Indian Removal

March 26, 2014

Indian Removal on the Frontier

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

Genocides are usually thought of as the mass killing of a specific group of people. In the passage by Wolfe, we are shown the many different aspects of a genocide and how they can be related to the settler colonialism. There are many differences between the two, but the main goal and the way to get share many similarities.

Wolfe makes the distinction early on that the elimination of a group of people from a colonial settlement have less to do with race than to do with the culture. Those in an area being colonized are less advanced, usually agricultural, and sometimes nomadic. These aspects fueled the Indian Removal from the British colonies more so than the racial aspects of the people there. The incoming culture wants to spread their wealth and by holding the native people below them there is a superiority created by the newcomers. They want to remove the uncivilized in order to preserve themselves and their society. It was not racial as can be seen through a few of the Indians who were able to assimilate and become part of the American culture. Those who assimilated well were not removed because they had removed themselves from their culture and were no longer “savages.”

The removal of Indians did not change much when there were any changes in regime as said in Wolfe’s passage. This shows that it was different from many genocides we think of today. The people of the frontier continued to push out Indians to claim more land. When Britain tried to stop them the colonies revolted and continued to claim more and more Indian territory.This is different from other genocides like the holocaust where the mass killings and removal of the afflicted came about and left with the Nazi party. As said in “The Consequence of Colonial Settlement” the people on the frontier routinely destroyed Indian towns and people. They did this for the land, and probably to feel more safe. They saw the Indians as a threat not only to their society, but to their well being also. To drive the Indians farther and farther away would give them protection and continue the increase of wealth gained from new lands.

Wolfe argues that settler colonialism was a kind of genocide and I believe he is right. The reasoning for the removal of the Indians may not coincide with how many think of genocide, but the outcome is the same. The native people were killed, assimilated, and moved in order to destroy the culture and eliminate the culture on the native lands. The colonists wanted the land to use for themselves and saw the way to do that was to get rid of the native people. Their removal is as much a genocide as the removal of the Jewish population by the Nazi’s and many other genocides in history.

March 26, 2014

The start of the Indian genocide really started with what we talked about in the first week of classes. We discussed how each European imperial power derived its authority in taking over land from the Americas, whether it was from religious authority like the Pope, or being the first one to map a particular area, these things justified these European countries in taking the land and removing the Indians. Like Emma touched on in her most recent post, some interesting points Wolfe brought up were how the Indians likely were not wiped out completely initially, because having alliances with them was a valuable tool in fighting other European nations, like in the 7 years war. He also brought up how countries like the United States would “buy” the land from the Indians in order to once again justify it, but in reality the Indians had no choice but to accept the offer and lose their land.

The other major point Wolfe brought up in regards to the Indians involved the 5 Civilized Tribes. He describes how they were assimilating nicely to United States culture, they had made their own plantations, they owned slaves, and they even had their own constitution, which I had never learned. Wolfe said the United States didn’t consider assimilation a possibility because that would signify permanence. That reminded me of Tuesday’s reading from Wilentz because it related to how the African Americans of the same time were also not given the possibility of assimilation, but instead were trying to be shipped back to Africa.

Wolfe’s closing argument I thought also related to the Frederick Jackson Turner piece on the demise of the frontier. With the Louisiana Purchase, this enabled the United States to kick the Indians to the West. But with the demise of the frontier, they were forced into smaller and smaller plots of land, often with many different tribes, and this was the main cause of the “cultural genocide” that Olivia mentioned in her post.

March 26, 2014

Genocide: does culture equal life?

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

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.

March 25, 2014

Not Genocide

Wolfe’s article titled Settler Colonialism and the Elimination of the Native raised some very interesting points that I can’t say I have ever thought of before. Basically he was saying that in North America, the Native Americans experienced genocide by colonist settlers. He defined this point by saying that “Even where native sovereignty was recognized, however, ultimate dominion over the territory in question was held to inhere in the European sovereign in whose name it had been “discovered.” (5) The Europeans claimed the land as their own, and disregarded the fact that the Native Americans were there first. They wanted to “eliminate” the Native Americans by relocating them to other land. They justified their actions by saying the Native Americans were “unsettled, nomadic, rootless” and that the settlers could improve the land by creating new farms, mining etc. (10) One of my classmates references this by saying “Georgia, being the prime example, began eagerly removing the Cherokee people and were prepared to stand up to National military force to do so.” They were just uncomfortable with having them there. Wolfe ultimately explains his main point that once the frontier ran out and the settlers began the process of assimilation with the Native Americans, genocide occurred because they destroyed the collective group.

While this definitely made me think about the settlers actions, I can’t say that I am persuaded. Compared to other genocides he mentions like the Holocaust and Rwanda, I can’t follow his argument. Reading this article did make me realize that the settlers may not have treated the Native Americans in the best possible manner, but it by no means was genocide. They did treat the Native Americans poorly, killed many, and assimilate a lot, but I still don’t classify that as genocide. It is not right, but it is not genocide.

Another aspect of this is that it is really easy for us to say now that the actions of the settlers were wrong. This is unfair because at the time, they had no idea the impact any of their actions would have on the future. It almost was a necessary evil. At the time, North America was growing, and expansion was the only concern. They were not concerned with the treatment of people of other races. I am not condoning their behavior, but I don’t believe it is our place to critique how they treated the Indians when it was such a different time period.