Ethnic cleansing myth

"Indians are matrilineal" is an incredible overgeneralization. There are many different kinds of kinship systems depending on tribe, some matrilineal, some not.

So the Cherokee just voluntarily let their lands "dwindle away" then voluntarily took off on the Trail of Tears on a march to the middle of nowhere in which thousands died? My god, that's a rosy view. If you had actually bothered to read any of those links you had posted you would see that was certainly not the case.

http://cherokeehistory.com/samuel.html

 

I don't think he's really saying what you think he's saying--I think you're overgeneralizing his post; I doubt any on this forum would question the Trail of Tears as an historical fact.

What's essential to this discussion is a definition of "ethnic cleansing" upon which we can agree, and perhaps such a thing is not possible. "Ethnic cleansing" is thrown around flippantly, typically by the left, and is is used--in incredible overgeneralization--to account for the decline of the indigenous cultures in the Americas. There is no doubt that atrocities occurred on both sides--probably Euro more than indigenous--that one side was the overwhelming victor, and that individuals to this day still fight those wars by: blocking Columbus Day marches, rewriting history books, or taking advantage of sovereignty rights to rake in the big bucks from the casinos (not that I blame them, wish I had verifiable indigenous blood, as does Ward Churchill).

But the question is whether or not true bona fide ethnic cleansing occurred on a massive basis, and that question is anything but settled.

 

qvatlanta,

I know all about the Trail of Tears. You are looking at this subject emotionally. I never said that there weren't massacres or that they weren't wronged. But to say that there was "ethnic cleansing" as in mass slaughter to the point of extinction is totally incorrect.

There are many reasons for the apparent "decline" in numbers of Natives. Slaughter is only a very small percentage. I know many people who are of mixed race, including my own children. People overlook the assimilation factor in favor of more PC explanations.

 

I think your explanation is the politically correct one, since you are attempting to bend history to one political view. Ethnic cleansing is not necessarily genocide, although it has fuzzy boundaries with that concept. The term really came into popularity in connection with the former Yugoslavia, in which state policies involved forced removal of enemy ethnicities from their home. Ethnic cleansing isn't necessarily mass slaughter, although it can involve that. It fits the bill pretty neatly for the Trail of Tears.

 

qvatlanta,

I would have to agree with you that The Trail of Tears was ethnic cleansing, if you use the definition you are espousing. Unfortunatley, unless I am wrong, most use ethnic cleansing to mean something much closer to what Hitler was attempting to achieve with the Jews.

I have not bent history. Why would I post the Cherokees then? This all started with an accusation about the Iroquois. Their leaders were British commissioned officers. There was no cleansing involved. They lost and some of the loyalists went to Canada. The rest stayed behind and are now considered white.

 

As it does for the Bataan Death March, but nobody refers to that as ethnic cleansing, even though it was perpetuated by one of the most racist nations in the world at the time against those of a different race. Not evey atrocity is "ethnic cleansing"; I don't think anyone is arguing that atrocities didn't occur, if they did, they'd rightly be regarded on par with Holocaust-deniers.

What I and Marty and DTechBA and others are arguing is that there are some very complex reasons for the decline of one civilization and the rise of another on this continent, and that it's a vast and untrue overgeneralization to simply file it all--or even most of it--into the category of "ethnic cleansing".

 

I'd have to say the Bataan Death March was not ethnic cleansing, because the soldiers weren't natives of Bataan. It was definitely a war atrocity, but not an ethnic cleansing. This may sound picky but if you accuse a group of misusing a term, the term should be used properly.

 

And what complex reasons would those be? It simply seems that a superior people took over a continent destroying any vestige that reminded of what there was there previously. Period. Nothing complex about it.

 

JVL,

But many of the people living in the US are the descendents of the culture that was originally here. Is it any different than the Saxons forcing their culture onto the Celts. Is it vastly different from the Romans forcing their culture on most of Europe and most of coastal Africa? This is not the first time in history that this has occurred. Nor will it be the last, if history repeats itself.

Not that what occurred was right, but at least an attempt was made to give them land. Most times in history, the vanquished were not afforded such an opportunity.

So yes, it is a complex situtation. Much more complex than some want to make it.

 

Well, disease for one thing. That's a complexity, and the vast majority of smallpox cases that wiped out millions of indigenous peoples were not perpetrated by while settlers. In fact, i know of only a few such cases of smallpox intentionally being used for ethnic cleansing.

War deaths for another. If the Indians side with the French or the British against the colonists in war, I don't think you can refer to the deaths of combatants, or even, in some instances, non-combatants, as "ethnic cleansing".

Fighting between tribes was also a factor. This had been occuring for millenia, there are examples of entire cultures being wiped out by intertribal fighting.

Interbreeding. Many indigenous people became part of the mainstream Anglo culture through marriage. This is not debatable, it's an irrefutable fact.

Again, I am not denying that ethnic cleansing atrocities didn't occur, that would be absurd. All I'm saying is that any thesis which states that that was the reason for the decline of their civilization is simply, flatly, untrue.

 

By the way, here's what I consider a fair definition of ethnic cleansing from an article on the subject:

http://www.foreignaffairs.org/19930601faessay5199/andrew-bell-fialkoff/a-brief-history-of-ethnic-cleansing.html

 

little fauss is dead right.

No less an authority than General William T. Sherman stated that the whites did not kill, and could never have killed, sufficient numbers of Indians to "pacify" them. Smallpox did it for us.

There are Church records from Oregon Territory in the 1850s or so that describe the bodies stacked along the Columbia river for MILES like, well, cordwood. SOme estimates of mortality ran as high as 80-85% of the TRIBE.

Still, any American that rightly condemns brutality in other nations would do well to exaamine our OWN history. Between the Indian Wars and black slavery, we weren't much to write home about. Pride is, shall we say, unseemly.

 

qvatlanta,

Given that definition, then it could be considered ethnic cleansing. However, what is not taken into account is assimilation. In most "cleansings" the one being forced to emigrate is not looked upon desirably. My problem with this, is that whether anybody here wants to acknowledge it or not, a good amount of interbreeding took place with Native Americans.

 

What you mean "we", white man? My heritage is Italian, German, Irish and French and none of my ancestors were here to harm any aboriginals. Well, maybe the French were but as nationalities none of those mentioned ever hurt anyone.

The Dutch, on the other hand...

 

A good amount of interbreeding also took place between European- and African-Americans. I don't think anyone would argue that that fact ameliorated the institution of slavery, and I don't think your point does anything to ameliorate the treatment of Native Americans. Basically, the Europeans were not much better -- and not much worse -- than other conquerors throughout history.

 

Marty, I am aware that this type of activities and incidents are common in human history. I am just trying to avoid having a distorted image of something that happened 500 years ago. I try as well to keep away from any political connotation.

All we are hearing here is the story from the point of view of the colonizers. Should Indians then feel grateful that "an attempt was made to give them land", the very land where they had been living in for millennia? Reading your post it seems that they should be pleased about how considerate Europeans were with them when in reality they were nearly extinguished. Remember the idea behind the Manifest Destiny, and you’ll understand what the Europeans really wanted. Doesn´t it remind you of the
lebensraumpolitic?

As much as it hurts it was a pure subjugation, which took place in both South and North America. And allow me to insist. There is nothing complex about it since as you said it is a well known process that has taken place over and over again in history. The rest is just cosmetics.



Regards

 

"A good amount of interbreeding also took place between European- and African-Americans."

Not anywhere near the extent that occurred with Native Americans. My point is that you can use any definition you want to, but a forced assimilation would probably be a more apt term than ethnic cleansing. It's our way or the highway.

 

JVL,

I have never even come close to intimating that they should be happy about what happened, but yes, there are many who over-simplify what actually occurred.

 

Oh really? What are the statistics to back up that statement? Just from simple observation, there are an awful lot of light-skinned African-Americans in the U.S. today.

 

Did you read any of my links that I posted? You couldn't have.

They are light skinned because there are a significant amount of blacks that are Indian also. Jimi Hendrix was probably more Indian than African, just for an example.