Another response to Genocide by Any Other Name...:

A discussion that began with a comment on the Sand Creek Massacre:

>> I'm not really clear why you think the government or the military didn't consider it genocide but conducts of war. Surely no military on earth at the time considered massacring women and children under a "peace flag" a battle? <<

In several cases, I believe an Army or civilian board investigated the war crimes. They usual exonerated the criminals, but only after exposing their crimes to public scrutiny and scorn. It's a mistake to think all Americans were united in wanting the Indians dead OR alive.

In fact, I'm betting the attitude was much like it is now. A few extremists wanted to wipe the enemy off the face of the earth (e.g., Bush's chickenhawks re Iraq). A large percent of people blindly agreed with the government's policy. And a large percent said "Hold on, let's think about this. Is what we're doing moral and right?"

That Custer and his ilk didn't know any better is a big historical lie. It's never been acceptable to kill innocent people. Bartolomé de las Casas said so in the 1500s and nothing has changed since then.

The debate continues....
>> I'm sorry, but this "but not all Americans were part of the American holocaust" simply doesn't wash. Maybe not each single American participated but they all either supported it or deliberatedly turned a blind eye to it. <<

Did you support the genocide in Rwanda a few years ago? I sure as hell didn't. I protested it in my own way. It didn't make any difference—didn't stop the killing.

Would you blame every American for letting the genocide in Rwanda occur? What did you do to prevent it? What did you expect me and other Americans to do?

Regarding Indians, we're talking about a time when there were no mass communications. Liberals on the East Coast could've protested the government's Indian policy and it would've made no difference. They could've contributed to charities; published books, as Helen Hunt Jackson did; or voted for liberal candidates. And that's about it.

And if they were outvoted? Then what? Your belief in the power of individuals to change government policy is impressive, even if it's unrealistic.

>> Was there ever a politician who won an election by declaring himself an enemy of the holocaust? If so, did he win an election? Was there ever a politician who ran on a platform of ending the persecution of the Indian people? If so, did he ever win an election? <<

I don't know. Do you? I'm guessing no major presidential candidate after about 1850 ran on either a pro- or anti-Indian platform. It may have been a non-issue by then, since most people believed the Indians were destined to vanish.

>> I'm sorry, but the American public is guilty of aiding and abetting the holocaust here, every single one of them. <<

I've indicted the American public in general, hundreds if not thousands of times, for supporting or tolerating genocide. See Genocide by Any Other Name... for my basic positions. But I won't say every American wanted the Indians dead and gone because it isn't true. If you can provide a survey of the 19th-century American mindset, or suggest how John Q. Public could've ended the genocide, please do. Otherwise, this is another opinion I'm not taking seriously.

The debate continues (1/3/03)....
>> Rwanda is located in Africa and whatever happened there didn't take place right under your nose, did it now? <<

If I'm on the East Coast, the Great Plains is 2,000 miles away, not "under my nose." If you go by travel time, the plains were much further away then than Rwanda is today.

>> In fact, if it weren't for television and the cyberworld, we'd probably not even heard about it. How exactly does this compare to Americans who could actually launch a political career on slaughtering Indians? <<

Have you ever heard of the global village? I bet readers of newspapers like the New York Times got more information about the Rwandan massacres in the 1990s than the Indian massacres in the 1870s.

>> Custer, Chivington, Carson, Jackson, et al.,. they all engaged in the slaughtering of Indians because they knew such "heroics" go over well with the voters. <<

Chivington and Carson weren't close to running for office when they committed their crimes, I believe.

Does this mean you can't or won't answer my request? Here it is again:

>> Did anybody in the US run to Rwanda, help in the massacre, come back, and launch his political career on it? Nope? I didn't think so either. I most certainly didn't, and that's what your comment drives at. <<

Did every single American run to the Midwest, kill an Indian, and run back home? If not, the ones who didn't are arguably not guilty of genocide. That's what I'm driving at. Feel free to address the point.

>> You see, it's not a matter of individuals agreeing or disagreeing or being directly involved or not being directly involved <<

Oh? Then I guess you shouldn't have bothered telling me you didn't personally run to Rwanda. You're guilty of letting Rwandans die because you're an American citizen, not because you personally participated in the genocide.

>> it's a matter of the American mentality, and this mentality has never changed. <<

I agree it hasn't changed—much. So all Americans are guilty of the Indian genocide and all Americans, including you, are guilty for the Rwandan genocide? If you say so.

Some Germans tried to prevent genocide; some Americans did too
>> Look at the way these people here sit in judgment over the Germans who did nothing to prevent the holocaust there. Well, actually, a lot of them did or tried to do something about it but wound up in death camps themselves for their troubles. Some, who were in a position to do something to help the victims, did so successfully. <<

Likewise, many Americans opposed the genocide of Indians. We're back to my original point. Thanks for supporting my position with your German analogy.

>> Now compare this to hundreds of years of slavery in this part of the world. It took place right under everybody's nose, there was little if no opposition to it <<

Wrong. Most of the northern states were opposed to slavery. They went to war over slavery. Abolitionist movements were commonplace. Abolition candidates ran and won in northern elections. Etc.

>> All this took place for centuries right under everybody's nose and yet this type of mentality dares to pass judgment over other nations? <<

I agree the US is hypocritical in many respects. That's largely unrelated to my original claim. Namely:

>> The white American mentality is incurable. <<

Maybe, but not every white person agrees with that mentality. Not even close. Apparently you don't quite get that.

>> I think you have illusions about the American mentality. <<

I think you have illusions about what I believe, and about the original point of this debate. My original point stands unchallenged, as far as I can tell.

>> Obviously white Americans are for the most part nazis at heart and simply won't admit it to themselves even. <<

Which is why I titled my essay Hitler: A True American.

No one made US the world's babysitter
>> So, you see, it's not what you do about domestic problems in other countries, after all, nobody appointed the US to function as the world's babysitter, but what people do within their own country where they are actually in control. <<

I trust I don't need to explain how democracy works to you. The people who vote for losing candidates don't control anything. Only those who vote for winning candidates arguably have some control. As with today's Democrats, up to 50% of the population may have no effective say in national policies.

>> That is the American mentality, and that's the mentality we need to worry about. Everything else is irrelevant. <<

In other words, you concede the debate? Okay, that works for me. <g>

>> Do you understand now where I'm coming from? I hope so. <<

Yes. We largely agree about the American mentality. What we disagree about is my original claim, which stands unchallenged. Many Americans protested Indian massacres.

If you have any evidence (not opinions) to contradict this claim, feel free to provide it. Your opinion about how bad the American mentality is irrelevant to my factual statement. Either many Americans protested Indian massacres or they didn't. Show me the evidence that disproves my claim or give it up.

The debate continues (2/11/03)....
>> If many Americans protested the Indian massacres, how come they participated in them? <<

The Americans who protested the massacres were different from the ones who participated in them. That's the whole point: that not everyone agreed with the anti-Indian policies.

>> You're the one you claims that Americans protested against this stuff so maybe you might want to show me some evidence of these protests, aaye? <<

Helen Hunt Jackson's book is one big piece of evidence. Feel free to explain how it got published if everyone wanted the Indians dead.

I told you people investigated the Sand Creek massacre (the original subject of this debate). Here's one link that supports my claim:

Three different investigations resulted in Congress blaming Col. Chivington for the massacre. Why would Congress condemn him (by majority vote, presumably) if every American wanted to exterminate the Indians?

Next time do your own research so I don't have to do it for you. And don't try to make ridiculous claims like "All Americans are responsible for the Indian massacres, whether they pulled the trigger or not," but "I'm not responsible for the Rwandan massacres, whether I pulled the trigger or not." I'll point out the illogic of such claims every day of the week.

The debate continues (2/14/03)....
>> Well, what you believe is really not at issue here. Check it out. You'll discover that gaining fame as an "Indian fighter" was certainly a plus in a guy's political career. <<

Not for the presidency after 1850 or so. If someone won a local election as an "Indian fighter," it means he swayed a few thousand voters. It doesn't mean the entire nation supported him for killing Indians.

>> They had John Q. Public with them functioning as the troops they commanded during their anti-Indian endeavors. <<

They mostly had troops functioning as troops, not civilians functioning as troops.

>> Yeah right, we got this global village whenever the US wants to interfere with foreign sovereignty but we have nothing to do with anything whenever it's convenient, aaye? <<

You tell me. You're the one claiming you're not responsible for the Rwandan genocide but every single American was responsible for the Indian genocide.

I guess you admit defeat on that point, since you failed to respond to it. So noted.

>> So tell me, who exactly established the US on the back of genocide and slavery? <<

Various Euro-American leaders and the portion of the population that supported them. Not the entire population.

>> Little green men from Mars? Karl May? Adolf Hitler? German tourists from the 21st century? Care to enlighten me? <<

I've enlightened you. If you're not too afraid, explain how a teenager or little old lady in Maine, c. 1870, could have changed the government's policy against Indians in the West, 2,000 miles away. Good luck with your answer.

The debate continues (2/18/03)....
>> "There is no such thing as an 'innocent bystander' who  '.. just happens to witness' genocide and crimes against humanity. They are as guilty as the active participants in these heinous and diabolical crimes." [R.H. Jackson, Chief Prosecutor, USA, Nuremberg Tribunal, Opening Statement, 1945.] <<

So you admit your guilt in the massacres in Rwanda, Bosnia, Chechnya, Sierra Leone, Cambodia, etc. Will you be turning yourself in for trial, or should I alert the authorities to bring you in? Please send me your address so I can forward it to the prosecutors at the Hague.

I think Jackson meant us to take his comment metaphorically, not literally. The US didn't try to prosecute every citizen of Nazi Germany for war crimes. We didn't literally believe they were all guilty of a provable offense.

Most of America's citizens didn't "witness" our genocidal policies against Indians. Most Americans lived many miles from Indians and probably never met or saw an Indian in their lives. So even taken literally, Jackson's comment doesn't apply to most Americans.

Rob

Join our Native/pop culture blog and comment   Sign up to receive our FREE newsletter via e-mail   See the latest Native American stereotypes in the media   Political and social developments ripped from the headlines

. . .