WI there had been a genocide on American Indians?

Try reading up on good ol' Colonel Chivington and Andrew Jackson. Please, do this. The Indians were a victim of a genocide.

They're still here, but then, Hitler and Stalin didn't exactly succeed 100% at killing Jews and Kulaks, either.

IMHO, the experience the Indians had would have been a lot better for them had they been able to keep their full 1491 population in dealing with Europeans. Hell, that just gives me an idea for an ASBs thread...

American policy on Indians was schizophrenic. Some (like the above examples) really did push for genocide, but others (notably early missionaries and Americas late 19th century government) pushed for integration. Others (Jefferson being an important example) pushed for separation. Eventually integration became the main policy, after most Indians had already died or been pushed off their land, and the area that really experienced integration was the Northwest and the Great Plains.

Side Note: Jefferson originally felt much of the Louisiana purchase should be set aside for Indians, and that theory would later be used to justify the Indian Territory.

 


American policy on Indians was schizophrenic. Some (like the above examples) really did push for genocide, but others (notably early missionaries and Americas late 19th century government) pushed for integration. Others (Jefferson being an important example) pushed for separation. Eventually integration became the main policy, after most Indians had already died or been pushed off their land, and the area that really experienced integration was the Northwest and the Great Plains.

Side Note: Jefferson originally felt much of the Louisiana purchase should be set aside for Indians, and that theory would later be used to justify the Indian Territory.

Yes, our idea of what to do with them was schizophrenic. In the time-period from 1642 to 1891 or so, the genocidal idea was predominant. The Chivingtons dominated discourse, not the missionaries and Jeffersons.
 
Gee, when I saw the title I thought it was a DBWI.
I don't quite understand the OP: does it use the English meaning of "American", meaning that US States get in a killing frenzy, conquer the second largest continent in the world and proceed to massacrate nearly the entire population they've just conquered? Or it uses the (IE) Spanish meaning of "American" meaning that all states between Alaska and Tierra del Fuego gets in that killing frenzy and decide to kill all ameridians (witch means that ie the Inca Empire would take part in the genocide depending on the timeframe)
In either case, why isn't it a DBWI? The USA had commited acts of genocide against amerindians as well as several other American countries
 
does it use the English meaning of "American", meaning that US States get in a killing frenzy, conquer the second largest continent in the world and proceed to massacrate nearly the entire population they've just conquered?

That would be Africa.
In either case, why isn't it a DBWI? The USA had commited acts of genocide against amerindians as well as several other American countries

At no time did the USA ever follow a policy to exterminate the entire Native American population. They did commit some appalling massacres and carry out some atrocious actions like the Trail of Tears. Some whole tribes did disappear, wiped out by disease and warfare (with both whites and other NAs). But what did the most damage by far was their lack of immunity to our diseases... this wiped out over 90% of the population before the colonies even got going strong. If they had been immune, it's likely that NAs would be a much bigger part of the population today... the US would have had to deal with them better, since there would be so many more of them. As it was, the rapidly growing white population found comparatively tiny NA tribes sitting on fine ground and just pushed them off of it...
 
Maybe the title should read "WI America had a more focused, consistent, and official policy of genocide toward the Indians?"


In OTL during the ARW, 1/3rd of the Continental Army was relegated to keeping the Indians in check. George Washington decided that they did not only need to be defeated but they needed to be eliminated. However, the Iroquois and other tribes aligned with the British suffered from an outbreak of small pox, so the Indians ended up not being as big of a threat as George Washington had feared.


So . . .
WI the Indians did not suffer a small pox outbreak at this time?
There was no small pox vaccine back then, but methods of inoculation were well known. WI the British decided to initiate a major inoculation program with their Indian allies? The Colonist would still suffer from the disease (read "Pox Americana" - good book) but the Indians would not. The Indian threat would become even larger than George Washington originally feared. Several high-profile battles could be fought - and lost by the colonists. This could fan the flames of hatred against Indians throughout the Continental Army and the rebel Colonies. Once America gains it's independence, it is argued that the nation can not be secure so long as Indians live within, or even near, its borders. An official policy of genocide is then vigorously pursued.


----

Or if you want an earlier POD you could go back another 100 years to 1676. Have Nathaniel Bacon's govenorship of Virginia somehow made legitimate. Bacon's Rebellion was all about the right to kill indians, so he would continue this trajectory. This POD has an interesting twist because blacks and whites would join together against the Indians. Add in a more brutal King Philips War, to stir up hatred even more, and you could conceivably get genocide as an official policy.

---


Ugg, Why are dystopias always easier to imagine than utopias?
I know the Brits will make fun of me, but I feel compelled to disclose being part Indian myself.
 
As it was, the rapidly growing white population found comparatively tiny NA tribes sitting on fine ground and just pushed them off of it...

You appear to be in full agreement with John Wayne:

-"I don't feel we did wrong in taking this great country from them. There were great numbers of people who needed new land, and the Indians were selfishly trying to keep it for themselves."

Or perhaps with Paul Theroux?:

-"It is the simplest fact of Indian life: there are too many Indians".
 
You appear to be in full agreement with John Wayne:

-"I don't feel we did wrong in taking this great country from them. There were great numbers of people who needed new land, and the Indians were selfishly trying to keep it for themselves."

Or perhaps with Paul Theroux?:

-"It is the simplest fact of Indian life: there are too many Indians".

You really should apologise for that.
 
You really should apologise for that.

I don't know if I should. Besides I made that kind of stupid remark in another thread (about Genghis Khan in the New World), albeit it was meant as a joke. A student in anthropology made me come to my senses.
I felt it was my duty to do the same with others.
 
Sorry, off-topic:

does it use the English meaning of "American", meaning that US States get in a killing frenzy, conquer the second largest continent in the world and proceed to massacrate nearly the entire population they've just conquered?

That would be Africa.

and we go again;)...

I think that juanml82 uses the division we use here in Argentina, according to which the "Americas" are a single continent ("América").

That's not someyhing new. It isn't a modern attempt of South Americans to form part of the same continent in which the US is. In this part of the world, the Americas have been seen as a single continent since the days of its conquest. If you read texts from the colonial era, the Spanish born here are refered to as "americanos", and the continent as "América" (in singular). That scheme has been kept to this day.

If you are interested, I've started a threat about this at the chat a few weeks ago: https://www.alternatehistory.com/discussion/showthread.php?t=92789

I don't think that there's a reason sufficiently valid in order to prefer one division and discard the other, except the fact that one may be more frequently used worldwide than the other one.
 
Last edited:
I don't know if I should. Besides I made that kind of stupid remark in another thread (about Genghis Khan in the New World), albeit it was meant as a joke. A student in anthropology made me come to my senses.
I felt it was my duty to do the same with others.

Well you seem to be casting some pretty questionable aspersions at Dave, who was simply pointing out that the Indian Wars do not quite constitute a genocide. We've been over this before on this forum - we'd need to see clear evidence that government at the highest levels was committed to a policy of complete eradication. Without that it just isn't genocide, attempted or otherwise.

And as for whether you apologise, that's really up to you, but I'd ask you to read over your comment and think of how it sounds.
 
And as for whether you apologise, that's really up to you, but I'd ask you to read over your comment and think of how it sounds.

I think you should read Dave Howery's public profile. Dubious...

And there was cultural genocide, although I agree that there was no policy implemented to terminate the whole Indian "race" in North America. Certainly what happened in America was different from what occurred in twentieth-century Europe.

If this is how you understood it, my post was not meant as an aggressive remark against America's policies, but you have to take into account that the government was influential in enforcing deportation and such things. There was also much hypocrisy:

-"The United States have fulfilled in good faith all their treaty stipulations with the Indian tribes and have in every other instance insisted upon a little performance of their obligations."

Martin Van Buren

The Pilgrim Fathers considered Indians as "weeds" that had to be rooted out so that Christians may be able to prosper. That is how it began. At least, they were bent on genocide.
 
@ Admiral Brown: I'm not going to get into the flamefest that this is about to be. On your post about a more committed American policy of genocide let me say this:

I think it's unlikely the British could inoculate the Indians fast enough or in large enough numbers to do what you're trying to get at. Perhaps if the Smallpox epidemic had only hit certain large urban centers of the USA? Say the plague has outbreaks in Charleston, Richmond, Philadelphia, New York Boston, and a few others which die out after rushing through the major cities. Combine this with no outbreak in New Spain, and I think we can get something similar to your original idea.

I would image that this America would not have a trail of tears and would instead just allow settlers to rush in and kill the Civilized tribes. It would also be more committed to the Seminole war and probably wipe out any remaining Indians there. An American-Mexican war is probably inevitable in this TL, and there I would expect a larger Indian support for Mexico. I don't think it would significantly change the course of a war, and an American victory is in fact more probable as this America probably has a larger army. the war of 1812 is too unlikely in TL and too early for the effects of this POD to really show up.
 
I think you should read Dave Howery's public profile. Dubious...

eh... just what in my profile indicates that I'm all gung ho for genocide?
You appear to be in full agreement with John Wayne:

-"I don't feel we did wrong in taking this great country from them. There were great numbers of people who needed new land, and the Indians were selfishly trying to keep it for themselves."

Or perhaps with Paul Theroux?:

-"It is the simplest fact of Indian life: there are too many Indians".

And just what in any of my comments indicated that I liked or agreed with pushing the NAs off their lands? I didn't say I approved, just that it happened, mainly because the NAs had been so horribly reduced by disease. Frankly, it was bound to happen... every time a modern advanced culture butts up against a hunter/gather one, the latter always loses. That doesn't mean we couldn't/shouldn't have treated them better, but their way of life was going to be changed no matter what...

You're putting words in my mouth...
 
WI we put the question the other way round and the English and French colonies in the New World were subject to the Spanish Leyes de Indias that proctected amerindians?
 
This whole discussion trivializes the concept of genocide. True genocide has been a comparatively rare event in human history, at least within written history. Yes, during the nearly inevitable US expansion over north america, Native populations were subjected to brutal evictions, military invasions, massacres of whole towns, forced conversions, family dislocations, and all sorts of other deliberate measures to either make them leave areas sought by Whites or force their acculturation to Anglo-American culture. These constitute a wide variety of individual and corporate crimes against humanity equivalent to Eastern European pograms, the Christian Reconquista of Spain, Soviet agricultural collectivization, or the Japanese wars against China, but it is not "genocide" - the deliberate and organized effort by one people to physically eliminate every single member of another.
 
These constitute a wide variety of individual and corporate crimes against humanity equivalent to Eastern European pograms, the Christian Reconquista of Spain, Soviet agricultural collectivization, or the Japanese wars against China, but it is not "genocide" - the deliberate and organized effort by one people to physically eliminate every single member of another.
Taken all together, they do, actually.
 
In a way, we are speaking in 2 different languages here. There are mass killings: IE several powerful countries decide that slavery of certain people is legal so armed bands roam through the countryside, raze villages, kill every person who can't work, imprision the rest. Then they take it in a forced march where lots of those prisioners die, they embark them to another continent (a lot more of people dying through the journey) and at some point in the trip, they sell them. That process includes mass killing of human beings, that's beyond any doubt.
However after WWII a special type of mass killing enters the legal system: Genocide. However, due the political and legal relevance of the subject, there are a series of specific points that a specific mass killing has to have to become a genocide. If they don't fullfill all the necesary conditions, then it's not genocide. Sure, thousands or even millions have died, and it's a terrible thing but, as lawyers or burocreats we sit down, read the conditions and begin: "no, it doesn't fullfill all necesary conditions", "yes it does", eventually leading to flame wars.
My question is: is it worth it? Is it worth to analize mass killings checking if they fill certain conditions to tag them as the legal term "genocide"?
 
In a way, we are speaking in 2 different languages here. There are mass killings: IE several powerful countries decide that slavery of certain people is legal so armed bands roam through the countryside, raze villages, kill every person who can't work, imprision the rest. Then they take it in a forced march where lots of those prisioners die, they embark them to another continent (a lot more of people dying through the journey) and at some point in the trip, they sell them. That process includes mass killing of human beings, that's beyond any doubt.
However after WWII a special type of mass killing enters the legal system: Genocide. However, due the political and legal relevance of the subject, there are a series of specific points that a specific mass killing has to have to become a genocide. If they don't fullfill all the necesary conditions, then it's not genocide. Sure, thousands or even millions have died, and it's a terrible thing but, as lawyers or burocreats we sit down, read the conditions and begin: "no, it doesn't fullfill all necesary conditions", "yes it does", eventually leading to flame wars.
My question is: is it worth it? Is it worth to analize mass killings checking if they fill certain conditions to tag them as the legal term "genocide"?

Probably not. But your analysis of the history of the term makes it imperative that we not use a term such as "genocide", which is loaded with so much moral and legalistic baggage. Referring to the African Dispora (slavery), the US conquest and subjugation of native peoples, or the forced collectivization in the early 20-th century USSR as "genocide" makes it much more difficult for people to discuss the issues dispassionately.
 
Top