Film and Panel Discussion address Native American Genocide

On Wednesday, the GVSU School of Social Work and the Native American Student Association hosted a film and panel discussion looking at Native American genocide and how it has continued to and continues to shape the Native experience.

Advertisements

The Grand Valley State University (GVSU) School of Social Work and the Native American Student Association hosted a screening of the newly released documentary, The Canary Effect last night in Grand Rapids. This documentary, produced by Bastard Fairy films, is a powerful critique of the genocidal policies that Euro-Americans have committed against Native North Americans. The documentary deals with the various the various forms of genocide as have been defined by the 1948 Genocide Convention, policies like outright extermination policies, forced removal from Native land, government boarding schools, and the ongoing consequences of these policies – alcoholism, poverty, and suicide. The film features several scholars, such as Charles Abourezk, Troy Johnson, and Ward Churchill, the last of whom was mentioned by one of the panelists as being a controversial figure even in the Native community.

Following the documentary, there was a panel of several area Native Americans, including Dr. Simone Jonaitis with GVSU, Shannon Martin, Lee Sprague, Roger Williams and Ben Williams. Levi Rickert moderated the panel and posed several questions. The first question asked the panelist for general reactions to the film. Several of the panelists said it was very painful to watch, but that it provided important information on the history of what has been done to Native people. Lee Sprague said that it speaks to the fact that we are still an occupied people. “I always tell people that I reside from the territories currently occupied by the state of Michigan.” Shannon Martin said she knew “what was coming next in terms of the conquest, forced relocation, to boarding schools to substance abuse, or what we call weapons of mass destruction.” She also said, “It is important that these truths are taught and that we unlearned what we have been taught.” Dr. Jonaitis said, “for me what was so painful was to be able to put names and faces of people that I know that are in my family that these policies have affected.” All of the panelists agreed that showing this kind of film is necessary for all people if any real healing is to take place.

The next question asked was “are we victims?” Ben Williams said, “we are not playing victims, we are suffering from the post traumatic effects of the history of what has been done to us. Every day we are being exposed to what the US has done to us.” Shannon Martin said, “what we are doing is truth telling to promote what really happened to us. In many ways looking at this history is another way of acknowledging what happened to our ancestors. I have family who were subjected to the Mt. Pleasant boarding school. For my grandmother to not be able to share her language with her daughter…. we are not victims, we are survivors.” Lee Sprague says that when he was younger he had a great deal of anger directed at white people. “I had to make a choice of what to do with my anger. I don’t know that we are the biggest victims, we have to get there together. We all have a responsibility of being human.”

Levi Rickert then asked, “What are the strengths of Native communities?” Shannon Martin responded first by saying, “it’s our resiliency and adaptability. Our people adapted when they were forcibly removed. We used whatever we can to adapt and that is one of our strengths. We use the materials around us to survive. Also, our humor is our strength. Our humor is not well known since there is this stereotype of natives being a stoic people.” Ben Williams said, “despite hundreds of years in attempting to assimilate us, we still have our teachings, our ceremonies and that many of us still practice the belief in the seventh generation.” Roger Williams added that “another strength is the land, what we call mother…we actually look upon you all as renters.”

The fourth question posed to the panel was “What does the future hold for our people?” Lee Sprague responded that it is “something we need to figure out together. I think we are seeing the beginning. Our people are starting to come back home. How are we going receive them? These are generational stories that are playing out and we need to continue that.” Ben Williams thinks, “it depends on what new fights are ahead of us. You look at the Grand Rapids Public School closing of our charter school or the state taking away funding. These are the fights that will probably determine our future.” Shannon Martin felt that “there needs to be quite a bit of healing in our own communities first. Until we do that our people are going to be slaves to neo-colonial thought and systems that enslave us. We need to talk about our clan practices. We don’t need to promote a nuclear family model. My family goes all the way to the tip of South America. Our language will play a big role in this, so we need to save our languages.” Dr. Jonaitis emphasized the importance of language as well, “it will help us to understand ourselves better. This land is also important and particularly in Michigan the preservation of water is critical.” Roger Williams stated, “when White people realize that the government policies are destroying the earth that will be a turning point. Our prophecy says that White people will look to us for teachings on how to live with the earth.” Lee Sprague also mentioned the importance of water for the future. “It is so screwed up when you have 20% of the world’s fresh water and our economy is bankrupt, as is our culture. We have holidays devoted to consumerism. It is all a symptom of the sickness of our society.”

The last question from the moderator asked, “What can non-Indians do to support the Indian community?” Roger Williams emphasized “something as simple as getting our curriculum to tell the truth. Look at what is still being taught about our history in schools and get that changed.” Dr. Jonaitis continued on that theme by saying “we all have been educated in a euro-centric way. How do we want our children to see the world? We have to tell our stories through a variety of lenses. We are all responsible to listen to each other and our stories.” Shannon Martin felt that “we need to find alliances. We need to have Native people in different capacities, as teachers, academics, writers, etc. We need Native people in all these fields. Ben Williams said, “re-educate yourselves. Make sure your kids are not being taught these same lies. We need to work against celebrating things like Columbus Day. I hope to have a rally next year against Columbus Day. We need to take on other issues like the use of Native mascots.” Lee Sprague concluded by making the observation, “Native people are not in the science fiction literature, meaning we are not part of the future of this country. So, we need to make sure that we are part of the future of this country in whatever way we can.”

Rethinking Columbus Day Panel Explores the Genocidal Impact of Colonization

On Monday, a panel discussion titled “Rethinking Columbus” examined the legacy of Columbus and the impact of the conquest of the Americas on the indigenous people of the region. The panel also explored the ways in which colonization is an ongoing process.

On Monday, Grand Valley State University’s (GVSU) Native American Student Association and the Office of Multicultural Affairs held a panel discussion titled “Rethinking Columbus” that examined the legacy of Christopher Columbus. The event, organized to fall on the same day as the official “Columbus Day” holiday, was attended by approximately fifty students. The panel featured four panelists—History professor Brian Collier, Modern Languages and Literature professor Yvette Fuentes, Latin American Studies professor Khedija Gahoum, and Jeff Smith of the Grand Rapids Institute for Information Democracy (GRIID). The four panelists, while addressing a variety of different subjects pertaining to the legacy of Christopher Columbus, generally presented arguments affirming the fact that Christopher Columbus should be viewed not as a hero to be celebrated, but as a criminal who was responsible for setting in motion over five-hundred years of colonization that has resulted in ongoing genocide and racism toward the indigenous populations of the Americas.

The panel began with GVSU history professor Brian Collier who explored the historical origins of Columbus Day as a federal holiday. Collier described that the holiday—“offensive to so many [indigenous] people”—was first celebrated in the 1870s, but during the years of 1908 to 1912 was actively sought by Italian immigrants. He explained that Italian immigrants, coming to the United States out of a context of natural disasters in Italy and a poor economy, sought the holiday as a means of promoting their cultural heritage. At the time, with Italians immigrating in large numbers, opportunistic politicians were willing to support the holiday and it was eventually made a federal holiday without considering the ramifications that celebrating such a holiday would have on indigenous people living within the United States. Collier reminded the audience that over 800 million indigenous people were killed during the colonization of the Americas and that the death toll alone makes the day offensive, but that the day is further a reminder that the dominant culture discounts indigenous knowledge and promotes the superiority of western ways of thinking. He also described the “intellectual genocide” of indigenous people in the United States through the boarding school years, during which eight generations of indigenous people were sent to boarding schools at which they were taught to forget their languages and their tribal ways, forced into a system of colonization without physical violence. He urged the audience to support native communities by looking at the ways in which indigenous knowledge can benefit everyone (for example, the concept of restorative justice rather than punitive justice), supporting full sovereignty for native peoples, and opposing characterizations of native cultures such as Columbus Day parades, “Indian” Halloween costumes, and Thanksgiving pageants.

Following Collier’s presentation, professor Yvette Fuentes discussed the impact that Columbus had on the Taino people who inhabited the Caribbean when Columbus arrived in 1492. The Taino, who were the first to greet Columbus, were promptly enslaved and those who were not enslaved were killed, with a population of an estimated 8 to 10 million in 1493 being exterminated in the course of a few years. Fuentes explained that while this has been the traditional discourse on the fate of the Taino people, there has recently been an effort on the part of indigenous people to reexamine the idea that the Tainos were exterminated. Indigenous people, inspired by the American Indian Movement in the United States, have challenged traditional history that states that the Tainos were primitive or weak because they left no buildings or written language. They have highlighted the fact that many people in the Caribbean observe indigenous traditions and that they have maintained their culture in rural areas and through inter-marriage. This argument is also supported by academic research, with Fuentes citing a 1999 study that found that 61% of the Puerto Rican population carry the mtDNA of indigenous people.

Professor Gadhoum of the Latin American Studies program opened her portion of the discussion with a quote by noted Uruguayan author Eduardo Galeano about how America was “not discovered” by Columbus but that it was already there. Gadhoum argued that this was part of the effort of “inventing America” that began with a German cartographer in the 1500s who started to write “America” on maps of the continent and continues to this day as the history of the Americas has been written from a perspective of capitalism that excludes the fact that Columbus introduced ways of life that destroyed native practices. While the Catholic Church famously ruled that indigenous people had no rights in the 1500s, colonization continues today via multinational corporations extracting natural resources that should belong to indigenous people, via the “curse of wealth” where those with greater financial wealth dominate them. Indigenous people are thus either completely marginalized or “exoticized” by the dominant culture. Gadhoum also described how the process of colonization is a process of “de-civilizing” whereby the colonizer engages in rape, hatred, violence, and racism.

Jeff Smith of the Grand Rapids Institute for Information Democracy explained how not only must we view Columbus Day as five-hundred years of colonization, but also as five-hundred years of resistance on the part of indigenous people in the Americas. Smith described how as colonization has continued to take new forms—trade agreements, resource extraction, and the theft of indigenous knowledge—indigenous people have resisted these efforts by being at the forefront of movements organizing around these issues. Smith argued that anyone enjoying neoliberal capitalist culture must understand that their way of life comes at the expensive of indigenous people and that we need to both acknowledge this and honor indigenous resistance by working on the aforementioned issues or confronting racist school mascots that belittle indigenous peoples and beliefs. He described how indigenous people in Mexico have been the most affected by the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) and that indigenous people in Central America will be the most affected by the Central American Free Trade Agreement (CAFTA). Aside from these economic policies, Smith argued that colonization continues through media representation where indigenous perspectives are only heard of if there is a pow-wow or a casino, but not on any other issues relevant to indigenous communities. Furthermore, indigenous people are relegated to secondary roles in entertainment and never as primary characters. If this and other forms of ongoing colonization of indigenous people is seen as a genocidal policy, Smith argued that they violate international law and that everyone living within countries engaging in such polices have an obligation under international law to stop these policies.

Following the panel, Native American activist Deb Mueller described how colonization began with Columbus and continues through the mockery of sacred items, forced hair cutting, experimentation on women, and other means. This issue is particularly important in Michigan, which has the 9th highest population of Native Americans in the United States and she urged the audience to understand that “Indian country is here” and that there are opportunities for people to either work directly with indigenous people or in solidarity with them on a variety of issues. She explained that thousands of native children like her were socialized to hate who they were through the media, museum exhibits, or through popular forms of entertainment that worked to marginalize native culture. Despite these realities, indigenous people have survived and continue to organize to preserve their culture.

History Not Taught is History Forgot: Columbus' Legacy of Genocide

In remembrance of the millions of indigenous people slaughtered in the 500 years since the beginning of the colonization of the land that has come to be known as the Americas, Media Mouse presents a history of this conquest by author and activist Ward Churchill.

In remembrance of the millions of indigenous people slaughtered in the 500 years since the beginning of the colonization of the land that has come to be known as the Americas, Media Mouse presents this excerpt from Ward Churchill’s book Indians are Us.

Columbus and the Beginning of Genocide in the “New World” It has been contended by those who would celebrate Columbus that accusations concerning his perpetration of genocide are distortive “revisions” of history. Whatever the process unleashed by his “discovery” of the “New World,” it is said, the discoverer himself cannot be blamed. Whatever his defects and offenses, they are surpassed by the luster of his achievements; however “tragic” or “unfortunate” certain dimensions of his legacy may be, they are more than offset by the benefits even for the victims of the resulting blossoming of a “superior civilization” in the Americas. Essentially the same arguments might be advanced with regard to Adolf Hitler: Hitler caused the Volkswagen to be created, after all, and the autobahn. His leadership of Germany led to jet propulsion, significant advances in rocket telemetry, laid the foundation for genetic engineering. Why not celebrate his bona fide accomplishments on behalf of humanity rather than “dwelling” so persistently on the genocidal by-products of his policies?

To be fair, Columbus was never a head of state. Comparisons of him to Nazi SS leader Heinrich Himmler, rather than Hitler, are therefore more accurate and appropriate. It is time to delve into the substance of the defendants’ assertion that Columbus and Himmler, Nazi Lebensraumpolitik (conquest of “living space” in eastern Europe) and the “settlement of the New World” bear more than casual resemblance to one another. This has nothing to do with the Columbian “discovery,” not that this in itself is completely irrelevant. Columbus did not sally forth upon the Atlantic for reasons of “neutral science” or altruism. He went, as his own diaries, reports, and letters make clear, fully expecting to encounter wealth belonging to others. It was his stated purpose to seize this wealth, by whatever means necessary and available, in order to enrich both his sponsors and himself. Plainly, he pre-figured, both in design and by intent, what came next. To this extent, he not only symbolizes the process of conquest and genocide which eventually consumed the indigenous peoples of America, but bears the personal responsibility of having participated in it. Still, if this were all there was to it, the defendants would be inclined to dismiss him as a mere thug along the lines of Al Capone rather than viewing him as a counterpart to Himmler.

The 1492 “voyage of discovery” is, however, hardly all that is at issue. In 1493 Columbus returned with an invasion force of seventeen ships, appointed at his own request by the Spanish Crown to install himself as “viceroy and governor of [the Caribbean islands] and the mainland” of America, a position he held until 1500. Setting up shop on the large island he called Espa–ola (today Haiti and the Dominican Republic), he promptly instituted policies of slavery (encomiendo) and systematic extermination against the native Taino population. Columbus’s programs reduced Taino numbers from as many as eight million at the outset of his regime to about three million in 1496. Perhaps 100,000 were left by the time of the governor’s departure. His policies, however, remained, with the result that by 1514 the Spanish census of the island showed barely 22,000 Indians remaining alive. In 1542, only two hundred were recorded. Thereafter, they were considered extinct, as were Indians throughout the Caribbean Basin, an aggregate population which totaled more than fifteen million at the point of first contact with the Admiral of the Ocean Sea, as Columbus was known.

This, to be sure, constitutes an attrition of population in real numbers every bit as great as the toll of twelve to fifteen million about half of them Jewish most commonly attributed to Himmler’s slaughter mills. Moreover, the proportion of indigenous Caribbean population destroyed by the Spanish in a single generation is, no matter how the figures are twisted, far greater than the seventy-five percent of European Jews usually said to have been exterminated by the Nazis. Worst of all, these data apply only to the Caribbean Basin; the process of genocide in the Americas was only just beginning at the point such statistics become operant, not ending, as they did upon the fall of the Third Reich. All told, it is probable that more than one hundred million native people were “eliminated” in the course of Europe’s ongoing “civilization” of the Western Hemisphere.

It has long been asserted by “responsible scholars” that this decimation of American Indians which accompanied the European invasion resulted primarily from disease rather than direct killing or conscious policy. There is a certain truth to this, although starvation may have proven just as lethal in the end. It must be borne in mind when considering such facts that a considerable portion of those who perished in the Nazi death camps died, not as the victims of bullets and gas, but from starvation, as well as epidemics of typhus, dysentery, and the like. Their keepers, who could not be said to have killed these people directly, were nonetheless found to have been culpable in their deaths by way of deliberately imposing the conditions which led to the proliferation of starvation and disease among them. Certainly, the same can be said of Columbus’s regime, under which the original residents were, as a first order of business, permanently dispossessed of their abundant cultivated fields while being converted into chattel, ultimately to be worked to death for the wealth and “glory” of Spain.

Nor should more direct means of extermination be relegated to incidental status. As the matter is put by Kirkpatrick Sale in his recent book, Conquest of Paradise,

The tribute system, instituted by the Governor sometime in 1495, was a simple and brutal way of fulfilling the Spanish lust for gold while acknowledging the Spanish distaste for labor. Every Taino over the age of fourteen had to supply the rulers with a hawk’s bell of gold every three months (or in gold-deficient areas, twenty-five pounds of spun cotton); those who did were given a token to wear around their necks as proof that they had made their payment; those who did not were, as [Columbus’s brother, Fernando] says discreetly “punished”-by having their hands cut off, as [the priest, BartolomŽ de] las Casas says less discreetly, and left to bleed to death.

It is entirely likely that upwards of 10,000 Indians were killed in this fashion alone, on Espa–ola alone, as a matter of policy, during Columbus’s tenure as governor. Las Casas’ Brev’sima relaci—n, among other contemporaneous sources, is also replete with accounts of Spanish colonists (hidalgos) hanging Tainos en masse, roasting them on spits or burning them at the stake (often a dozen or more at a time), hacking their children into pieces to be used as dog feed and so forth, all of it to instill in the natives a “proper attitude of respect” toward their Spanish “superiors.”

[The Spaniards] made bets as to who would slit a man in two, or cut off his head at one blow; or they opened up his bowels. They tore the babes from their mother’s breast by their feet and dashed their heads against the rocks…They spitted the bodies of other babes, together with their mothers and all who were before them, on their swords.

No SS trooper could be expected to comport himself with a more unrelenting viciousness. And there is more. All of this was coupled to wholesale and persistent massacres:

A Spaniard…suddenly drew his sword. Then the whole hundred drew theirs and began to rip open the bellies, to cut and kill [a group of Tainos assembled for this purpose] men, women, children and old folk, all of whom were seated, off guard and frightened…And within two credos, not a man of them there remains alive. The Spaniards enter the large house nearby, for this was happening at its door, and in the same way, with cuts and stabs, began to kill as many as were found there, so that a stream of blood was running, as if a great number of cows had perished.

Elsewhere, las Casas went on to recount how in this time, the greatest outrages and slaughterings of people were perpetrated, whole villages being depopulated…The Indians saw that without any offense on their part they were despoiled of their kingdoms, their lands and liberties and of their lives, their wives, and homes. As they saw themselves each day perishing by the cruel and inhuman treatment of the Spaniards, crushed to earth by the horses, cut in pieces by swords, eaten and torn by dogs, many buried alive and suffering all kinds of exquisite tortures… [many surrendered to their fate, while the survivors] fled to the mountains [to starve].

Such descriptions correspond almost perfectly to those of systematic Nazi atrocities in the western USSR offered by William Shirer in Chapter 27 of The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich. But, unlike the Nazi extermination campaigns of World War II the Columbian butchery on Espa–ola continued until there were no Tainos left to butcher.

Evolution of the Columbian Legacy

Nor was this by any means the end of it. The genocidal model for conquest and colonization established by Columbus was to a large extent replicated by others such as Cortez (in Mexico) a Pizarro (in Peru) during the following half-century. During the same period, expeditions such as those of Ponce de Leon in 1513, Coronado in 1540, and de Soto during the same year were launched with an eye towards effecting the same pattern on the North American continent proper. In the latter sphere the Spanish example was followed and in certain ways intensified by the British, beginning at Roanoake in 1607 and Plymouth in 1620. Overall the process of English colonization along the Atlantic Coast was marked by a series of massacres of native people as relentless and devastating as any perpetrated by the Spaniards. One of the best known illustrations drawn from among hundreds was the slaughter of some 800 Pequots at present-day Mystic, Connecticut, on the night of May 26, 1637.

During the latter portion of the seventeenth century, and throughout most of the eighteenth, Great Britain battled France for colonial primacy in North America. The resulting sequence of four “French and Indian Wars” greatly accelerated the liquidation of indigenous people as far west as the Ohio River Valley. During the last of these, concluded in 1763 history’s first documentable case of biological warfare occurred against Pontiac’s Algonkian Confederacy, a powerful military alliance aligned with the French.

Sir Jeffrey Amherst, commander-in-chief of the British forces…wrote in a postscript of a letter to Bouquet [a subordinate] that smallpox be sent among the disaffected tribes. Bouquet replied, also in a postscript, “I will try to [contaminate] them…with some blankets that may fall into their hands, and take care not to get the disease myself.”…To Bouquet’s postscript Amherst replied, “You will do well to [infect] the Indians by means of blankets as well as to try every other method that can serve to extirpate this execrable race.” On June 24, Captain Ecuyer, of the Royal Americans, noted in his journal: “…we gave them two blankets and a handkerchief out of the smallpox hospital. I hope it will have the desired effect.”

It did. Over the next few months, the disease spread like wildfire among the Mingo, Delaware, Shawnee, and other Ohio River nations, killing perhaps 100,000 people. The example of Amherst’s action does much to dispel the myth that the post contact attrition of Indian people through disease; introduced by Europeans was necessarily unintentional and unavoidable. There are a number earlier instances in which native people felt disease, had been deliberately inculcated among them. For example, the so-called “King Philip’s War” of 1675-76 was fought largely because the Wampanoag and Narragansett nations believed English traders had consciously contaminated certain of their villages with smallpox. Such tactics were also continued by the United States after the American Revolution. At Fort Clark on the upper Missouri River, for instance, the U.S. Army distributed smallpox-laden blankets as gifts among the Mandan. The blankets had been gathered from a military infirmary in St. Louis where troops infected with the disease were quarantined. Although the medical practice of the day required the precise opposite procedure, army doctors ordered the Mandans to disperse once they exhibited symptoms of infection. The result was a pandemic among the Plains Indian nations who claimed at least 125,000 lives, and may have reached a toll several times that number.

Contemporaneously with the events at Fort Clark, the U.S. was also engaged in a policy of wholesale “removal” of indigenous nations east of the Mississippi River, “clearing” the land of its native population so that it might be “settled” by “racially superior” Anglo-Saxon “pioneers.” This resulted in a series of extended forced marches some more than a thousand miles in length in which entire peoples were walked at bayonet-point to locations west of the Mississippi. Rations and medical attention were poor, shelter at times all but nonexistent. Attrition among the victims was correspondingly high. As many as fifty-five percent of all Cherokees, for example, are known to have died during or as an immediate result of that people’s “Trail of Tears.” The Creeks and Seminoles also lost about half their existing populations as a direct consequence of being “removed.” It was the example of nineteenth-century U.S. Indian Removal policy upon which Adolf Hitler relied for a practical model when articulating and implementing his Lebensraumpolitik during the 1930s and ’40s.

By the 1850s, U.S. policymakers had adopted a popular philosophy called “Manifest Destiny” by which they imagined themselves enjoying a divinely ordained right to possess all native property, including everything west of the Mississippi. This was coupled to what has been termed a “rhetoric of extermination” by which governmental and corporate leaders sought to shape public sentiment to embrace the eradication of American Indians. The professed goal of this physical reduction of “inferior” indigenous populations was to open up land for “superior” Euro-American “pioneers.” One outcome of this dual articulation was a series of general massacres perpetrated by the United States military.

A bare sampling of some of the worst must include the 1854 massacre of perhaps 150 Lakotas at Blue River (Nebraska), the 1863 Bear River (Idaho) Massacre of some 500 Western Shoshones, the 1864 Sand Creek (Colorado) Massacre of as many as 250 Cheyennes and Arapahoes, the 1868 massacre of another 300 Cheyennes at the Washita River (Oklahoma), the 1875 massacre of about 75 Cheyennes along the Sappa Creek (Kansas), the 1878 massacre of still another 100 Cheyennes at Camp Robinson (Nebraska), and the 1890 massacre of more than 300 Lakotas at Wounded Knee (South Dakota).

Related phenomena included the army’s internment of the bulk of all Navajos for four years (1864-68) under abysmal conditions at the Bosque Redondo, during which upwards of a third of the population of this nation is known to have perished of starvation and disease. Even worse in some ways was the unleashing of Euro-American civilians to kill Indians at whim, and sometimes for profit. In Texas, for example, an official bounty on native scalps any native scalps was maintained until well into the 1870s. The result was that the indigenous population of this state, once the densest in all of North America, had been reduced to near zero by 1880. As it has been put elsewhere, “The facts of history are plain: Most Texas Indians were exterminated or brought to the brink of oblivion by [civilians] who often had no more regard for the life of an Indian than they had for that of a dog, sometimes less.” Similarly, in California, “the enormous decrease [in indigenous population] from about a quarter-million [in 1800] to less than 20,000 is due chiefly to the cruelties and wholesale massacres perpetrated by miners and early settlers.”

Much of the killing in California and southern Oregon Territory resulted, directly and indirectly, from the discovery of gold in 1849 and the subsequent influx of miners and settlers. Newspaper accounts document the atrocities, as do oral histories of the California Indians today. It was not uncommon for small groups or villages to be attacked by immigrants…and virtually wiped out overnight.

All told, the North American Indian population within the area of the forty-eight contiguous states of the United States, an aggregate group which had probably numbered in excess of twelve million in the year 1500, was reduced by official estimates to barely more than 237,000 four centuries later. This vast genocide historically paralleled in its magnitude and degree only by that which occurred in the Caribbean Basin is the most sustained on record. Corresponding almost perfectly with this upper-ninetieth-percentile erosion of indigenous population by 1900 was the expropriation of about 97.5 percent of native land by 1920. The situation in Canada was/is entirely comparable. Plainly, the Nazi-esque dynamics set in motion by Columbus in 1492 continued, and were not ultimately consummated until the present century.

The Columbian Legacy in the United States

While it is arguable that the worst of the genocidal programs directed against Native North America had ended by the twentieth century, it seems undeniable that several continue into the present. One obvious illustration is the massive compulsory transfer of American Indian children from their families, communities, and societies to Euro-American families and institutions, a policy which is quite blatant in its disregard for Article l(e) of the 1948 Convention. Effected through such mechanisms as the U.S. Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) boarding school system, and a pervasive policy of placing Indian children for adoption (including “blind” adoption) with non-Indians, such circumstances have been visited upon more than three-quarters of indigenous youth in some generations after 1900. The stated goal of such policies has been to bring about the “assimilation” of native people into the value orientations and belief system of their conquerors. Rephrased, the objective has been to bring about the disappearance of indigenous societies as such, a patent violation of the terms, provisions, and intent of the Genocide Convention (Article I(c)).

An even clearer example is a program of involuntary sterilization of American Indian women by the BIA’s Indian Health Service (IHS) during the 1970s. The federal government announced that the program had been terminated, and acknowledged having performed several thousand such sterilizations. Independent researchers have concluded that as many as forty-two percent of all native women of childbearing age in the United States had been sterilized by that point. That the program represents a rather stark¾and very recent¾violation of Article I(d) of the 1948 Convention seems beyond all reasonable doubt.

More broadly, implications of genocide are quite apparent in the federal government’s self-assigned exercise of “plenary power” and concomitant “trust” prerogatives over the residual Indian land base pursuant to the Lonewolf v. Hitchcock case (187 U.S. 553(1903)). This has worked, with rather predictable results, to systematically deny native people the benefit of their remaining material assets. At present, the approximately 1.6 million Indians recognized by the government as residing within the U.S., when divided into the fifty-million-odd acres nominally reserved for their use and occupancy, remain the continent’s largest landholders on a per capita basis. Moreover, the reservation lands have proven to be extraordinarily resource rich, holding an estimated two-thirds of all U.S. “domestic” uranium reserves, about a quarter of the readily accessible low-sulfur coal, as much as a fifth of the oil and natural gas, as well as substantial deposits of copper, iron, gold, and zeolites. By any rational definition, the U.S. Indian population should thus be one of the wealthiest if not the richest population sectors in North America.

Instead, by the federal government’s own statistics, they comprise far and away the poorest. As of 1980, American Indians experienced, by a decided margin, the lowest annual and lifetime incomes on a per capita basis of any ethnic or racial group on the continent. Correlated to this are all the standard indices of extreme poverty: the highest rates of infant mortality, death by exposure and malnutrition, incidence of tuberculosis and other plague disease. Indians experience the highest level of unemployment, year after year, and the lowest level of educational attainment. The overall quality of life is so dismal that alcoholism and other forms of substance abuse are endemic; the rate of teen suicide is also several times that of the nation as a whole. The average life expectancy of a reservation-based Native American male is less than 45 years; that of a reservation-based female less than three years longer.

It’s not that reservation resources are not being exploited, or profits accrued. To the contrary, virtually all uranium mining and milling occurred on or immediately adjacent to reservation land during the life of the Atomic Energy Commission’s ore-buying program, 1952-81. The largest remaining enclave of traditional Indians in North America is currently undergoing forced relocation in order that coal may be mined on the Navajo Reservation. Alaska native peoples are being converted into landless “village corporations” in order that the oil under their territories can be tapped; and so on. Rather, the BIA has utilized its plenary and trust capacities to negotiate contracts with major mining corporations “in behalf of” its “Indian wards” which pay pennies on the dollar of the conventional mineral royalty rates. Further, the BIA has typically exempted such corporations from an obligation to reclaim whatever reservation lands have been mined, or even to perform basic environmental cleanup of nuclear and other forms of waste. One outcome has been that the National Institute for Science has recommended that the two locales within the U.S. most heavily populated by native people¾the Four Corners Region and the Black Hills Region be designated as “National Sacrifice Areas.” Indians have responded that this would mean their being converted into “national sacrifice peoples”

Even such seemingly innocuous federal policies as those concerning Indian identification criteria carry with them an evident genocidal potential. In clinging insistently to a variation of a eugenics formulation dubbed “blood-quantum” ushered in by the 1887 General Allotment Act, while implementing such policies as the Federal Indian Relocation Program (1956-1982), the government has set the stage for a “statistical extermination” of the indigenous population within its borders. As the noted western historian, Patricia Nelson Limerick, has observed: “Set the blood-quantum at one-quarter, hold to it as a rigid definition of Indians, let intermarriage proceed…and eventually Indians will be defined out of existence. When that happens, the federal government will finally be freed from its persistent ‘Indian problem’.” Ultimately, there is precious little difference, other than matters of style, between this and what was once called the “Final Solution of the Jewish Problem.”

The above article is an excerpt of a legal brief from Ward Churchill’s book Indians Are Us? Culture and Genocide in Native North America (Common Courage Press, 1994). The defendants in the brief are leaders of the American Indian Movement, who were charged for stopping a Columbus Day celebratory parade near the Colorado State Capitol Building in Denver, Colorado on October 12, 1991.

Andrea Smith Discusses Sexual Violence and Activism

On Tuesday, native author and activist Andrea Smith delivered a lecture focusing on the role of sexual violence in conquest and its relationship to American indian genocide. Smith also offered a number of suggestions for organizing and building a more effective and diverse anti-violence movement.

Tuesday night at the Wealthy Theatre, Native American author, activist, and scholar Andrea Smith delivered a lecture titled “Conquest: Sexual Violence and American Indian Genocide.” Smith, who has been a Nobel peace prize nominee and is currently a member of INCITE! Women of Color Against Violence, discussed sexual violence in native communities and sexual violence’s role in colonialism. Smith said that she came to this insight based on three realizations in her life—that as long as native peoples were destroying themselves through violence within their own communities that they did not need to be so focused on external threats, that there was a striking silence in native communities about rape, and that efforts by rape victims to seek support outside native communities was often met by opposition from other natives who opposed the “airing of the community’s dirty laundry” outside the native community.

Beginning with the argument that sexual violence is an inherent part of the colonial project, Smith gave several examples of how colonial thought and theory has been intertwined with an ideology of sexual domination. She discussed how the United States viewed the bodies of natives as “impure” and therefore “rapable” and explained how the mutilation of women’s genitals and public display of them at the Sand Creek Massacre was a manifestation of the sexual violence inherent in colonialism. It was also argued that patriarchy has played a key role in convincing people of the necessity of domination and that projecting a patriarchal view of natives onto them was necessary in order for the colonial project to succeed. Cultural appropriation, an ongoing aspect of colonialism, was also discussed as a form of sexual violence as it is an act of control and intervention that has its roots in the rhetoric of sexual domination, while it is manifest in its most crude way in books on “Native American sexuality” and spirituality. Environmental racism, with its notion that certain communities are “fit” for the dumping of nuclear and toxic waste (as they are impure or dirty) is a form of sexual violence, especially when it is considered that the first effects of environmental racism often manifest themselves in women’s reproductive organs. Similarly, the forced sterilization that targeted native women’s reproductive systems, both by the government and medical professionals as well as the various population control movements that arose out of the environmental movements in the United States, is also a form of sexual violence.

For Smith, violence, and specifically sexual violence, is an inherent part of a society centered on a patriarchal state and the struggle against colonization has to be a central part of organizing against domestic violence. Smith described how it is impossible for the state to be a solution to a problem that exists because of it and that laws created by the state to criminalize domestic violence more often put victims in jail than perpetrators. The criminalization approach is therefore flawed given that the approach exists in a society where fifty percent of men have indicated that they would rape if they could get away with it. Since nobody would seriously consider putting fifty percent of men in prison, the criminalization approach, based on the idea that there are a few isolated perpetrators of sexual violence is fundamentally flawed. The idea of “restorative justice” for sexual violence is also flawed as it does not address state violence at the same time nor does it work in a sexist society that often sides with the perpatrator.

Smith, who in her opening remarks stressed that she did not want to be seen simply as one with a unique analysis but rather as a part of a collective struggle, also shared several strategies and tactics for organizing. She stressed that it is important that those working for social change in the United States work to build truly mass movements, citing an example of people she met in Central America who discussed how they repeatedly mobilized 10 million people over a series of weeks while activists in the United States typically muster no more than 200 people and spend time walking in circles where they were able to get permits from the state to “exercise their right to free speech.” Central to creating a mass movement is a need to rethink the nonprofit industrial complex, as Smith discussed how foundation funding limits mobilizing by making organizations reliant on foundations rather than their base for support which discourages organizing to mobilize constituents and instead creates a movement that is accountable to foundations rather than working directly for those in need of a particular service. Instead, Smith argued that independent movements outside of the non-profit sector are needed and that non-profits need to be made accountable to an independent movement. Similarly, Smith argued that while it is important to have people “working from the inside,” such efforts will have little success if they are not backed by a strong independent movement outside of the institution.

In order to build such a movement, Smith said that it is important for resistance to develop not just in isolated communities but that it needs to be spread into other communities in order to effectively fight empire and capitalism. To spread such ideas, movements in the United States need to look at how they organize and need to think of ways to organize so that people can participate in social movements when they have time rather than demanding the extreme self-sacrifice that often characterizes activism in the United States. Smith also argued that movements need to develop more creative tactics such as effective use of the arts, street theatre, and music, and use those tactics for outreach rather than always relying on the overly intellectual arguments and the notion that people can be convinced of a particular position simply from a deluge of facts. Such approaches are necessary because they can be used to convince privileged people that they are not benefiting from their privilege in the long-term and that by shedding short-term gains they could achieve substantial improvements in their lives as it is real only a few people that have the majority of wealth and power in the United States.