[email protected] schrieb:
>
> 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.
>
I am citing for example
Were American Indians the Victims of Genocide?
By Guenter Lewy
who argues against genocide.
Unfortunately for this thesis, we know of but a single instance of such
warfare, and the documentary evidence is inconclusive. In 1763, a
particularly serious uprising threatened the British garrisons west of
the Allegheny mountains. Worried about his limited resources, and
disgusted by what he saw as the Indians’ treacherous and savage modes of
warfare, Sir Jeffrey Amherst, commander-in-chief of British forces in
North America, wrote as follows to Colonel Henry Bouquet at Fort Pitt:
"You will do well to try to inoculate the Indians [with smallpox] by
means of blankets, as well as to try every other method, that can serve
to extirpate this execrable race."
Bouquet clearly approved of Amherst's suggestion, but whether he himself
carried it out is uncertain. On or around June 24, two traders at Fort
Pitt did give blankets and a handkerchief from the fort’s quarantined
hospital to two visiting Delaware Indians, and one of the traders noted
in his journal: "I hope it will have the desired effect." Smallpox was
already present among the tribes of Ohio; at some point after this
episode, there was another outbreak in which hundreds died.
**************************
He seems to doubt that there was bacteriological warfare, but he does
not seem to doubt the "try every other method, that can serve to
extirpate this execrable race."
Another quote:
As the United States expanded westward, such conflicts multiplied. So
far had things progressed by 1784 that, according to one British
traveler, "white Americans have the most rancorous antipathy to the
whole race of Indians; and nothing is more common than to hear them talk
of extirpating them totally from the face of the earth, men, women, and
children."
****************
And another:
Writing in September 1864, the Reverend William Crawford reported on the
attitude of the white population of Colorado: “There is but one
sentiment in regard to the final disposition which shall be made of the
Indians: ‘Let them be exterminated—men, women, and children together.’
**************************
I am trying to point out that while the US government did not have a
policy of genocide, at least parts of the population at some times were
doing their level best to eradicate the Indians.
The government always seemed to have noble ideas, but the results rarely
were good.
> 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.
That was my main point for as long as I have discussed these things.
I was aware of the brutal toll that diseases took, but after the
diseases came the White Man, the Winchester rifle, the Iron Horse, and
broken treaties.
> 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.
I fully agree. The early settlers had neither the means or the need to
really fight the Indians.
> 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.
I never intended to say that there was a universal picture of genocide,
but locally, well, it is a matter of definition.
Fortunately, the US has no lack of lawyers.
The Nazis committed genocide, and they killed two thirds of the Jews in
the area under their reign.
I wonder how the statistics are for some of the Indian tribes just
before they were sent to the reservations to 10, 20, and 30 years later.
In regard to my comment about whitewashing, I was referring for example
to "American Armed Forces do not fire on civilians" (No Gun Ri),
"American Armed Forces do not commit war crimes" (My Lai), "agent Orange
is not a chemical causing genetic damage", "Iraq's WMDs", "the smoking
gun", "Aby Ghraib was a matter of a few rotten apples at the bottom (and
not at the top)", etc.
Not much fun,
Roland
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
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.
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
