest into slaves or indentured servants.

The dominant theory to explain this has two aspects. One is that Mesoamerican and South American Indians generally had a much higher level of material culture than in North America. There were complicated agricultural systems in place, gold mining, and so forth. The Spanish had more of an incentive to preserve that. The second is that the Spanish were less advanced in their economic infrastructure. The English and Dutch were ahead of the Spanish on the road to modern capitalism, and were influenced less by the values of feudalism. This meant that generally the highest ambition of a conquistador was to become a noble and rule over a New World feudal domain, whereas his counterpart in North America wanted to build wealth in modes other than land, slaves and gold (although land slaves and gold certainly wouldn't be rejected if they happened to come into them).

The end result today is that in America, Native Americans are concentrated in reservations, and some of these reservations are in the most undesirable land thousands of miles away from where they originally lived. In Argentina, the indigenous hunter-gatherer tribes were almost totally wiped out. In Mexico, there is a wealth of indigenous groups that have been "interfered with" much less than in North America, and as a result hold on to their ancestral land, culture and language very strongly... although many of them also live in extreme poverty.

 

2 Gross errors

1. While the North American Indians suffered from the Euro expansion into their lands it was by no means equal to that experienced in South and Central America. There is a recent book which indicates the major damage done to the North American Indians had already occurred by the time westward expansion started. "Pox Americana: The Great Smallpox Epidemic of 1775-82" provides a theory that western native American populations were almost wiped out during this epidemic.


2. Many native tribes and nations were by no means peaceful nature lovers. The Aztecs and Mayans were brutal conquerers that sowed upon their victims just as bad or worse than the Aztecs reaped from the Spaniards. Even the Inca were known to wipe out a city or two to make their point.

The Iroquois were one of the most warlike Indian nations in North America and they wiped out a few opponents of their own. Here are some quotes from a web site on their many war campaigns, this concerning their war with the Illini (who were long gone before the white man got to Illinois), "The Iroquois attacked a small Illinois village and killed the women and children. The men gathered together the Illinois warriors who were hunting in the vicinity and "utterly defeated" the invaders. The first battle of the war was won by the Illini. Unfortunately for the Illini, it would not be the last." and "The surviviors fled down the Illinois River to the Mississippi while the Iroquois tortured and burned their captives. The scaffolds of the dead were pulled down and the corpses mutilated. Then the Iroquois pursued the Illini down the river. The Iroquois discovered the women and children hidden on the island. When La Salle returned in December, he found the burned bodies of the Illini women still bound to stakes while the bodies of the children lay nearby. As late as 1829, many human bones could be found on the island, mute testament to the tragedy that had happened there".

http://members.tripod.com/~RFester/iroq.html

 

Re: 2 Gross errors

Is there anyone on this thread who said they were? Why immediately go into "defend white people" mode? They were people with virtues and flaws, just like the Europeans. They just didn't have as many horses or guns. My view of history isn't idealistic in the least, it's simply pragmatic.

 

Qvatlanta, please, take a look at these excerpts:

Hans Koning, "The conquest of America: How the Indian nations lost their continent," Monthly Review Press, (1993).

David E. Stannard, "American Holocaust: Columbus and the Conquest of the New World," Oxford University Press, (1992).


As you see it is not that clear that English were more humane to Native Americans than Spaniards. On the contrary, after reading those lines one would think that both English and Spaniards were at least equally brutal with the native population, which is what I have been holding.


Regards

 

Learn to read...

So just where did I go into a defend white people mode? Point it out for me. Show me just where I said the white people did no wrong. I said this "While the North American Indians suffered from the Euro expansion into their lands it was by no means equal to that experienced in South and Central America. " Maybe it wasn't white people conquering South and central America?

I also said the Indians in the americas weren't nature loving pacifists. This is all fact.

Read, before you start yapping...

 

Re: Re: 2 Gross errors

We had a more advanced civilization in Western Eurpoe, perhaps not ethically advanced, but certainly, as is pointed out, we had guns and boats capable of trans-Atlantic journeys. We found them before they found us; conflict was inevitable, and the victory inevitably went to the more advanced culture.

I believe that DTechBA is reacting to the common phenomenon seen whereby those in academia, such as Ward Churchill (my favorite whipping boy), or those in special interest groups, such as AIM, conveniently forget the Euro settler technological advantage and unintentional (for the most part) factors such as disease that wiped out the indigenous people.

They like to perpetuate the myth that Euro/Anglo culture is intrinsically evil, and indigenous cultures intrinsically noble. For example, I'm teaching American Government right now at the local college. I'm required to show videos produced by the Dallas Community College System in the class. In them, we see AIM leaders essentially brainwashing young people, teaching them that the Founding Fathers looked to the indigenous tribes for their concepts of democracy and the separation of powers, but that this historical "fact" has been suppressed by the dominant culture--ha!--and that Columbus came to the new world for one purpose only: genocide--double ha! I heard young college students on the video who had been so indoctrinated use the phrase "Genocidal Christopher Columbus" over and over again, as if it were his proper name! Whether Columbus was involved in slave trading or holding--as were millions of the tribal peoples in North and South America--has no bearing on whether he deserves the sobriquet "genocidal".

A whole generation of young people are being groomed for a lifetime of hate and swallowing their own bile. And for what? Is it in the name of truth? If so, those fomenters of it should check their own facts first.

So that's the philosophy that DTechBA was reacting to, but I guess that's not necessarily being spread on this forum, but it sure is in certain circles of academia!

 

I don't think we fundamentally disagreed. It's just they were brutal in different ways, really; I don't necessarily want to come down on the superiority or inferiority of either side.

I've had a lot of these kinds of conversations in Mexico though. It's a hot topic. People of indigenous background there often talk about how different things would have been for them -- maybe better, maybe worse -- if they'd been on the other side of the border when the conquerers came... they all decide they're glad to be Mexican, but that's kind of what's expected.

 

Take my post for what it is worth, but "ethnic cleansing" did not occur. Did the devastation of their culture occur? I would say yes. If you study tribes individually, you will see a pattern of their lands dwindling to the point of nothing. Then to compensate them, they are given land to the west, followed by further migrations to the west. Each migration lost individuals who decided to stay behind.

Indians are matrilineal. In order to be considered an Indian, your mother had to be one. The US has never kept "mixed race" statistics involving Indians. You are one or you are not. I think you'll find that a considerable amount of Americans are either bi-racial or tri-racial. It's just not discussed and some may not even realize it themselves.

Sometimes we need to use intution when studying history, and not rely too heavily on what the "prof" tells us. Most of them only know what they've been told themselves.

http://members.aol.com/angelaw859/tri_racials.html

http://www.rosecity.net/cherokee/blackindians.html

http://www.ccny.cuny.edu/library/News/seminoles2.html

http://cherokeehistory.com/confed.html

http://cherokeehistory.com/

 

Major points missed

The Indians in South and Central America were also far more civilized than their North American cousins. Euro settlement of South America predated that of the North by almost 100 years. Neither the Spanish nor the Portugese attempted to massively colonize any of their dominions. Their conquest was purely exploitive. Take what you can and get back home. Those that stayed tended to blend in with the native populations through marriage, something frowned on in the north.

On the other hand, the north European countries sent settlers to fill the vast northern continent that was more lightly settled than the southern continent. After the smallpox epidemic it was even more lightly settled. These settlers started bringing women fully intending to stay.

However, to imply that the were fewer deaths in the south is simply not true. Much larger numbers lived in south and central America so there would naturally be more left today. Current estimates for total native populations at the time of Columbus arrival range from 40 to 90 Million with only 2 to 18 million of them living north of Mexico City. It is theorized that casualties stemming from the conquest of South America were actually greater then the entire Indian population of North America. In the book mentioned earlier, it is theorized that 80% of the North American population died from disease before westward expansion even started. It is known that one of the largest native settlements in North America (Cahokia) began to decline about the time Europeans began settling North America but before they had actually reached what is now the midwestern United States. Disease is one of the suspects for that decline...