FREE ESSAY ON GENOCIDE OF NATIVE AMERICANS

GENOCIDE OF NATIVE AMERICANS

Genocide: The Extermination of Native Americans
Native Americans, as a race, have suffered from the very beginning of contact with the
European colonists. Statistics largely support the case of genocide against the Natives.
In fact, Native Americans once constituted 100% of the population in North America,
whereas today they represent two percent of the population. The term genocide refers to
the systematic killing of a whole national or ethnic group, and the denial of the right
of existence to entire human groups, as homicide is the denial of the right to live
(Churchill, 365). This paper will give evidence that genocide was committed against the
Native Americans by the European colonists, whether it was entirely premeditated or not.
This paper will also show that the United States government failed to sign on to the
Genocide Convention for forty years. This, in itself, makes a very apparent statement.
The decline in population of the Native Americans began in 1492 with the settling of the
European colonists. Initially, the colonists had no intent on eliminating the Natives.
Instead, they were amazed at their "technological ingenuity, marveling as well at their
smooth functioning but complex machineries of government" (Stannard, 103). At the
beginning of the colonization process, the colonists and the Natives for the most part
kept to themselves. In fact, the early settlers praised the Natives for their
"peacefulness, generosity, trustworthiness, and egalitarianism, all of which were
conspicuously absent from English social relations of the time" (Stannard, 103). The two
groups even exchanged items with one another. The Natives would give the colonists beans,
pumpkins, corn, and many other vegetables, while the colonists would give the Natives
measles, small pox, and the flu. 
Disease was not the only factor that transformed the Natives. Pigs, cows, and horses
began running wild and free across most of the Americas, which had an affect on the
ecosystem. 
In the book, The Columbian Exchange, Alfred W. Crosby, JR. concludes by stating, "We, all
of the life on this planet, are the less for Columbus, and the impoverishment will
increase" (Crosby, 219). It was not until land became an issue, that the Natives and the
colonists began battling. In the eyes of the Europeans, land was unclaimed unless it had
a fence around it. The Natives, on the other hand, had no such belief. The Natives
believed they were borrowing the land from the Gods. When good, or habitable land began
to run thin, the colonists would take the land of the Natives. There were several ways
the colonists would take the land from the Natives, but there was one way in which the
colonists would take land that was just awful. This method involved the kidnapping of
young Native children and holding them hostage until the land was given to them
(Stannard, 105). This began the turning point of Native and colonist relations. From then
on, any Native who encountered the colonists "were captured, accused of being spies, and
executed" (Stannard, 106). Furthermore, Natives were lured into English settlements on
the pretence of peace and sharing of entertainment, where there they were attacked and
killed (Stannard, 106). This type of entrapment continued while hundreds upon hundreds of
Natives were executed at the hands of the Europeans. The hatred of the Natives became so
great that if any European were found peacefully associating with the Natives, they too
would be executed. In the minds of the Europeans, "This was the treatment for those who
wished to act like Indians" (Stannard, 105).
Two hundred years after the Europeans arrived, thousands of Natives had been killed by
deception, poisons, and some were even hunted. They were hunted by "Blood-Hounds to draw
after them, and Mastives to seaze them" (Stannard, 106). In addition, the mental approach
to warfare was extremely different between the Natives and the Europeans. For the
Natives, "taking a life was an occasion". Their type of warfare was described as "a kind
of play" (Stannard, 111). European soldier, Captain Henry Spelman, said that warfare
among the Natives had no "dicipline", so that when the Natives fought there was no great
"slawter of nether side" (Stannard, 111). During warfare, the Natives followed a strict
code of honor that usually kept the number of those murdered extremely low. John
Underhill described Indian warfare best when he said, "they might fight seven years and
not kill seven men" (Stannard, 111). 
Nevertheless, the Europeans had an entirely different mindset when it came to warfare.
The purpose of warfare for the Europeans was to eliminate or exterminate the enemy and
take their land. Their way of thinking was supported by scripture from the Old Testament,
the same scripture that describes God as avenging. Many European soldiers were reminded
of a phrase derived from Deuteronomy that states, "Thou shalt save alive nothing that
breatheth....But thou shalt utterly destroy them" (Stannard, 111).
That statement seemed to sum up the way the Europeans fought. As the tension between the
two sides grew fierce, the way of eliminating the other became more brutal. Massacre's
became a common way of executing a large amount of Natives at one time. The Pequot
massacre is an instance where a military leader, Mason, was planning nothing less than a
"wholesale massacre" (Stannard, 113). 
In the middle of the night, Mason, leading one group of soldiers and Underhill leading
another, attacked the Pequots from two directions at once. They swarmed the tribe,
"slashing and shooting at anything that moved" (Stannard, 113). Both Mason and Underhill
began ordering their men to set fire to the village. While the European soldiers were
watching men, women, and children bleeding and burning to death, Underhill reassured them
that "sometimes the Scripture declareth women and children must perish with their
parents" (Stannard, 114). Most Pequots men that survived the attack were hunted into near
extermination. While the Pequot women and children were captured and sold as slaves in
the West Indies. Once the Europeans had removed or killed the remaining Pequots, they
then removed the name Pequot from all New England's maps so that there was no
recollection of their existence (Stannard, 115). It is my belief the Pequot tribe was
obliterated because the Europeans viewed them as heathens and massacred the tribe based
on this reason alone. In addition, this incident could easily be a form of governmental
genocide given that European religious leaders played the role of government leaders and
initiated the massacre. 
The problem in using the term genocide, which was first used to describe the atrocity of
the Jews in World War II, is that Europeans regularly use methods of war that describes
genocide. The General Assembly maintains that genocide is a crime under International
law, which the civilized world condemns. In 1948 revisions were made to the original
draft condemning genocide and in December of that year the General Assembly unanimously
adopted it into law (Churchill, 364). 
Article II- In the present Convention, genocide means any of the following acts committed
with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial, or religious
group, as such: (a) Killing members of the group, (b) Causing serious bodily or mental
harm to members of the group, (c) Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life
calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part, (d) Imposing
measures intended to prevent births within the group, (e) Forcibly transferring children
of the group to another group (Churchill, 367). Although the United States and the
U.S.S.R were major advocates of revising the original international draft condemning
genocide, most of the countries involved in creating the draft were guilty in some way of
genocide. 
The only defense the United States might have for taking forty years to agree to the
International genocide laws, is there was no formal government during the time of
colonization. 
To conclude, I firmly believe, largely in part of statistical proof, that genocide was
committed against the Native Americans by the European colonists the British North
American colonies. Furthermore, it is my belief the United States failed to sign at the
Genocide Convention because they had no excuse, nor remorse for what occurred to the
Native Americans. I think genocide against the Native Americans is still occurring today.
Native Americans are either faced with being totally assimilated by the Western Culture
or dying out on the many reservations, in which they are kept there, out of the way and
out of mind, by supposedly helpful governments. I feel it is genocide when the older
Natives helplessly watch their children leave the reservations in order to make a living
in the civilized world. 
As this is taking place those children and young adults are turning their backs on their
heritage, language, and culture and willfully accepting the stereotypical views of
civilization". 
Although the United States, as a whole, has turned their back on the Native Americans
there are still some people trying to preserve the culture, stories, art, ways of life,
and spirituality of American Indian. Over the last fifty years, I have read and watched
as many minorities in North America such as African Americans, Hispanics, Asians, etc...
have had their causes heard, and have had some, if not all of their inequities addressed,
but I have heard very little about the Native Americans. It is my wish, that through
education, more people will be encouraged to help in the causes of the Native Americans.