cultural genocide – American History to 1877

March 26, 2014

Genocide: does culture equal life?

Warning: Undefined variable $num in /home/shroutdo/public_html/courses/wp-content/plugins/single-categories/single_categories.php on line 126

Warning: Undefined variable $posts_num in /home/shroutdo/public_html/courses/wp-content/plugins/single-categories/single_categories.php on line 127

I really enjoyed reading Patrick Wolfe’s article Settler colonialism and the elimination of the native. Wolfe’s arguments we not surprising to me because I have always understood Indian removal and assimilation in the context of cultural genocide. In middle and high school we talked a fair amount about forced assimilation, treaties and residential schools, and I think we should have had even more of a focus on those parts of our history.

I appreciated the progression of Wolfe’s argument beginning with exploring settler colonization as a structure rather than an event and moving through when settler colonization constitutes genocide, the social/ political contexts and constructs that lead to genocide and the vital role of culture in identity and genocide. At first I was surprised when Wolfe wrote that he doesn’t favor the term “cultural genocide” because it’s a term I have never questioned (398); I have never thought of “cultural genocide” as less than or completely distant from “biological” genocide. Olivia also address the differentiation of genocide and cultural genocide in her blog post “The Indian Removal: A Cultural Genocide”, arguing that the forced annihilation of Native culture cannot be ignored, but that it is unfair to say that the Indian removal was a genocide comparable to the Holocaust. I think the comparison of such horrific events is challenging in and of itself because in making a comparison it inevitably places a hierarchy on different experiences, diminishing one comparatively to the other. I think the argument that Wolfe is making here is that to qualify genocide as cultural, risks glossing over the murderous nature of genocide, by creating a distinction between culture and life. Wolfe argues that “cultural genocide” has a “direct impact on people’s capacity to stay alive” (399), which I would agree with and take one step further. Not only does “cultural genocide”, just like “biological” genocide, lead directly to many deaths (which leaves the community depleted and struggling) it also changes and undermines the identity of those individuals who survive, which has long term social, political and psychological impacts. I think that Wolfe begins to capture this intergenerational impact when he focuses on settler colonization as a structure and not an event, but I think he could have pushed this further. He is discussing the extent to which these policies and their effects were genocide and how they are the same/ different from our current understandings of genocide; it would have been thought provoking for him to address whether the intergenerational impacts resulting in social challenges and deaths decades after these initial policies can be included in genocide.

Briefly, I also thought that Wolfe’s discussion quantifying who qualified as Indian was really thought provoking. Wolfe writes “under the blood quantum regime, one’s Indianness progressively declines in accordance with a ‘biological’ calculus that is a construct of Euroamerican culture” (400). This can also be seen as a less overt form of cultural assimilation, by imposing empirical measures on someone’s identity and using this analysis to determine rights. This also raises the question for of legal vs. individual definitions of who is Native (particularly related to treaty rights) and how these different definitions can impact the way that statistics are presented, and impacts of policies, such as Indian removal, are tracked and quantified. (This may only apply to Canadian policy, but) are individuals who gave up their Indian status by moving off reserves, but still culturally define themselves as Native, included in impact statistics and if they are not included, does that mean that we overlook them in our historical analysis?

Works Cited:

Wolfe, Patrick. “Settler colonialism and the elimination of the native.” Journal of Genocide Research 8, no. 4 (December 2006): 387-409.

March 26, 2014

Kill the Indian, Save the Man

Patrick Wolfe’s analysis of genocide and settler colonization brings in the aspect of cultural and physical genocide in relation to Native American populations. A large part of his discussion consists of why genocide is used and how it is implemented. Racial stratification, he claims, is one of the tools that settlers use to justify removal. Permanence and ownership by these “inferior populations” were the great threats that spurred settler violence against indigenous peoples. Settler colonialism for Wolfe is an act of elimination, but not necessarily death. The land is the object of importance, and it is sought after by any means necessary. I believe that Wolfe is entirely correct in his judgment that the genocide used to terminate the culture not only comes from the destruction of their physical bodies, but also through the assimilation and/or coerced integration to the settler society. Olivia discusses this in her post, “Indian Removal: A Cultural Genocide.” I believe she has a strong point in saying that cultural destruction is a condemnable act and that it cannot be ignored as one of the most destructive tools used against Native populations.

I have had extensive experience with Native Americans in Montana, as sports teams, family vacations, and other academic endeavors often took me through the many reservations there. Though Wolfe may seem overly dramatic in his assessment of colonization, I cannot say that he is wrong. Assimilation was the most powerful genocidal tool in Montana. Many of the adult males were killed in conflict and the people were removed from their traditional lands, but the true devastation (and much of the long-lasting impact) came from assimilation practices. Wolfe interestingly does not spend much time discussing boarding schools and the forced extraction of Native children, particularly girls, that was done in order to “properly raise” them in white society. The children were taken away from the reservations at a very young age so that they could receive an education that would prepare them for life outside of the reservations, and they were simultaneously encouraged to look down on their birth culture and ancestry. The effects of this practice were profound and unbelievably destructive. In Montana in particular, this was a widely implemented practice driven by Federal programs. Pratt shines light on the goals of this mission, through his statement that “…all Indian that there is in the race should be dead. Kill the Indian in him and save the man” (397). These boarding school programs doubly achieved this initiative. Family connections, in the native cultures that I am familiar with, are extremely strong. Thus the families left behind were weakened, and the constant threat that their child would be hurt kept them subdued. The child was also raised in a way that Indian culture became unfamiliar.

The results of this practice, and the proximity of so many successful members of the settler society, have caused a precipitous decline in proud, active members of Native tribes. Many of the members have left tribes in search of the American dream. Many have not only become assimilated into standard American culture, but were eager to do so. Many in my generation loathe how destitute the reservations have become and leave them as soon as possible. Much of the cultural genocide has been thorough in Montana, and I believe that Wolfe expresses the connected nature of it all very well.

March 26, 2014

The Indian Removal: A Cultural Genocide

In “Settler colonialism and the elimination of the native,” Patrick Wolfe argues that genocide and the elimination of the American Native population through colonial settlement are inextricably linked, though are not always the same. Wolfe cites numerous examples in the article, such as the Holocaust and the creation of the Israeli state, but predominately structures his argument around the Indian Removal of the 1830s. During the presidency of Andrew Jackson, Indian tribes located in the Southeast United States were forcibly removed from their homes and ordered to relocate to the West, where federal territory was available for Indian reservations. Wolfe points out, however, that the removal was not mandatory—Indians could remain in the Southeast if they completely assimilated into American society and abandoned their tribal identities. Indians who assimilated into the white, American ideal were subject to a sort of genocide, because retaining their property was dependent upon the loss of their “Indigenous soul[s]” (Wolfe 397).

While I agree with Wolfe that the Indian Removal approached a genocide, I consider the term “cultural genocide” to be a more appropriate term for understanding the historical event and its implications. Indians who remained in the Southeast were not mass-murdered; therefore it would be unfair to label the Indian Removal as genocide equivalent to the Holocaust, in which six million Jews lost their lives. The forced annihilation of Native culture, however, must not be ignored as insignificant, justifiable, and forgivable. Therefore, I must completely disagree with one of my colleague’s blog posts, “Not Genocide.” My colleague argued that the Indian Removal was probably “a necessary evil,” for which white Americans could not have understood “the impact any of their actions would have on the future.” It is true that we cannot consider the Indian Removal from a modern-day context in which prejudices against Native peoples are politically incorrect. This does not mean, however, that the forced removal of Natives, which resulted in a loss of culture and a loss of lives, was a necessary and justifiable evil. The Indian Removal was just evil. Further, I do not believe that white Americans would have even cared to consider “the impact any of their actions would have on the future.” The people who forced Indians to flee their homes at gunpoint, would not have worried about the long-term implications of their actions. In actuality, these people wholeheartedly believed in Natives’ inferiority, and the only Natives who were not subject to removal were forced to reject their Indian identities. Thus, the Indian Removal was a cultural genocide, and its terribleness should not be undermined in historical study.

Wolfe, Patrick. “Settler colonialism and the elimination of the native.” Journal of Genocide Research 8, no. 4 (December 2006): 387-409.