Skip to main content

Genocide. So color me macabre, or masochistic, or just call me "Debby Downer". It's a subject I've concerned myself since high school. At one time, I even considered getting my PhD in "comparative genocide studies." (Yes, you can do that--at Clark University is Worcester, for example). I decided against it, and earned my PhD in another field, but I have published on the subject (in peer-reviewed journals), and incorporate some of these (and more recent) insights into genocide in my classes at a local community college.

Indeed, despite the fact that I (thankfully) did not make the study of genocide my "profession",   my concern with genocide has continued unabated--not least of all because the AFTERMATH of genocide (and its denial) stares me in the face every day--in the students who attend my classes. But that is a diary for another day. In fact, it's probably the more pertinent one. But the subject cannot even be broached without first establishing the "facts of the case."

And that's what this diary is intended to do. Yesterday, a long-time poster was banned for a claptrap diary challenging the notion that genocide was ever committed against American Indians in this country.  It was racist, revisionist crap, and clearly designed to stir up shit.

That's not what this diary is intended to do. On the contrary, it's intended to CLEAR up some shit. Shit that rises again and again, if not to the top, then at least to the water line, here on DailyKos and elsewhere. It is the transcript of an invited lecture that I held at a university about ten years ago, sponsored by multiple departments, including Native American Studies, Germanic Studies, and several student groups--one of them a Palestinian right-to-exist organization. I posted it yesterday as a comment to the banned diarist's entry. Someone suggested that I post it as a stand-alone.

Ten years have passed since I held this lecture. Since then, my thoughts on genocide have developed in new directions and covered territory that ought NOT be new, but--even to me--WAS new. However, I cannot address those thoughts, ideas, theories here without first establishing the "facts" as I (and many others) know them.

This is a pretty good summary of the basic issues involved in any discussion of genocide against American Indians in this country. I post it here as a resource, not as an invitation to a duel at high noon.

Genocide (in America)

The subject of this talk is—or should be—of general academic interest; indeed, of general human interest, but “genocide studies” is admittedly a rather specialized field of inquiry, and this presentation deals specifically with the genocide committed against indigenous populations on this continent, not with other incidents of genocide like the Turkish slaughter of Armenians in WWI, the genocidal campaigns against Roma, Sinti, Jews and other “undesirable” elements of European society under the Nazi regime, or by Pol Pot’s Khmer Rouge in Cambodia during the 1970s, nor of the ongoing acts of genocide currently underway throughout the Middle East—all of which are legitimate objects of inquiry under the rubric of “genocide studies”.

The first thing I’d like address are some relevant definitional issues. In recent years, the terms “genocide” and “holocaust” have been bandied about both in scholarship and in the public at large, often with very little thought or consideration for their respective origins, etymologies and implications. (A google search on the term “genocide” produces 1,850,00 results; holocaust produces over 3,000,000: Note, in the ten years since this talk was first presented, those numbers have doubled).

Let us begin with the term “genocide.” Though the phenomenon of mass murder is hardly unique to the 20th century, the term “genocide” did not come into widespread use until 1944, when the Polish-born Yale University jurist Raphael Lemkin coined it in his Axis Rule in Occupied Europe. It is a hybrid term derived from the Greek “genos” meaning “type” or, with regard to human beings, “race” or “tribe”, and from the Latin “cide” meaning “killing”. Although the trials of Nazi perpetrators in Nuremberg, Frankfurt and Jerusalem provided models for 20th century ways of conceptualizing genocide and crimes against humanity, Lemkin himself never defined the concept of genocide strictly in terms of direct killing. Quite the contrary: Lemkin explicitly states that “genocide does not necessarily mean the immediate destruction of a nation...it is intended rather to signify a coordinated plan of different actions aiming at the destruction of essential foundations of the life of national groups” (Lemkin 79). He goes on to say that the means by which these aims are met include “the disintegration of political and social institutions, of culture, language, national feelings, religion and the economic existence of national groups” (79).

Lemkin and his work were instrumental in establishing the UN Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide, which was approved by the general assembly in 1948 and went into effect in 1951. Ironically, though the US provided the major impetus for establishing the convention, the US did not join the remaining ninety-seven members of the world community in endorsing the UN Convention on Genocide until 1988, when Ronald Reagan signed legislation making the terms of this agreement legally binding on the United States.
 The UN Convention on Genocide outlines five categories of action that constitute the crime of genocide when carried out with the “intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group.” These categories are:

1.    killing members of the group
2.    causing serious bodily or mental harm
3.    deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part
4.    imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group
5.    forcibly transferring children of the group to another group

According to the UN convention, genocide, even when committed by a government within its own territorial boundaries, is not an “internal” or “domestic” affair, but rather an international concern. And we may speculate about whether this aspect of the convention’s terms has any bearing on the fact that it took the US fifty years to ratify it.

Genocide, then, in its contemporary usage, is a recent term whose etymology can be traced to a specific author to denote a certain category of crime whose parameters have been outlined by the United Nations.

Before we proceed to a discussion of the term ‘holocaust’, let’s look at some evidence demonstrating that the extermination of Native American populations conforms to the definition of genocide as outlined by the UN Convention. According to this definition, we must first establish an “intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group.” Let us restrict ourselves to a few of the more egregious examples and begin with statements made by three of the four presidents whose images are now permanently etched on the face of the Black Hills of South Dakota, a site which members of the Lakota Sioux claim as their most sacred place of worship—comparable to a cathedral, a synagogue, a mosque or a Buddhist shrine. And here I think it important to point out that it was not until 1978, with the passage of the American Indian Religious Freedom Act that American Indians were afforded the legal right to practice their religion in this country.

In 1779, George Washington instructed Major General John Sullivan to attack the Iroquois people, and to “lay waste all the settlements around...that the country may not be merely overrun, but destroyed.” On another occasion, he stated that he would not "listen to any overture of peace before the total ruin of their settlements is effected." This represents clear and unequivocal intent expressed by the first president of the United States not to affect partial destruction of a “national, ethnical, racial or religious group,” but rather to achieve its “total ruin”.

In 1807, Thomas Jefferson wrote “if ever we are constrained to lift the hatchet against any tribe [. . .] we will never lay it down till that tribe is exterminated." He continued, "in war, they will kill some of us; we shall destroy all of them.” In 1813, he vowed to "pursue [the Indians] to extermination.” Again, this is evidence not of the intent to achieve partial destruction, but rather total extermination.

Looking back at these “accomplishments” in 1901, that is, at the dawn of the 20th century, Theodore Roosevelt wrote:

“Of course our whole national history has been one of expansion…That the barbarians recede or are conquered, with the attendant fact that peace follows their retrogression or conquest is due solely to the power of the mighty civilized races which have not lost the fighting instinct, and which by their expansion are gradually bringing peace to the red wastes where the barbarian peoples of this world hold sway.”

In a 1763 letter to one of his subordinates, Jeffrey Amherst, for whom the town of Amherst, MA is named,  stated that “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.”

Now let us consider the ways in which the five categories of action defined as genocidal by the UN convention apply to the policies and practices of the US government:

1.    killing members of the group

There can of course be no denying that significant numbers of indigenous peoples were killed in the process of “depopulating” the “virgin wasteland” that settlers encountered upon their arrival in the “New World.” What is at issue is the scope of this slaughter. For a long time, it was assumed that a mere one million inhabitants were present at the time of first contact with Europeans. However, recent estimates assume pre-contact population to have been between 9 and 18 million. This standard puts the rate of attrition of indigenous populations at between 98 and 99 percent – that is, near total extermination, and indeed, many nations and peoples were eliminated in their entirety. By the latter half of the 19th century, the indigenous population had been reduced from 9 to 18 million to around 250,000. At present, it is estimated to be between 2 and 3 million.

Some of the more infamous examples of outright slaughter include the 1864 massacre of 250 Cheyenne and Arapaho at Sand Creek, Colorado, and the 1890 massacre of over 300 Lakota at Wounded Knee, South Dakota. At Wounded Knee, the Lakota were practicing a religious ritual called the Ghost Dance. The US government, unfamiliar with and frightened by these religious practices, sent in the troops—in the end, over 300 Lakota were ruthlessly shot down, many of them women and children; their bodies were stripped naked and thrown into a pit. The photograph on the poster announcing this presentation commemorates this event in a ceremony that took place annually from 1986 to 1990 (the 100th anniversary of the slaughter). In this photograph, contemporary Lakota, many of them direct descendants of those killed in the 1890 slaughter, are seen on horseback making the same 250-mile trek taken by victims of the massacre as they attempted to flee their assassins.  

2.    causing serious bodily or mental harm

Here,  let us restrict our discussion to the one form of bodily and mental harm that has perhaps had the most devastating consequences for Native American populations: the introduction of alcohol -- something that has led to the situation in which “Alcoholism, unemployment, suicide, accidental death and homicide rates are still well above the national average” for Native Americans (LaDuke). Most of the studies that existed on the subject of alcoholism in Native American communities even well into the eighties usually do not mention the fact that these problems are a direct result of the policies of the U.S. government toward Native peoples (Duran 95). The fact is, alcohol “figured prominently in the European invasion of North America” and constituted “a particularly versatile weapon in the invader’s arsenal” (Unrau 12). According to a 1987 Indian Health Services report, as late as 1984, alcohol-related deaths among Native populations in the US were still 4.8 times those among all races. Furthermore, “in addition to deaths due directly to diseases related to alcoholism, alcohol is considered a large contributing factor in suicides, homicides and other intentional and unintentional injuries and mental health problems [among indigenous peoples of North America]” (Duran/Duran 94 –95).

3.    deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part

If there is one chapter in the long and involved history of affairs that best exemplifies this point, it may be the period of “Indian Removal”. The “Indian Removal Act” was signed into law by Andrew Jackson in 1830 after gold was discovered in Georgia, home to the Cherokee nation. This ultimately resulted in a death march now commonly known as the “Trail of Tears” in which the so-called Five Civilized Tribes (Cherokee, Choctaw, Chickasaw, Creek, Seminole) were forcibly “removed” from their homelands and herded westward to what became known as “Indian territory.” Thousands of people were first herded into concentration camps, then, often bound in chains, were marched at bayonet-point to their new “homelands” west of the Mississippi. Of the 17,000 Cherokee subjected to removal, only 8,000 survived the horrific conditions of disease, exposure and malnutrition along the “Trail of Tears.” The Choctaw lost 6,000 of 40,000 and the mortality rate for Creeks and Seminoles was about 50%. Similar actions took place throughout the country as native populations were herded onto “reservations” during the period of removal. The primary proponent of these policies was Andrew Jackson, who promised the indigenous people that they would be removed to territories where their “white brothers” would not trouble them and would “have no claim to the land.” He promised they could live there in peace and plenty “as long as the grass grows and the waters run”-- that it would be theirs forever. Little more than fifty years later, the General Allotment Act was passed in a move to destroy what remained of the collectively held indigenous land base: again, as documents from my own family record attest, individual tribal members were promised that the parcels of collectively owned land “allotted” them would be given to them, their “heirs and assigns forever.”

These policies of removal and land seizure can be said to have “inflicted . . . conditions . . . calculated to bring about physical destruction in whole or in part” because the people’s socio-economic cohesion was dependent on the land base and on collective landholding. To this day, many Native nations struggle to regain control and ownership of lands seized by the US government and its people under these policies. The seizure of lands may perhaps be considered a primary determining factor ultimately leading to a situation in which, according to recent statistics, the average income of the settler population is 54% greater than that of indigenous populations and about 70% of single-parent homes headed by Native American females live below the poverty line.

4.    imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group

The US government’s involvement with health care issues among indigenous populations began in the early 1800s when, under the auspices of the War Department, army physicians grew concerned about the growing incidence of small pox and other contagious diseases among natives living “in the vicinity of military posts.” What eventually evolved from this is a government agency known as the Indian Health Services or IHS. In an article published in the same issue of AIQ that “Dare to Compare” appeared, Jane Lawrence examines the widespread practice of involuntary sterilization of American Indian women in the twentieth century and reports that, from 1970 to 1976 between 25 and 50 percent of American Indian women had been sterilized, often without informed consent and often with manipulated “consent” extracted based on threats that they would lose welfare benefits if they did not have the operation.

5.    forcibly transferring children of the group to another group

The late 1800s and early 1900s witnessed a new type of “Indian Removal” which was part of a massive campaign to “assimilate” or “civilize” the remnant population of Native Americans. During this period, Indian boarding schools were established which enforced strict military-like discipline and prohibited American Indian children from speaking their Native languages, practicing their religion, even from visiting their families. Indian agents traveled from home to home on the reservations, gathered up children as young as five and “removed” them from their homes to place them in boarding schools. Modified forms of this practice continued into the 50s, 60s and 70s, when many Indian children were removed from their homes and placed in white foster homes—ostensibly to improve their economic conditions. From 1958 to 1967, public and private agencies in this country actively promoted the practice of adopting Indian children into non-Indian families. In response to these practices, tribal leaders approached the US government, and after ten years of public hearings, Congress enacted the Indian Child Welfare Act of 1978 designed to prevent the involuntary termination of parental rights and to mandate placement in Indian families, preferably of the same tribe and language as the birth family.

As you can see from these examples, many of the US government policies and practices that fall under the category of genocide according to the UN convention have continued well into the 20th century, and many more are still ongoing today, so it is perhaps not so surprising after all that the US did not endorse the UN Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of Genocide until 1988.

Holocaust

Tracing the origins of the term “holocaust” is a less straightforward affair and has been the subject of intense scholarly debate. The OED cites its use by Milton in the 17th century (in Paradise Regained) , and the term is generally assumed to have entered the English language through Greek translations of the Hebrew bible in the form of holokauston as a rendering for the Hebrew term ‘olah’ which means, literally “burnt offering or sacrifice to God.” In the 1960s, the term’s most common association was with regard to a potential “nuclear holocaust.” The term’s first use in the US with regard to Nazi extermination policies is generally attributed to Elie Wiesel, who first used it to describe the “Nazi holocaust” in 1963—but there is evidence of its prior use in this context, and in fact, University of Chicago historian Peter Novick, in his seminal work on the subject, The Holocaust in American Life, suggests that “the word Holocaust first became firmly attached to the murder of European Jewry as a result” of the Eichmann Trial in Jerusalem in 1961. It was only in the late 1960s and early 1970s that the term came to be synonymous with the Nazi holocaust—more specifically, with the extermination of the Jewish population of Europe to the exclusion of all other groups that were targets of Nazi genocide.

Ideological critiques of the term’s usage—based on its religious connotations and the way it assigns religious significance to this horrific historical event—have led to the more recent adoption of the Hebrew term “Shoah” as a descriptor for the acts of genocide specifically targeted at Jewish populations of Europe. But the term “Shoah”, generally translated to mean “catastrophe,” is also used in the Hebrew bible with reference to punishments visited by God on the Jews, so, as Novick rightly points out, it does little to redress the issues of religious sacrifice that render the term “Holocaust” objectionable as a descriptor for the suffering of the Jews at the hands of Nazi Germany. So even the term “Shoah” is problematic as a descriptor for “what happened” (Celan). The German-speaking Jewish author Lea Fleischmann objects to the “foreignness” of the term “holocaust” and suggests that it would be more appropriate to speak in terms of “Judenmord,” that is of Jew-murder or “judeocide”—and Judeocide has also been used by Steven Katz, a prominent Holocaust historian.
Interestingly enough in this context, the US government employs the term “National Sacrifice Areas” to designate huge swathes of land on reservations in the Four Corners and Black Hills regions of the US that have been devastated by strip-mining and/or nuclear waste disposal. Russell Means and other leaders of the American Indian Movement have suggested that this can only imply that the people living in these areas are “National Sacrifice Peoples”—in that sense, the application of any term with “sacrificial” implications might be considered appropriate in the case of Native Americans.

Personally I am opposed to any term that places mass murder in a religious or spiritual context. What is at issue here are crimes—crimes that have been defined by the UN as genocide.  Using “genocide” and “holocaust” interchangeably conflates legal and religious doctrines and generates confusion about whether we are dealing with actions that are defined as “crimes” in international juridical terms or as actions that may or may not be  deemed “sinful” from any given religious perspective.  The terms of international law are fuzzy enough without having to bring “god” into the picture and frankly, any “god” who requires this level of sacrifice is not a god I can have faith in or follow.  

What is more, at this point, the term ‘holocaust’ has also been subjected to such a degree of misuse as to render it virtually meaningless in any truly genocidal context (see, for example, its appropriation by conservative factions in this country with reference to abortion as a holocaust of unborn children; responding to the scandals surrounding his evangelical ministry in the late 80s, Jim Bakker said “if Jim and Tammy can survive their holocaust of the last two years, then you can make it”; Woody Allen has similarly drawn analogies between his domestic scandals and holocaust survival—remember that, according to Lemkin and the UN Convention, “genocide” applies to individuals as members of groups, not as individuals per se).
I use the term “American Holocaust” to describe the series of genocidal campaigns directed at indigenous populations of the Americas over a five-hundred year period as distinct from the genocidal campaign carried out against the Jews (among others) during the twelve-year reign of Nazi terror, which I describe as the “Nazi Holocaust.”

My use of the term “American Holocaust” draws on the work of the noted University of Hawaii historian, David Stannard, who wrote an exhaustive study of this subject which was published in 1992 by Oxford University Press under the title American Holocaust: Columbus and the Conquest of the New World. In my attempt to emphasize the startling similarities between the American and the Nazi Holocausts, I have chosen to capitalize the term ‘holocaust’ in each instance, but other authors have begun placing the term ‘holocaust’ in lower case and applying it in more general terms with regard to catastrophical events that may not be considered “human tragedies” from some perspectives. Two recent examples include Winona LaDuke—the Harvard educated White Earth Anishinabeg author-activist who became the first Native American on a presidential ticket when she ran as Ralph Nader’s VP in 2000 and the philosopher J. Angelo Corlett who recently published with Cornell University Press a highly relevant work titled Race, Racism and Reparations—Corlett, for example, objects to the term’s contemporary usage as follows: “I find negligent philosophers who use the term ‘the Holocaust’ to refer exclusively to the oppression of Jews by the Nazi regime. To do so is to ignore the ‘American Holocaust’ of Native Americans, which was far worse in terms of duration of evil and amount of property taken violently and fraudulently by the US government” (3). LaDuke, in keeping with indigenous belief systems that do not privilege human life over that of other species, opens her discussion of “Native Struggles for Land and Life” by stating that “The last 150 years have seen a great holocaust. There have been more species lost in the past 150 years than since the Ice Age. During the same time, Indigenous peoples have been disappearing from the face of the earth. Over 2,000 nations of Indigenous peoples have gone extinct in the western hemisphere and one nation disappears from the Amazon rainforest every year” (1).

Unfortunately, Genocide Studies has often been reduced to what I have called “the battle of the most martyred minority,” or what others have described as a “culture of competing catastrophes” (Young), as “moral bookkeeping” (Horowitz), “comparative victimology” (LaCapra), or “victimization olympics” (Novick). The participants in this spectacle of moral mudslinging and muckraking can be placed into three more or less distinct camps: revisionists, exclusivists and comparatists. Each of these groups responds more or less to a fourth precursory group: the holocaust deniers.
 Soon after the gruesome facts about the atrocities of Nazi death and concentration camps were revealed to the international public, —that is, already in the late 1940s—certain racist reactionaries began questioning whether the event ever occurred and the phenomenon of “holocaust denial” emerged. With their clearly anti-semitic agenda, most of these “holocaust deniers” could hardly be taken seriously. And yet, understandably so, Jewish scholars, public intellectuals, religious leaders and Holocaust survivors responded vehemently in their attempts at rebuttal.

The issue of Holocaust denial took on new significance in the late 80s when a group of German historians introduced a number of texts that presented a “revisionist” version of German history—these historians differed somewhat from the fanatical “holocaust deniers” in that they did not resort to outright denial of the Nazi Holocaust but rather sought to “relativize” it. A significant element of their revisionist narrative included drawing comparisons between other incidents of genocide—like the Armenian and Cambodian genocides. The debates were so widely publicized—internationally—that they ultimately became a chapter in history now referred to as the Historian’s Debate.
Responding to this “revisionist” debate and to the whole history of Holocaust denial, Deborah Lipstadt published a well-researched treatise on the subject, titled Denying the Holocaust: The Growing Assault on Truth and Memory (1993). Lipstadt sets the record straight on a number of issues; however, her work also represents a classic example of that brand of moral obstinacy now commonly referred to as “exclusivism.”

 It is a strain of thought promoted by a handful of scholars, often referred to as “uniqueness proponents” who would vehemently, at times polemically—at any rate, vociferously and prolifically—insist on the singularity of the Nazi Holocaust and contend that no single event in the history of humanity compares in its scope and implications. Among the most prominent representatives of this stance are Deborah Lipstadt , Yehuda Bauer, Steven Katz, Michael Marrus and Lucy Dawidowicz. The basic “exclusivist” position is that anyone who dares to compare any incident of genocide with the Nazi Holocaust is drawing “immoral equivalencies” (Lipstadt)—whoever would dare to compare is charged with participating in “the most vile sort of anti-Semitism” (Liptstadt) and lumped together with the “pseudoscholars” who first introduced the concept of “holocaust denial” to the discourse immediately following WWII. Lucy Dawidowicz goes so far as to charge those who dare to compare with “a vicious anti-Americanism.” At times, these scholars have been zealous enough to attempt falsifications of the historical record, as was found to be the case with Cornell University professor Steven Katz in his contribution to the volume Is the Holocaust Unique? Perspectives on Comparative Genocide, where the editors discovered, days before the volume went to press, that his data on the Armenian genocide did not correspond to the published and confirmed historical archive recorded by government sources, major historians and the New York Times.

As David Stannard points out these exclusivists represent, if anything, “something of a cult within the [Jewish] scholarly community—though a cult quite skilled at calling attention to itself and one with powerful friends in high places” (192). In fact, as the prevalent citation of “comparatist” Jewish scholars in the published version of my essay attests, there are many, many more Jewish scholars who advocate a comparative perspective on genocide and “the Holocaust”: among them any number of Nazi Holocaust survivors who share my view that seeking to privilege one incident of genocide over another is motivated not as much by “moral outrage” as it is by the desire to accumulate “moral capital” in the interest of influencing contemporary politics—both domestic and international. The exclusivists charge other victim groups with “Holocaust envy” and with attempting to “steal the Holocaust”—as if mass murder were somehow the most coveted possession in the store of Jewish cultural and religious treasures. Israel W. Charny, executive director of the Institute on the Holocaust and Genocide in Jerusalem, rebukes what he calls the “leaders and ‘high priests’ who insist on the uniqueness, exclusivity, primacy, superiority, or greater significance of the specific genocide of their people” (cited in Stannard, Politics 193). Ismar Schorsch, chancellor of the Jewish Theological Seminary, describes the exclusivist position as a “distasteful secular version of chosenness” and Jacob Neusner says that it’s “grotesque for us to be arguing with other ethnic groups that our Holocaust was worse than their Holocaust.” He asks, “Is our blood redder than theirs?” (cited in Novick 198).

The notion that “the Holocaust” has become the primary signifier of identity and a form of ‘civil religion’, particularly for American Jews, and that the “moral currency” accumulated in this fashion has been enlisted as a justification for Israel’s territorial expansionism and suppression of the Palestinian people is gaining acceptability as many Jewish intellectuals begin examining the so-called “Shoah business” or “Holocaust Industry” from a more self-critical perspective. Peter Novick and Norman Finkelstein have been leading figures in these developments, whereby the more moderate Novick is generally taken seriously and the more radical (and vocally pro-Palestinian) Finkelstein is generally dismissed as a “quack” or a “self-hating” Jew. I find these reactions to Finkelstein particularly interesting in light of the fact that Raphael Seligmann, one of the primary interlocutors of Jewish culture in Germany, expressed precisely the same views as Novick and Finkelstein already in his 1991 German-language publication on the subject of Jews, Germans and Israelis (Mit beschränkter Hoffnung; Juden, Deutsche, Israelis)—and I might add, in far more polemical and belittling terms than anyone who has yet to publish on the subject in the English language. To date, no one has dared to charge Seligmann with anti-Semitism or Jewish self-hatred, and only a few scholars have pointed out that it was this Israeli born German-Jewish writer who stated (ironically) that the “Jews are the Indians of Germany.” Other prominent German-Jewish figures have responded in a similarly critical fashion to the phenomenon of “Holocaust worship” on the part of Jews and non-Jews, both here and in Europe. Henryk Broder, for example, comments on the US-American fixation with the Holocaust, stating that “A naive observer might conclude that the Nazi Holocaust took place in the USA and that Americans feel obligated to come to grips with this dark chapter of their history.”

But charges of anti-semitism and “holocaust denial” are uniformly directed at anyone who “dares to compare” regardless of the manner in which he/she presents the comparative analysis and most of us have come to expect them. For me, though, as  a person of Native American descent, being charged with “anti-Americanism” is a much more serious affair and something I can view as nothing less than a seditious reversal of identity politics. As I am by far not the first person to have pointed out: the fact is, Jews were slaughtered in Europe; in this country, entire nations of American peoples have been exterminated—in many cases, not in part, but in whole. Denying this fact or attempting to minimize its significance represents to me an egregious example of anti-Americanism and, what is more, a classic case of Anti-Indianism (Cook-Lynn).

This brings us to significant aspects in which the American and the Nazi Holocausts do not compare—that is, where they differ.  If we are to insist on emphasizing the ways in which these two genocidal episodes are distinct, we must also take into consideration the fact that Hitler lost his “war against the Jews” and the State of Israel was formed as partial reparation for the losses sustained by the Jewish population as a result. However, the United States government, even as it sought to help absorb the losses sustained by the Jewish population in Europe not only through its support of Israel, but by offering refuge to Jewish immigrants in territories seized from the indigenous populations, won its war against the Indians. The crucial difference here is between a regime whose demise was rooted in genocide and one for whom genocide was its foundational principle and the prerequisite to its existence.

Another significant difference between the two historical events is that “holocaust denial” is seen by most of the world as an affront to the victims of the Nazi regime—indeed, denying “the Holocaust” is classified as a criminal offense in many countries. In America, the situation is the reverse: victims seeking recovery through recognition and reparation are seen as assaulting American ideals. In A Little Matter of Genocide: Holocaust and Denial in the Americas 1492 to the Present, University of Colorado professor and longtime member of the American Indian Movement, Ward Churchill, has produced an exhaustive comparative study of the American  and Nazi Holocausts and, perhaps more importantly, on the dynamics of Holocaust denial as they apply in each respective case, and I would suggest that this title is recommended reading for anyone seriously interested in pursuing these matters.

As even Steven Katz has since conceded, the Nazi Holocaust does not by any means compare to the American Holocaust in terms of scope and duration. The death toll and aftermath of the American Holocaust far exceeded that of the Nazi Holocaust, so while the Nazi Holocaust may indeed be unique in scope and in kind to the 20th century, the American Holocaust was, as Stannard has stated: “far and away, the most massive act of genocide in the history of the world.” Now that the “exclusivists” can no longer rely on sheer numbers to secure for them the “moral capital” needed to establish their superiority as “victors” in the “battle of the most martyred minority,” they have resorted to another argument: the Nazi Holocaust was “phenomenologically” unique based on the “merciless, exceptionless, biocentric intentionality of Hitler’s ‘war against the Jews.’

We have already established that the slaughter of Native Americans in this country was intentional, not incidental, but another parallel that is often drawn between these two acts of genocide suggests that the same notion of creating space for the “master race” is as germane to the ideological framework of Hitler’s Lebensraumpolitik as it is to the doctrine of “manifest destiny”: In each instance, the extermination of “inferior races” is justified in the interest of making way for a “superior race” of peoples. The difference is that Hitler’s policy of Lebensraumpolitik has been vilified and condemned for the toll it took in terms of human lives while heroes are made of men in America whose words were inspired by the same kind of thinking and attendant behavior.

Hannah Arendt has identified metaphysical Jew-hatred as one element in the “subterranean stream of Western history” that translated into the political anti-Semitic consciousness in Europe which constituted the defining principle of Hitler’s Nazi regime. Similarly, Richard Drinnon argues that the “national metaphysics of Indian-hating was central to the formation of national identity and political policy in the United States,” and a recent work by Crow Creek scholar Elizabeth Cook-Lynn traces a similar transformation of this metaphysical Indian-hating into a political consciousness of “Anti-Indianism.”  The crucial issue at stake here is that the national metaphysics of Indian-hating or anti-Indianism rests on the “collective refusal to conceive of Native Americans as persons.”
Giorgio Agamben argues against the use of the term “Holocaust” as a descriptor for the Nazi extermination of the Jews because “Jews were exterminated not in a mad and giant holocaust but exactly as Hitler had announced, ‘as lice.’ The notorious Indian killer H.L. Hall justified the murder of Native infants based on the argument that “a nit would make a louse.” John Chivington, commanding Colonel in the infamous Sand Creek Massacre, reformulated the sentiment to justify similar actions with the statement, “Nits make lice.” Perplexing in this context is that Hitler’s perception of the Jews as “life unworthy of living,” that is, as “lice,” is received with moral outrage in the scholarly community and in public consciousness in the US and elsewhere. But when Indians are placed on the same level of the “evolutionary scale” and assigned the same status in the biopolitical order, it becomes a justifiable sacrifice made in the name of “progress.”

The people of Germany had to be convinced that the Jewish population was not human; for centuries prior, they had lived and worked side by side these people who were systematically exterminated “like lice.” Before the Final Solution could be implemented, the Jewish population of Europe had to be reduced to the level of “bare life.” But, for the American settlers, the notion that the life form to be clear-cut from the vast, “unpopulated” wilderness in order to make way for their American way of life was somehow not human ranked among those truths held to be self-evident; the “execrable race” of red men and women was viewed from the onset as “non-human”.
What it seems to boil down to in the “battle of the most martyred minority” is that when the matter of genocide, however great or small, involves “civilized”—that is, white—people, the matter elicits moral outrage; when it involves non-western, non-industrialized, non-white populations it elicits indifference—or worse, indignation. And I am not the first to have made this observation. Stannard says the same in his discussion of the politics of genocide scholarship, and many others have made the same point. Peter Novick cites Jason Epstein and Phillip Lopate as having made the same argument in an attempt to explain why “piles of other victims are not as significant as Jewish corpses.” Lopate asks, “Is it simply because they are Third World people—black, brown, yellow-skinned? ... [as opposed to] “gentle, scholarly, middle-class, civilized people”.

What I find most alarming about this situation is the way it reveals the degree to which we as human beings still cannot come to view ourselves as members of one species—of one HUMAN race. If we truly believe in one human race, and if we lend any credence to the American Indian concept of “all my relations,” inflicting harm on any one group belonging to this human race, involves inflicting harm on the whole.

It is in this sense that I have described any act of genocide as an act of collective SUICIDE. Once we come to understand that we are ALL RELATED, that is, that we are all members of one collective human race, we must recognize that, in seeking to exterminate any other members of that race, we are killing OURSELVES. The basic prerequisite to coming to such an understanding is of course recognizing the essential humanity of ALL human life forms.

EMAIL TO A FRIEND X
Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags

?

More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  19th century actions prove 17th century events? (4+ / 0-)

    I'm surprised by something you do in this essay.  When I teach the first half of the American history study, I bring up the question of genocide in the second hour of the course, when I discuss Cortez and Pisarro and I discuss the fact that Mexico didn't reach its precontact population again until the 1950s.

    The problem here is the word deliberate. I agree that genocide doesn't happen without intention, and that  American behavior toward the Indians in the late 18th and early 19th century has genocidal characteristics, but you're using these examples to discuss the behavior of the colonists in the 17th century, and I don't think there was any intention there.

    As for "holocaust" I think that should be restricted to the actions of Nazi Germany during World War II and that applying it to any other occasion is a misuse of the term. Interesting diary!

    -7.75, -8.10; All it takes is security in your own civil rights to make you complacent.

    by Dave in Northridge on Sun Nov 25, 2012 at 06:45:58 AM PST

    •  I'd say that there were deliberate acts (5+ / 0-)

      that qualify as "genocidal" long before the 17th century. An example: the natives of the New World were looked upon by Columbus as excellent slave source material.

      Source 1
      Source 2

      ...those aren't exhaustive sources, but I think help show qualification of the complete disregard of the native populace and intent to use the population without regard to the potential consequences as falling well into at least two of the definitions of genocide.

    •  More on American Indians as slaves (7+ / 0-)

      can be learned from Ojibwa's excellent post on Native American Netroots - Indians 101: American Indians as Slaves +*.

    •  FTR: I'm not a historian. ;-) But a couple of (6+ / 0-)

      comments in response.

      I am not attached to the term "holocaust"--I've sketched out my issues with the term here. I prefer GENOCIDE because that term provides us with a LEGAL DOCUMENT we can use to make the case.

      Indeed, the "intent" issue--whether or not the genocide was "deliberate"--is the sticking point, especially in legal terms, but I act on the premise that an extermination of this magnitude does not happen by "accident" --and the best i can do is to collect evidence to support that premise.

      I appreciate you pointing out the time warp (I am often found guilty of this form of time travel!;-), but the brutality of the unsettler population from day one is documented...I suppose you could contend that the Pequot Massacre--where at least one rendering depicts the way the hacked off heads of Natives were kicked through the streets like soccer balls-- was an isolated incident, or that the evidence is "anecdotal"--you could say the same about Las Casas' account, but then aren't you saying that the unsettlers were  "merely" homicidal maniacs, not genocidal?

      How many homicides does it take to charge genocide? If the motive for these homicides was LAND, we do have a collective motive for these crimes (unless you wish to claim these unsettlers were just criminally insane--also a possibility, imo) , and we have eyewitness accounts from various sources....when do the homicides of history amount to genocide?

      Because really, the only issue seems to be whether there was INTENT. The homicides certainly weren't "accidental"--they were intentional. And there were millions of them. (How many millions, we cannot ascertain with certainty).

      What does it take to determine the MANNER (not the cause) of death to be GENOCIDE as opposed to homicide or accidental? That is one of the questions I pursue.

      •  It has to do with clarity (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Meteor Blades

        Absolutely, Indian hating is rooted in the European view of the natives of North America. There's an interesting book, Puritan Conquistadors: Iberianizing the Atlantic, 1550-1700 (2006), that shows that both the Spanish and the English thought the Indians were creatures of Satan, so incidents like the Pequot War fall under that heading. So I'm with you there.

        Problem is that I'm Jewish, and I've seen a genealogy produced by a distant cousin on my mother's side in which pages and pages and pages say "died in Terezin" or "died in Treblinka." I know that it wasn't just us too - Roma people, homosexuals, political dissidents, all kinds of "lice" - 12,000,000 in fact, executed over a six year period. As part of stated government policy. We all bring baggage to this, I guess.

        So I guess my question is: If a civilization doesn't know what causes fatal disease, disease that can kill 90% of a population that has never had contact with those particular germs, what responsibility should be assigned to that population for what's essentially a historical accident?

        -7.75, -8.10; All it takes is security in your own civil rights to make you complacent.

        by Dave in Northridge on Sun Nov 25, 2012 at 07:45:12 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  This always seemed to me a classic (4+ / 0-)

          smoke and mirrors.

          Epidemics happened. Epidemics killed most people.  It's now believed that leptospirosis may have been one of the early epidemics in New England, in addition to all the typically mentioned ones.

          Nonetheless, what do you call it when you massacre 5, 10% of a tribe in one day?

          Thank you to jayden, Dr Erich Bloodaxe RN, Aji and everyone in the Daily Kos community involved in gifting my subscription and gifting others!

          by Nulwee on Sun Nov 25, 2012 at 09:25:52 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  Kit Carson, the Glanton Gang, Ben Wright. (5+ / 0-)

            These people did murder entire villages within tiny tribes, premeditated.  I would argue that these were the most blatant acts of genocide, but far from the only ones.

            Thank you to jayden, Dr Erich Bloodaxe RN, Aji and everyone in the Daily Kos community involved in gifting my subscription and gifting others!

            by Nulwee on Sun Nov 25, 2012 at 09:27:19 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  According to something (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              GreyHawk

              Ojibwa wrote about pre-Columbian civilizations, there had already been European diseases that killed entire civilizations here before Columbus and the conquistadors.  That is different from sending blankets infesteed with smallpox.

              I think such hatred comes from an enforced view of the other as sub-human.  It frequently happens with propoganda during a war, where the enemy, whoever it might be, is indeed seen as a devil/animal.  But it was also the Christian view of things that bringing the true faith to the uncivilized was the only alternative to death for others.

              Republicans want to make government small enough to fit in your vagina..

              by ramara on Sun Nov 25, 2012 at 12:25:57 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

  •  We are all related. (8+ / 0-)

    What's so hard about that?

    Mitakuye Oyasin

    There is a simple but profound Lakota prayer: Mitakuye Oyasin.

    These two words mean All My Relations or We are All Related.
    To pray this prayer is to petition God on behalf of everyone and everything on Earth.

    Mitakuye Oyasin honors the sacredness of each person's individual spiritual path, acknowledges the sacredness of all life (human, animal, plant, etc.) and creates an energy of awareness which strengthens not only the person who prays but the entire planet.

    Thanks for the diary. Well done.
  •  I was reading in a post about Hawaii a couple days (5+ / 0-)

    ago that on some islands populations declined 90% within one year due to new diseases.

    When I start doing the math I realized that it was 300 years between when Columbus landed potentially bringing lethal pandemics and the time when Euro colonists reached the middle of our continent. Many peoples and civilizations could have passed away leaving no trace to be found today. We don't know how many people lived here, might have been quite a few.

    How big is your personal carbon footprint?

    by ban nock on Sun Nov 25, 2012 at 07:02:28 AM PST

  •  diarist (4+ / 0-)

    fine topic.please consider some links.  and separate your main point, it seems a bit lost at the end.

    Ted Kennedy: “The work goes on, the cause endures, the hope still lives, and the dream shall never die…”

    by jlms qkw on Sun Nov 25, 2012 at 07:14:04 AM PST

    •  Sorry for the sloppiness.... (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      puzzled, ramara

      unfortunately, I'm also going to have to "call this one in"--something I considered before posting....but then figured I...

      I have cited enough sources by name (title, direct quote, etc.) that whether I enter the terms into the search engine, cut, paste, hyperlink, etc., or the interested party does the google search on his/her end?....(with my apologies for not having included them)

      Normally, if I had the time, I would add links....but please also remember this is something I delivered as a TALK ten years ago....my audience didn't get hyperlinks, either! ;-)

      I did go in and separate the last paragraph....

      I actually have a couple of follow-ups in mind--on homicide, and suicide, and how these relate. If and when I get to those, I'll certainly include links from the get-go.

      And right now, I'm going to have to bug out of here to get exams and papers graded for classes tomorrow.

      Thanks for reading, and next time, there will be links.

  •  Thanks and a correction (5+ / 0-)
    the “execrable race” of red men and women was viewed from the onset as “non-human”
    This is an overstatement that does not serve you well in this otherwise illuminating and expansive article.  It took time for colonists to develop and propagate this ideology.

    For three generations (1607 - 1678), Native Americans and Europeans had trade, friendships, and numerous alliances (against other Native Americans).  See Nathaniel Philbrick's gripping account of how the almost neighborly and family-like interrelations between Plymouth Colony settlers and Native Americans drifted towards war, in Mayflower: A Story of Courage, Community, and War
    http://www.amazon.com/...

    A series of small wars (including the Pequot War in Connecticut) from Virginia to Connecticut culminated in King Phillip's War in Massachusetts, 1675-78 - a genocidal war in which 1/3 of all Massachusetts Indians and 1/10 of all European settlers were killed.  
    http://en.wikipedia.org/...

    As I understand it, it was at this time that colonists began radical dehumanization of Indians.  (Do they have souls, etc.)  The Salem Witch hysteria can be traced in part to the demon-infested (or PTSD) worldview of the settlers.

    Note that the bloody English Civil War (1642-1651) had ended only a generation earlier - and it exceeded the French Revolution in bloodiness and mortality.  (One third of all residents of Ireland were killed during the English Civil War....)The English were well-practiced in massacres and pillaging and though many settlers came to North America to start anew - or, in the case of Scots, were exiled to New England -  they seem to have brought with them a propensity for mass murder.  
    http://en.wikipedia.org/...

  •  You can't totally fault the Europeans and early (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    johnny wurster, ramara, VClib

    Americans.  Europe had been through the Black Death and other plagues which had decimated its population in the prior centuries, but also granted resistance to its descendants.  The north american indians had none of these resistances, so a measles outbreak might kill 2% of the europeans and 50% of the indians in a single outbreak.  Sans modern vaccines, that was pretty much unavoidable when the two populations met.  It would be an entirely different world history had these plagues not affected the natives so.

    In fact, its not so hard to imagine an alternate world history where a north american plague is transported back to europe and decimates its population, and european leaders desperate for workers import american indians, leading to a reverse colonization of europe.

    I'm not trying to dismiss the brutal policies the american government had towards the indians, but the effect of plague can neither be minimized nor assigned intent:  just because the colonists wanted the indians dead doesn't mean they had the ability to fabricate and spread a plague - it was unfortunately incidental to the two populations meeting.

    and their contempt for the Latin schools was applauded by Theodoric himself, who gratified their prejudices, or his own, by declaring that the child who had trembled at a rod would never dare to look upon a sword.

    by ban48 on Sun Nov 25, 2012 at 09:25:40 AM PST

    •  And with the state of science at the time (0+ / 0-)

      got blamed in some places on witchcraft and especially on the Jews.

      It's important to remember that during the Middle Ages and well into the 19th century religion was more than something one believed.  It was also the frame in which everything was seen, and was the science of the time even for such folks as Newton.  Of course there were exceptions, but it was where people turned for explanations of events.  This was not limited to Christians; all you have to do is read the Prophets and you can see how far back it goes with Jews.

      Republicans want to make government small enough to fit in your vagina..

      by ramara on Sun Nov 25, 2012 at 12:35:15 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  There is actually a wierd parallel here (0+ / 0-)

        between blaming the plagues on god's will (which colonialists did), and blaming the plagues on the europeans.

        Sometimes, shit does just happen.  You cannot blame the europeans any more than you can find someone to blame for the black death that swept through europe.  The colonialists did exploit the situation, but they did not knowingly and intentionally cause it.  Examine it from the flip-side:  how could the europeans have prevented the spread of plague?  Or, look at colonial contact in places like india where there was no plague and no decimation of the native population.

        And focusing too much on the search for culpability carries the risk of complacency: we do not need to worry about a modern plague so-much as we need to worry about terrorists spreading a plague, so we can cut the budget at the CDC and increase the budget of homeland security, because every knows, plagues don't just happen (but they can and do...)

        and their contempt for the Latin schools was applauded by Theodoric himself, who gratified their prejudices, or his own, by declaring that the child who had trembled at a rod would never dare to look upon a sword.

        by ban48 on Sun Nov 25, 2012 at 01:42:18 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

  •  this is some serious inside baseball! (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Kane in CA, VClib
  •  The banned poster wasn't THAT long a time on dKos. (0+ / 0-)

    User ID 423xxx had only been a member since July of this year.

    The Dutch kids' chorus Kinderen voor Kinderen wishes all the world's children freedom from hunger, ignorance, and war.

    by lotlizard on Sun Nov 25, 2012 at 11:52:37 AM PST

  •  Very well thought out (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    GreyHawk

    I have just a couple of comments - one, that among the devastations caused by the introduction of alcohol to the continent is fetal alcohol syndrome.  Michael Dorris' "The Broken Cord" gives an interesting take on the history of alcoholism among American Indians (and FASD) while telling the story of raising a child he adopted who had severe FAS.  

    Another is my reaction as a Jewish American to some of what you say of the history of the word and use of holocaust.  I, like Israel, was born in 1948, and knew many survivors.  I think that the experience of a national tragedy should make one more sensitive to others, but Israel and the Palestinians is a blind spot to many.  I recommend reading The Troubadour's excellent diary on the subject.

    Republicans want to make government small enough to fit in your vagina..

    by ramara on Sun Nov 25, 2012 at 12:15:39 PM PST

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site