I wrote:
> > Ah, the old Lord Amherst story.
> >
And Roland responded:
> I am aware of the background, and I have read the articles.
Then you aware that even though the Lord Amherst story has gotten a lot of
circulation (like that story about the Palestinians voluntarily leaving their
homeland), there is serious question about its historical accuracy. The people
who circulate it always cite sources that can be traced back only to that
initial article by that obscure historian in that obscure journal. And some of
the letters cited as proof are unavailable, or perhaps never existed.
> > As White notes, it is not until the 19th century (about the time of the
> > Trail
> of Tears) when the technological advantage shifted decisively to the European
> settlers, and it became possible for them to subdue and concentrate Native
> American populations on reservations and occupy their lands.
And Roland further wrote:
> And that excuses the treatment?
>
That depends on what you mean by the word "treatment", Roland. I was responding
initially to Minoru's dubious allegation that the Native Americans were simply
slaughtered en masse by a handful of poorly armed Spaniards and the like. And
then I responded to your allegation that the survivors of the virgin field
epidemics were subjected to bacteriological warfare. I find both charges
preposterous, and Minoru's particularly so given the several generations of
serious scholarship that has been done on the causes of New World demographic
collapse. If you want to call posing questions about flimsy PC allegations like
these that "whitewashing", be my guest.
But now I see you have switched the ground to serious subjects, like the
internment on reservations, forced adoption and schooling by missionaries,
broken treaties, and so on, and I doubt you and I would disagree much about any
of those issues. My only point would be: One should not read back into the more
distant past what we know for example about mid-19th century USA. Things were
quite different before 1815 or so. And I should also point out that there was a
considerable divergence in how Native American populations were handled by the
White settler states established throughout the New World, and that painting a
universal picture of genocide or whatever simply does not stand up. A good
summary of the subject is available in chapter 4 ("Genocidal Democracies in the
New World") of Michael Mann's "The Dark Side of Democracy" (Cambridge, 2004),
and the evidence just does not support the PC ravings of people like David
Stannard.
In general, I think the word "genocide" has just degenerated into another
politically charged label, like "fascist" or "terrorist", and is an obstacle to
clear-headed analysis. I certainly would never use it to describe Japan's
conduct in Korea and China from 1930 to 1945, though those crimes were
definitely in a special category all to themselves.
John M.
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
Persons posting messages to not_honyaku assume all responsibility for
their messages. The list owner does not review messages prior to posting,
and accepts no responsibility for the content of messages posted.
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
