Native America and the Question of Genocide

by Alex Alvarez

Did Native Americans suffer genocide? This controversial question lies at the heart of Native America and the Question of Genocide. After reviewing the various meanings of the word “genocide,” author Alex Alvarez examines a range of well-known examples, such as the Sand Creek Massacre and the Long Walk of the Navajo, to determine where genocide occurred and where it did not. The book explores the destructive beliefs of the European settlers and then looks at topics including disease, war, and education through the lens of genocide.

Native America and the Question of Genocide shows the diversity of Native American experiences postcontact and illustrates how tribes relied on ever-evolving and changing strategies of confrontation and accommodation, depending on their location, the time period, and individuals involved, and how these often resulted in very different experiences. Alvarez treats this difficult subject with sensitivity and uncovers the complex realities of this troubling period in American history.

Genres: History, Nonfiction, Indigenous, American History

221 pages, Paperback

First published January 1, 2014

Reviews

[Howard · Rating 4 out of 5]

Disturbing but worthwhile book, available through our public library (Dauphin County). It's a review of Native American history from the days of Columbus through the present, by an author based in Flagstaff, near Walnut Creek Canyon National Monument. (I've been there, it's lovely - not far from Sedona, and directly beside I-40 east of Flagstaff.) The author is involved with "Genocide Studies," which has developed its own academic discipline since the term "genocide" was defined and accepted by the international legal & diplomatic community in the late 1940s. International law, the United Nations, et al. use the term "genocide" in a very specific way. Scholars, activists, and just plain folks are constantly trying to expand the definition of "genocide" to make it apply to situations not covered under the strict, original definition of the term. The book reviews many of the most egregious events in post-Columbian North American relations between Europeans and the indigenous peoples who greeted us upon our arrival in the "New World." That is uniformly depressing material, but it is important that we know and do not forget our own history. Then the rest of the book is a series of determinations of whether certain outrages, war crimes, policies, accidents, etc. are, or were, "genocide." Ultimately, my own feeling is somewhat like the author's -- the Euroamerican relationship with the indigenous Americans was horrible, and a disgrace, and a terrible example of how civilized people of one sort might treat civilized people of another sort. Calling the Euroamericans' treatment of the continent's indigenous people "genocide" is not strictly accurate because there was no uniform policy or consistent controlling authority with unwavering intentions, and no consistent approach to the issue of whether the continent could be shared, how it could be shared or in what proportions. But even if Native America was not subjected to "genocide" they suffered far too much at the hands of those representing European culture. I am interested in learning more about where "genocide" studies are taught, by whom, and to what end. Good work Alex Alvarez!

[David Stephens · Rating 4 out of 5]

The title of criminal justice professor Alex Alvarez's book about indigenous genocide is a bit misleading. It does address, in some cases, whether genocide was committed against indigenous groups, but it spends more time exploring what actually constitutes genocide as well as dispelling misconceptions about the natives.

The book begins its look at genocide with a brief look at Raphael Lemkin, the Polish lawyer who coined the term in the 1940s in response to the nazi's systematic violence toward the Jews. Lemkin wanted a word that went beyond mere "war crimes" or "human rights violations," and his efforts eventually led the UN to adopt a Genocide Convention in 1948.

While this has become the foundational legal definition of the term, several scholars have expanded the initial definition's somewhat limited scope in subsequent years, leading to many disagreements, including whether genocide must be state sanctioned, how different groups should be identified, and how cultural genocide compares to violence. One of the most contentious aspects of the definitional debate revolves around the ideas of intentionality and effect. That is, must a powerful government or faction desire to eradicate a relatively powerless group, or is it enough that their actions inadvertently lead to the deaths of many? Considering many natives died from disease and many nineteenth century U.S. generals had very mixed motivations, it is this question that determines whether most cases regarding indigenous tribes are genocide or not.

Alvarez also takes some time to muddy the black and white conceptions many Americans have about European and indigenous relations. He points out, for instance, that at least in certain cases, tribes were far from benevolent. The brutality of the Aztec empire angered many neighboring groups while a handful of northeastern tribes helped the Puritans decimate the Pequots in the 1630s. On the other hand, there were moments when Europeans and Americans at least made an attempt to stop the devastation of indigenous groups. One example that was new to me was Thomas Jefferson's attempts to slow the native death rates by sending Lewis and Clark across the country with smallpox vaccines. And while these nuances are certainly important to keep in mind, it's still hard to escape the long term trend of extermination that has persisted for five hundred years no matter how many periodic mitigating factors there may have been.

The real take away here seems to be that the term "genocide" is just not as important as it makes itself out to be. When international criminal courts can't find someone like Goran Jelisic—the self-described "Serbian Adolph"—guilty of genocide, then maybe it's time to settle for "war crimes" and "human rights violations." After all, the recognition of immorality in these far-reaching torrents of violence is far more important than its labelling.

[Tiffany · Rating 5 out of 5]

A book every US citizen should read and should definitely be mandatory in middle and high schools. Excellent writing on what is considered genocide in it's various forms and how that is even being debated by scholars as well as a brief history of the dismantling of indigenous tribes and their culture.

[Ferdinand Ramos · Rating 2 out of 5]

A tiresomely naive, if not purposefully obtuse, excusal of English settler colonialism in America.

How can one claim to explore the question of “intent to commit a genocide” while making no mention of manifest destiny, the homestead act, or any other explicit policy of dispossession?