APUSH
  • Calendar
  • Blog
  • Textbook
  • Period Materials
    • Period 1 - 1491-1607
    • Period 2 - 1607-1754
    • Period 3 - 1754-1800
    • Period 4 - 1800-1848
    • Period 5 - 1844-1877
    • Period 6 - 1865-1898
    • Period 7 - 1890-1945 >
      • New Deal Murals
      • Response to Economic Crisis
      • Hitler Documents
      • WWII Homefront Circles
      • Holocaust Intervention
    • Period 8 - 1945-1980
    • Period 9 - 1980-present
  • APUSH Exam Review
  • Writing Tips

Scored Discussion #2, Spring 2019

10/24/2018

 
​Use the reading selections, your take away's from the in-class discussion, and your knowledge of history to:

  1. Post one original question or thought provoking statement with references to the reading or outside knowledge related to your post.
  2. Reply with a question or thought provoking statement to at least three other original questions.

A reply to other's comments will only receive credit if it EXTENDS the discussion. Any "I agree, now let me say exactly what you just said or repeat what I said in my own original post again..." will not receive credit.  

If you were absent you may post extra comments here to make up the in-class portion of the scored discussion.  Each comment is worth 3 points AS LONG AS IT IS A NEW, ORIGINAL THOUGHT ON A DIFFERENT TOPIC THAN YOUR OTHER POSTS.  You need to comment enough to earn the 15 points of in-class participation in addition to the required one original-three response posts.

H
Lauren Boulia
10/24/2019 10:32:18 am

What I wish was more addressed personally in our class discussion was the efforts of some Europeans to advocate for the rights of Indians, or mixed race advocates like Elias Boudinot. What do you believe this activists looked like in the 15th century, when colonists were first arriving? Was the lack of activists like this the reason white superiority was able to take such deep root in America so early?

Taralyn Neri
10/24/2019 01:52:49 pm

The lack of activists is definitely part of the reason as to why the mistreatment went on for as long as it did, and why even now Natives are being swept under the rug, more or less. Throughout the history of America and colonization, however, most people were driven by their want for more land or materials, and were willing to fight almost anyone in their way. This could be literally anyone, as long as they had something that other colonists may have wanted. If there were activists in this time period, they may have made a small dent but since the vast majority were still believing in ideals similar to Manifest Destiny, they would not have made much of a difference in the long run. Had there been a vast majority of people who were against the mistreatment of Natives, I believe that maybe all the wrong that appeared wouldn't have happened or been a major problem in the first place.

Cynthia Yan
10/26/2019 12:20:45 pm

In class, we also learned that Las Casas advocated for the rights of American Indians to some extent, by emphasizing the brutality of the Spanish and trying to end the encomienda system. However, this doesn't mean that he wasn't necessarily a white supremacist for wanting Native Americans to be treated more humanely, which is also seen with white supremacist abolitionists. Even if more activism existed, I think white supremacy would still be one of the defining features of America because even if the European colonizers didn't want Native people to be treated as harshly, they'd still have the mindset that Whites were superior to other races.

Crystal Gayle
10/29/2019 09:26:41 pm

I believe that there may have been a few activists but not many as many Americans were searching for ways to benefit themselves. If more people advocated for the Natives and even other races, I believe racism and White supremacy would not become a norm and would lead to less conflict between them.

Dylan Thakur
10/31/2019 09:08:01 am

Personally I don't believe a lack of activists caused white superiority to take place. Colonists arriving in the new world already had feelings of white superiority in regard to African or Asian people. These activists were definitely minorities among the population, and were likely not listened to by many citizens. Sure, they may have influenced some new settlers, but the people in power who were making the decisions to persecute native americans weren't swayed by these activists.

Gustav Cedergrund link
10/24/2019 11:13:51 am

Even if one doesn’t agree that the actions of US towards the indigenous people should be considered genocide, almost all can conclude that these actions were oppressive of various Native American groups. As a result, a contemporary argument arises stating is that the United States should own up to their actions by providing reparations for Native Americans. Do you believe that reparations should be payed? If so, in what format?

Taralyn Neri
10/24/2019 02:04:49 pm

The reparations should be paid, without a doubt. Back in previous time periods and even today the government and society itself have a tendency of forgetting about Native people and what they had gone through and still continue to go through. As for how they should be repaid, I don't believe there's any real way to give to them what people took away from them in the past. A good start would be giving them excessive funding for their community, as well as more land for them to continue to grow on and stop turning them into outcasts with the lack of media and attention they get.

Lauren Boulia
10/24/2019 04:07:55 pm

because of the inability to truly place correct guilt to a singular party, I do not believe reparations should be repayed, solely because who would pay them and the groups who would recieve the reparations are so difficult to identify.

Crystal Gayle
10/29/2019 09:45:12 pm

Although I do believe that Natives should be paid reparations, I think that, as Lauren stated, Americans now would try to debate it as it happened long ago and no one now can take full responsibility. With this thought in mind I feel it would take a long time for a decision to be made on how Americans would own up to their actions.

Thien Do
10/24/2019 05:01:11 pm

I believe reparations should be payed. I believe that the format they should be payed in is not by money. The value of taking life should not be repented by thoughtless cash, but rather by giving back. What I mean by this is giving more funding to Native schools, hospitals, and infrastructure, while at the same time educating all US citizens all the events that had happened. This way we help them and show everyone Native identity.

Thien Do
10/24/2019 05:17:56 pm

I also believe that there should be more Native diversity in public schools in in order for both groups to better interact this time.
- My comments going off of what Taralyn said, more specifically.

Austin Yao
10/25/2019 11:10:49 am

Reparations should definitely made, to cease the cycle of poverty that exists within Native Reservations. Thus, rather than in the form of monetary deposits, reparations should be in the form of increased welfare, opportunities for collegiate level schooling and consideration in jobs, as well as more provisions for better infrastructure within these reservations.

Arshia Haq
10/29/2019 05:28:28 pm

I do believe that reparations should be paid, although it was in the past, damage is still prevalent in today's society. This should be paid in small ways, such as from our tax dollars.

Isadora Siguenza
10/29/2019 11:47:17 pm

Yes, I believe that reparations should be paid and the United States should provide this for the Native Americans. In Lewy's article he mentions in his last paragraph that placing blame on the United States now will not benefit that Native Americans in any way. However, I think that reparations should be paid as for the justice and acknowledgement of what had happened. This could be in the format of giving back to the community and providing stability for them.

Aiden Hall
10/30/2019 01:27:11 pm

A good parallel to this question is do you think the new german government after the end of WW2 should still have payed the war reparations they owed from WW1? If your answer is no, then why would it be any different for native Americans in the U.S.? No one who prosecuted these crimes against native peoples are still alive today, and their actions are vilified by a majority of the population. So what reason would we have to give these modern day native nations money? Would it help give them back the nation we took from them? Would it reinstate their culture that we robbed from them? Would it ever forgive the insults so many of our ancestors dealt them? No.

Ryan Xiao
10/30/2019 07:57:02 pm

I do believe that reparations need to be paid to the Indian communities that were affected. However, there needs to be caution with the parties in charge of paying these reparations. This could be used as justification for more discrimination. For example, the boarding schools that Indians were put in to be brainwashed were most likely justified by mentioning that it was to repay them by "civilizing" them.

Taralyn Neri
10/24/2019 01:58:08 pm

In the Roxanne Dunbar-Ortiz's article, she talks about when the UN Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide decided exactly what they would classify as a genocide, and what they wouldn't classify as a genocide. They picked a few precise categories that would sum up what they were trying to say. These include killing members of the group, causing serious bodily/mental harm to members of the group, deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole/in part, imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group, and forcibly transferring children of the group to another group. Do you feel that there are categories that aren't as necessary as other ones, or there should be different specifications as to what may make something a genocide? How might changes in these groups change the way that we see the question of if the mistreatment of natives is considered a genocide or not?

Daniel Mariano
10/26/2019 08:39:19 pm

I feel that the classifications are already good how they are but maybe should have more than one requirement to be considered a Genocide. In effect to the question of mistreatment of natives it would still be considered a Genocide.

Yusuf Zayan
10/26/2019 10:25:56 pm

I think that the classifications of a genocide made in the UN convention should be slightly altered. This is mostly because many of the criteria are extremely broad. This makes it very difficult for everyone to come to an agreement about whether or not an event should be considered genocide. The lack of specifications in the criteria is what allowed us to debate whether or not what happened to Indians was a genocide or not. For example, the first few classifications for a genocide do not specify how much or what percent of the population needs to be killed in order for it to be classified as a genocide.

Hallie Salas
10/28/2019 09:20:31 pm

I found it interesting how there were certain defined categories that separated a genocide from a different mass situation of violence and death. With that being said, I do believe all the categories included do a good job to represent how a genocide is defined. I think if there were to be more "requirements" added to the list the term would become too specific and we would not associate genocide with what we now think of it as.

Crystal Gayle
10/29/2019 08:20:19 pm

I believe that the meanings of the acts of genocide are vague and leave it up to the person's perspective and beliefs to create a real definition to them. I also think that whether or not an act is seen as an act of genocide can also be biased to towards the people victim to it and/or the people doing it.

Aiden Hall
10/30/2019 01:35:30 pm

Genocide is such a loaded word, its use is widespread and ultimately its definition is altogether separate from its accepted connotation. The word genocide as whole means many different things to different people. To call this event genocide deprives it of context and all the nuances it has, aligning it more in meaning with events such as the holocaust. To call this event genocide does no justice to the actual events and actions on both sides and causes people to search for a historical situation which never existed. To call this event genocide makes people forget what actually happened.

Anastasia Neff
10/24/2019 02:08:28 pm

Something I would have liked to talk about more is how this event was related to other events in US history, such as our last topic, The Mexican-American war. In both of these events the US pushed the people out of their land by provoking them to take action first. When these people took action or engaged in battle first because of our provocation we then had a reason to justify our further attacks on those people. This idea of finding a way to justify our horrific actions is a pattern seen often in American History.

Taralyn Neri
10/24/2019 02:12:01 pm

To add to this, we can relate it to Lewy's article. In his article, he repeatedly talks about how the Native Americans were the ones who attacked first, justifying the actions of the colonists who fought them. This, in some ways, is extremely bias, as most of the time the Natives were on the defensive side merely trying to protect what they already owned before others came to snatch it from them. This happens with many other events in history, with the white man being seen as the good guy and completely disregarding the amount of destruction and death that follows after them. It happened in the Mexican-American war, the Civil War, and other periods in history.

Lauren Boulia
10/24/2019 04:04:30 pm

while I don't disagree with the overly common portrayal of the white man as the "good guy," I think it's important to identify the few white men/mixed race men in history that stood up for the Indians, like Elias Boudinot, and even the sentiments expressed by Thomas Jefferson on the subject of wishing to issue smallpox vaccines to Natives.

Lauren Boulia
10/24/2019 04:10:38 pm

our discussion revolved around other similar events in history for a long amount of time, and it was discussed that other "Wars" cannot be considered genocide (like the Mexican American war) because they are involved in the acts of war. Do you agree with this statement?

Hallie Salas
10/28/2019 09:23:49 pm

I feel like this question, and the whole debate around whether a War can be treated as a genocide, revolves around the definition of genocide. It is more than likely the conditions needed to consider something a genocide were occurring during this War yet they are considered different because there is the element of fighting and resisting. So no, I do not agree with this statement because how can a genocide and War be separated when they contain the same elements that may classify one as the other.

Isadora Siguenza
10/29/2019 11:53:06 pm

In our discussion this was a topic that was argued significantly. I don't agree with the statement that other "Wars" like the Mexican American War and others cannot be classified as a genocide. There are certainly wars and battles that do not qualify but that also does not rule out the possibility. It is mainly around the definition of genocide itself which was also argued in the class discussion, but the majority had come to the conclusion that the definition in Dunbar Ortiz article with all the elements was the official definition of the word, in that case I believe it would be possible to categorize events that were classified as war to a genocide due to all the conditions

Kara Musteikis
10/24/2019 04:54:19 pm

The text said that mass murder doesn't define genocide and there isn't a certain number of people that need to have died to be considered genocide, but genocide seems to have mass murder of a specific group like in the Holocaust with the mass number of Jews were killed. Does genocide tend to have mass murder involved with it? Are there any genocides that don't involve mass murder?

Uma Bhat
10/24/2019 05:03:40 pm

I'm not sure how to specifically answer your question, but some genocides don't necessarily mean total wipeout. During the Kashmiri-Pandit genocide (1990), the policy used by proxy armies was to kill 800-900 to incite terror, and then drive the rest out of the land using other methods of violence (but not necessarily mass murder). As long as the actions of the group consist of actively targeting one cultural/ethnic group INTENTIONALLY, there doesn't have to be large-scale wipeout for the events to be considered genocide. Sterilization, cultural wipeout through assimilation, etc. are also methods of genocide.

Thien Do
10/24/2019 05:22:01 pm

I kind of understand what you are asking, and I would say, probably not. Popularly known genocides are known to have mass murder, but that's because of the scale of it. It's like crime. Small crimes aren't usually noticed, but large crimes are posted all over the public. From this example, we cannot really say that all crimes tend to be big crimes. There are most likely genocides that don't involve mass murder, but we haven't heard of them because most likely, it's not on a large enough scale to be noticed by the general public.

Yusuf Zayan
10/26/2019 10:32:47 pm

I think this is a situation where if one thing is true that constitutes the second thing being true, but if the second thing is true that doesn't constitute that the first thing is true. A genocide will always have mass murder in it, but mass murder won't always also be a genocide. As stated in the text, the difference is that a genocide is "committed with intent to destroy in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial, or religious group."

Sprihaa Kolanukuduru
10/28/2019 05:23:00 pm

Genocide typically is an act of horror committed with the intent to wipe out a whole classification of people. These actions are done with proper organization and preparation with various people involved in the action. I think that genocides for this matter result in mass murder because of the way the acts are structured.

Anastasia Neff
10/28/2019 07:32:35 pm

I believe that many genocides have mass murder associated with it, but there are also many that don't. One example of this is the Black War in Australia. The Black War was between British colonists and aboriginals in Tasmania. Although only as estimated 600 people died it is still considered a genocide. I also believe that because the conflict with the Native Americans didn't have as many casualties people often don't think of it as genocide compared to larger mass murders like the Holocaust.

Anushka Vaidya
10/29/2019 09:18:52 pm

Genocides tend to be described with mass murder, and most of the well-known ones involve the killing of a specific cultural group. But the article states genocide can be "causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group." This implies that a genocide could also be categorized by the mental suffering and damage done to a group as well.

Aakash Gala
10/31/2019 06:03:52 pm

Genocides are considered crimes against humanities or mass atrocities which would imply that genocides do have the result of wiping out of mass populations which are targeted based on race, religion or ethnicity.

Kara Musteikis
10/24/2019 05:01:01 pm

How do you feel about the Dunbar-Ortiz comparing the what the Native Americans were experiencing to that of the Jewish during the the Jewish Holocaust? Do you agree with the author and think that they were similar and could be compared?

Uma Bhat
10/24/2019 05:52:04 pm

1.How would you compare the perspective of the second author to current issues like the shootings of POC by police, where many of them have “disclaimers” attached with their death so as to preserve the American reputation? While he might have a point, it often feels as though he offers "excuses" for American acts of violence.
2. Furthermore, I think something that parallels between POC struggles of then vs. today is a conflict we discussed in class (whether genocidal acts are reflective of whole groups of people). For example, many books by prominent Black authors have described shootings by police officers as reflective of the inherent biases of some White groups. To what extent would you say, in this case, that the actions of White groups against Indians were reflective of overall US viewpoints?

Uma Bhat
10/25/2019 05:14:04 pm

*accidentally replied

Jakub Kreuter
10/26/2019 04:08:51 pm

Violence is without a doubt a pivotal part of American history with Native populations, whether you think it's perpetrated by individuals or sanctioned by the government. This however doesn't however draw a conclusion of genocide. In many parts of the world an objectively weaker group may be dominated by another, where in the victor typically decides the conditions of surrender. This is not unlike Indian Wars in North America and subsequent land treaties favoring the American Government.

Kailynn Roberts
10/27/2019 11:00:33 pm

I believe Dunbar-Ortiz's comparison to the Holocaust was a logical move to solidify the position on Native American genocide. The Holocaust is the most known genocide, so by using it as a comparative element it illustrates that both events were genocides by the amount of overlapping elements. I definitely agree with the author with the similarities and the comparing of each other.

Sprihaa Kolanukuduru
10/28/2019 05:24:59 pm

I think it's fair that they were compared because they both were two groups facing violence due to prejudice leading to the goal or extermination. I feel like if you break genocide down into its stages or requirements, you could find similarities between the two happenings. I feel like Dunbar- Ortiz could've done this for an better evidence of her claim.

Hallie Salas
10/28/2019 09:27:46 pm

While I do understand the comparison of tragedy being equated if it helps the reader have a better understanding of the Natives treatment, I think it is not good to similarly compare these events. It belittles each tragedy and takes away from the overall impact of separate events.

Rushil Sudunagunta
10/30/2019 06:42:19 am

I believe that the comparison of the Native American situation to the Holocaust is not a good argument or addition to any argument. The Holocaust was one of the worst cases of genocide in history, and therefore it shouldn’t be the basis of comparison for determining whether something was a genocide or not. The magnitude of an event does not have to be at or above the magnitude of the Holocaust to be considered genocide.

Aiden Hall
10/30/2019 01:39:30 pm

Comparison in this case means equivocation, and in this case equivocation is impossible. That is not to say that what happened to the natives was not equally terrible to the holocaust, it is to say that it was vastly different. The holocaust was an event persecuted for less than a decade mostly in western europe, the indian removal took place over 400 years across an entire continent. Equivocation here is a gross misunderstanding of both situations. So no, I do not agree with dunbar ortiz.

Dylan Thakur
10/31/2019 09:13:44 am

I believe that the holocaust had some similarities to the Native American persecution, however the intentions of the Nazi's differed from the Americans. The Nazi's wanted to kill the Jews for the pure reason of getting rid of them from the face of the earth. The Americans wanted to get rid of the Americans in order to freely settle and expand. I agree that they have similarities and could be compared, however, I think the fact that the holocaust took place over 5 years while the Natives were killed over 100s of years, makes them slightly different.

Kara Musteikis
10/24/2019 05:16:23 pm

There are 4 distinct periods in US history in which documented policies resulted in genocidal acts from US administration. These are; the Jacksonian era of forced removal, CA gold rush in Northern California, during Civil war & post civil war era of Indian wars in the Southwest and Great Plains, & 1950s termination period. Which of these periods and/or policies do you believe contributed the most to the genocidal acts that the Native Americans were victims of?

Hadley Seifert
10/27/2019 01:15:39 pm

I believe the Jacksonian era of forced removal contributed the most to the genocidal acts that Native Americans were victims of. During the Jacksonian era, President Jackson signed the Indian Removal Act, which started the new wave of discriminatory policies against Natives. I believe it can be argued that due to these new policies, Americans became more hostile towards Natives and took a more violent approach towards them when moving them west.

Kailynn Roberts
10/27/2019 11:03:35 pm

I believe the Jacksonian era of forced removal consisted the most genocidal acts against Native Americans. Genocide is usually thought to be the vast amount of deaths of a certain group inflicted by another. In the Jacksonian era the greatest amount of Native Americans died, especially on the trail of tears.

Jessica Xia
10/28/2019 08:34:16 am

I believe the post civil war era of Indian wars contributed the most because Americans used these as justification for their violent actions. They used the wars as a way of saying the Indians were already violent.

Isadora Siguenza
10/29/2019 11:58:12 pm

The Jacksonian Era is the most distinct period of time that resulted in genocidal acts from the United States government. An example of this is the Indian Removal Act. The law had allowed the president to negotiate with Native American tribes for their removal to federal territory in exchange for their homeland that white settlers would live.

Aditya Tripathi
10/24/2019 05:28:39 pm

Why were most Native societies pushed out instead of enslaved during westward expansion?

Dhruv Joshi
10/24/2019 06:54:36 pm

The main reason for this was mainly due to how easily Native Americans got sick from diseases and died as a result. European powers actually used Indigenous peoples as early forms of slaves (Spanish encomienda system), however, it quickly fell apart as Native American resistance to disease wasn't greatly developed, causing mass deaths among the Natives, making them an unreliable labor force. This is basically the reason we switched to an African enslavement system, as African populations were much more resistant to diseases, and were able to work for much longer periods of time.

Devin Bhatt
10/24/2019 08:31:07 pm

Some Native Americans were still enslaved just not to the extent as African Americans. Many were pushed out because these Native societies were not just a small group of people. These societies had a large amount of people and had their own system of government. It would have not been smart for the Americans to provoke the Natives by enslaving there people. Although this is true, there were definitely Native Americans that were sold to Americans for other products.

Femi Chiegil
10/24/2019 09:14:15 pm

This is due to how Indian populations were unable to resist European diseases so they didn’t live as long in captivity. Also, Indians knew their territory well and could escape more easily. Because of this,the Africans became the preferred slaves because of their resistance to disease and inability to escape.

Arshia Haq
10/29/2019 05:35:18 pm

Many native societies were pushed out due to inflicted death, this could be disease, war, and some were also used for slavery, although it was unstable due to the Indian's death rate.

Crystal Gayle
10/29/2019 09:51:01 pm

As I do think some Natives were enslaved, I remember from reading from one of the previous chapters that Africans were physically stronger and not as prone to disease as Native Americans were. This can explain to why they weren't used as slaves as much because of their susceptibility to disease.

Dylan Thakur
10/31/2019 09:17:19 am

I think that many Native societies were pushed out rather than enslaved because African Slavery had already proven to be superior. The natives were very susceptible to disease and had developed treaties with America to the point where they had more "rights" than African slaves.

Aakash Gala
10/31/2019 06:31:55 pm

Native Americans were weaker than African Americans when it came to labor. Native American resistance to disease was very poor as seen during the time of the European colonists which is why the labor force switched to african americans.

Ashlyn Dumaw
10/24/2019 05:41:14 pm

In our class discussion, we briefly touched on possible bias in Dunbar-Ortiz's selection. The introductory paragraph in that document reveals that she has a part-Indian mother. In what ways do you think this connection affected her argument? There is ample evidence supporting both sides, but do you think that her connection predisposed her to picking one side? Even further, how do you think that our individual experiences affect our judgement of this conflict and how can we combat this to form more unbiased conclusions?

Uma Bhat
10/24/2019 05:57:01 pm

If Dunbar-Ortiz has bias in her article, wouldn't it be fair to also consider Lewy's (most likely) also inherent biases? He was born to a Jewish family that survived the Holocaust, and as such would obviously not believe that violence against Natives would constitute genocide given his parents' POV. Not to say that his points weren't accurate -- they were, to some extend, although not fully wrapped up -- but feel like both the authors had some bias.

Uma Bhat
10/24/2019 05:57:21 pm

*I feel like

Thien Do
10/24/2019 07:37:03 pm

Of course it's fair to consider Lewy's inherent biases. Both have their own individual biases and that's what makes them unique authors. This also constitutes their styles of defending their argument. I feel like Dunbar-Ortiz takes the incident more personal, because her identity's history has some ties to the event. This is perhaps why she pushes forward her argument very strongly. Lewy on the other hand does not have a personal history with the Native removal, but instead the Holocaust. This is likely why he argues that the Native removal was bad, but he seems to feel unsure about his perspective because he does not have personal ties to it, and that's why he doesn't conclude his article strongly.

Thien Do
10/24/2019 07:31:49 pm

I think this connection affected her argument as it was part of her own identity. I believe that because of this connection, she may have slightly leaned towards the Natives. I believe that our individual experiences affect our judgement of this conflict because we sympathize with the side that are similar to experiences that we have. We can combat this to form more unbiased conclusions by putting ourselves in different people's shoes, as well as presenting all of the hard cold facts.

Sprihaa Kolanukuduru
10/28/2019 05:27:37 pm

Both the authors definitely had their own sources of bias. I think the best way to analyze these articles would be to look at their evidence first and analyze it from our own points of view and then understand the viewpoint of the author. I don't think that she was harshly swayed by her source of bias though. Her categories of argumentation are good.

Rushil Sudunagunta
10/30/2019 06:43:54 am

I think her connection to Native Americans definitely influenced her and what side she supported, but I don’t think that it discredited her argument. She still uses evidence to support her argument. Lewy also had a connection that influenced his argument. Connections don’t make an argument wrong and bias isn’t a reason to necessarily completely discredit something.

Siyona Shah
10/24/2019 05:54:24 pm

The author, Guenter Lewy, claims that the horrors that Natives Americans faced were nothing compared to those faced by Jews during the Holocaust. Do you believe that this is true? If yes, should every genocide be compared to the Holocaust? Does the fact that the situation of the Native Americans was not as horrific as the holocaust a valid reason to make this the situation of the Native Americans not the equivalent of a genocide?

Taralyn Neri
10/24/2019 06:01:55 pm

The Holocaust should be considered the worst possible genocide, not the standard as to what a genocide should be. It's also not entirely easy to say whether or not Natives and Jewish people were at the same level, as it's two entirely different situations. There are different levels of tech in both time periods and a different end goal in mind. Along with this, the Native Americans had their mistreatment stretched out for a much longer period of time. And as for the last question, the first article we read spoke of what small groups were classified as something that a genocide can have. It was said that to be classified as a genocide, an event only had to have one of these traits, yet what Native Americans went through had all of those traits. If it fits the categories of a genocide, even if it isn't at the same level as the Holocaust, it should be classified as a genocide.

Uma Bhat
10/24/2019 06:02:28 pm

A few points:

1. Lewy family had survived the Holocaust, so of course he would argue that the Holocaust could not be compared to the killings of Natives.
2. I do think that there were genocidal actions, but I don't think there was a full scale genocide occuring.
3. The Holocaust was one of the most prominent, large scale genocides, and we shouldn't have to "compare" genocides to decide whether something was wrong or not. I still wouldn't argue that the Natives faced genocide (with the same points that the second author made referring to the definition of genocide having to have a set intent), but this is not because of any comparisons with the Holocaust.

Logan Phinney
10/24/2019 10:42:10 pm

Personally I think that the two events are not really comparable. First off, Nazi Germany specifically designed the most efficient ways to exterminate as many people as possible in concentration camps. This is very far off from the battles, massacres, and murders that occured on both sides by Indians and Americans. During WWII, Jews did not resist German control as much as Native Americans did. The Holocaust spanned less than a decade, whereas the conflicts in North America spanned three centuries.

Kingston Hill
10/29/2019 09:42:31 pm

I would disagree with you Logan. Although it is true that the Natives put up a resistance to Europeans coming in and were involved in wars that still doesn't change the fact that what happened here was a genocide. When looking at the policies put in place by the US government and then carried out by it's peoples and the different massacres that occurred it's hard to say that just because they tried to fight back that it makes the US justified in their actions. Also many Jews also attempted resistance by hiding and fleeing countries invaded by Germany at the time.

Meghan Walker
10/25/2019 10:42:41 am

I think the point to compare the Native American genocide to that of the holocaust was a rather irrelevant point. Dunbar-Ortiz mentioned that it's not whether the genocide was completed, or the scale it was carried out to, but the intent behind the actions of the oppressors that constitutes genocide. I believe comparing every instance of genocide to the Holocaust is harmful and dismissive of peoples experiences and the lives lost in any genocide. Just because it was well known, doesn't mean that it is the absolute measure of any genocide.

Allison Charney
10/27/2019 07:53:35 pm

I do not agree with Lewy on this subject. The holocaust should be viewed as the worst type of genocide, but not the standard. Although what the native Americans faced was not as traumatic or horrible as what happened to the Jewish in the Holocaust does not mean that their suffering was any less valid. Comparing different types of human suffering just creates more divisions and should never be done.

Kailynn Roberts
10/27/2019 11:09:51 pm

I feel that the Native Americans faced horrors equal, or greater, to that of the Jews in the Holocaust. The Native Americans were persecuted for a vaster period of time, the attacks on their culture has albeit removed them from mainstream anything, they died largely by disease and war, and all there land was taken with no regaining of it. Innocents were murdered in both events but the greatest lose occurred to the Native Americans because they have been eradicated from their home, their land, their culture, and their vast amount of ancestors. The Jewish community somewhat came back from the Holocaust and still survive today, but Native Americans are so few in numbers and receive no attention to their existence.

Kara Musteikis
10/28/2019 03:56:44 pm

I do agree with Lewy with how the Native Americans experience differed from that of the Holocaust because the Genocidal Convention stated that genocide of acts “committed with intent" to destroy a specific group. The Convention puts a great deal of emphasis on the "intent" of genocide. Since most of the genocidal acts used against the Native Americans such as disease was not intentional to kill the group, it advocates that the Native Americans were not victims of genocide. I don't think that this means that every possible genocide should be compared to the Holocaust, but should look at the intentions behind the genocidal acts to determine if it really is genocide or not. Also while the Native Americans didn't face the same horrors of the Holocaust they still suffered greatly and experienced all 5 acts that constitute genocide which could justify that the Native Americans were victims of genocide.

Bryce Hagstrom
10/28/2019 11:15:30 pm

I agree that the Holocaust was one of if not the worst genocidial events, surpassing the Indian genocide. However I don't believe comparisons should be draw between other events and the Holocaust to establish if that event is a Holocaust because the actual definition of the word doesn't include that severity.

Darren Chang
10/29/2019 06:26:30 pm

A violent event does not need to be as horrific as the Holocaust to be considered a genocide. Although I personally don't believe what happened to the Native Americans exactly a genocide, the event can be put on a similar level as a genocide in terms of death toll and effects in the Native population afterwards. There have been smaller genocides than the Holocaust, and any event that is less horrific shouldn't be discounted if it doesn't "top" the horrific events list.

Crystal Gayle
10/29/2019 09:56:47 pm

I think comparing all genocides to the Holocaust is unfair and somewhat undermines the hardships and troubles other groups have been through. Although the Holocaust is one of the biggest and most known genocides, I think each one should be looked at without bias and such a high standard as they are all done for different reasons and under different circumstances.

Logan Siege
10/31/2019 03:02:07 pm

I believe that the main problem when comparing Native Americans genocide to the Holocaust is that there is much less documentation on the execution of Native Americans in the United States. Although some may argue that the Native Americans struggled less than the Jewish population did during the Holocaust, this should not discredit the fact that Native Americans did in fact experience genocide as their people were targeted in means of extinction.

Seokhee Kim
10/24/2019 05:57:52 pm

During our seminar we talked about disease and how it impact the population of Native Americans. So my questions is, how significant was the role of disease during the genocide of Native Americans? Does it decrease the American's accountability?

Dhruv Joshi
10/24/2019 06:47:48 pm

I think it could be reasonably argued that disease played a large role, if not the largest, in the killing of Natives during European colonization and westward expansion. Common diseases, such as smallpox, cholera, influenza, etc, were among the most deadly for Native tribes across the Americas, so much so, that European powers started using it as one of the first forms of biological warfare (infected blankets). This quote from the article accurately describes just how much of an effect disease had in the killing of the indigenous peoples, “The most hideous enemy of native Americans was not the white man and his weaponry, …, but the invisible killers which those men brought in their blood and breath. Around 75 - 90% of Native deaths resulted.”

Era Joshi
10/25/2019 09:10:10 pm

While I do feel disease was a major role in the decline of the Native Americans, it was definitely not the only one that caused this decline. The article written by Ms. Dunbar-Ortiz states other factors that contributed to this decline such as warfare, outright butchery, malnutrition and starvation, the loss of will to live or reproduce, and deportation and enslavement. I feel that noting there were other factors that caused a decrease in Native populations is important, instead of blaming their decline just on disease alone.

Siyona Shah
10/27/2019 11:40:26 am

While I do believe disease played a significant role during the genocide of Native Americans, I don't believe it decreases the American's accountability in the genocide. Disease or no disease, the Native Americans were treated terribly.

“From the colonial period through the founding of the United States and continuing in the twentieth century, this has entailed torture, terror, sexual abuse, massacres, systematic military occupations, removals of Indigenous peoples from their ancestral territories, forced removal of Native American children to military-like boarding schools, allotment, and a policy of termination.”

This quote gives the reader more perspective on how horribly the indigenous peoples were treated. The quote states that they were victims of sexual abuse and torture. The natives were forced to leave their hometowns, the place their ancestors were born and raised, and move west. It also states that the oppression and genocide continued from the colonial period and throughout the 20th century. This really brings in the time perspective that natives suffered for centuries not just a few years. This quote provides more evidence that the Native Americans were the victims of genocide.

Allison Charney
10/27/2019 07:50:44 pm

I believe that disease played a really large role in America’s genocide against the Native Americans. It also decreases America’s responsibility because they did not fully understand how disease was transmitted at this time. The Native Americans had not had the exposure to diseases such as small pox that the European settlers had, therefore the diseases had more drastic effects on them. This takes the blame for the spread of the disease away from the Americans.

Kailynn Roberts
10/27/2019 11:15:46 pm

Disease played the greatest impact on the Native Americans populations. Even in WWII the greatest amount of Jewish fatalities was done by disease. Even though the diseases were not done as weaponized illnesses does not mean the carriers are not accountable. The direct link between disease and the carriers was the living conditions they put both the Native Americans and the Jews in. The living conditions consisted of starvation, extreme temperatures, lack of clothing, sleep deprivation, and overworking. All these elements were inflicted on their already weak immune systems. The carriers new what they were doing with every move they made against the Jews and the Native Americans to ensue their utter destruction.

Arabella Cai
10/29/2019 11:19:24 am

I personally do not believe that disease was so significant a factor that led to the Natives population decline. In the "Yes, Native Americans Were the Victims of Genocide" document by Dunbar-Ortiz, she suggested the idea that indigenous population decline was mainly due to biological factors such as disease was conveniently absent from the fact that the narratives were over three centuries of colonial warfare waged against indigenous peoples, therefore, it is reasonable to infer that the colonial warfare lasting for over three centuries played a major role in the genocide of Native Americans. Moreover, it is evident that the white colonizers had strong discrimination towards the Natives and they did kill a vast number of Natives intentionally throughout history. Overall, I do not believe that disease played a very significant role during the genocide of Native Americans.

Arshia Haq
10/29/2019 05:37:30 pm

Disease did play a major role in the deaths of Native Americans, but it does not take full accountability. Genocide was also a major factor, as westward expansion pushed Europeans to commit genocidal acts. Some disease was even on purpose, as one of the articles talked about how Europeans gave them blankets with small pox.

Femi Chiegil
10/29/2019 09:31:07 pm

I think the disease were quite significant during the times of the westward expansion. i think that the spread of these diseases from Europeans were not always accidental because they had long been exposed to the diseases and knew that they already had them in their immune systems, and thus were not as severely affected by them. Therefore, disease could have played a large role in their genocide.

Allan Gilsenan
10/24/2019 06:24:10 pm

Guenter Lewy used the commonly made argument that because the vast majority of Indians died of disease incidentally brought over by European settlers their deaths do not constitute genocide. However, Sir Jeffrey Amherst, commander-in-chief of British forces in North America, wrote "You will do well to try to inoculate the Indians [with smallpox] by means of blankets, as well as to try every other method, that can serve to extirpate this execrable race." This quote shows that some of the diseases brought upon Indigenous people were not incidental but were intentional. Does this form of biological warfare constitute genocide?

Dhruv Joshi
10/24/2019 07:06:07 pm

I’d say this definitely constitutes genocide. From its definition, genocide can be described as the situation whereby certain groups of people are "committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial, or religious group." The fact that these European forces specifically targeted Indigenous populations, using arguably cruel and unjust tactics, just goes to show how they were focused on the primary goal of mass, widespread killings of mainly Native populations, which is basically in the definition of genocide.

Aditya Tripathi
10/24/2019 07:28:44 pm

All those years ago, diseases like smallpox were effective killers and responsible for thousands and thousands of deaths. However these diseases were never weaponized and used for harm simply because the Europeans technology and advancements were not as accurate and successful as they thought they were. Guenter Lewy stated this when he said, “The missionaries had a poor understanding of the causes of diseases that afflicted their changes and medically there was little they could do for them” This proves the simple fact that biological warfare like this spread of disease was not one of the reasons the Europeans came to the Americas. The Europeans had no idea of the effect the diseases they carried would have on the natives.

Varun Iyer
10/24/2019 09:01:01 pm

I disagree that the usage of smallpox and other diseases was not intentional, and that the missionaries had poor understanding of the causes of the diseases. Although the Europeans may not have immediately known they were spreading diseases to the Indians, it is probable that they figured out, and later used it against the Indians. The quote used by Allan directly states that there was intention to kill Indian populations through the use of biological warfare. I agree, the Europeans did not come to the Americas to spread disease, but it is likely that they learned about the symptoms they caused and used it to commit genocide against the Indian population.

Isha Parikh
10/28/2019 08:05:30 am

I think this constitutes genocide because the quote that you used shows how they intentionally infected the Native Americans. People often use the argument that the treatment of Native Americans isn’t considered genocide because most of them died from disease that was accidentally brought by the Europeans. But, the Europeans knew what they were doing to the Native American population when they came in contact.

Kara Musteikis
10/28/2019 04:08:10 pm

Even though Europeans didn't intentionally bring over diseases to kill Native Americans, there were accounts like you said of Sir Amhersts saying they were using small pox blankets against the Native Americans. I do believe that this form of biological warfare can constitute as genocide because as a prosecutor of the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia, suggested that "the factual opportunity of the accused to destroy a group in a specific geographic area within the sphere of his control, and not in relation to the entire population of the group in a wider geographic sense." supports the idea that not the whole population of Native Americans had to be targeted specifically to be considered genocide. So since some Native Americans were intentionally targeted with diseases, this can constitute their treatment as genocide.

Evan Speelman
10/29/2019 03:45:26 pm

I believe that the spread of disease in the way that Amherst describes does constitute genocide, but it's also important to realize that Amherst did not represent all of the people of the time. We also learn about missions to the native villages, in which Europeans spread diseases to the residents there and didn't know what they were doing. Amherst, while reflecting goals of many colonists at the time, did not account for the views of all of the colonists in the Americas at the time.

Dhruv Joshi
10/24/2019 06:39:39 pm

As more and more European powers arrived in the Americas, their standard views of Natives started to change, mostly from thinking of them as a helpful and useful resource in terms of settlement and trade, to a more pessimistic outlook, that they were annoyances, getting in the way of European territorial expansion. Why do you think this change occurred and was there any way the Europeans could settle peacefully on American lands?

Aditya Tripathi
10/24/2019 07:23:01 pm

I think this change occured due to the fact that Native Americans were extremely harsh and showed no mercy on anyone, especially Europeans. On the other hand Europeans were very violent too. They were very cruel and tortured the Native Americans intensely. Although killing Natives in particular could be considered to have genocidal intent, their acts are justified on the grounds that the Europeans only authorized this as a way to get revenge on the Natives and for self-preservation. Native Americans were cruel but so were Europeans, both nations played their role in destroying one another. The Europeans would have to change their nature of claiming land by force using the means of killing to a more reasonable settlement in order to really settle peacefully with the Natives.

Meghan Walker
10/25/2019 10:39:12 am

I believe the main reason their views changed was one of the reasons you talked about in your question. As it became apparent they were an obstacle to movement and land acquisition westward, Americans began to view them in a negative outlook. This might have been because they viewed them as less helpful and more of a hindrance.

Isha Parikh
10/28/2019 08:23:06 am

I think the Europeans changed their view on Native Americans because they felt that the didn’t “need” them anymore. When the Europeans first arrived, most Native Americans helped the Europeans with farming and hunting. As the Europeans became more powerful in the Americans, they began to see the Native Americans as lesser people and began to treat them harshly. I think because of the mindset of Europeans, they couldn’t have settled peacefully.

Kara Musteikis
10/28/2019 04:15:29 pm

I think the change in the views of the Native Americans began after the French and Indian war and the Treaty of Greenville which gave the US the rights to the Ohio territory that Native Americans lived on. The land gained caused many white farmers to want to expand their farms Westward but the natives still lived on the land which caused the farmers to start to resent the natives for living on what the white farms viewed as "their" land. I think that Europeans could have settled peacefully on Americans lands if they abided by native customs and cultures and didn't force them to assimilate to the European culture. Like the French offered gifts to the native tribes and was able to get along with them and establish a fur trade. So if Europeans didn't have an intense view on white superiority then I believe that they could have peacefully settled on Native Americans lands.

Will Barbee
10/28/2019 09:28:46 pm

I don't think that the European/American view of indians actually changed very much. Indians were always against the expansion of colonies, and so colonists always perceived the Indians as an annoyance/enemy. Earlier in the year we read a letter from an indentured servant in America that clearly outlined that the Indians were a constant threat to the colonies and that Indians were a clear enemy of the colonists. That being said, there appeared to be a shift in views as a result of the amount of power each group attained between the time of colonization and the Jacksonian era. America had expanded from small colonies to a great nation with a standing army that could rival European powers and the Indians had been ravished and destroyed by diseases that the Europeans brought such as small pox. The overall view of Indians always seemed that they were enemies, but it shifted some because in time, Indians were seen more as an annoyance rather than an actual severe threat they once were.

Angela Xu
10/29/2019 04:50:43 pm

I believe this change occurred because as more and more Europeans came to the Americas, their want to expand immensely grew. Americans' idea of Manifest Destiny greatly contributed to their belief that they had every right to expand westward no matter what. Since Native Americans lived on the western lands that Americans wanted, Americans wanted them gone. I feel that Americans also believed that they were just simply more superior than Native Americans and that Americans deserved to settle on western land instead of Indians who were seen as inferior and incapable of living on those lands.

Rushil Sudunagunta
10/24/2019 07:36:35 pm

In Lewy's article he mentions the hostile Native American groups that started the violence, and in Dunbar-Ortiz's article she talks discusses unprovoked attacks. In both these cases, were the Europeans and later Americans intimidated by Native Americans?To what extent could this have started possible conflicts?

Devin Bhatt
10/24/2019 08:27:08 pm

Yes, they were most likely intimidated by Native Americans because their primary goal was to gain land. Anything that was pushing against that goal was most definitely a fear for them. This caused many conflicts to the extent that many large wars between the Native Americans and Americans were started.

Jake Park-Walters
10/26/2019 04:54:23 pm

Instigation leading to violence was evident due to fear from both Native Americans and American settlers. Both groups witnessed atrocities at the hands of the other, and thus were rightly afraid to see a repeat. I believe that the two groups viewed violence as inevitable and thus should hit first to protect themselves.

Ryan Xiao
10/30/2019 08:13:44 pm

To add on to Jake's point, many of the massacres that occurred were justified by whites where they said that they were afraid of the Indians attacking them. This stemmed from isolated incidents of Indian resistance that put whites into some sort of paranoia that provoked them to attack Indian settlements ruthlessly, even killing women and children. The fear of attack led to attacking more, creating more violence.

Michael Herrera
10/27/2019 04:12:55 pm

In the case of the Americans, they most likely assumed that because some groups of Native Americans were violent and aggresive towards them, that all of them would act the same way, so they used it as justification for removing them from their land. In the case of the Natives, although some groups did act violently towards the settlers, most of them were attacked for no reason, causing them to fight back in self-defense.

Jessica Xia
10/28/2019 08:36:54 am

Intimidation played a significant role in starting possible conflicts. Americans were most likely afraid of the Natives taking their land and resources. They were also probably afraid of possible future violence with Natives, so as a “convenient” way to solve this problem, they just tried to exterminate them.

Anastasia Neff
10/28/2019 07:48:18 pm

I believe that colonists were intimidated by the Native Americans, but not specifically because of their action but because they saw them as savages and it was a way for them to justify immoral actions against them. By depicting the Natives as dangerous and saying that they acted first they could justify raising arms against them and the other horrible things they did to them. Finding ways to justify our actions had been a common trend seen in American history

Bryce Hagstrom
10/28/2019 11:20:53 pm

The Europeans were most definitely worried about and intimidated by the Native Americans. For instance some of the first Europeans such as John White recorded in their diaries how much more advance these Indian civilizations were the stature of the Indians themselves. Indians were on average taller and more muscular than the average European and that in it self is enough to scare people. This could have caused conflict because in order to gain dominance Europeans had to strike down Indians to show they were a force to be reckon with.

Evan Speelman
10/29/2019 03:44:54 pm

I believe that while the Americans thought they could beat the Natives in a one on one conflict, they also didn't want to risk a conflict at all, and instead resorted to unprovoked violence. While not all violence was unprovoked, the violence that was unprovoked was rationalized by the violence Natives committed against the Americans and colonizers. The Americans saw the Natives as more of one entity than as an array of different cultures with wildly different ways of life. They saw an attack by natives and saw the natives as a whole as an enemy, and not just the tribe that attacked them.

Yusuf Zayan
10/24/2019 07:38:28 pm

As we mentioned in the discussion, the number of Native Americans living on the continent prior to European colonization is widely disputed. Lewy says in his essay, "The disparity in estimates is enormous. In 1928, James Mooney proposed a total count of 1,152,950 Indians. Russell Thornton was giving a figure of well over 5 million, while Lenore Stiffam and Phil Lane suggested a total of 12 million. Henry Dobyns estimated the population of North America as a whole at 18 million." This quote demonstrates the wide variety of opinions when it comes to the population size. The figure of how many were on the continent prior to colonization is greatly important in deciding how many Native Americans were killed off. Do you think any personal biases they had on the issue played into the decisions of those who estimated the varying figures?

Thien Do
10/24/2019 07:48:11 pm

Native removal, Holocaust, Irish need not apply, and slavery. Do you think that this treatment of Natives is essentially a continuation of events in the past and a continuation of events in the future? The treatment of belief of superior to inferior?

Daniel Mariano
10/26/2019 08:54:00 pm

I think that it is not the continuation of events with the superior to inferior complex though throughout history we see these superior inferior complexes its not like its always the same main group saying they are superior and usually these causes are backed by different yet slightly similar ideas on the minority group.

Dhruv Joshi
10/24/2019 07:52:09 pm

Throughout the time period, was it possible that America tried to achieve different methods of expansion of policies and territory other than violence?

Aditya Tripathi
10/24/2019 07:53:31 pm

I think that America didn’t try to achieve a different way of expanding their policies and nations. “The notion that settler-indigenous conflict is an inevitable product of cultural differences and misunderstandings, or that violence was committed equally by the colonized and the colonizer, blurs the nature of historical processes.” This quote by Dunbar-Ortiz shows how Americans went straight to violence to settle arguments instead of expanding through other methods such as peace contracts or treaties. This shows how Americans resorted to widespread killing right away for their personal gain.

Devin Bhatt
10/24/2019 08:24:49 pm

Yes, the Louisiana Purchase was an expansion of territory that was nonviolent. It may have lead to some conflicts, but the official gaining of land was acquired through agreements between the US and the French.

Dhairya Desai
10/28/2019 07:57:24 am

I think the Americans did both. They used to reside to warfare most of the time but during sometimes they didn’t turn to violence. In the Louisiana Purchase, America used money and not violence to expand and gain territory. Other than that, America used violence to claim most of their land.

Will
10/28/2019 09:34:52 pm

They did use different methods of expansion, but these other methods led to issues for America. America attained the Northwest territories (most notably Indiana) through negotiations with Indians. Although these were mostly aggressive treaties, they were treaties nonetheless. This avoided a lot of major conflict between the Indians and the United States, but it was met with fierce Indian resistance by some, so this method of negotiation probably wouldn't continue to succeed.

Darren Chang
10/29/2019 07:01:37 pm

I think that it would be impossible or very unlikely for America to become what it is today through peaceful expansion with the Native Americans. More peaceful expansion would have probably resulted in the creation of an independent Native American nation or even the colonies being unable to gain independence from England.

Aakash Gala
10/31/2019 06:35:43 pm

I believe America did use different methods other than violence such as diplomacy as seen in the Louisiana Purchase. But when it came to Native Americans and westward expansion i do not think they did. The idea of manifest destiny was so clear in their heads they felt like they cannot negotiate and it is in their destiny and their right to control all the land between the two oceans

Aditya Tripathi
10/24/2019 07:55:16 pm

What created the spark between Native groups and American settlers to the point where killing innocent Natives was a normal occurrence?

Aryaman Bana
10/25/2019 11:09:50 am

It wasn't necessarily a spark, but it was the fact that Native Americans were standing in the way of the goals of American settlers, which was to gain land. However, one of the first instances of violence between the two groups in the Mass. Bay colony occurred because of noncompliance, not because of hindrance of gaining land. Overall, though, the killing of natives was normalized because of land motives, as seen in westward expansion.

Allison Charney
10/25/2019 11:15:31 am

I believe that the conflicts over land caused the killings of native Americans to be so common. In European history wars over land were very commonplace. The American settlers were used to land wars so they didn’t really see a difference when it came to the Native Americans.

Hadley Seifert
10/27/2019 02:15:09 pm

I don't believe there was one spark that caused violence to be a normal occurrence, but the increase of tensions due to many different reasons. The main reason being Americas goal to expand west where many Natives had been living, making it more difficult for Americans to gain the land. Another reason being that Americans looked down upon Natives because they believed Natives hindered the expansion process. Since Natives weren't handing the land over without a fight, Americans viewed them as non-compliant further increasing the tension which eventually led to the normal occurrence of violence.

Joey Caputo
10/27/2019 02:21:31 pm

I think that this relates a lot to our previous scored discussion about the Mexican-American War. It wasn’t necessarily a spark between the Natives and the Americans. From what I gathered, it was more the American’s needs and wants of expansionist ideals. Last scored discussion I understood that the Americans would do whatever it takes to go and get more land, even kill those that lived on the land and push them out. Similarly this happened in both cases, Mexican-American and Native-American.

Kailynn Roberts
10/27/2019 11:23:14 pm

I think the greatest impact that caused the killing of innocent Native Americans was the ideology of white supremacy and racism. The American settlers saw the Natives as inferior to themselves, so they wanted to remove all the 'no-pure', white blood that existed. The same ideals applied to the Native American genocide also applies to the killing of innocents in the Mexican-American war.

Dhairya Desai
10/28/2019 08:06:19 am

I think it was when the Americans first settled in America. When they first settled into America. The Natives I think we’re first aggressors because the settlers were moving into their land and not setting policies and treaties with them. This view of the Natives being the aggressor was the spark for the Americans to continue with the violence on the Natives.

Shazia Muckram
10/28/2019 09:34:56 pm

I don't think there was a specific event that sparked further tensions between the Native groups and American settlers.This is because I think that the Americans initially went to the West with the same motive of killing the Native Americans to acquire the land as they did at the end of the genocide. Even though, the spread of disease was unintentional, it still benefited the Americans and helped them win most of the battles. Moreover, evidence from various historical documents show America's determination to avenge the murder of Indians, regardless of their age or gender, since the beginning. The motives of the genocide were clear and straightforward as the landholdings plummeted, population declined, and many families lost their ties.

Will
10/28/2019 09:39:58 pm

Killing Natives was a normal occurrence ever since the original colonies. As settlers used Native land, Natives got angry and would attack the Europeans and vice versa. Naturally, as the Americans continued to expand, Indian violence also increased. That being said, it should be noted that this violence against innocents was not one-sided. In the text by Lewy it is stated that Native attacks on the European/American settlements, villages, and cities was very frequent, and it is safe to say that it was likely as frequent as American attacks on the Natives. This does not necessarily denote the idea of a single spark, but more of a brewing problematic relationship between the Indians and Americans.

Femi Chiegil
10/29/2019 09:42:01 pm

i would like to believe that the reasons for this innocent killing was to gain power over land and the abundant natural resources that came with it. Also, they seemed to be too different for the white men; dark skin, foreign language and different beliefs.

Anisha Harkara
10/29/2019 09:55:59 pm

I think a lot of the conflict goes back to race. The Americans saw themselves as the "superior" race, and believed that that justified all their actions. Slaves have been treated in a quite horrible way for a long time, and not many particularly cared. I also think that it's only some, not all American settlers that think killing Natives is normal. I believe that the vast majority didn't believe so.

Dylan Thakur
10/31/2019 09:21:05 am

The thing that likely sparked many conflicts between settlers were minor conflicts where settlers ventured into Native territory and got killed. I'm sure many events like these occurred between the Natives and Settlers, and eventually got to the point where killing each other was a necessary and the norm.

Varun Iyer
10/24/2019 08:36:16 pm

Had the death of much of the Indian population had not occurred, how would westward expansion have been different?

Rushil Sudunagunta
10/24/2019 08:46:37 pm

I believe that westward expansion still would've occurred, but at a slower rate. Resistance tends to create more popularity and give an issue more attention which is why I believe Native Americans were treated so poorly so settlers could quickly move out west. Since the Native Americans would be living on the land, and it wouldn't have been stripped away, the process of expanding would've been slower but more peaceful.

Seokhee Kim
10/25/2019 09:35:14 pm

I feel like the death of many Indian population couldn't be avoided and would've still occurred sooner or later because, the land that the Americans wanted was where the Natives wanted to stay in. The reasoning behind so many death was because some of the Native Americans resisted the Indian Removal Act like the Five Civilized Tribes. So it all comes down to the fact that westward expansion wouldn't have been much different than what we know about it right now. That there will be a lot of death from the Native American side and to be honest, it could've gotten slower or faster depending on the decision the people make. And IF there was no violence, I will say that westward expansion would've been slower because of all the agreements that the two sides have to agree on.

Jake Park-Walters
10/26/2019 05:00:11 pm

Assuming disease, starvation, and forced displacement had not decimated the Native Americans population prior to westward expansion I believe that three major differences would have resulted:

1. Indian massacres would not have been nearly as prevalent due to the anticipation of major retaliation from large Indian armies

2. Larger scale armies would have been amassed from the Union to combat Indians and pave the way for white settlers. In doing so, the death toll for American Manifest Destiny would have been much higher.

3. Native American nations would have been allowed greater representation in US government due to the scale of their fighting ability and man power.

Anastasia Neff
10/28/2019 07:53:34 pm

I agree with this viewpoint and think that because the initial death toll of the Indians was so high just from the Europeans arrival events turned out very differently. Against the belief of many, the Natives were a civilized group who quickly modernized and took up the ways of Europeans. They did not die so much as they had no defense against settlers, but that they had no resistant to their diseases. I believe that if the majority of the Native population hadn't died from disease that they would have been much more powerfully and probably created armies against the settlers. If this had been the case there would surly have been more deaths on both sides, making this event more of a massacre.

Kailynn Roberts
10/27/2019 11:26:56 pm

If many of the Native American's populace would not have died, I believe the west would have been more intragrated with both settlers and the indigenous people. Since most of the deaths were caused by American settlers, by understanding that a large portion of the deaths had not occurred means the settlers did not execute them. So by the previous understanding, one can hypothesize that a form of respect for Native lives must have been in place to prevent the high death toll.

Mackenzie Adams
10/28/2019 10:29:46 pm

Westward expansion would have most definitely still occurred because of the strong idea of Manifest Destiny. I think that expansion might have happened not as quickly but also not as violently.

Evan Speelman
10/29/2019 03:43:56 pm

I believe that westward expansion would have been much more civil and we would live in a much more integrated Native and American society today if the United States did not plan on killing natives. The Natives did not believe in land ownership as the Europeans and Americans did, and likely would have claimed ownership over most of the land that they already inhabited. Indian reservations would have played a much bigger role today than they do if we hadn't killed the natives.

Devin Bhatt
10/24/2019 08:39:16 pm

Dunbar-Ortiz did point out that genocide was inherit in the European and American policy. Do you guys that this is true or was their primary goal to achieve land?

Meghan Walker
10/25/2019 10:37:02 am

I believe the reason she said this was due to the system of settler colonialism that was occurring while Europeans were colonizing the land. Settler colonialism will always have some aspects of genocide, and therefore it is inherent.

Neha Malkar
10/25/2019 05:13:12 pm

I think that the European and American people primarily wanted to gain land because their main attraction to this area was because they saw it as "free land." They wanted to remove the Indian people that occupied the land and take it. This was a part of settler colonialism, for example Dunbar-Ortiz said "The question of genocide is never far from the discussions of settler colonialism 'land is life or at least land is necessary for life." She also mentioned that "people do not hand over their land, resources, children and futures without a fight and that fight is met with violence."

Jake Park-Walters
10/26/2019 05:02:50 pm

I believe it was not the goal of America to kill all Native Americans. Americans, however, did see it as a means to obtain what they wanted: land. The killings resulted from a culture of fear and negative perceptions caused by popular culture.

jared
10/28/2019 07:39:10 am

i believe this is true. Dunbar Ortiz mentions in here article that when the British colonized Ireland they used the same tactics that they would later use against the Native Americans. the land was a side effect in this process, i think that an idea of superiority and racism led to both of the events and that land was just a thing gained.

Bryce Hagstrom
10/28/2019 11:26:46 pm

The primary goal of the Europeans was to gain the three G's God, Glory, and Gold and to obtain these goals they had to deal with the populations in control of them. They dealt with them by killing them and disrupting their way of live in order to lessen their population which is the definition of genocide.

Jenny Caputo
10/29/2019 09:31:20 pm

I believe the primary goal was to achieve land. However, as mentioned in the Dunbar-Ortiz article, it is said to achieve land, violence or threat of violence is required in attaining its goals. While it was not their primary goal to create violence, it was to achieve land and this is said to be accomplished inevitably with violence according to Dunbar-Ortiz.

Ryan Xiao
10/30/2019 08:45:10 pm

I think their primary goal was to gain more land, which is seen in Manifest Destiny where Americans believed it was their destiny to spread throughout the whole continent. Indian removal was more of a side product as they were more seen as in the way of American expansion westward. It was an inevitable side product as Indian lands made up most of the west. Americans only targeted Indians because they were in the way of expansion.

Femi Chiegil
10/24/2019 09:21:05 pm

How does Native American genocide compare to the Holocaust?

Hadley Seifert
10/25/2019 10:53:32 am

I don't believe you can compare these two genocides because they are extremely different and had different intentions from the start. In the Holocaust, Nazis intended to kill off Jews and other people groups and it was fueled by purely racist intents. The Holocaust was also very organized, which shows that Nazis had planned it and knew exactly what they were doing and how to do it. While fueled by racist intents, the Native American genocide, did not originally start with the intent to kill Natives and their culture, it started as a quest for more land which involved killing Natives to take their land. Settlers did not come to America with the intent to kill off Natives, they came to America with the hopes of settling new land, and in the process started a war over the land which led to the genocide of Natives.

Cynthia Yan
10/26/2019 12:46:57 pm

The differences Hadley mentioned also contribute to why the Holocaust and Native American genocide are treated so differently today. The Holocaust is the most widely known and taught genocide in at least American culture/history, making the characteristics that define it such as mass, organized murder over a short period of time as how we recognize other genocides. On the other hand, the debate continues over whether the United States's actions against Native Americans can be classified as genocidal, since it was over the entire span of American history, instead of one identifiable mass killing. Moreover, as Hadley said, the Nazis were motivated by purely racial hatred, while the US was motivated by land and resource gain, making colonization (that I would argue is genocide), what the entire country was built upon, which could account for why many don't consider it genocide or try to justify it.

Elizabeth Jackson
10/28/2019 05:21:29 pm

I think the Holocaust and Native American genocide shows similarity in the means for which the groups were killed. In the Dunbar-Ortiz article, she mentions that "starvation, the control of food supply and withholding food as punishment" were ways in which bodily and mental harm was inflicted among the Natives. This can be compared to the Jewish Holocaust and how as Dunbar-Ortiz says, "no one denies that more Jews died of starvation, overwork, and disease under Nazi incarceration than died in gas ovens or murdered by other means."

Soliha Norbekova
10/24/2019 09:57:43 pm

In the first passage by Dunbar-Ortiz, in the background information it stated that she was "...the daughter of a tenant farmer and part-Indian mother." Since her mother was part-Indian, do you think that there was any possible bias included in the first article compared to the second article?

Krista Lang
10/25/2019 11:13:15 am

I think that there was definitely bias in the first article due to decent of her mom. However, the author of the second article was also German. He could have been extremely biased in arguing against the Native American genocide because he saw the similarities of that genocide to the genocide in Nazi Germany. Perhaps, this bias that he had because he wanted the actions of his own country to be justified also caused his to believe similar occurrences in America were justified.

Neha Malkar
10/25/2019 05:08:24 pm

I think her past history had a big role in her article. She was biased in her topics because she had a connection to the Indians and this issue may have had a big impact on her life. In addition to this, Lewy was also biased because he did not have any personal connection to the Indians and this may have swayed his opinion. Lewy had ancestors that were victims of the Holocaust and this affected his view on the Holocaust genocide compared to this one. He thought that "Indian genocide" was not a genocide and that "their experience bore no comparison with the fate of the Jews in the ghettos."

Hannah Savariyar
10/28/2019 08:45:10 pm

It is evident that there was bias in both articles because of the authors' ancestors and their heritage that correlates to the topic, Dunbar-Ortiz was from a Native American heritage and Lewy was from a German descent. But, I believe that both articles have equal amount of bias which leads to see both sides of the spectrum of the argument, Throughout Dunbar-Ortiz' article, the hardships that Natives faced were highlighted throughout and was very evident, which shows her passion towards the mistreatment of Natives. Similarly, Lewy compared many of the arguments that proved that it was a genocide to the Holocaust to show the degree of how much the Natives struggled compared to the Holocaust. This shows that bias was not only evident in Dunbar-Ortiz, but was equally bias in Lewys' article.

Angela Xu
10/29/2019 05:06:21 pm

I definitely believe that there was bias included in Dunbar-Ortiz's passage. Given the fact that she came from Native American ancestry, it would give her even more of a motive to want to write about this conflict in the first place. She would feel more compelled to inform the American public about how her lineage has suffered in the past and defend the idea that conflict should be considered genocide since it was her own ancestors who were the victims.

Soliha Norbekova
10/24/2019 10:22:33 pm

We also skimmed over the topic of the modern relevance of the Native American genocide today. Do you think that not teaching about past genocides or keeping quiet about past genocides is way of continuing the genocide?

Juhi Chatterjee
10/25/2019 11:15:17 am

I don’t really think that we are continuing genocide because we are not really mistreating Native Americans in the severity as before. However, I do not think that it is right to get rid of the lesson of genocide with Native Americans in all history classes. I think it should be considered to be much more significant and it is not right to just skim over it, however I don’t think that ignoring it is a way of continuing genocide.

Krista Lang
10/25/2019 11:16:49 am

I think that not using the word genocide in all history classes to describe what happened to Native Americans is wrong and in a way, it keeps Americans quiet about the genocide they went through and excuses it. I think the more we are educated about genocide, the less likely it is to occur again. That's why it's important for everyone to recognize what happened to Native Americans as a genocide, and instead of sweeping it under the rug, fully educate people about what happened to them so that it will be less likely to occur in the future.

Kailynn Roberts
10/27/2019 11:31:29 pm

I do think by not teaching the Native American genocide we are continuing the genocide. A genocide is not just the death toll, but it also is about the attacks on their culture and history. By not teaching the history of what happened, we are erasing the whole Native American genocide. The purpose of a genocide is to remove the specific group from all understanding and history. If we don't know and understand the history, we are removing them from understanding and history itself.

jared
10/28/2019 07:44:21 am

i believe that not learning about these past genocides is not the reason they continue to happen. i feel like not talking about these genocides only affects the victims and not giving them the recognition that they deserve.

Logan Phinney
10/24/2019 10:31:29 pm

In his writing, Lewy claims that many times, American millitias were given orders "not to give quarter" to Native Americans. Despite orders not to show extreme violence, many of the bloodthirsty miners and cowpokes scalped and mutilated Natives. Nowhere in the passage does it say the soldiers were punished for their actions. Do you think that this excuses the U.S. from responsibilty because the soldiers disobeyed direct orders, or do you think that it is still their fault?

Siyona Shah
10/27/2019 11:48:30 am

I don't think that just because the soldiers were not punished for their actions of disobeying direct orders, the US is excused from responsibility. I think it is still the US's fault and should own up to it. The Korean War is a "forgotten" war in America's history since they lost and I honestly think it's the same with the genocide. Americans know that what they did was wrong and now don't want to own up to it since they were at fault.

Evan Villani
10/31/2019 10:43:15 am

Well, what is the incentive for America to look back at the past and declare that what they did was morally wrong? As a country do we still believe that we offer something to the world? In what ways would the world see America differently if we publicly declared that our soldiers mauled women and children in the past?

Alexander Neiberger
10/25/2019 10:19:08 am

Do you guys think that what happened to Native Americans constitutes as genocide according to the UN's definition of genocide?

Austin Yao
10/25/2019 11:07:10 am

By definition of the UN, it is indisputable that what happened to the Native Americans was genocide. However, it is worthy to consider the broadness and context of the UN definition. By their definition, much of history could be considered genocide.
There are major differences between what happened to Native Americans and what happened to Tutsis in Rwanda. Although it is technically a genocide, the term carries certain connotations that are not representative of what actually happened.

Juhi Chatterjee
10/25/2019 11:11:03 am

I believe that what happened to Native Americans does constitute as genocide. Many people compare situations like these to the Holocaust, however it doesn’t have to be as severe as the Holocaust to be considered as genocide. The US wanted to get rid of Native Americans as people and force them to follow the culture and traditions of whites instead. US authorities also ordered the massacre of many Native Americans and forcibly removed them from their ancestral territories in order to open up land for more white settlements. People could argue that because many Native Americans survived and some are still alive today, this situation would not be considered an act of genocide, however I believe that because the US massacred so many and stole their land, Native Americans should be considered victims of genocide. The actions inflicted on Native Americans by the US fit all 5 requirements of genocide.

Neha Malkar
10/25/2019 05:17:35 pm

I think that what happened to the Native Americans was genocide according to the UN's definition of genocide. The UN defined genocide as killing members of a group, causing serious bodily or mental harm to the group, imposing measures to prevent births, and transferring children. Americans did each of these to the natives. They forcefully sterilized native women without their consent and "routinely removed native children from their families and put them up for adoption." These inhumane acts occurred in addition to the ongoing violence between the groups that resulted in thousands of native killings. It was definitely genocide.

Hadley Seifert
10/27/2019 12:35:40 pm

The UN defines genocide as killing members of the group, causing mental or bodily harm to members, deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction, imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group, and forcibly transferring children of the group to another group. Based off this definition, what happened to Native Americans constitutes as genocide because there was evidence of each element which Dunbar-Ortiz did a really good job of presenting and elaborating on how it showed a particular element.

Joey Caputo
10/27/2019 02:35:21 pm

According to the UN's classification of a genocide, a genocide is:

“One of five acts is considered genocide if committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group:
-Killing members of the group
-Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group
-Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part
-Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group
-Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.”

The conflict between the Americans and the Native Americans was considered a genocide. The Americans deliberately killed members of Native tribes through war and random attacks. The Americans also transported Native American children into boarding schools that were controlled by American government officials and forced into American culture and society. Now that is all according to the UN guidelines. However, much of the conflict between said groups happened over centuries of disputes, with a multitude of different groups other than just the Americans. The UN guidelines for genocide do not actually state what the time requirements for a genocide must be, which can cause a disagreement on if this particular event actually does constitute as a genocide.

Femi Chiegil
10/28/2019 09:37:32 pm

I think everything adds up to Native americans facing genocide even with the UN's defination. it was noted that the European colonists massacred native people, forcibly removed tribes from their lands in deadly marches, and spread infectious diseases that the American Indians had never faced and that devastated the Native population.

Meghan Walker
10/25/2019 10:35:10 am

Why do you think it’s so easy for people to call out what we consider bad policies and racist or discriminatory behaviors from centuries ago, yet have such a hard time pointing to the same if not similar problems happening in this day and age?

Austin Yao
10/25/2019 11:04:09 am

I believe that it is easier for us to call out bad policies and behavior from centuries ago than right now because we understand less of the context of what happened in the history. For most people, the only context of the situations long ago is provided by history, which often excludes information about the moral codes and sentiments at the time. Moreover, admitting something wrong today can also be viewed as hypocritical, because one could argue that you are also complicit in the atrocities occurring today.

Allan Gilsenan
10/25/2019 11:14:39 am

Today, obviously, racist and discriminatory policies and behaviors are less extreme than they were in the past. Such behaviors being more subtle than they were in the past makes it harder to immediately classify them as racist. That being said, people today fail to own up to racism that occurs in this day and age because of presentism. They see the less extreme, more subtle racism that occurs in modern times as nothing compared to the racist atrocities that happened in America's past. This leads to many to fall under the impression that racism is not a problem in today's society because it is "better" today than it was back then.

Era Joshi
10/25/2019 09:39:29 pm

I think we can call out bad policies and racist/ discriminatory behaviors from centuries ago because we are looking at these policies from a modern lens. Our ideas of segregation, etc have definitely changed from the 1800's to today, and if we look at events that happened then with our new definitions, we easily label them as discriminatory, when in reality at that time period it wasn't thought to be so. I feel like today we have more complex definitions of ethnicity, race, background, etc and I feel because our definitions are so various, one group might make policies using one definition, and another group may call out those policies as bad since they have a different definition of these things.

Shubhangi Patel
10/26/2019 10:39:12 am

I believe it's easier for us to easily condemn unfair policies that were implemented in the past rather than ones we disagree with today because of the fact that society evolves over time, and we can see the effects that bad policies had on the country in the past. However, that's not possible for the unfair laws of today because America can't foresee the effects that these policies will have on the country in the present day. This is why people like Dunbar-Ortiz can stongly claim that US policies against Natives were an act of genocide, whereas we are reluctant to call out actions like these that are happening currently.

jared
10/28/2019 07:47:07 am

i think that people call out policies from the past because they like to think that times have changed and that we are better as a society and at the same time having similar policies in the present

Hadley Seifert
10/25/2019 10:37:27 am

Why is the Native American genocide not commonly known as genocide and considered controversial even though it fits the definition agreed upon in the UN? What is the purpose of leaving events such as this out of textbooks and why would publishers leave it out?

Juhi Chatterjee
10/25/2019 11:08:26 am

I think the reason why it is not included is because a lot of people believe the wrong definition of genocide as stated by Dunbar-Ortiz. Maybe the US didn’t want to consider the events as genocide, and the idea of genocide may not be what Americans want to hear. Publishers may want to leave this bit out because they want to appeal to people so that they will buy their textbooks.

Meredith G Burns
10/25/2019 11:18:09 am

I think that it's not commonly known as a genocide because there is a debate if it's actually a genocide. Many people believe that its a genocide because it was a killing of natives, but others think that its not because some of the attacks were just for land.

Era Joshi
10/25/2019 09:55:52 pm

Even though the Native American genocide does fit with the definitions agreed upon by the UN, I think people feel this was more of a war with horrendous things happening on both sides. An example of this can be seen in King Phillip's War, which the second article describes as, "merciless on both sides". I feel because some historians classify the genocide as warfare, it might not be as known as genocides such as the Holocaust, where the persecuted Jews did not have a way to fight back against the Nazi's. I feel the main reason publishers leave the Native American genocide out of textbooks is because it is a very controversial subject, one in which even the label for it has not been clearly defined yet.

Femi Chiegil
10/28/2019 09:53:40 pm

i would like to think that genocide is not commonly known as genocide because people are still trying to figure out the exact way of how genocide should be termed. Textbooks and publishers leave this out beacause it is a complicated tangle of legal definitions.

Kailynn Roberts
10/29/2019 08:31:39 pm

I believe that the events against Native Americans was not considered to be genocide because the U.S. lacks recognition to Native American. The events of the Holocaust have only been presented as a genocide, while Native American history is not even taught. The purpose I believe to leave these events out of the textbook is to represent the US as the morally correct country.

Austin Yao
10/25/2019 11:02:11 am

What parallels can be drawn between the genocide/extermination of Native Americans and more modern examples of genocide, such as in Nazi Germany and Rwanda? Were the underlying causes and motivations the same? Why or why not?

Krista Lang
10/25/2019 11:08:52 am

I think that that the genocide with Native Americans is both different and similar to the genocide that occurred in Nazi Germany. Colonization played a big role in killing off Native Americans. Americans wanted land, and they were prepared to do almost anything to get that land. I think there is a similarity of a lack of severity at first and then the problems all slowly increased. This happened in Nazi Germany with slowly placing limitations of Jews' rights and in America with slowly pushing Native Americans off more land in an increasingly violent manner.

Aryaman Bana
10/25/2019 11:16:43 am

One obvious parallel that can be drawn is that a specific racial group was being targeted, but not for the same reason. While the Nazis wanted to exterminate the Jews because of racial tensions, white settlers wanted to kill the Native Americans because they were standing in the way of their goals. However, there were some isolated incidents in America that were fueled by racial tension, such as the creation of schools that would "take the Indian out of the man" and Americanize Native Americans.

Kailynn Roberts
10/27/2019 11:39:44 pm

I think the largest parallel that can be drawn between the Native American genocide and the Holocaust is the attack on culture. In the 1950s, Native Americans again received antagonization by America by the removal and extermination of their culture. The same thing happened during WWII when the Nazis stole and destroyed the art of Jews. Both of these events were attacks on culture, which are large parts of a genocide. A quote from the book The Monuments Men, best illustrates the significance, "You can wipe out a generation of people, you can burn their homes to the ground, and somehow they'll still come back. But if you destroy their achievements and their history, then it's like they never existed…"

Gustav Cedergrund link
10/29/2019 11:28:56 am

Although there were many individual differences that can be applied to the different scenarios, an underlying parallel existent in all of the situation could be a feeling of superiority. The Nazi's felt that the Aryan race was superior than the Jews, Romani, and Slavs, so they took action to purge the world of "inferiority." The Hutu drew a clear distinctions between themselves and the Tutsi and believed they were superior, it was the alleged assassination that gave them the justification to act on this idea of superiority. With the Native Americans, the US government and people felt a common superiority over the Native Americans, and viewed them as obstacles who needed to be destroyed.

Krista Lang
10/25/2019 11:04:43 am

I think that due to the fact that Americans killed, caused serious bodily harm, inflicted conditions of life to bring about physical destruction, prevented births within the group, and transferred children from the Native Americans with purposeful intent that they did in fact commit a genocide. It's interesting to see that the United States hasn't been punished for doing such things. I think that this is because Native Americans are still being oppressed in society, so much so that they can't demand that justice be served to them. Why do you think other countries haven't held the United States accountable for their actions against Native Americans? What price should we have to pay for our past destruction, if any at all?

Aryaman Bana
10/25/2019 11:19:22 am

I think other countries haven't held the United States accountable mostly because they are unaware of the atrocities we committed. Before reading the selections, I was also largely oblivious to what truly happened with Native Americans. As such, I find it highly improbable that other countries are aware of what happened two hundred years ago. Nothing that we pay will repair the damages that was caused, but land could be given as an apology, though insignificant.

Ashlyn Dumaw
10/27/2019 10:01:36 pm

I believe that the reason that the US hasn't been punished for these actions is simply because of the amount of time that has passed. It's difficult to place blame on individuals or specific groups because our country is completely different now than when the conflict occurred, so who specifically would be punished? I have read online that the government has given compensation for violating land treaties or agreements with Native Americans. One possibility is that reparations could be paid to descendants of Native Americans who were hurt or violated, like being sent to boarding school to "kill the Indian, save the man." However, I do not think that any punishment can be given to the US for actions that happened hundreds of years ago; it is impossible to pinpoint responsibility.

Jessica Xia
10/28/2019 08:40:29 am

I think other countries haven’t held the US accountable because there were so many cultural differences that makes it difficult to define this event as a genocide or not a genocide. Also, the US government itself doesn’t consider this event a genocide, so there’s no way to hold it accountable. I don’t believe anything can be given to solve this issue, and it would be difficult to make the government pay anything.

Aryaman Bana
10/25/2019 11:05:54 am

What are some possible reasons that society today doesn't put as much emphasis on the experience of Native Americans as compared to the experiences of groups such as Jews, Rwandans? Could it possibly have something to do with the fact that history is written by the victors?

Shubhangi Patel
10/26/2019 10:34:14 am

I feel that society overlooks and does not emphasize the experiences of the Native Americans because popular media always has portrayed the massacres of Jews and Rwandans more due to the large scale killings that occured with their people. Because their case was more serious, I think that the situation of Native Americans was more suppressed. I do believe that the fact that history is mostly written by victors plays a role in this lack of emphasis, although I think that the scale of both of these situations significantly causes the portrayal of the experiences of these groups of people in the popular media and society today.

Allan Gilsenan
10/26/2019 03:50:17 pm

I believe it has everything to do with the fact that history is written by the victors. Because white Americans were successful in taking over the continental US from the Native Americans, they were the ones who wrote about the ordeal. Due to this, many books, textbooks, newspapers, etc. written on the subject are extremely bias in their analysis of what happened and make it seem as if what happened to the native Americans was not genocide. To this day, the US still has not recognized the experience of Native Americans as genocide, whereas Germany has recognized European Jews as victims of genocide. If the US were to formally recognize Native Americans as victims of genocide, I believe much more emphasis would be put on the subject.

Hayley White
10/27/2019 11:29:39 am

I think that their isn't as much emphasis put on the experience of the Natives compared to those of the Jews or Rwandans, because the Jewish genocide and Rwandan genocide were extreme and more obvious forms of genocide. They set a mental standard for what classifies as a genocide and it wasn't until the genocide convention and its characteristics of genocide when people started to refer to the experience of Native Americans as genocide as well. I think it may have something to do with history being written by victors as well, because they tell the story through their point of view, placing their culture and their side of the story as the more important one, and while doing so they forget to tell the story of the group that lost, in this case, the story of the Native Americans.

Varun Iyer
10/27/2019 09:10:27 pm

There are a few possible reasons why the experience of Native Americans is not emphasized as much as other groups, such as the bias which US History textbook creators have. Because most textbooks are created to make money, the writers will stay away from controversial topics as much as possible, to create a book which will appeal to more schools, school systems, and teachers. They may also phrase certain parts of history in such a way that the United States does not look bad. Another factor may be the time in which these genocides took place. The Holocaust and Rwandan genocide took place over the course of a few months or years, but the killing of Indian populations took place over centuries.

Allison Charney
10/25/2019 11:12:11 am

I believe that the Native Americans experienced a genocide at the hands of the white Americans. If you disagree with this, what are your main reasons?

Aditya Tripathi
10/27/2019 11:34:15 pm

Yes, some Europeans specifically targeted Native Americans, however, possessing “genocidal intent” is completely different from actually being a genocide. The acts of the Europeans in
California should not waver the conclusion that the Native Americans were not victims of genocide. Europeans also spared women, children and the elderly proving how they did not
have genocidal intentions. “Indians could not be killed with impunity. In the summer of 1676, four men were tried…
for the brutal murder of three squaws and three Indian children; all were found guilty and two were executed.” Other Europeans cared about policy and there were consequences for wrong doings against the Native Americans. The Europeans also cared about good vs. evil; wrong, hard headed people should not twist the intent of the Europeans and the uncontrollable forces of nature.

Elizabeth Jackson
10/28/2019 05:32:40 pm

I agree that with you Allison that the Native Americans did experience a genocide. The US genocidal convention provides a series of requirements for an event to be considered a genocide, one of which is "imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group". This requirement is clearly fulfilled, as stated by Dunbar-Ortiz, when the US government made it the top medical priority to sterilize Indigenous women. All of the other requirements, like forcibly transferring children of the group to another group, are also met by the Native American genocide.

Meredith G Burns
10/25/2019 11:14:05 am

Many people have said that the Wounded Knee was an act of genocide “but, as Robert Utley has concluded in a careful analysis, it is better described as “a regrettable, tragic accident of war””

Do you agree with Robert Utley?
I think that it could go either way. The Wounded Knee was a massacre of natives. I think that the massacre could be an act of genocide due to the physical killing of natives. What do you think?

Cynthia Yan
10/26/2019 12:54:38 pm

I would say that the massacre itself couldn't be considered an act genocide, but since it was reflective of the US's overall actions towards Native Americans, it was. Wounded Knee was one part of a series of other conflicts where the United States tried to push Native people out as part of their colonization effort/to gain more land, meaning that fulfilling goals of expansion would inevitably be genocidal because it would require Americans to eliminate Native Americans to gain land.

Angela
10/25/2019 11:15:15 am

Why do you think that the topic of considering whether or not the conflicts between Native Americans and settlers should be considered a genocide was brought up so late in history classes?

Ashley Cao
10/26/2019 02:20:38 pm

I think that this topic of genocide is brought up so late because both sides of the argument agree that the native americans faced tragic death, and that's what we focus on learning about. We know that the white settlers caused some of these deaths, and majority never liked the native americans throughout history. knowing this, the argument about the classification and definition of genocide at this point isn't going to change anything. There will always be two arguments and two sides of the topic of native american genocide, and its hard to teach a subject that is still controversial.

Jakub Kreuter
10/26/2019 03:20:04 pm

This is as we saw in out conversations in class a controversial topic. There isn't a conclusion either way so many of the textbooks history classes use will choose to remove or limit this argument as to avoid controversy. Not only this but the American Government doesn't recognizes these events as a Genocide so that also plays a role in lack of recognition in schools.

Hannah Savariyar
10/28/2019 09:04:25 pm

I believe that this topic was not brought up in earlier times because of the amount of controversy surrounding the topic, but also since America has not formally admitted to their wrongs and trying to fix their wrongs. This would lead to confusion for school boards to incorporate this into curriculum because most of the topics that are required to learn usually have a beginning and end and we are aware of the outcome. With this being a sensitive topic that is still dealt with in today's society can lead to schools not teaching this in our classes.

Juhi Chatterjee
10/25/2019 11:16:07 am

Do you think Americans simply wanted the Native American’s lands because of racial superiority, or were there other bigger reasons?

Hayley White
10/27/2019 11:23:18 am

I think that racial superiority and manifest destiny did play a role, but I also think that Americans wanted the land in order to expand their empire and gain political and economic power in doing so, therefore they felt that they needed to remove the obstacle of the Native Americans in that desired territory for their advantage. I think racial superiority or manifest destiny was their justification for being able to remove the Indians or get rid of them, but I think the reason they wanted the land was because they saw its worth and the abundance of resources it held and how it would help their country out a lot.

Femi Chiegil
10/28/2019 10:13:24 pm

I think that the americans did not just want them for their land they also encouraged them to become farmers and Christians. They also had a goal of bringing Native Americans under the U.S. government, minimize conflict between Indians and settlers and encourage Native Americans to take on the ways of the white man.

Nadiya Patel
10/29/2019 05:47:34 pm

I believe that racial superiority did play a major role in settlers taking the Native American's land, however I think there are many other causes that also played into the expansion into Native American's territory. In the text is said, "However our present interests may restrain us within our own limits, it is impossible not to look forward to distant times, when our rapid multiplication will expand..." This primary source quote proves that they believed that over time due their superiority, they would eventually own the land that did not belong to them. Another motivation which caused this was manifest destiny. Many Americans felt as if it was their religious, moral, and cultural duty to move into the land which they did not own in order to educate the Native Americans and teach them their "superior" ways.

Juhi Chatterjee
10/25/2019 11:17:16 am

90% of American Indians were killed from diseases brought by Europeans, leaving the other 10% to be killed by mistreatment and violence. Do you think that 10% is significant enough to be considered a genocide?

Teara Anderson
10/25/2019 04:12:23 pm

I do believe that the 10 percent could be significant enough to be considered genocide because it was deliberate violence and mistreatment against the specific race of the Native Americans. I also believe that some of the 90 percent killed by disease could have been considered genocide if it was intentional; like the giving out of small pox infected blankets. Things of this nature would be considered genocidal tendencies because there is extreme intent to wipe out a specific people. I believe that any percentage, if it meets the parameters of trying to erase or wipe out a specific nationality, race, ethnicity, or gender could be considered genocide.

Seokhee Kim
10/25/2019 09:21:15 pm

No, I do not believe that 10% of the killing by mistreatment and violence is significant enough to be considered a genocide because, a genocide is a term used to describe violence against members of a racial, religious, and ethnic group with the intent to destroy the entire group. If you read that again, you will see the part where it says "with the intent to destroy the entire group." By comparing this to the incident that happened to the American Indians, the massacre does not fall under the term genocide because the Americans and Europeans didn't intend to destroy the entire group but to kill some in order to expand their territory.

Varun Iyer
10/27/2019 12:13:38 pm

I disagree, for two reasons. One, there is a difference between intention and what actually happened. The Americans and Europeans may have wanted to destroy the entire group, but they did not do so. In the Holocaust, the Nazis had intention to kill all Jewish people, but did not kill all of them. The same thing should apply here, even though the genocide of Indians and Jews are very different in many ways. If the Americans and Europeans intended to kill all Indians, there is no reason it should not be considered a genocide. Secondly, the magnitude of the act should not be a factor when determining if the event could be considered genocide. Nowhere does the definition say that a certain number or percentage of people had to be killed in order for something to be considered genocide. Whether 10% or 50% of Indians were killed by mistreatment and violence does not prevent this event from being called a genocide.

Ashley Cao
10/26/2019 02:15:04 pm

definitely, because contrary to what many people think of as mass murder, white settlers intentionally killed native americans, and 10% vs 100% of deaths cause by disease or not has nothing to do with the fact the indians were victims of a genocide. The genocide convention mentions nothing about the amount of people killed, just the motivations, and the white settlers' motivations were definitely classified as genocide.

Michael Herrera
10/27/2019 03:59:10 pm

Although 10% doesn't seem like a lot compared to 90%, it was still a substantial amount of people to be considered a genocide. This is because a genocide is defined as the deliberate killing of a large group of people, especially those of a particular ethnic group. This meaning that the whole population doesn't have to be wiped out to be considered a genocide.

Gustav Cedergrund link
10/29/2019 10:00:12 am

Although I agree with the statistics, I believe that the question is misframed. The definition of genocide has nothing to do with the amount of people killed by a certain factor, rather it has to do with a purposeful slaughter of a certain group of people with the intention to destroy them and their culture. As the Native Americans were victims of this definition, the term of genocide can be applied to them. In this sense, the term genocide isn't exclusively applied to Native Americans because 10% that were killed by mistreatment and violence, but because they were victims of genocidal actions.

Nadiya Patel
10/29/2019 05:52:41 pm

Despite the fact that 10% may seem extremely insignificant it still holds enough weight to be considered a genocide. Primarily, I don't think that the number of people being killed has influence over whether or not it should be considered a genocide. In the text by Dunbar-Oritz, the convention stated that a situation can be considered a genocide if one tries to, "deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part..." This quote further explains why this should be considered a genocide. America purposefully and intentionally mistreated and killed many Native Americans. This alone should be enough to consider this a genocide, regardless of the number of people killed.

Jenny Caputo
10/29/2019 09:26:56 pm

Although the percentage killed by mistreatment and violence is smaller than the percentage of people killed by disease, it is more about how the five acts of genocide were committed. In the first article by Dunbar-Ortiz, the five acts of genocide are mentioned and she later shows how they were committed towards the natives. Even though 10% may seem smaller, it is still a significant amount of people that died because of mistreatment and violence.

Teara Anderson
10/25/2019 04:07:01 pm

In class we talked about Lewy and his views on genocide pertaining to Native Americans with much inquiry about what his views actually were because many of his incidence contradicted the points made. My question is, considering how he viewed Native Americans and genocide, what political party of the time do you think he would have been a part of? Why?

Om Surkund
10/27/2019 02:00:51 pm

I believe that Lewy would have definitely been part of the Democratic Party back in that time period. The Democratic Party was the main party that supported Native American removal for a variety or reasons. Most of that party was made up of large plantation owners and the removal of Natives meant more land to make more money. As Lewy argued against the claims of genocide, his views would most match up with the ones of a Democrat. Democrats would have gone out of their way to try and make Native conflict seem justified, which is what Lewy tried to do in his argument.

Nadiya Patel
10/29/2019 05:59:04 pm

According to his point of view throughout the text, I believe that he would most likely be a part of the Democratic-Republicans political party due to his beliefs on Native Americans. He displayed many similar views to President Andrew Jackson who enacted the Indian Removal Act. This party held strong beliefs that Native Americans could not be productive members of society and therefore should be pushed out west, which is what happened during the Trail of Tears. The Democratic-Republicans and Lewy both share the idea that what happened to the Native Americans was justified.

Neha Malkar
10/25/2019 05:04:23 pm

For what reasons do you think this issue was overlooked? Why do you think no one classified it as genocide in a time period closer to when it happened?

Seokhee Kim
10/25/2019 09:07:22 pm

I feel like no one classified it as genocide because, the Americans didn't really care about the Natives living there and the purpose for the killing was to expand their territory rather than to fight them. In the article written by Dunbar-Ortiz, she states that some generals didn't care about the death of many innocent Native Americans and some even say that they don't respect the culture of Native Americans. So what I'm trying to say is that people didn't classify this event as a genocide because they didn't think it was some sort of massacre but it was to expand their own territory and the killing was part of their progress towards their goals of expanding territory.

Ashley Cao
10/26/2019 02:09:39 pm

I think that this is easy to be overlooked because the process of the attempted extermination of the native americans occurred over a long period of time, so it doesn't seem as direct as most other cases of genocide were. another reason why it was easy to be overlooked was because most kids don't learn about this in depth, but in contrast, the holocaust is taught every year in every grade since kids are in middle school.

Hayley White
10/27/2019 11:18:00 am

I don't think the issue of Natives being victims of genocide was overlooked. I just think that it wasn't considered to be genocide for many years, until the genocide convention created a list of genocidal characteristics, so therefore it wasn't mentioned frequently because it didn't seem like a major or controversial historical event. I think nobody classified it as a genocide because during the time Americans were just trying to expand and they viewed it as their divine right to do so, no matter what was in their path. Americans at the time didn't realize the extent of their actions and just how culturally, economically, and politically devastating their actions against the Native people were. It is easy for us today to say that they should have simply moved the Indians to a new region that was unwanted by Americans, or any other simple fix to the issue of the past, but when thinking of the event in the eyes of Americans at the time, they were unaware, and figured their relations with the Indians were just acts of warfare, not genocide.

Joey Caputo
10/27/2019 02:42:05 pm

I think there are numerous reasons why this issue is overlooked. But mainly, in my opinion, it all stems from what we learn as young individuals. In Mr. Hutch's class he spoke to us about how when we learn something for the first time, it often sticks with us for a while and can be hard to discern from what actually is true versus what we learned when we first learned it. This includes the colonization of America. A perfect example is Columbus. When we were little we were taught that Columbus sailed to the New World and helped colonize the Americas with little conflict, but that is not remotely true. Same with what we now know about the conflict with westward expansion and issues with Native American population decline. How many of us were taught that we committed such horrific crimes against their people? To basically sum up what I am saying is, since we were not taught about when we were younger, it fogs how we perceive our own history and that of others' history as well.

Lauren Humphlett
10/27/2019 02:52:47 pm

I think nobody classified this event as a genocide because Americans believed that it was right to kill all these Natives because they were inferior to American settlers. Americans saw this as something they had to do in order to gain more land so they didn't view this as something bad.

Avni Arora
10/28/2019 05:47:19 pm

I feel that many people didn't understand what genocide meant and automatically equated it to the Holocaust. After the UN specifically stated what genocide meant, people began to reevaluate specific events that were classified as genocidal under the UN's definition.

Nadiya Patel
10/29/2019 06:13:51 pm

I believe that the issue had not been considered a genocide earlier to this because the motives behind the extermination of the Native Americans was uncertain at the time. At the time, people believed that the means in which they took the land was justified and any Native Americans that were killed in the process was inevitable. Many people later on never questioned this reasoning because it had always been taught this way since people were children. Another reason for this not being classified as a genocide at an earlier time period is because this took place over a long stretch of time and in the past if you look at genocides, they were much more confined to a certain time frame.

Era Joshi
10/25/2019 08:28:33 pm

Where do you feel the motivations for the settlers laid? Did they settle for the economic reason of gaining farmland and property? Or was it the religious reason of converting the Indians to Christianity and their 'civilized ways'?

Shubhangi Patel
10/26/2019 10:28:18 am

I believe that the motivations of the settlers changed over time. Initially, when the Americas were colonized, I feel that the Europeans felt the need to convert the natives to Christianity and civilize them to fit European standards. Some, like the Puritans, sought them as allies. However, after gaining independence, the fervor of the Americans to move westward changed their motivations to become more economically-oriented, in gaining new land and growing the economy.

Seokhee Kim
10/26/2019 12:06:39 pm

In the colonizing perspective, the Europeans came over to settle in America in order to achieve the 3 Gs which was Glory, Gold, God. Gold being used to make their own countries more rich, God in order to spread the gospel to the people who doesn't know, Glory in order to gain glory for the great achievements that people did. So the motivations for the settlers was the 3 Gs and for their own good of gaining fame, rich, and followers of god.

Lauren Humphlett
10/27/2019 02:50:48 pm

I believe the motivations for the settlers were mostly for the economic reasons of gaining land to expand their empire. I don't think that the Americans wanted to gain land just to exterminate the Native Indians out of their lands, it was more of an effect of settling in new land.

Shubhangi Patel
10/26/2019 10:25:36 am

We touched on this subject a little during our discussion when we were talking about equating the genocide of the Native Americans to the fault of the US government as a whole. Lewy's text mentions that the killings were the fault of a certain group of people, and because it happened in the past, the US government today should not be held responsible for the situation. Do you believe the US government should be held responsible for the killings of Indians or should only the specific people carrying out the murders be responsible?

Seokhee Kim
10/26/2019 12:00:47 pm

I believe that only the specific people carrying out the murders should be responsible because, the US government today didn't really contribute to the murder of the past. It's just like if your grandfather is a murderer, that doesn't make you a murderer because you didn't contribute to the actions. Because a certain group killed the Indians that doesn't mean the people who didn't do anything is at fault. So to add it up all together, the specific people carrying out the murders should be responsible and not the US government today.

Ashlyn Dumaw
10/27/2019 09:51:14 pm

Although blame cannot be placed on the US government for the genocide of Native Americans, I do believe that the US government needs to acknowledge this part of our history. I remember reading that the government has paid reparations to some tribes before, so they are responsible in that way for previous disputes. In a more general stance, I think that we as a country should place more emphasis on these past conflicts and teach our youth the truth. This way, we are not erasing history in any way or attempting to cover up the crimes of our government and people. Overall, the government is not directly at fault for this genocide but, as a country, should still assume some degree of responsibility.

Gustav Cedergrund link
10/29/2019 09:49:56 am

I believe that the US government government represents and stands for the actions of its citizens. Even if certain individuals were the ones that carried out murders and actions of genocide, the US government was complicit in these actions. Their policies of removal caused the deaths of tens of thousands, and therefore, they should be held responsible.

Nadiya Patel
10/29/2019 06:21:32 pm

I believe that the US government today should not necessarily be held accountable for the actions of the past governments because they may not hold the same views as previous governments. However, I believe it is the responsibility of the US government to acknowledge the actions of the past as racist and genocidal. In addition, they should pay reparations back to Native American communities that are suffering today due to the irresponsible actions of America.

Lalitha Edupuganti
10/26/2019 12:01:15 pm

Dunbar-Ortiz and Lewy both explain that a large percent about 90% of Native Americans died from disease, but Dunbar-Ortiz also explains how disease was used to the Americans' advantage, blocking Native American's food supply, trade systems etc. Do you think there was one leading cause to the "genocide" or was it a collaboration of many different factors?

Lalitha Edupuganti
10/26/2019 12:06:38 pm

In addition to the question above: Do you think violence defined the genocide, and all the deaths of the Indians or was it combination of disease, and other socioeconomic factors?

Yusuf Zayan
10/26/2019 10:53:42 pm

I think the the "genocide" was caused by a collaboration of many different factors and events. Although colonizers may not have done it purposefully, I still think disease plays a role. Especially as you mentioned the colonizers taking advantage and benefiting from Indians being wiped out by disease. One cause can not explain the genocide.

Elizabeth Jackson
10/28/2019 05:37:53 pm

I agree,I think it was a collaboration of many different factors such as ideas of manifest destiny and overall racial superiority. Americans believed that it was their destiny to expand westward, and to them the Indians were acting as an obstacle.

jamie long
10/28/2019 08:37:23 pm

I think that it was the outcome of many factors, some of which were also interconnected and affected each other. One significant factor we discussed was expansionist ideals, which led to violent acts as well as governmental legislature that targeted Native Americans. It also spurred and became linked with racial hatred toward Indians, which led to further events that could be considered genocidal. This was just one example of how many factors were involved in the situation, and it cannot be attributed to just one.

Lalitha Edupuganti
10/26/2019 12:03:32 pm

Do you think we would have had a different perspective or a better chance in understanding if the Native Americans' issue was a genocide if we had primary sources from them rather than Dunbar-Ortiz and Lewy's perspectives?

Lalitha Edupuganti
10/26/2019 12:21:52 pm

Correction: Do you think we would have had a better chance in understanding the Native American issue of genocide if we also had primary sources from the Indians because their point of view cannot be found in either Dunbar-Ortiz or Lewy's perspective (American point of view is shown throughout but not Native American's view point)? How do you think it would affect our understanding of genocide then?

Siyona Shah
10/27/2019 11:35:40 am

Yes, I do think we would have had a different perspective and a better chance in understanding if the Native Americans' issue was a genocide if we had primary sources from them rather than Dunbar-Ortiz and Lewy's perspective because primary sources would reveal feelings and first hand accounts of what was actually happening. I believe that the two authors have a lot of bias of what happened and if we had primary sources, it would help better understand exactly what was going on.

Lauren Humphlett
10/27/2019 02:43:21 pm

Yes, I believe that today, we would look at this issue differently if we had primary sources from Natives' points of view. This happens a lot in history where the only primary sources kept throughout time is the ones from the bigger powers (such as our textbook). This only allows us to view such events from one side but if we had been able to read a primary source from a Native American during this time, we would have been able to see the perspective of this genocide without the American bias.

Tanvi Musale
10/28/2019 05:19:15 pm

I think we could better understand the situation if this was a genocide or not if we read first hand accounts from both Native Americans as well as the American settlers that were directly involved in the interactions. By reading the perspective of Native Americans, we can know how much of an impact the settlers had on their daily lives. By reading first hand accounts from the settlers, we can understand how westward expansion led them to disregard the lives Native Americans, ultimately killing them for their own needs. The first hand accounts from the settlers can also tell us if they intended to kill Natives. We can also compare their accounts to find patterns where they closely interacted and had an impact on each others' lives.

Cynthia Yan
10/26/2019 12:05:21 pm

Dunbar-Ortiz and Lewy often use the same evidence and interpret it to argue contradictory viewpoints, such as where they both agree that disease killed a large percentage of the Native American population, but Dunbar-Ortiz argues that it reflects genocide because European colonizers enforced conditions that made Native people very vulnerable to disease, while Lewy argues that it wasn't genocide because Europeans didn't know much about disease, so their motives weren't to eliminate the population. Where else do Dunbar-Ortiz and Lewy interpret evidence differently? How does this reflect their different biases?

Chuhan Ouyang
10/28/2019 03:30:50 pm

You are definitely correct that Dunbar-Ortiz and Lewy oftentimes cited the same evidence but provided different interpretations. For example, Dunbar-Ortiz argues that the Americans tried to exterminate not only men but also women and children . . . "the soldiers can not pause to distinguish between male and female." Dunbar-Ortiz then uses this evidence to argue that the Americans were intentional in eliminating the whole Indian population, including all civilians. However, Lewy argues that killing the women and children was "inevitable" and not-intended. In fact, some women were "allowed out of the encampment." The two authors have different opinions about how to interpret killings targeted towards women and children.

Nadiya Patel
10/29/2019 06:29:13 pm

I believe that Dunbar-Oritz and Lewy both interpret this information differently because of their own personal backgrounds and biases. Dunbar-Ortiz chooses to interpret the disease as an act of genocide because of the point she is trying to argue, but it may also be due to the fact that her mother was Native American. This was cause her to side more closely with the Native Americans because she is part Native American herself. Lewy on the other hand, I found out that Lewy is Jewish and his family lived through the Holocaust. Due to his prior experiences within a genocide, it can cause him to allows his personal bias to affect the way he interprets the same data. Overall, I think the personal experiences and biases that they both have cause for their different viewpoints.

Lalitha Edupuganti
10/26/2019 12:10:36 pm

Looking at the issues of slavery and oppression, people like Calhoun say how if blacks were given the same status as whites, there would be a time where whites would be slaves, and that whites do slaves a favor by making them “civilized through work”. If you were to compare this to Native Americans/ Indians, what similar view do you see and which beliefs between those towards Native Americans and African Americans were more destructive?

Tvisha Shete
10/27/2019 02:41:58 pm

I do think that this same mindset was applied to Natives, and this could be seen with the argument of self defense that the US made. They had claimed that the Indians had started warring with the US, which caused the US to enact a genocide as an act of self defense, however, the US were the ones that decided to colonize Indian lands, and exploited he weaknesses of the Natives (disease) to break up their territory and people to weaken their power. These actions were a bit more destructive, as with African Americans, their populations weren't broken up to weaken them, and they still united on their belief that slavery was unjust with the abolitionist movement, however with the Native Americans, their people were being ravaged with disease, and on top of that the US was breaking their territory to exert power, so the Indians couldn't unite among each other as an attempt to fight back.

Brandon Jeans
10/28/2019 03:54:06 pm

I believe that a similar view that the Whites had against both races was that they were the superior race and that they should have superiority over the other race. However, one difference between their views on the Native Americans and African Americans, was that they wanted to take the land from the Native Americans, while with the Africans they wanted to use them for work. I believe that this had a much more destructive effect on the African Americans, as this caused the rest of their lives to be put under the Whites, however, with the Natives they were mostly just relocated from their original home, and were allowed to live their until they were forcibly removed again.

Ashley Cao
10/26/2019 02:03:37 pm

the holocaust could be argued as the most extreme instance of genocide, and since kids learn about this at a young age, does this continuation of the expectations of genocide affect our assumed definition of genocide today? based on previous events of clear genocide, can the single event like the holocaust affect the way that we approach judging the native americans' treatment as genocide or not?

Rohan Das
10/27/2019 12:42:54 pm

Had we not read about the statements provided by the UN on genocide, or the specific crimes against humanity that were conducted against the Native Indians, I do believe that many people would not compare it to that of the holocaust due to how in-depth that material is covered from an early age. So while I do think that events like the holocaust do affect the way that we approach judging the treatment of Native Americans as genocide or not, I do also believe that given the facts and definition of genocide, one could more closely define the treatment of Native Americans as genocide.

Annabelle Chang
10/28/2019 09:44:19 am

The Holocaust is seen as the genocide of genocides. It's the most well-known example and likely the one that people will compare any other genocide to. If you didn't know the exact UN requirements for genocide, you'd likely think of the Holocaust and use that as a reference. As such, I think that this greatly affects our perception of other Holocausts (primacy vs recency) because it's just what we've been taught.

Amay
10/28/2019 09:59:01 am

Yes, the Holocaust was one of the most extreme genocides that we discuss very often in history classes. This leads to people comparing other events to it. Because the Americans were not routinely executing people like in the Holocaust people like to use that as evidence to prove that America never committed genocide.

Marta Chojkiewicz
10/28/2019 11:14:27 am

I think that the Holocaust can affect the way we approach the Native genocide, but I don't think it should. Usually we learn about the Holocaust more than any other genocide, and people see it as a really extreme event, which it was. However, the Native genocide was definitely valid, regardless of being smaller in size. The Holocaust gives people expectations that genocides are as severe as that one, but all genocides are worth considering since people still suffered.

Nadiya Patel
10/29/2019 06:34:55 pm

I believe if students received the same education about Native Americans as they did on the Holocaust, then many people today would approach the situation regarding the Native Americans with different views. Most of the time in schools, especially in Elementary school, we are only given one perspective about America and normally are not taught about the shortcomings of the United States and because of this most of the time we do not learn about the extermination of the Native Americans until much later on. This greatly affects the way people perceive what a genocide is supposed to look like. A genocide is not always going to look how it did with the Holocaust. From Dunbar-Ortiz's article, it is clear that genocides present themselves in many different ways and if student's were taught that earlier in their education they would definitely find that they view the treatment of Native Americans differently.

Jakub Kreuter
10/26/2019 02:57:57 pm

My question is about reparations and planned reparations for Native Americans. The Federal Government in 2012 paid nearly 3.4 billion to American Indians, however many other motions haven't made it out of Washington. So in what are some of the possible challenges lawmakers may face from other lawmakers or bureaucratic red tape when pushing reparations through government?

Rohan Das
10/27/2019 12:57:58 pm

I believe that land is one of the most challenging aspects concerning reparations. According to this map (https://dr282zn36sxxg.cloudfront.net/datastreams/f-d:dcbc506e5cee550fafcf244362feff0fdbdfd2ce419529590984e1bb%2BIMAGE%2BIMAGE.1), the entire western half of North Carolina once belonged to the Cherokee. Now, could money supplement potentially sacred land belonging to ancestors? If lawmakers chose to give all this land back to descendants of the Cherokee, what would happen to the people currently living on tis land?

Brandon Jeans
10/28/2019 03:57:38 pm

I definitely believe that land could be a large problem, as the United States don't have the ability to uproot entire cities to give back to the Native Americans. However, another issue is that by giving back much the land and money of the Native Americans, it would almost be as if the United States politicians were accepting that they were wrong in what they had done. Something we talked about for a good part of our discussion was how the United States did not recognize the genocide nor corrupt agreements that many believe the United States did against the Native Americans. And by the United States giving back their land or giving them reparations would mean them accepting that they had done something wrong in the past.

Jake Park-Walters
10/26/2019 04:48:57 pm

Was the racial hatred and fear that settlers held for Native Americans justified through events like King Philip’s War? Why?

Christian Lauchengco
10/27/2019 04:04:21 pm

I believe that fear could perhaps be justified, but that racial hatred could be understood but not justified. Furthermore, morally wrong actions taken by the settlers because of fear are still morally wrong no matter how they were justified.

Allan Gilsenan
10/27/2019 04:20:11 pm

Some of the things that Native American's did to white settlers in conflicts like King Phillips War, like scalping and cutting off fingers, were pretty gruesome. That being said, white settlers also did similarly gruesome things to Native American people. Also, no matter which way you put it, all conflict between Native Americans and white people was ultimately started by white people via European taking and settlement of Native American land in the age of exploration. In this way, Native Americans were just defending their homeland in wars like King Phillip's, and racism against them for wanting to defend their homeland is not justified.

Daniel Mariano
10/26/2019 08:56:45 pm

If people had come up with a similar definition of Genocide that the UN had before the events of the Holocaust and UN do you think they would have considered at the time the Native-American conflict a Genocide?

Om Surkund
10/27/2019 01:54:17 pm

If "people" had come up with the current definition of genocide back then, I don't believe that they would have considered the Native American conflict to be a genocide. For this question I am going to assume that "people" is just referring to the American society. Even if what the Americans were doing may have hit some of the qualifications of genocide, they would come up with reasons to try and refute those claims. For example, they might look at instances such as King Phillips War to explain that Native American conflict is not a genocide but rather a measure of self defense. The racially biased ideologies of people back then would have proven to disregard the claim that Native conflict was genocide.

Amay
10/28/2019 09:56:09 am

If an organization like the UN would have existed during that time it would mostly be controlled by the European powers of the time. Most if not all of them practiced colonialism and would not consider it as genocide.

Luna Hou
10/26/2019 11:21:56 pm

Based on the internationally accepted definition of genocide that Dunbar-Ortiz references and the evidence she presents regarding each of its criteria, do you agree with the argument she makes regarding Native Americans being the victims of genocide during the colonization era? If so, which part of this definition do you believe is the strongest evidence for this claim and why? If not, which part of this definition makes you think otherwise and why?

Christian Lauchengco
10/27/2019 03:59:23 pm

The UN definition for genocide requires that the actions are taken with the intent to destroy a people or culture. This makes me think that it would be difficult to prove that the majority of Americans or the majority of the American government had the intention to destroy the Native Americans. While there are quotes from individuals that seemingly support genocide, these are quotes from individuals that may not speak for what American opinion as a whole was at the time.

Chuhan Ouyang
10/28/2019 03:35:38 pm

I do agree with Dunbar-Ortiz's claim that Americans' treatments towards the Indians perfectly suffices every part of the UN's defintion of genocide. The strongest support for the genocidal claim is "5) imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group." According to Dunbar-Ortiz, "one in four Native women had been sterilized without her consent." Forced abortion is a very anti-humanitarian act, suggesting America's strong genocidal intent towards the Indians.

Hayley White
10/27/2019 11:06:34 am

In Lewy's argument he states that it was not only the Natives being attacked, but also the Americans. The warfare between the two groups was considered to be out of revenge instead of out of the desire for extermination, according to Lewy. If that is the case, then why do you think it is more well known that Americans persecuted Native Americans, but not that Americans were persecuted by the Natives too?

Rohan Das
10/27/2019 12:29:56 pm

While I do not personally agree with Lewy's argument, I do believe that its more well known that Americans persecuted Native Americans and not the other way around simply due to the fact that the United States was the aggressor (taking land from the natives), the Natives only acted in self defense in order to protect what was there's, and finally, many people saw it as a massacre due to the technological superiority of the United States which led to the one sided massacres at many points in time.

Nadiya Patel
10/29/2019 07:03:39 pm

I also personally disagree with Lewy's point of view regarding the Native Americans. However, in reference to the story that America was the bad guy being more well-known, I think it is due to the fact that people from a young age are taught history from only one point of view. This causes many people to have a one-dimensional understanding of the events that took place, rather than allowing people to be able to understand both sides of the story and make their own opinions. I think another reason for the popularity of the story that the Americans were the instigators is because a greater number of Native Americans were fatalities due to the violence, which may have made it seem that the United States was the oppressor.

Carter Yeh
10/27/2019 11:08:57 am

In regard to stereotypes of Native Americans, how did they themselves play a role in increasing the growing racism against them?

Amay
10/28/2019 09:52:50 am

Instead of being wary or even kind to the natives the Americans saw them as savage and inferior. This lead to the idea that they can be easily wiped out and that they don't deserve the continent as much as the Americans.

Chuhan Ouyang
10/28/2019 03:38:21 pm

Native Americans increased hatred by performing the Ghost Dance. I n this dance, the Indians pictured the returned of the decimated buffalos, but they also envisioned to drive away white people and restore the traditional lands. This dance frightened the white people, directly leading towards the Battle of the Wounded Knee. Therefore, Indian cultural traditions played a central role in increasing racism.

Austin Nguyen
10/29/2019 11:07:55 am

In the Lewy article it said “Cheyenne and Arapahoe Indians who had legitimate grievances against the encroaching white settlers, also fought for the sheer joy of combat, desire for booty, and the prestige that accrued from success.” Some Native tribes perpetuated stereotypes of Indians by fighting back and basically giving Americans a reason to attack and “proof” that they were uncivilized barbarians.

Rohan Das
10/27/2019 12:13:51 pm

If there existed an organization like the UN during this time period, do you believe that the United States as a whole would get charged with genocide? Or do you believe that the rest of they, like the US, would agree with the mindset of white superiority and manifest destiny?

Tvisha Shete
10/27/2019 01:44:40 pm

I think that if an organization such as the UN had existed back then, they would've supported the US with their expansion to the West, and the war against Native Americans. This is due to the fact that if such an organization existed, it would be composed of almost or all Whites, since they held the most power, and other racial minorities were subject to being denied the same privileges Whites had in governmental organizations. A large majority of Whites then had supported the expansion into Native territory for economic profit and religious conversion, and supported the idea of warfare with Native Americans by arguing it to be an act of self defense, as they believed the conflict started at the hands of the Indians. Also, the amount of support for the White cause in the war was supported by propaganda such as political cartoons, which would also help steer any political organization to siding with the United States.

Om Surkund
10/27/2019 01:46:16 pm

If there were to be an organization such as the UN at the time, I believe that the United States would have been charged with genocide. If the US had been involved with various different countries of various different ethnicities and backgrounds, like the UN today, they would have been seriously reprimanded for trying to exterminate the Natives. Then again, ideologies were different back then so its hard to put into perspective what they saw as right and wrong. Overall, the US's involvement in an organization such as the UN would have most likely caused them to be charged with genocide.

Darren Chang
10/28/2019 12:04:54 am

An organization like the UN, if it existed at the time, would have eventually condemned the European-Americans for the fate of the Natives, however it think this would be much later, at least until after the mid-1800s. Overtime, England and other European nations became more liberal in their beliefs, and would try to vocally reprimand the U.S., but I don't think too much actual action would be done to punish them.

Tvisha Shete
10/27/2019 01:35:03 pm

Another account to the discussion of genocide on Native Americans was made by Raphael Lemkin, who stated that colonization is "intrinsically genocidal", being divided into a two step process, the first being the destruction of the Indigenous populations way of life, and the second being the newcomers (in this case, Americans) imposing their way of life on the Natives. To what degree is this process seen on other genocides such as the Rwandan Genocide and the Holocaust? Does this process also apply to warfare such as the American Civil War?

Om Surkund
10/27/2019 01:37:16 pm

Do you believe that the South Carolina government declaring that a native child should be given to a South Carolina couple is justified/right? Or should the child have been given to someone of her own culture?

Tvisha Shete
10/27/2019 01:57:25 pm

I believe that the South Carolina government should've given the native child to someone of their own culture in the 1900's, because these children was forcibly ripped away from their families, which caused trauma, and on top of that, being forced to stay with a family that didn't recognize their culture made these children feel alone and pressured to change their way of life. If they had been given to someone of their own culture, they would've been able to have the comfort of their religious traditions to keep their family in their heart, and they wouldn't have felt alone, since the family of their own culture would've embraced the child's religious ideals and would've also practiced them with the child.

Marta Chojkiewicz
10/28/2019 11:11:39 am

I believe that a Native child should have stayed in its own culture. Americans had a vast idea of white supremacy, and I can't imagine a white couple loving a Native child the same as they would love a white child. The Native child deserves to grow up in a place where they are loved and valued, among inclusive people with their own customs. Simply put, I don't think that a South Carolinian couple would be able to provide for a Native child in a way that the child needs during this time period.

Dylan Thakur
10/31/2019 09:26:22 am

If the child is orphaned, I believe it's fine if they were given to a south carolina family. Sure, the child may assimilate to American culture, however this shouldn't matter if the child is able to grow up in a family.

Evan Villani
10/31/2019 10:50:54 am

Even politically it seems that keeping the child within its culture would have been a smarter decision. Today, this case is being used as an example of what qualifies as genocide, or at least forceful assimilation. It reflects on the views of natives and their children by SC government at the time.

Lauren Humphlett
10/27/2019 02:39:04 pm

Why do you believe this event wasn't considered a genocide until Indigenous movements began to pop up in the twentieth century?

Christian Lauchengco
10/27/2019 03:50:36 pm

Perhaps because during the past century America has become much more tolerant and more rights have been extended to Native Americans. This could have given Native Americans the freedom to put forth their own ideas without fearing retribution. Also because I believe genocide as a word was created during WW2.

maddie girolimon
10/28/2019 08:28:47 am

I think because the initial intent was not genocide and because there was fighting started by both sides it was not considered genocide until the indigenous movement began. Now that it has not been viewed as genocide for so long it would be very difficult to change the opinions of the public on this topic.

Annabelle Chang
10/28/2019 09:34:39 am

I think that there are a couple of reasons for that. For one, countries are very reluctant to acknowledge things like this in their history, for fear that it'll hurt their public image. They likely would've hidden it until it looked bad to hide it. The other reason is probably that this wasn't a genocide by intent at the beginning. At first, it was settlers fighting Natives for their land. Later it became about race, but for large portion of the disputed history, it was just about acquiring land with a few cases that were racially motivated.

Kishan Patel
10/29/2019 06:54:42 pm

I believe that this wasn't considered a genocide because the Natives were seen to have angered the Americans and were said to have started the fight. I also believe this because the the intent of the Americans was no genocide, they were just trying to expand but since people were already on that land they would have to move them or kill them to make that land theirs.

Joey Caputo
10/27/2019 02:44:40 pm

In one of the readings, I cannot remember which one, the author talks about how frequent attacks on Native American tribes and villages were. In what ways could have the Native Americans protected their land and tried to defend it?

Michael Herrera
10/27/2019 03:39:39 pm

In one of the readings, I can't remember which one, the author mentions that the Native American's actually did fight back against the settlers after they realized that the they weren't going to back down. Many use this fact to justify what the settlers did to the Natives, but they only retaliated because they had been attacked first.

Brenna Hanson
10/27/2019 05:48:22 pm

I actually feel question should probably be "did" not "could have". Much of the genocidal acts committed against the Indians were partly a result of fear and racial hatred fostered in American culture during early conflicts. Many Indian conflicts had a lot of violence on both sides due to expansion on the part of whites and resistance on the part of Indians (an example is the Pequot war which Lewy had a section on). These wars created a lot of fear of the enemy on both sides. Movements within Indian groups to retaliate against expansion and protect their lands often resulted in violence against whites as well (think about some of the causes of the Salem witch trials and why the first girl got "sick"). All of this stuck with white Americans, creating a lot of hatred, fear, and racism which manifested itself in genocidal acts. This violence also served to homogenize the Indians as one enemy- it wasn't the specific tribe that attacked you that was the problem but Native Americans as a whole- which also created an environment for genocidal acts (for example, the Paxton boys attacking a peaceful tribe after conflict with a different group just because both groups were Indian).

Jakub Kreuter
10/28/2019 06:34:47 am

There really was no way the Indians good have preserved there land and way of life following 1492. The vastly different cultures made warfare inevitable and refusal to step down by either side inflamed this. Ultimately it was huge die offs from disease, up to 90% of their population and more advanced European weapons and farming techniques. Like in innumerable cases throughout history that group who was objectively weaker could not resist their attacker and thus Indians were in able to preserve there way of life.

Annabelle Chang
10/28/2019 09:29:25 am

Given that neither the settlers nor the Indians were willing to compromise, it would've been difficult for them to come to a peaceful solution. The Native Americans were at a disadvantage considering how many had been killed by disease. As far as how the Natives could've fought back, I don't think that there was much they could do because whatever they did do would just be used to justify more attacks on them.

Amay
10/28/2019 09:48:37 am

When the settlers first landed the natives could have wiped them out. They had strength in numbers and the settler's weapons were not as developed. But by the time they formed large coalitions and confederations it was too late, the settlers developed better guns and had enough land and people.

Kishan Patel
10/29/2019 06:51:06 pm

In the readings it says that the Natives did try to fight back but this just caused more and more problems. Once the Natives started to fight back it caused more and more Americans and Natives to come which causes more people to die. Also the Americans won the fight even if the Natives tried to fight back, and the only way they could have protected their land more was probably by sending more people to fight.

Dylan Thakur
10/31/2019 09:36:59 am

I don't believe that the Natives could have prevented the attacked. They were out-manned, out-gunned, and out-strategized. The settlers didn't know the territory, however, Natives could not have stopped the settlers with bows and arrows.

Christian Lauchengco
10/27/2019 03:28:55 pm

Dunbar-Ortiz describes Settler-Colonialism as requiring a genocidal policy. So how does genocide relate to the colonization of other countries such as Canada or Australia?

Michael Herrera
10/27/2019 03:47:33 pm

Lewy presented evidence that pointed to the fact that Native Americans faced severe discrimation and abuse, he states that otherwise, their spreadout time of death, numbers of people loss, and overall reasoning does not align with the definition of genocide. One of his main reasonings about why it's not considered a genocide is that a large portion of the death count comes from disease that the settlers brought with them. Do you feel that these deaths do or don't count in the grand scheme of things?

Brenna Hanson
10/27/2019 05:35:32 pm

Just following the definition, no- saying that an event is not genocide because the majority of the population died of disease, not murder, is not a valid argument. It is true, deaths from disease (except for biological warfare which according to the article was very rare if it did happen at all) are generally out of people's control (no "intent to destroy"), and not a marker of genocide. However, that's not to say that genocide couldn't have occurred. What should be counted is the 5 factors listed by the definition, all under the precursor "with the intent to destroy".

Jamie Long
10/28/2019 08:05:36 pm

I think that while disease did account for a significant part of Native American deaths, it also can't be attributed as the only reason for the population decline. There was governmental legislature and efforts that directly targeted Indian people as a group, which cannot be explained by disease. Also, although disease itself was a major cause of death during the time, there were other factors that were more purposeful that led to more susceptibility and spread of disease. For example, interruption of Native American trade routes and malnutrition/starving due to the loss of land.

Allen MacMillan
10/29/2019 09:45:06 pm

I do not believe a majority of the deaths from disease should count towards the death total if you are to consider this a genocide. In some cases where there was a deliberate choice to try and inflict Natives with disease this should be counted, but these deaths counted for a small percent of the total that should be counted.

Brenna Hanson
10/27/2019 05:23:21 pm

Something that we touched on in class (period 3) but didn't fully explore was the purpose UN's definition of genocide. As I understand it, the purpose of the definition was to try modern war criminals with genocide and related crimes in today's political structure. While a genocide doesn't have to be to the scale of the Holocaust to be counted as one, the 1948 definition was written directly in response to the Holocaust in order to try and convict Nazi criminals. Because the definition was written for present conflicts and not the past, it makes it very hard to apply it to historical events. It requires interpretation of the definition to apply it to the past, because the definition assumes certain geopolitical structures and functionings that were just not present in previous times (especially before the world wars). As Lewy said, "Of course it is far from easy to apply a legal concept developed in the middle of the 20th century to events taking place many decades if not hundreds of years earlier." If you were to create a "historical" definition of genocide, what might be some things you would alter from the original definition? What would you keep? Do you agree with me that the definition should be altered in any way?

Amay
10/28/2019 09:38:47 am

I would consider genocide as the targeted killing of any group of people. This definition would be better for historical analysis because it focuses on the broad denfiniton instead of specifics.

Brandon Jeans
10/28/2019 04:07:21 pm

I believe that the current definition of Genocide is very accurate to what it should be for the past. However, if I were to focus on the main points of the definition that should be looked at when looking at past events that are possible genocides. I would consider the intent to destroy a population being one of the most important parts to considering a genocide. There were many examples in wars where certain groups of a population were focused and tried to be killed, however, an important thing to differentiate was if the people killing people of this group were doing it to try and completely kill the group, or if they were only killing them for hatred or war, and did not plan on eliminating their population completely. All the other definitions already support this idea with things like trying to stop births from the group, however, the intent to destroy is the main point, and I believe that it covers all of history as genocides across history typically still fall under this definition given by the UN even if they were hundreds of years earlier.

Jessica Xia
10/27/2019 05:53:23 pm

We talked briefly about if the Natives had surrendered, if this whole conflict could have been avoided. I wish we talked more about this topic. I personally believe it could not have been avoided, but what does everyone else think?

Ashlyn Dumaw
10/27/2019 09:42:29 pm

Personally, I think that some sort of conflict was inevitable. Examining the American government and citizens' attitudes at the time, there was an intense desire for westward expansion. They would have wanted to expand regardless of who was living there. On the Native Americans' side, there was a desire to protect the land that they had already been on and to defend themselves. I believe that they would've done this regardless of who invaded on their land. There could have been a more peaceful resolution to this conflict, but in the end, neither side was willing to change their beliefs; therefore, I believe that some sort of similar conflict was unavoidable.

maddie girolimon
10/28/2019 08:24:47 am

I think due to America's thirst for land, need for expansion and very extreme ideas of superiority the result of this event was pretty inevitable. I think there would have been a slim chance of Natives to live peacefully with the colonists so the only other result would have been complete surrender of land from the Natives which would have never realistically happen.

Annie Pi
10/29/2019 08:32:31 am

I agree with the above that conflict could not have been avoided. A quote from the first article says "Settler-colonialism requires violence or the threat of violence to attain its goals... people do not hand over their land, resources, children, and futures without a fight, and that fight is met with violence." This shows how conflict between Natives and settlers could not have been avoided, as it would not be logical for Natives to simply give up their livelihoods because some white settlers demanded them to.

Kishan Patel
10/29/2019 06:48:05 pm

I believe that some kind of conflict was inevitable but if the Native had surrendered there would have definitely been less casualties. They Natives and the Americans were fighting for land and even if the Native had surrendered they wouldn't have done it immediately still causing conflict, but if they did less people would definitely have died.

DJ Gill
10/29/2019 07:01:17 pm

I strongly believe that there was always going to be conflict between the Natives and the Americans. During this time period, there was a set mindset of Westward Expansion and Manifest Destiny. This thinking fueled the thoughts of Americans for more and more land. Because of this, conflict was inevitable.

Anisha Harkara
10/29/2019 09:40:51 pm

I believe that conflict between the Natives and the US was unavoidable. And even is Natives surrendered, where would they go? America wanted to expand and I dont think there was any room for Natives. Some Natives assimilated believing that they would be more accepted, but they ultimately weren't. I dont think they would have been able to live together in peace regardless.

Kailynn Roberts
10/27/2019 10:48:44 pm

The Native American genocide was largely done in the earlier days of America, so why do you think that there were also events that played out in the 20th century?

Liz Aman
10/28/2019 04:36:47 pm

There was still much racial hatred toward the Native American population in the United States throughout the 20th century. Whites still viewed themselves as the superior race and wanted the Native Americans to assimilate to American society. For example in 2013, the U.S. Supreme Court used the Indian Child Welfare Act to state that a child did not have to live with her biological Cherokee father.

Anushka Vaidya
10/29/2019 09:13:17 pm

I agree with this statement. Racism definitely continued to affect Native Americans, long after the suffering they faced during American colonization and expansion. Another example would be when "3406 Native were sterilized without their permission between 1973 and 1976." This event showed how white supremacy led Americans to validate these actions towards Native Americans.

Darren Chang
10/27/2019 11:54:40 pm

One thing I couldn't ask in the discussion was how you think the situation could have been different for the Native Americans and the European Colonists. Do you think that there could have been a chance for a unified Native-European society? If so, what needed to change for that to happen?

Teara Anderson
10/30/2019 07:09:46 pm

I believe that there was always a chance for the Natives and the Europeans to coexist and have a unified society. Many Native groups displayed compliance in conforming to American society. The attitude of some Europeans was what caused the clash between the two groups. Overall I believe that the mindset of many Europeans would have needed to change for a unified society. Moreover, the ideas of Manifest Destiny and white supremacy couldn't have been very strong in the American society for this to work. I think that there is always an option for the amity of two peoples to live in a society together, both groups just have to be willing to work together instead of against each other.

Darren Chang
10/27/2019 11:59:15 pm

I think one of Lewy's most important points of argument was that European colonization did not fit the exact definition of genocide set by the UN, and is thus not a genocide. However, Dunbar-Ortiz states the opposite with different historical evidence. Do you think that what happened to the Native Americans classifies as a genocide, and what historical events can support your argument?

Amay
10/28/2019 09:36:20 am

I disagree with Lewy’s agrument because he believes that it is not a genocide because it lacks motive. While most settlers are not going out of their way to kill natives it is still a genocide because they do not consider the natives as citizens and are encouraging and allowing their deaths under the law.

Dhairya Desai
10/28/2019 06:59:18 am

In the discussion we talked about how each author had bias because of their personal past. Disregarding what side you are on, which author or article is more credible?

Isha Parikh
10/28/2019 08:11:22 am

In my opinion, both authors had strong bias that can be seen in their writing. I think in order to find a credible answer, you would have to look at both authors and use the facts that they give to form your opinion.

maddie girolimon
10/28/2019 08:20:34 am

there was definitely very obvious bias in the first article from Roxanne Dunbar-Ortiz most likely because of her Native American decent. This made her argument seem a bit less reliable that the second document.

Annie Hu
10/29/2019 01:37:58 pm

I believe that the Dunbar Ortiz article is much more biased than the Lewy one because she has written a book called the Indigenous People's History of the United States. There is a lot more bias towards the Indians as victims in her article and accuses all the U.S. policies of being genocidal without any consideration of other historical factors like Westward Expansion like Lewy did.

jared
10/28/2019 07:49:11 am

based on the results of the discussion why do you think the issue of the genocide against native Americans is only now getting a lot of attention

Amay
10/28/2019 09:32:06 am

I think it is getting a lot of attention recently because people are more critical of their country’s historical actions. Also the question of the genocide of the natives is a hot button issue in today’s political climate.

tyler
10/29/2019 09:07:20 am

i think people are shedding new light on the topic in hopes of avoiding another genocide in the future.

Isha Parikh
10/28/2019 08:08:30 am

Do you think America would’ve still continued their mistreatment of Native Americans if there was strict consequences for “breaking genocide rules?”

Dhairya Desai
10/28/2019 08:10:41 am

I think that America would still continue the mistreatments because they still want to expand and get more territorial power. If America stopped the mistreatment they wouldn’t be able to expand which would disprove the idea of Manifest Destiny.

Megan Gerlach
10/28/2019 03:50:58 pm

I definitely agree that Americans would have continued to mistreat Native Americans even if there were consequences for "breaking genocide rules", however I do believe that it would have been to a much smaller scale and that it would not have been as politically enforced so that politicians and leading figures would not be caught in scandals. That being said, I also disagree with the statement that they were only able to continue Manifest Destiny and expand westward because they mistreated Native Americans. Although I agree that if they treated Native Americans properly, expansion probably wouldn't have been so large, I don't believe that expansion would have been completely stopped and impossible, I just believe that they wouldn't have been able to obtain as much land from the Native Americans.

maddie girolimon
10/28/2019 08:17:43 am

How big of a role do you believe the ideas of Manifest Destiny play in the so called “genocide” of the Natives?

Marta Chojkiewicz
10/28/2019 11:08:22 am

I think the ideas of Manifest Destiny played somewhat of a role in the genocide of Natives. During this time period, the idea of Manifest Destiny was not defined yet, but American colonizers definitely felt entitled to the land. In other words, I believe that the ideas of Manifest Destiny played a part in this genocide, but it wouldn't be considered Manifest Destiny at the time.

Connor Lauchengco
10/28/2019 11:15:20 am

The ideas of manifest destiny played a large role in the pursuit of the clearing of Native Americans from the land. In order for white settlement to occur first Native Americans had to be, often forcibly, removed from the land.

Meredith G Burns
10/28/2019 03:34:22 pm

I think Manifest Destiny played a big role in the "genocide" of the Natives. One of the sole reasons why the conflicts started if because Americans were wanting Native lands, and they thought that they had the right over the land. Many Americans thought that it was their divine right to go west and to spread their culture, and this is what Manifest Destiny was.

Sharan Sivakumar
10/28/2019 09:21:41 pm

I feel like the ideology of Manifest Destiny played a huge part in the "genocide" of the Native Americans because the whole idea that Americans had the god-given rights to the land was pretty much what Manifest Destiny was saying and this was the driving factor behind Westward Expansion which is what ended up kicking the Natives out.

Austin Nguyen
10/29/2019 10:53:52 am

Manifest destiny played a huge role in the treatment of Natives by American expansionists. Their strong beliefs on how all of the americas belonged to them and natives claiming the land as theirs quickly escalated tensions and basically was the root of the genocidal crimes committed against the natives.

Arabella Cai
10/29/2019 01:57:39 pm

Personally speaking, I believe that the ideas of Manifest Destiny played a major role in the "genocide" of the Natives. Primarily, the definition of Manifest Destiny is that white Americans were divinely ordained to settle the entire continent of North America and the ideology of Manifest Destiny inspired a variety of measures designed to remove or destroy the native population. Connecting the definition to the main conflicts mentioned in the two documents that we read, the concept of Manifest Destiny made a number of white settlers create the mindset that they were the superior group in the United States and the entire land of the United States should be the place for only white people to live on. This also vastly illustrated the idea of racism at that time. As a result, the white settlers forced a significant number of Natives to flee their original land at first hand and ultimately killed most of them.

Taewan Park
10/29/2019 05:28:12 pm

I believe that while ideology of Manifest Destiny didn't directly caused the motivations of Americans in their treatment of Native Americans, its fundamental belief has subsequently affected such treatment of Americans like Indian Removal Act. In addition, Americans' further expansion towards west which Manifest Destiny had its prime role, eventually led to forced acquisition of lands, greatly harming Native Americans property and rights. Thus, Manifest Destiny itself shouldn't fit the definition of "genocide," however, its fundamental ideology motivated Americans in their action towards Native Americans indirectly.

Jenny Caputo
10/29/2019 09:21:10 pm

I believe manifest destiny played a significant role in the genocide because it started with the expansion of America. The Americans settled west in the Native's land because they believed it was their manifest destiny. When they settled west, they invaded native land, sparking conflict and later driving the natives out of their land.

Annabelle Chang
10/28/2019 09:16:29 am

During the class conversation, we discussed the various measures that the government took to limit the Indian population and dismantle their culture, but it was also mentioned that much of the conflict and removal was because the settlers wanted land, not necessarily genocide.The Indians were killed for a number of reasons and intent, but do you think that those reasons amounted to genocide?

Connor Lauchengco
10/28/2019 11:14:23 am

While the federal U.S. government I feel did not pursue a genocide of Native Americans, certainly smaller groups and state governments pursued the genocide of Native Americans in order to clear them and their culture from the land.

Tanvi Musale
10/28/2019 04:55:36 pm

We talked about this after the discussion, but the U.S. government made the Native Americans game to hunt when they offered money/rewards for death Natives, even going as far as offering a high reward for killing Native children(in CA). The greed of the settlers and their lack of morals amounted the deaths of Native Americans to an extremely large number.

tanvi Musale
10/28/2019 07:55:51 pm

higher*

Jamie Long
10/28/2019 07:12:42 pm

I think that while much of the violence that occurred during this time period was individual circumstances and over land/expansionist ideals, there were also several acts that can be considered genocidal. For example, there were several federal actions taken to harm the Native Americans as a group, such as the Removal Act and legislature passed during the Termination Era, which had to do with forced sterilization. Settlers' want for land definitely played a significant role in the treatment of Indians, including encouraging acts of genocide which directly targeted the group.

Kara Musteikis
10/28/2019 09:28:58 am

While disease was the largest contributor to the decline in the Native American population and was the main topic that would cause the Native Americans treatment to be labeled genocide, how do you think the other acts that can be used to define genocide? Do you think these acts contributed to how the Native Americans were seen as victims of genocide or not?

Megan Gerlach
10/28/2019 03:42:53 pm

Another instance that occurred during this period of violence against Native Americans was sterilization, which prevented women the ability to have children. This action can be used to define genocide because it is purposely prohibiting the growth of an ethnic/cultural group (one of the defined categories created during the Genocide Convention). From today's views, these acts of sterilization definitely demonstrates how Native Americans were victims of genocide because it falls directly under one of the categories that is used in the definition of genocide. Sterilization was also forced on Native Americans with no other purpose than to stop the growth of the Indian population, most likely in an attempt to eradicate the population as a whole.

Amay
10/28/2019 09:29:20 am

Why is it important that why classify what happened during American expansion as genocide or not? What does that change and how important is it?

Connor Lauchengco
10/28/2019 11:13:14 am

It is important because the discussion of how we interact with Native Americans and respond to the crimes of the past is still a relevant topic today.

Liz Aman
10/28/2019 04:32:17 pm

I think it is very important because there are still issues regarding the treatment of Native Americans today. For example, local and state health agencies in the United States and other countries continued forced sterilization policies into the 1990's. Additionally, as was mentioned in our class discussion, the Native American boarding schools are still open today as a way for this group to preserve their culture. However, the United States is providing less funding for these organizations.

Tanvi Musale
10/28/2019 04:44:14 pm

It's important to clarify what actually happened even if it doesn't change the past. If we don't clarify what happened to them, then it's like we are erasing death of thousands of Natives. By not acknowledging the genocide of Native Americans went through, we wouldn't be facing the facts.

Annie Pi
10/29/2019 08:37:02 am

I agree with Tanvi that it is important to acknowledge and talk about the past remember the mistakes and wrong-doings of America's past. By discussing the causes and effects of the debated genocide of Native Americans, we can study the continuous effects seen and felt today, and take action and create policies to help those who still suffer from the immoral events that occurred only a few generations ago.

Jane Cho
10/29/2019 08:52:38 pm

I also agree with Tanvi because by acknowledging what we did in the past, we can accept the fact that we made a mistake and can take action to make sure that that same mistake doesn't happen again with other groups in the future.

Amay
10/28/2019 09:43:58 am

What similarities and differences does the American "genocide" have with other historical and recent genocides and mass killings. Does it have more in common or more differences? Should it be called a genocide or not?

Shazia Muckram
10/28/2019 08:47:35 pm

One of the recent genocides in China against the Muslims can be compared to the genocide of the Native Americans. China has been doing everything it can to eliminate Muslims and the people of Uighur for a really long time now. One of the main motives behind this is to get complete control of Xinjiang, which is a region in China as big as Alaska. China feels that the Uighur Muslims are posing a threat to their mission and also because of the past independent movements against the Chinese rule. I think this is very similar to the American genocide because both the Chinese and Americans targeted a specific group of people, the Chinese targeting the Muslims and the Americans who targeted the Native Americans. Both America and China had similar motives, which was to expand their territory and acquire more land. Therefore, I believe that this is a genocide because it targeted a specific group with the intent to destroy them.

Sharan Sivakumar
10/28/2019 09:16:48 pm

I feel like the American "genocide" has less in common with other recent genocides and mass killings. For example if you look at the Rwandan genocide, the group that experienced the genocide was killed because of their social, religious, and political beliefs. In a sense, they were "targeted", while the Native Americans weren't targeted, but rather their land was targeted. Also, if you look at the end result, you notice that so many of the Native Americans still survive to date.

Annie Pi
10/29/2019 08:40:19 am

The arguable genocide of Native Americans is often, and was compared to the holocaust in both articles we read. They are similar as both groups were both targeted and killed solely because they belonged to that specific group. Where they differentiate is the magnitude of each genocide. Lewy argues that Natives did not suffer through a genocide because their treatment could not be compared to what the Jewish did during the holocaust, while Ortiz argues that it is a holocaust as both groups were killed because of their religious belief, ethnicity, or race.

Taewan Park
10/29/2019 05:40:35 pm

I believe that treatment of African Americans by the United States before the addition of 13th Amendment in the constitution after the Civil War, could definitely accountable as "genocide." Enslavement, brutal treatment towards African Americans are evident through United States' history and lies under the definition of genocide by the Genocide Convention in all of the acts promoted by the convention: (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.
Such genocidal acts of the United States towards African Americans could be identified of its similarity with treatment of Native Americans in terms of racial discrimination. Both groups were targeted by their race. However, African Americans found their rights later after the Civil War while Native Americans still struggled under Americans' greed.

Jane Cho
10/29/2019 07:58:36 pm

Some similarities that the American Genocide have with other historical and recent genocides and mass killings such as the Holocaust are that they target a specific group of people and the motivation is hate, and the want to exterminate the whole group. However, the American Genocide was different to some other genocides such as the Holocaust and the Rwandan Genocide because it was not as extreme or large scale. These historical genocides were on a much larger scale and level than compared to the American Genocide of the Native Americans.

Jane Cho
10/29/2019 08:48:10 pm

Also to add on to my point, the tactics used during the historical genocides were much more cruel and extreme. The motivations for the historical genocides were mainly exterminating the whole group of people while for the American genocide, the want for land and expansion was also a main motivation. I believe that the American genocide, despite being "smaller" in comparison to other genocides and less extreme, was still considered a genocide because of the goal to exterminate and remove a group of people and having a significant amount of the population targeted killed.

Marta Chojkiewicz
10/28/2019 11:04:30 am

One of the things I wished we discussed more would be the evidence that led Lewy to come to his claim. It was not cohesive. In many places he mentioned that the suffering of Natives was exaggerated, but did not provide any evidence for this. How could he have known this? Dunbar-Ortiz supported her claim with evidence refuting the five parts of genocide, but Lewy just stated his claim.

Austin Nguyen
10/29/2019 10:49:21 am

Lewy mentioned how there were many different estimates on how many natives were actually there before and after American colonization, likely trying to show how some things might have been exaggerated over the years.

Connor Lauchengco
10/28/2019 11:12:18 am

Do you think steps need to be taken today to correct the crimes of the past against Native Americans?

Meredith G Burns
10/28/2019 03:31:01 pm

I don't think that we can correct the crimes made. But, I do think that there could be things that could be done today to help the natives, or at least "ask for forgiveness". Natives and the US government, plus some US citizens still bud heads with each other. I think that there should be some more laws to help protect native culture and to allow them to grow and thrive.

Jane Cho
10/29/2019 07:53:11 pm

I don't think its possible for us to correct our mistakes in the past today but I do believe that we should take action to make sure that an event like this doesn't happen again. We should take some action that help benefit and provide protection over Natives and their land and culture. Talking about this topic of the Native Americans faced genocide or not is important today because we can see all of our past mistakes and make sure that we don't make that mistake again with Native Americans or any other group in the future,

Logan Siege
10/31/2019 03:32:09 pm

I believe a great first step to correct the crimes the people of the US against Native Americans is to educate the public. This is already seen by the change in people's perception of Columbus Day, in which people are protesting to change the day to Indigenous Peoples Day.

Annie Hu
10/28/2019 12:30:57 pm

In the discussion we talked a lot about presentism and our bias from a modern standpoint as to whether or not these events constitute a genocide. One point that I didn't get to bring up in the discussion was that all these events were carried out by several different administrations and U.S. troops so that there was no clear intent of eradicating the Indians.

With that being said do you think that political factors or racial superiority played a bigger role in the events?

Megan Gerlach
10/28/2019 03:35:27 pm

I believe that racial superiority played a much larger role than political factors during these events. Based off of many instances that occurred throughout America history, it is evident that Americans saw themselves as racially superior to Indians and believed that Indians were savages that could not be civilized. Although I believe that political factors contributed to the violence that Indians experienced, these political factors seemed to stem from racial superiority and the belief that in some instances Americans were helping the Indians (i.e setting up reservations and boarding schools). With all that being said, I believe another notable factor for these acts of violence was contributed to Americans greed for land that also ties in with both racial and political factors.

Meredith G Burns
10/28/2019 03:15:56 pm

“In the end, the sad fate of the American Indians represents not a crime but a tragedy. Involving an irreconcilable collision of cultures and values. Despite the efforts of well-meaning people in both camps, there existed no good solution to this clash.”

This quote shows that the author believes that the action was not genocide. And that all it was, was a conflict between two cultures. Do you think it was a tragedy or a genocide? I think it was a both, because there are signs pointing both ways.

Teara Anderson
10/30/2019 07:18:07 pm

Overall, I think it was a genocide. Guenter Lewy was very biased in his writing and believed the killing of Native Americans wasn't a genocide because in comparison to the Holocaust, it was very minor. However, Roxanne Dunbar-Ortiz explains that a genocide doesn't have to be as extreme as the Holocaust in order to adhere to the definition of the word. While some of the acts that Europeans did might not have been to intentionally wipe out the Native American race, many of the acts were, which ultimately made it a genocide.

Chuhan Ouyang
10/28/2019 03:21:11 pm

Dubar-Ortiz's text mentions that Americans' treatments towards Indians is a genocide "carried by the US government." I wonder, does the genocidal claim extends to all American citizens' attitudes towards the Indians? According to the textbook, the Quakers in Pennsylvania, because of their religious belief of equality, were rather benevolent towards the Indians. Moreover, during the Lewis and Clark expedition, they followed traditional Indian customs of giving gifts, which was a friendly sign. As seen above, there are people that did not mean to exterminate the existence of Indians. So, how large, or what percent of, the population was not genocidal towards the Indians?

Meredith G Burns
10/28/2019 03:22:11 pm

In the “Were American Indians the Victims of Genocide” article, it talked about how soldiers would give infected blankets to natives, based on the article and what you know do you think this is true?

I think that in some cases, soldiers did give out blankets, to natives in order to kill them off. But, I don't know if it was for racial hatred or a strategy of war.

If you think that soldiers did give out blankets, do you think it was a strategy of war or acts of genocide.

Meredith G Burns
10/28/2019 03:27:45 pm

In the "Were American Indians the Victims of Genocide" it says, “The violent collision between whites and American’s native population was probably unavoidable… many of the millions who arrived in the New World gradually pushed westward into America’s seemingly unlimited space."
Do you think that the conflict between Natives and Americans were avoidable?

I think that the conflict between Natives and Americans was unavoidable because Americans wanted Native land and they were going to do whatever it takes to take that native land. Also, racial hatred between started a long time ago and it was just a matter of time before they attacked one another.

Megan Gerlach
10/28/2019 03:28:37 pm

During the discussion we debated a lot on if what Dunbar-Ortiz described as genocidal tendencies were present between the European settlers and Indians. However, do you think that the conflict between settlers and Indigenous tribes was avoidable, or do you stand with Lewy in that it was an unavoidable clash of culture and values because Indians were not willing to adapt to a new lifestyle, and settlers thought they were superior to the Indians and would not allow them to preserve their land?

Avni Arora
10/28/2019 05:35:21 pm

I believe that the conflict was unavoidable because of the stark differences in the settler culture and Native cultures. The settlers needed to expand into Native land and this led to tensions that were heightened even more by race and culture.

Brandon Jeans
10/28/2019 03:49:46 pm

In the article by Guenter Lewy he stated that "The lethal diseases were introduced inadvertently, and the Europeans cannot be blamed for their ignorance of what medical science would discover only centuries later." So my question is do you believe that the inadvertent killing of the Native Americans by the Europeans, including things like trying to kick the Native Americans off of their land. Can be considered a genocide even if it did not have the first intent to kill the natives, but it was a very significant side effect?

Tanvi Musale
10/28/2019 04:16:49 pm

Do you think that when Dunbar-Ortiz labeled the Native Americans "victims", it looked over the fact that they actively resisted(for the most part) against the American settlers?

Liz Aman
10/28/2019 04:41:38 pm

No, I think that describing the Native Americans as "victims" is very accurate. Euro-Americans forced them out of their land, essentially killing anyone in their path, including women and children. Although some Native Americans did resist the violence, they were so outnumbered and did not have the same resources such as modern weapons as the American settlers. Therefore, it wasn't a fair fight.

Avni Arora
10/28/2019 05:44:00 pm

Although it wasn't a fair fight between Native Americans and the European settlers, I don't believe Native Americans were victims. Dunbar Ortiz portrayed Natives as victims and did not give any evidence that showed that they resisted against the European settlers.

Taewan Park
10/29/2019 05:57:50 pm

While I respect Avni's argument, I believe that Native Americans in the big picture view, could be labeled as "victims." Agreeing to Liz Aman's point of view, although Native Americans showed their resistance with violence, looking over the outcomes of each conflicts with Americans, Native Americans were always one to "lose" something of theirs, every important aspects of their life consisting their land, people, culture, and property. Thus, I think that the process of these conflicts surely shows that Native Americans weren't the only victim, however, looking at the outcomes of each conflicts and view of Native Americans today conveys more towards the rightful labeling of Native Americans as the "victim" of the Untied States' treatment.

Kishan Patel
10/29/2019 06:44:08 pm

No, I don't believe labeling the Native Americans as "victims" overlooks the fact that they resisted the Americans. I believe this because they were resisting because they believe they had the right to the land and by the number of Native Americans that were hurt/killed by this compared to the Americans they should be labeled as the "victims".

Noel Garcia
10/29/2019 11:37:28 pm

I strongly disagree Mr. Patel because Native American were put into a place of powerlessness. They resisted in the same light of a slave rebellion. You wouldn’t argue the slaves were rebelling as an act of war correct? These conflicts were because of the obvious locational, cultural, and sectional removal they were forcing against Native Americans.

Liz Aman
10/28/2019 04:27:54 pm

Both of the author's mentioned the impact European diseases, such as small pox, had on the significant decline of the Native American population. Would the transfer of land from Indigenous to American people have occurred if the Native Americans hadn’t lacked immunity to European diseases? If so, would it have been as successful?

Mackenzie Adams
10/28/2019 10:33:34 pm

While the spread of diseases played a large role in weakening the Native population and resistance, American people would have still gained the land. They were forceful and violent and often used disease to their advantages. The American people also wanted to assimilate the Native culture which also helped them to obtain the Natives' land.

Carter Yeh
10/28/2019 10:38:04 pm

Before European diseases took its toll on Native Americans, we know that there were millions of Natives across the continent. The European colonization period just happened to take place as the Native Americans were just rebuilding their civilizations after about 90% of the Native population was killed. If the Native Americans had immunity from these disease, the Europeans would not have been able to take over the Americas. Advances in technology would eventually help the Europeans in terms of firepower so it is possible that after many years of fighting, the Europeans could eventually take over the Americas.

Darren Chang
10/29/2019 10:58:39 am

I think that the Europeans would still have been able to create sizable colonies in the Americas, but probably not been able to establish a large unified nation. If the Natives were as populous as they were before disease spread, they probably could have held their territories and develop their own modern nation or nations.

DJ Gill
10/29/2019 06:57:36 pm

I strongly believe that even though the diseases that were brought from Europe had a great impact, the colonizers would have still found ways to conquer the surrounding land. The nature of these colonists was forceful and as described in the Dunbar-Ortiz article these colonists would use several tactics to gain the land. Although the disease caused a massive population decline, I still believe the European colonists would have gained some land.

Sprihaa Kolanukuduru
10/28/2019 05:30:04 pm

I noticed that both the authors pulled information from the UN convention. We had these pulled up in class too. How did the presence of the UN terms for genocide in both articles affect their arguments? Do you think one author used their evidence to support or counter these better than the other? And what effect did it have on your personal view?

Elizabeth Jackson
10/28/2019 05:45:40 pm

In the Dunbar-Ortiz article, she mentions that during the Termination Era, the U.S. government forcibly sterilized one in four Native women. Furthermore, "3406 Native were sterilized without their permission between 1973 and 1976." How do you think the author's mentioning about the continuation of forced sterilization into the 1970s, impacts the reader's view on whether the Indians faced a genocide or not?

Ashley Elliott
10/28/2019 10:12:05 pm

The addition of a more recent statistic adds to the authors argument that the Native Americans faced genocide. It shows the point that Native Americans were discriminated against even after colonization first began. The statistic also showed the fact that even if colonists were doing what they were doing for land, it continued after they had the land, therefore making it genocide.

Srinidhi Ekkurthi
10/29/2019 04:29:50 pm

Earlier in her article, Dunbar-Ortiz mentioned the UN convention's definition of genocide. In this definition it clearly states that "imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group" is considered an act of genocide. I believe that by mentioning in her article that "3406 Native were sterilized without their permission between 1973 and 1976." , Dunbar-Ortiz wants the reader to relate back to the definition of genocide and make a connection between the actions of the colonists and the UN convention's verdict.

Anushka Vaidya
10/29/2019 07:38:17 pm

This information included by Dunbar-Ortiz supports the argument that Native Americans did face a genocide, and were continued to be discriminated against. Racism played a major role in this, and didn't cease long after the colonization of America. Dunbar-Ortiz includes more recent events to further her stance on how Natives continued to face discriminatory acts even after what could be categorized as a genocide.

Avni Arora
10/28/2019 05:53:16 pm

During the discussion, some people were still confused about the definition of genocide. Do you think the definition given by the genocide convention was not clear enough?

Ashley Elliott
10/28/2019 10:07:23 pm

I think that the UN Convention that defined genocide was clear on the definition. It provided specific instances that classified as genocide. The definition might be confusing to some because people try to compare the situation to the Holocaust which is a genocide many people have heard of, yet not every case will be exactly the same.

Darren Chang
10/29/2019 10:36:53 am

I think that most of the confusion and debate on whether there was genocide in the Americas comes down to a lack of historical certainty and accurate consensus opinion. Different sides could both be supported by reputable accounts, which could fit or not fit the definition of genocide.

Jeshelle Venancius
10/29/2019 12:16:29 pm

I believe the definition was clear and concise. I believe that it was also fair and makes sense when used in context. The term itself is very clear and a good representation of what genocide is.

Srinidhi Ekkurthi
10/29/2019 04:25:36 pm

I believe that the UN convention was very clear and concise in its definition of Genocide. However, the reason for this confusion is that the word genocide in itself is used incorrectly. It is often used to describe mass murders and the death of a significant number of people. This is incorrect because it does not relate to ethnicity, race or a group. Another reason for misconception is the Holocaust. The number of deaths and travesty often sets the bar for the definition of genocide and that is essentially incorrect because mass murder is not the only determining factor of genocide.

Angela Xu
10/29/2019 05:19:02 pm

I feel that the definition of genocide given by the genocide convention was certainly clear enough. It comes down to the certain aspects within mass killings that people begin to debate whether or not they match the definition of genocide. For example, both passages regarding the Native American conflict discussed the spread of disease. Both passages ended up arguing over whether or not the spread of disease matches the definition of genocide. It shows that certain aspects of a conflict can argued both ways in whether or not it fits the definition of genocide.

Pratina Kandru
10/29/2019 09:57:59 pm

I don't believe it was the fact that the definition wasn't clear enough for understanding but the fact that the definition had so many parts and conditions to it. For example, they did not perceive one's actions a genocide unless they had a "killing intent". This may have confused some people because it is difficult to tell if the Europeans had a killing intention.

Lalitha Edupuganti
10/28/2019 06:01:54 pm

Do you think Americans and their idea of white supremacy can be justified shown through their actions during the debatable genocide? If so, in what ways?

Hannah Savariyar
10/28/2019 08:34:43 pm

I don't believe that the idea of white supremacy can be justified in this genocide because their ideas that motivated them was flawed leading to murders of Natives and can't be justified. Their want for land and murdering of Natives based solely on the fact of they are superior is not valid. In the past, the idea of Manifest Destiny was acceptable and shown in Dunbar-Ortiz article, “Settler-colonialism requires violence or the threat of violence to attain its goals, which then forms the foundation of the United States’ system. People do not hand over their land, resources, children, and futures without a fight, and that fight is met with violence. In employing the force necessary to accomplish its expansionist goals, a colonizing regime institutionalized violence. The notion that settler-indigenous conflict is an inevitable product of cultural differences and misunderstandings, or that violence was committed equally by the colonized and the colonizer, blurs the nature of the historical processes. Euro-American colonialism, an aspect of the capitalist economic globalization, had from its beginnings a genocidal tendency.” This shows how settlers in the past used violence and manifest destiny for their eradication of a race and expansion of land. White supremacy was evident in this time period, but can not be justified for their acts committed in the past.

Sharayu Gugnani
10/29/2019 08:48:02 am

White supremacy is 100% evident in this genocide. They believed that Native Americans do not deserve respect and were able to justify their actions through white "superiority".

Kishan Patel
10/29/2019 06:40:43 pm

Americans idea of white supremacy can be justifies through this debatable genocide because they believed that the Native Americans were different than them and had to right to the land. They thought it was their right to expand westward no matter who was already their and had inhabited that land.

Anushka Vaidya
10/29/2019 07:30:33 pm

The idea of white supremacy is present in this debatable genocide, due to the fact that Americans believed they were above other races, and had to expand their territory to implement their civil ways in other societies. In Guenter Lewy's "Were American Indians the Victims of Genocide?," there was a quote that said, "No doubt, the 19th-century idea of America’s 'manifest destiny' was in part a rationalization for acquisitiveness, ... The U.S. government could not have prevented the westward movement even if it had wanted to." This shows how much the idea of manifest destiny was supported by white supremacy during this time.

Shazia Muckram
10/28/2019 07:54:57 pm

At the time of termination and relocation, the Bureau of Indian Affairs “advocated the reduction of services and introduced its program to relocate Indians to urban industrial centers, with a high percentage of Sioux moving to San Francisco and Denver in search of jobs.” Do you think this was an advantage for the Indians as they were relocated to cities with better opportunities, in a way, do u think it helped them?

Shazia Muckram
10/28/2019 07:55:54 pm

Edit: you*

Sharan Sivakumar
10/28/2019 09:08:17 pm

I do believe that the relocation of Indians to urban industrial centers was an advantage for them because being in those areas helped them to basically "fit in". This also allowed them to adapt to modern society and allowed them to make more profit by working modern jobs. In the long-term it did help them.

Annie Hu
10/29/2019 01:55:30 pm

I think that these initiatives were beneficial to Indians because it helped them integrate into the United States society. And it did give the Indians the choice of relocating as opposed to being forced of their land with no income.

Arabella Cai
10/29/2019 02:41:43 pm

I believe that the relocation to large urban centers was an advantage for the Indians because in the "Yes, Native Americans Were the Victims of Genocide" document, Dunbar-Ortiz clearly mentioned that the Bureau of Indian Affairs advocated the reduction of services and introduced its program to relocate Indians to urban industrial centers, with a high percentage of Sioux moving to San Francisco and Denver in search of jobs. Since a large urban center required a lot of labor force to construct the infrastructure and serve the middle and high class people, there would be a variety of job opportunities. Thus, it was suitable for Indians who were searching for jobs to settle down to work and get more wages to support their families.

Jamie Long
10/28/2019 08:00:05 pm

During class we talked a lot about whether or not the treatment of Native Americans should be considered genocide, and one topic that came up was Lewy's argument vs. Dunbar-Ortiz. Considering their two viewpoints, in this situation, which do you feel holds more significance in the question of genocide; Lewy's view on disease as a major role and that the events were simply individual hate crimes, or Dunbar-Ortiz's breakdown of each offense that could be considered genocide? Can there be any one conclusion for a situation that occurred over such a long amount of time with so many factors involved?

Annie Hu
10/29/2019 02:00:10 pm

I think that because there were so many different circumstances surrounding so many of these events that it might match the description of a genocide but it is spread out over a long period of time and conducted by many different administrations. However I think that the treatment of the Indians was simply just horrible and a tragedy but not a genocide.

Crystal Gayle
10/29/2019 08:12:43 pm

I believe that Dunbar-Ortiz references to multiple significant events that cover the acts of genocide is a more trustworthy and believable account for the Natives being victims of genocide. However, I do not think we are able to come to a conclusion as there are many events and sources from the time that are lost and forgotten that could prove either points.

Hannah Savariyar
10/28/2019 08:24:22 pm

Was the comparison of Natives and settlers violence to the UN genocide convention a form of presentism because our views of the want of land and the expansion is completely different from people from the past?

Emma Penel
10/29/2019 04:45:43 pm

While the UN Genocide Convention isn't retroactive, it can still be applied to the actions of U.S. settlers. Even though, as Lewy argues, the moral standards were different at the time, the atrocities committed can still fall under the convention's definition of genocide. These actions included removing children from their homes, sterilizing women against their will, and murdering countless natives. The differing views of expansion at the time don't negate these facts.

Sharan Sivakumar
10/28/2019 09:02:41 pm

In both articles, both authors talked about how the concept of genocide is misunderstood. Why is the idea of genocide so misunderstood in today’s modern society?

Carter Yeh
10/28/2019 10:34:05 pm

Genocide is not a subject that is widely talked about. Whenever it is brought up, there are hesitations to be involved. Many horrible actions today like actions against Kurds by Turkey before the cease fire are not labeled as genocide now as it would be seen as an accusation against Turkey by the US or whoever is labeling this event as genocide. Also ethic cleansing and genocide are different but many assume that these are the same thing. Ethnic cleansing are just actions against a group of people solely based on ethnicity as genocide includes a wide variety of groups including ethnic, religious, nationality, and race.

Jeshelle Venancius
10/29/2019 12:13:59 pm

I believe that the reason why genocide is so misunderstood is because of the definition of the term itself and the underlying background of it. The term was coined by the UN and many people do not share the beliefs and values with them.

Kishan Patel
10/29/2019 06:38:11 pm

The concept of genocide is misunderstood in today modern society especially with this conflict because we try to compare it to other examples too much. We try to put every example of genocide under the same circumstances but the truth is that they aren't the same circumstances. To truly determine genocide you need to look at the total number of people who were involved at the beginning compared to the end. This would give a much better understanding of the amount of people that were truly hurt.

Anushka Vaidya
10/29/2019 08:03:11 pm

The concept of genocide could be misunderstood in today's society, because how the guidelines that categorize an event as a genocide could have some exceptions, causing people to question what the actual definition of a genocide is. This can be seen when the topic of disease was introduced in the articles. If the Native American deaths caused by disease or illness brought by the colonists were intentional, then they would count toward the deaths for genocide. But if they were unintentional, they would not, and this discrepancy may cause misunderstanding on the concept of genocide.

Joshua Rogers
10/28/2019 09:05:04 pm

With the Indian Removal Act thousands of Indians lost their ancestral home lands. They were moved to the west in areas that the US believed to be of a lesser importance for the country. Should the US return territories to old tribes that still exists today? Or should the US pay reparations towards the tribes to try and help improved their current reservations?

Ashley Elliott
10/28/2019 10:02:21 pm

The US should give Native Americans reparations towards helping their current day reservations. Many of the people who live there today live in poverty and reparations could help improve their situation that arguably might have been caused by the Indian Removal Act.

Pratina Kandru
10/29/2019 09:51:30 pm

I agree that reparations are necessary in order to create a better living environment for the tribes today. That being said I feel that there is nothing the US can do to make up for all the lives that were lost because lives are irreplaceable.

Hallie Salas
10/28/2019 09:34:58 pm

I found it interesting during the discussion how the class talked about looking at past events with the idea of present ism. Like the idea that all of the settlers regarded all different Indian group living near them as one large people that was argued. It also regards the large question, was this a genocide or not, and did we as a class regard these events with unaccounted present ism that may have skewed our opinions.

Ashley Elliott
10/28/2019 09:58:14 pm

I found it interesting how the Dunbar-Ortiz article pointed out the fact that the actions of colonists towards the Native Americans were just as bad as or even worse than what happened during the Holocaust, yet not many people think of it as genocide or ethnic cleansing. Does the fact that colonists motivations were primarily about the land the Natives were on change the way the situation is viewed?

Mackenzie Adams
10/28/2019 10:27:53 pm

I think that just because the colonist motivations were mainly about land, doesn't mean that the acts committed against the Natives weren't genocidal. While they did kill and harm them to obtain land, they also committed many acts of cultural genocide.

Jeshelle Venancius
10/29/2019 12:11:10 pm

Even though their motivations were primarily land, I do not believe they went about the situation correctly. They should have tried to look for a peaceful situation before attacking and going to war.

Emma Penel
10/29/2019 04:30:54 pm

The fact that the settlers' motivations were primarily land based doesn't change the argument that their actions were genocidal. When comparing the actions taken during U.S. expansion west to the Holocaust, it is important to bare in mind that the Nazis were largely motivated by the concept of Lebensraum, or the idea that Germans needed more room to live. This is similar to the American belief in Manifest Destiny that led to the genocidal actions associated with settler colonialism.

Pratina Kandru
10/29/2019 04:31:20 pm

I believe that the European's strong belief of Manifest destiny was used as justification for their actions against the Natives. This resulted in the eradication of the Native population, which draws me to believe that some may not think it was a genocide since the population decrease was a result of Manifest destiny. Genocide or not this still doesn't change the fact that many innocent human beings lost their lives.

Soliha Norbekova
10/29/2019 06:16:17 pm

Just because the motivation was different does not necessarily mean that this is not an example of ethnic cleansing or genocide. In either way, in order to go forth with their motivation and to grasp that land and wealth, obvious acts of genocide were committed. Which leads to another point that this was not just a tangible genocide, meaning that it wasn't just mass killings of a particular group, instead this could be considered an intangible genocide. Where because of these mass killings, Native American culture, tradition, and language were all beginning to dissipate as well.

Will Barbee
10/28/2019 10:00:45 pm

Roxanne Dunbar-Ortiz states that instances massacres such as wounded knee were acts of genocide towards Indian people. Do you think that the UN definition of genocide supports these claims? Do you think that the UN definition of genocide should be altered in any way?

Carter Yeh
10/28/2019 10:29:45 pm

Instances like Wounded Knee were isolated instances and did not represent the whole of the American military. The soldiers were not out with an intent to destroy and kill the Native Americans like the UN definition states. I believe that the UN definition for genocide does support these claims as it states that in order for events to classify as genocide, there has to be an intent to destroy a group of people solely based on their race, religion, ethnicity, or nationality. The UN definition should be changed to include that the killings have to be systematic and organized specifically to kill the group of people the perpetrators have singled out.

tyler
10/29/2019 09:05:26 am

i think that the UN definition of genocide is the correct and only definition of genocide. it also shouldn’t be altered to make the killings of Natives fit the mood.

Lalitha Edupuganti
10/28/2019 10:17:45 pm

"...Disgusted by what he saw as the Indian treacherous and savage modes of warfare, Sir Jeffrey Amherst wrote as follows to Colonel Henry Bouquet “You will do to inoculate the Indians [with smallpox] by means of blankets, as well as to try every other method that can serve to extirpate this execrable race.” (From Lewy's). “Settler colonialism requires a genocidal policy. Native nations and communities, while struggling to maintain fundamental value and collectivity, have form the beginning resisted modern colonial using using defensive and offensive techniques…”..”The objective of US colonialist authorities was to terminate their existence as people-not as random individual". (Dunbar-Ortiz) I think quotes are important to look at because the two authors use these evidences to justify the Americans' actions on the Native Americans. It shows the white supremacy mentality and that eradicating all natives was necessary as well as why the natives were fought against (due to their violent actions that weren't "good" for America). How do you think authors played to their biases on the issue of the genocide, do you think the played evidence to their advantage?

Mackenzie Adams
10/28/2019 10:24:34 pm

Do you think that the way Lewy compared the Jewish Holocaust to the acts committed against the Natives was an accurate and efficient way of determining if it was genocide?

Lalitha Edupuganti
10/29/2019 12:23:00 pm

I don't think Lewy comparing the acts committed against the Native Americans to the Jewish Holocaust was accurate nor efficient because Lewy claims that what happened to the Indians can't be termed a genocide because it wasn't as severe as the Holocaust, and not as many people died. In his own words, Lewy says, "The American Indians suffered horribly is disputable. But whether their suffering amounted to the 'holocaust' or to a genocide is another matter." Lewy's way of interpreting the genocide and holocaust is inaccurate because he biased towards the holocaust as his family had been through that, he believe it was the worst thing and nothing can compare to a genocide as such. It is also shown in the genocidal convention that a large number of people do not need to die to be termed a genocide, rather if it fell along the laws of the convention.

Amritha Alaguraj
10/29/2019 10:40:20 pm

Absolutely not; I believe that it's incredibly injust two compare one tragedy to another regardless whether it's something large scale such as genocide or something on a smaller scale. By comparing the tragedy against Native Americans against the Holocaust, what he's implying is that a tragedy can only be considered a genocide is up to the Holocaust's level. But why on Earth would you want to wait for a tragedy to get to that level when the entire goal of creating laws against genocide is to prevent it? By this standard, something could almost reach the level of mass genocide like the Holocaust but wouldn't be considered a genocide? I believe this is a part of the incredibly toxic culture we have nowadays where we compare one bad thing to another, but It's not something we should do to compare two different tragedies.

Nishka Mathew
10/29/2019 11:06:47 pm

I strongly agree with your claim. Dunbar-Ortiz even says, "Although clearly the Holocaust was the most extreme of all genocides, the bar set by the Nazis is not the bar required to be considered genocide." (Article 1, page 3) This is really important because regardless of the scale of the genocide if it fits any one of the five acts established by the UN then it is a genocide. Not to mention, another really important aspect to consider is that "a genocide doesn't have to be complete to be considered a genocide." (Article 1, page 3) This is an important fact that counters claims that the Native American killings were not a genocide because many Indians survived. The Native American deaths don't have to measure up to the number of Jews that died.

Bryce Hagstrom
10/28/2019 11:11:16 pm

During our discussion we focused largely on the European factors in terms of the Indian population decline but I wanted to ask what Indian factors helped in that effort to lower their population?

Allen MacMillan
10/29/2019 09:33:59 pm

Something we also talked about in our discussion was Natives retaliating against the colonizers, which would thus lead to conflicts between them which would result in the loss of Native lives. Natives also participated in the American slave trade as they would capture people from other tribes and sell them to colonist.

Kingston Hill
10/29/2019 09:38:24 pm

I feel the Indians participating in a slave trade with Europeans also contributed to their limited numbers. Also the wars they were having between nations also was proving to be a major cause for loss of population as well, so much so they had to stop the physical violence and come up with games of skill to determine conflict outcomes.

Peixian Tian
10/29/2019 09:50:59 pm

One thing that helped lower their population and increase European tensions and violence towards them was conflict and war between the two. Warring increased the tensions between the two racial groups making Europeans kill more natives. Natives capturing and torturing colonists also helped racist groups such as the Paxton boys to form and not only kill but also torture many natives.

Noel Garcia
10/29/2019 09:59:18 pm

The factors as inter-tribal war, and conflict inducing is a reason of their population decline, but I feel your question Mr. Hagstrom strays from the ideas of the articles. The articles weren't meant to justify the U.S, they were developed to determine if our relationship with Native American's was genocide or not.

Lalitha Edupuganti
10/28/2019 11:18:12 pm

Throughout both their writings, Dunbar-Ortiz and Lewy both use the acts to claim something as a genocide, given by the genocidal convention, to argue their point. Of the rules set through the convention, do you think there was one significant act that was used to debate the issue of the Native American genocide? If so, which act and why? In other words, which of the guidelines do you think is the most important to claim an issue like this a genocide?

Anushka Vaidya
10/29/2019 07:55:59 pm

I think one of the most debatable aspects of this topic is the role of disease and illness. It can be argued that the disease was brought deliberately and biological warfare took place, but it can also be said that the colonists had no intentions of killing the Native Americans with diseases. The guideline that most relates to this is "deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part," since it questions whether the Native American deaths resulting from disease were intentional or not. If the number of deaths caused by illness were accounted for, there would be strong evidence that the Native Americans were victims of genocide.

Annie Pi
10/29/2019 08:43:13 am

Had Thomas Jefferson not claimed that the Doctrine of Discovery also applied to the United States and not only European nations (discussed at the end of the Dunbar-Ortiz article), would settler-colonialism been able to have been justified in America, and if not, would it still have happened anyway?

Lalitha Edupuganti
10/29/2019 04:53:20 pm

The Doctrine of Discovery established that the government would give title of land to the subjects and authority, hence justifying Americans'rights on land and conflicts with the Indians. I think the settler-colonialism still wouldn't have been justified and was inevitable because as seen in the Mexican-American war, Americans needed land and American officials such as Polk found other ways to justify their ways of expansion. For example, in the Mexican-American war, Americans fought violently against the Mexicans by depicting it as patriotism, so in the end, if Americans' needed land, they would find ways to get it, with or without a doctrine.

Sharayu Gugnani
10/29/2019 08:43:58 am

During our conversation, we looked at this issue from an objective point of view. How might our discussion have been different if we were more subjective? Can you ever be productive when removing emotions from a discussion on genocide? I also wanted to talk about our privelages. Most of us have never been affected by this genocide, so do we really have the ability to determine if it was one?

Soliha Norbekova
10/29/2019 06:08:49 pm

If we were too have been more subjective, the discussion would definitely have been more intense with opinionated responses. In my opinion, if you fully remove emotions from the topic of genocide then the discussion wouldn't be as productive. However, it is good to be objective in the discussion as it offers a point of view in which does not cater to either side. It is less subjective and provides the discussion with a more neutral and impartial outlook. And personally I do not think that we have the ability to determine whether or not if this was a genocide or not, however it is evident that this was a mass killing that was selective to one group. What I do want to argue however is that because of our privileges and advantages that we have today, we do not have the ability to determine the modern relevance of the genocide today.

tyler
10/29/2019 09:03:37 am

how can u create an argument that settlers truly saw the native americans as targets rather than obstacles that occupied land that they wanted?

Darren Chang
10/29/2019 09:06:35 am

I think that how the European settlers saw the Natives is a matter of perspective and priority. If you argue that Europeans prioritized clearing out the Natives first to expand, then they were a target. However, if the Europeans prioritized expansion and Natives were just in they way, then they were more of an obstacle.

Austin Nguyen
10/29/2019 10:37:00 am

If the treatment of Natives by Americans can be considered genocide, how intense were the Crimes committed and how should present day Americans pay reparations to current day descendants of Natives?

Pratina Kandru
10/29/2019 04:20:59 pm

In my opinion, the crimes committed were extremely intense. This can be seen in the mercilessness of the Europeans. One example of this is from Dunbar-Ortiz's article, “We must act with vindictive earnestness against the Sioux, even to their extermination, men, women and children… during an assault, the soldiers can not pause to distinguish between male and female, or even discriminate as to age”. The fact that soldiers would not even pause to think about who they were killing shows how just how intense the crimes were. I do not believe there is any way the present day Americans could pay for reparations because a human life is priceless and murder is irreversible.

DJ Gill
10/29/2019 04:56:26 pm

I also believe that the treatment of the Natives was truly a disgrace and was very brutal and intense. In the article by Dunbar-Ortiz, she explains how one of the tactics by the Americans and colonists was to starve the local Natives and tribes. They did this by shutting down the trade networks that were established within the tribal societies. It stated that many of these tribes were forced into starvation due to these acts. As stated in other comments,I believe that there is no fair way to pay reparations to the current day descendants of Natives. It will spark further arguments and conflicts which can cause more death and injuries.

Jeshelle Venancius
10/29/2019 11:58:12 am

The different views and different terminology discussed was a main focus of the seminar and the contemplation of the defining term of genocide as a whole. What is the absolute definition of genocide? Do you think that the UN's definition is agreeable?

John Bass
10/30/2019 07:26:43 am

My impression of the absolute definition of genocide is the intent and taking of action to destroy a specific group's existence, be it by killing member, preventing them from being born, or making the idea of the group cease to exist. The UN's definition of this is agreeable because it makes reference to and uses the template of the Holocaust, but ensures that it does not set the bar for genocide.

Jackson Pollard
10/29/2019 01:32:41 pm

Lewwy often relies on the concept that genocidal action is carried out by individuals or small groups in power over a helpless or near helpless racial or ethnic group. Why might Lewwy believe that the importance of individual action outweighs that of the societal treatment of American Indians, and how could this factor into the dismissal of western expansion and similar ethnic interactions as non-genocidal?

Amritha Alaguraj
10/29/2019 10:19:51 pm

I personally think that the reason why he believes the importance of individual action outweighs that of the societal treatment of American Indians because he's biased. Reading both the articles, it's clear that both author's have some bias based on their heritage, if I remember correctly, Lewwy's ancestors or great-grandparents were in the Holocaust, so I don't think it's any surprise that he believes that genocidal action is done by individuals; the Holocaust was conducted by Hitler, an individual and the Nazis, so his belief is of course going to stand with that mentality and bias in mind. I believe that the reason Lewwy believes this is just because of his own bias.

Arabella Cai
10/29/2019 02:52:48 pm

During our discussion in fourth period the other day, we talked about how the idea of Manifest Destiny inspired a vast amount of white settlers to remove or destroy the native Indians community brutally. Do you guys think that the so called "genocide" of the Native Americans was inevitable due to the white's unbreakable faith in the Manifest Destiny and the long term conflicts between the white and the Indians?

Emma Penel
10/29/2019 04:16:08 pm

I think that the actions taken against the Native Americans were inevitable because Americans were so motivated by the promises of new land and wealth in the West and the belief in Manifest Destiny that they would achieve these goals by whatever means necessary. As Dunbar-Ortiz puts it, "People do not hand over their land, resources, children, and futures without a fight, and that fight is met with violence." This violence was the basis for the genocidal actions taken by the U.S.

Darren Chang
10/29/2019 07:32:37 pm

I think that after a certain point in American history, aggressive expansion by the Europeans was more or less inevitable. I think before this point, at least before the Jackson Era, incorporation and assimilation of the Natives may have been possible along western expansion, though unlikely. The Indian Removal Act was one of the biggest events separating the Americans from the Natives, and after this point Manifest Destiny would have done too much damage to the Native groups and their relationship with the European Americans.

Crystal Gayle
10/29/2019 08:05:59 pm

I believe that the "genocide" of Natives was inevitable as the now Americans came to America looking for land and resources that were in the possession of the Natives. I think the only way they thought they could get ahold of these things were by forcibly taking them.

Evan Speelman
10/29/2019 03:44:40 pm

As Americans, do we have a right today to make up for what we've done in the past to natives? How would we go about doing this if so?

Soliha Norbekova
10/29/2019 05:45:53 pm

Personally, I do not think that there is something that Americans can do today to make up for what has been done in the past to the Native Americans. As what has been done in the past cannot be changed through actions today. Instead, it should be a matter of how Native Americans are and should be treated today and how they should be treated in the future as well.

Grayson Cochran
10/29/2019 09:32:46 pm

If we were to do something today that would mean the US government would have to identify these acts as genocide. They have not done that so far, so I dont think Native Americans will receive any compensation for their removal/genocide.

Aman Kumar
10/30/2019 12:04:45 am

Although we do have reservations today, many of the native americans living there face poverty, unemployment, lack of education, and low life expectancy. I believe that there's not much the government would do about this. As far as I know, Native Americans are hardly being mentioned today in political debates.

Semeon Petros
10/30/2019 08:31:25 am

I think individual Americans can’t do much to make up for what was done to the Native Americans but that responsibility should fall on the government. By passing bills and recognizing what they did, the US government can start to make up for the genocide that took place.

Varun Pillai
10/30/2019 08:46:19 am

Whatever had happened in the past can not be changed. I believe that because of the severity of the problem, Americans can not do anything to make up for it. What we can do is learn about this whole situation and inform everyone about it. This way in the future we could prevent something like this from happening again.

Emma Penel
10/29/2019 03:57:27 pm

Lewy claims that "guilt is personal" in that the genocidal actions of some against Native Americans does not make the United States as a whole guilty of genocide. That being said, can individuals who performed acts of genocide be separated from their society if the general public practices complacency?

Pratina Kandru
10/29/2019 04:02:54 pm

In the first article Dunbar-Ortiz states that "settler colonization requires a genocidal policy". Do you agree with her statement that there is a correlation between colonization and genocide?

Srinidhi Ekkurthi
10/29/2019 04:17:14 pm

Settler colonialism, by definition is a form of colonialism which seeks to replace the original population of the colonized territory with a new society of settlers. The colonists essentially got rid of the Native Americans from their land and in doing so, they caused a serious decline in their population. Therefore, I personally agree with Dunbar-Ortiz's statesmen that "settler colonization requires a genocidal policy" because the situation and the actions done by the colonists to the Native Americans fits the definition of genocide in the way that they deliberately inflicted on the Native American conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part so that they can colonize their land. I disagree that there is a a correlation between colonization and genocide, but I agree that there is a correlation between settler colonization and genocide.

Srinidhi Ekkurthi
10/29/2019 04:04:26 pm

What do you believe were the main causes of the drastic population decline in Native Americans? Why and do any of these causes classify as genocide according to the UN definition?

Lalitha Edupuganti
10/29/2019 05:14:24 pm

I believe one of the main causes for the drastic population decline in Native Americans was the increase in overall diseases and low immunity throughout America, as Europeans brought the diseases with them. These diseases include small pox, cholera, etc. Though disease directly cannot classify under the acts for a genocide, I think the Europeans using the disease to their favor to better fight the Indians, can go under a genocide. This can be seen in the quote, "Unable to defeat the Indians on the open prairie, they pursued them to their winter camps, where numbing cold and heavy snows limited their mobility. There they destroyed the lodges and stores of food, a tactic that inevitably resulted in the deaths of women and children. " (Lewy)

Grayson Cochran
10/29/2019 09:31:27 pm

I think disease was the number one cause of the Natives population decline. In Lewy's article he stated over 90% of the Native population was killed off by diseases, whether that was intentional or not is still up for debate. I think it classifies as a genocide because of the forceful sterilizations the Native Americans had to endure, showing that the US governments purpose was to get rid of Natives entirely.

Manasvi Marthala
10/30/2019 06:51:10 pm

I think that the main causes of the drastic population decline in Natives would be the European diseases and the persecution of them by the whites. The diseases caused a large portion of the population to die because the Natives were not immune to the European diseases. This would not be classified as genocide because it wasn't an intenitonal persecution, it was just a biologicall effect. The persecution of the Natives would be because it was the persecution of a certain group with the intent of getting rid of them, and because it was on purpose.

Arshia Haq
10/29/2019 05:21:08 pm

What was the driving force of genocide? Colonization, purposely inflicted disease, or war? Why?

Luna Hou
10/29/2019 07:13:07 pm

Assuming that the colonization of Native Americans can be considered genocide and that this is the specific genocide you're referring to, I believe that the idea of white supremacy was one of this tragedy's key driving forces because it motivated many aspects of colonization. For example, many European colonists used their inherent beliefs that they were superior to the Native Americans to justify their goals of taking over as much of their territory as possible. Many also believed that by attempting to educate and convert Native Americans to Christianity, they were participating in a movement that was beneficial to both parties. Finally, it is likely that this belief affected the colonists' perceptions of what laws/policies they considered to be moral/immoral, causing them to feel little guilt for acts such as the Indian Removal Act that are viewed in an extremely negative light today.

Morgan Kelley
10/29/2019 07:43:18 pm

Within the Native American genocide, I would claim that the main argument and purpose within the white's ideology was fueled by the colonial ideas of supremacy and superiority. As much of their movement (Trail of Tears) and institualized mistreatment of the indigenous groups became prevalent with the idea of Manifest Destiny (God given western land), their apparent 'superiority' was the main cause. Additionally, the United States had much to gain from the Western lands so by creating a false narrative of the "disappearing Indians" and their "savage ways", it was easier for the nation to remove and kill their populations. Their death, in America's mind, was only a roadblock to their land given by God and was inflicted on the higher-being himself, further providing evidence that colonization acted as the main determine within their genocide.

Amritha Alaguraj
10/29/2019 10:04:41 pm

I think the driving force of genocide was expansion; all the settlers wanted to do was expand, colonize and conquer land so they could include it into a part of America without a care for Native Americans. The whole motive behind killing Native Americans and the entire tragedy against them was due to the settlers wanting to expand more and more until they fulfilled their belief of manifest destiny.

Alexander Neiberger
10/30/2019 10:45:58 am

I think that the driving force of the genocide was disease. In Lewys article, he stated that over 90% of the deaths of natives were due to disease. I don't think there is enough evidence to say that the disease were purposely inflicted, as this was refuted in Lewys article.

Manasvi Marthala
10/30/2019 06:48:45 pm

I think that the driving force of genocide would be colonization mixed in with the idea of white supremacy. The colonist didn't think that the Natives would have been able to assimilate into their culture and that they didn't fit the "white" standards. Colonization gave them a need for land and resources which could make the Natives look like competition causing the colonist to want to move the Natives off the land or to kill them. White supremacy also made them think that eveyrthing they believed was true, that their religion, values, and life style was better and since the Natives life didn't match theirs they weren't seen as equal but rather inferior.

Javairia Qadir
10/30/2019 10:19:26 pm

The driving force of the genocide would mainly be expansion and racial hatred toward the Indians due to past encounters and perceptions drawn by stories.If the government during the Jacksonian period would not have wanted to expand then the U.S. and the Indians would live peacefully on land, but due to the fact that the U.S. was invading their land and claiming it, conflicts erupted. Even when the Indians gave up the land and were living among the Americans the government forced them to leave during the Indian removal act.

Taewan Park
10/29/2019 05:59:06 pm

How can the treatment of Native Americans by the United States, the “genocide,” be compared to the treatment of African Americans? Would the term “genocide” also apply for American’s treatment of African Americans?

Luna Hou
10/29/2019 07:20:46 pm

One primary similarity between the treatment of the Native Americans by the United States during the period of colonization and the treatment of African Americans during the slavery-heavy period preceding the Civil War was how many supporters of colonization/slavery argued that their actions or the actions of the United States were justified because they were supposedly beneficial to both parties. More specifically, these people believed that by engaging in behaviors such as forcibly converting Natives/slaves to Christianity, said Natives/slaves would be affected primarily positively; it is arguable that this justification stemmed in great part from many Americans' beliefs in white superiority. That being said, I don't think the term "genocide" could apply for the Americans' treatment of African Americans since the definition of genocide states that it is the attempt to systematically exterminate a certain group, and while slaves were denied their freedom and sometimes treated harshly, its effects did not reach the proportion that the effect of colonization of the Native Americans did.

Kishan Patel
10/29/2019 06:33:42 pm

How do you guys think the Native American population would be different today if Manifest Destiny never happened?

Morgan Kelley
10/29/2019 07:37:43 pm

Yes, the Native American population current circumstance would greatly change if manifest destiny did not exist. The basis of God given western land is fueled by the idea of white supremacy and racism-- just because of one's fair skin they are superior and of greater importance than those surrounding them. If manifest destiny did not exist, the prolonged and institualized ideologies of racism may have shorted in their prevalence allowing for overall greater equality and partnership. Furthermore, actions on the Native Americans such as the Trail of Tears and the overall forced removal and mistreatment would have likely decreases or lessened. In short, the Native American population would have more rights, respect, retaining of their culture, and become a more immersive, and respected group within the United States.

Grayson Cochran
10/29/2019 09:29:44 pm

I think that there would be a much greater presence of Native Americans on the east coast. I dont think they would have a very big population though due diseases that were both unintentionally and intentionally spread to them.

Kingston Hill
10/29/2019 09:36:17 pm

I feel the Native population would still be rather significantly smaller due to the diseases that took away a lot of their numbers even before the US started launching attacks on them and starting wars. With such drastic drops in population it would've still been hard to recover fully.

Noel Garcia
10/29/2019 09:54:26 pm

Mr. Hill, that's actually a reason why their population would increase. The less contact they have with white people would mean the less intrusive diseases that that their bodies have no numbness towards.

Aman Kumar
10/29/2019 11:57:08 pm

Yes, the Native American population would be a bit higher than it is today. If Manifest Destiny didn't happen then Americans wouldn't have that desire to move West therefore giving Natives their land. However, a lot of the Native American population was killed by the spread of disease.

DJ Gill
10/29/2019 07:03:34 pm

Do you guys think there is any way that the American government could do to make up for the loss of many native lives?

Luna Hou
10/29/2019 07:26:04 pm

I feel like the most that the U.S. government could do to make up for the loss of Native American lives is to offer some sort of monetary reward as well as a public statement that the actions that happened during the era of colonization were wrong and could be considered genocidal. This would certainly not bring back the staggering numbers of innocent people who lost their lives during that time, but at least acknowledging that horrific things happened and making an effort to remedy them would be a step in the right direction. However, because this would obviously be a lot of trouble and place the U.S. government in an unfavorable light, I think it is unlikely any drastic measures will be taken to right this wrong anytime soon.

Annabel Elvin
10/29/2019 09:35:55 pm

I believe the United State's government can never make up for what they did to an entire race of people, but they could help their living situations currently. Many Indian reservations are in a very rough state, overwhelmed with poverty and issues with alcoholism. The US could give more funding to those living in these situations, to help improve the lives the government stole from their ancestors.

Semeon Petros
10/30/2019 08:24:44 am

I believe the American government should first recognize what they did wrong by recognizing the event as a genocide and educate the population on what happened. I don’t think they can completely make up for what was done to the Native Americans but they can take steps to try.

Alexander Neiberger
10/30/2019 10:44:14 am

I think that the US can recognize that what happened to the Native Americans was a genocide. Also, they can be further recompensed with tax exemption, government benefits, etc.

Javairia Qadir
10/30/2019 10:13:39 pm

I do not think they could make up for year of violence and ethnic cleansing, because of how badly it affected the Indian's lives. They were displaced more than one time and even if they tried to compromise or just assimilate to the Anglo-American culture they would be discriminated against. They did not have any right and their working conditions were not as good either. I agree with Annabel Elvin, but at the same time I feel like we should not intervene too much or we would end up affecting their lives again.

Nadiya Patel
10/29/2019 07:10:06 pm

In Dunbar-Ortiz's article, in her introduction it stated that she is "the daughter of a tenant farmer and part-Indian mother." In addition, after further research I found out that Lewy is actually a Holocaust survivor. Based on this information, how large of a role do you think their personal experiences and biases played into the arguments they made in their articles? Additionally, do you believe there are any other factors that have caused them to defend their respective arguments?

Morgan Kelley
10/29/2019 07:32:31 pm

Although both author's personal bias and history are reflective in their stance on the issue of Native American genocide, it must be stated that their viewpoints greatly differed more so through their method of comparison and historical reflection. Dunbar-Ortiz focused on the overall death, treatment, and sterilization methods inflicted upon the Native American population within its own issue whereas Lewy chose to compare/relate that to the Holocaust. Of course, a part of this was due to their history and upbringing, but it can also be stated as an effective method of looking at history-- comparing and relating events of the past to those of the more relevant era. Other factors that I believe contributed to their viewpoints was their country of origin as well. Lewy, being a Holocaust survivor, was involved within a World War-- a global and more pronounced issue. Dunbar-Ortiz on the other hand spoke of her issues in relation to the country of America alone-- decreasing her overall view on other global issues and other outside occurrences.

Crystal Gayle
10/29/2019 07:17:18 pm

As the second document stated that conflict between the Natives and Americans were inevitable, do you believe that this statement could also be true pertaining to other genocides?

Annabel Elvin
10/29/2019 09:18:34 pm

I think what the author is trying to say with this is that the conflict was unavoidable, but it did not have to result in genocide. Pretty much every story of colonization includes some conflict between Natives and Colonists, but few turn out the way it did in America. As for the last question I believe every genocide in history is 100% avoidable. Even if a conflict results is lives lost in a war, deliberately killing thousands of innocent people is never the solution.

Anushka Vaidya
10/29/2019 07:22:59 pm

How do you think the cultural differences between the Native Americans and the colonists at the time, played a role in eventually leading to questioning if Native Americans were victims of genocide? How does this relate to other events in history?

Jane Cho
10/29/2019 07:24:03 pm

How do you think that the targeting of one group (the Native Americans) during this time impacted other groups living in the same areas at the same time?

Noel Garcia
10/29/2019 11:34:06 pm

The targeting of Natives obviously affected the white male population on the Western frontier. Their removal and violence against them allowed this demographic expand comfortably without worry of conflict and war.

Morgan Kelley
10/29/2019 07:24:30 pm

Within Lewy’s piece, the situation of the Native Americans is compared to that of the Jewish Holocaust and state that the killings were nothing to their level. In history, is it necessarily a proper study method to compare events to other occurrences in order to de- legitimize the death of great population size? Why or why not?

Clare Whittelsey
10/29/2019 10:02:48 pm

No, in history I believe that we should not compare past events to others. There are many factors that make events unique that do not need to be compared. Instead, we need to analyze events on their own and classify them individually in order to understand it fully.

Nandana Pillai
10/30/2019 11:09:14 pm

No, I think it's completely unfair to compare events like this because of the very fact that it delegitimizes the large number of deaths in each event. In history, we do not learn about genocides and wars to compare which was more catastrophic, we learn about them to prevent them in the future and to correct mistakes from causing such events to be put in motion in the first place. So, I think that instead of comparing such events, we have to understand that both events had staggering losses for different groups of people, but it did affect both these groups in similar ways and we cannot consider one tragedy inferior to the other.

Anushka Vaidya
10/29/2019 07:42:39 pm

How might the authors' backgrounds and past experiences affected the claims made in their articles? Could this have caused any bias?

Anisha Harkara
10/29/2019 08:08:28 pm

Yes, I think that their backgrounds effect the claims made in their articles. Dunbar-Ortiz's mother is part Native American, and Lewy's family is Jewish. Perhaps Lewy thought that genocide had to be as big as the Holocaust, and maybe that's why he didn't believe that there was Native genocide.

Nandana Pillai
10/30/2019 10:41:50 pm

Yes, I think there was bias from both the author's parts. Dunbar-Ortiz's mother was part Indian which may have been the reason for her to have such a strong stance on the fact that the colonization of the Indians and their Depopulation was in fact, a genocide. While Lewy's family is of Jewish descent, so he probably thought that what happened to the Native Americans could not be considered a genocide because it wasn't as tragic and brutal as the Holocaust.

Crystal Gayle
10/29/2019 08:22:42 pm

As it was stated that the death toll of natives could not compare to other genocides, such as the holocaust, do you think Native would be thought to be victims of genocide if they had a higher death toll?

Peixian Tian
10/29/2019 09:08:22 pm

For sure, a lot of people in our discussion at least already thought the natives were victims of genocide. If the death toll was significantly higher, it would definitely be classified as a genocide. As from past historical events we consider many genocides to be mass killings of a certain group such as the holocaust, and if the Native Americans had similar death tolls; it would be considered a genocide.

Joshua Rogers
10/29/2019 09:16:39 pm

I don’t think the higher number would make them fall into the category of a genocide. A genocide is not just number of deaths. It’s about the targeting of a particular group or people. Now granted a genocide does usually have a high death count. But if we were just going off numbers then would you consider the killing of 1.5 million Armenians a genocide. You would but not just by the number, but by the fact that the Ottomans were deliberately targeting them for death. Even now a days the Turkish government denies that fact that the genocide happened. But my point is that you can’t just declare something a genocide just by the numbers.

Annabel Elvin
10/29/2019 09:31:20 pm

Yes, I believe many people think a genocide has to be on as large a scale as the Holocaust in order to be classified as a genocide. This is not the case though as the death toll has little to nothing to do with if the crime was genocide or not, it is instead the intention behind the killings.

Clare Whittelsey
10/29/2019 10:01:18 pm

Of course, I think if it was more "well known" and "brutal" to Americans we would for sure have classified it as a genocide by now. This is wrong to do, all of the genocidal UN requirements apply to this event, so it should be considered a genocide.

Nandana Pillai
10/30/2019 11:16:34 pm

Yes, I do think that if the death toll had been higher that more people would have agreed that the Native Americans were victims of genocide, because genocides are usually understood as targeting a group of people and the mass murder of these peoples. Also, I think it would have been harder to refute the claim that Natives died mainly due to disease and that warfare was not a significant part of their depopulation. Plus, I think that part of the reason that there is debate about whether what happened to the Natives was a genocide or not is because we don't know the exact population of the Natives pre-colonization, and this makes refuting the fact that many people weren't actually killed easier.

Peixian Tian
10/29/2019 08:39:06 pm

In our discussion we talked a lot about how the views on genocide have changed. How have extreme genocides and other incidents influenced our view of the genocide?

Joshua Rogers
10/29/2019 09:10:13 pm

In some cases you could say that we have become desensitized to the topic. We’ve read about so many deaths not only form wats but form diseases as well. Nothing was really classified as a genocide until after the Nuremberg Trails. The trials showed all of the disposable acts the Nazis carried out on the Jews. People in the court room at the time passed out form shock and some were in disbelief. But I suppose if you view these same photos today a person will just say, “ Oh my god that’s awful” and then they’ll just carry on with their day. So I would say our views on genocide have changed through out the years.

Annabel Elvin
10/29/2019 09:13:12 pm

I think that more recent genocides, for example the Holocaust, have caused people to have this very dramatic view of genocide. Although the Holocaust was one of the most tragic events in the history of the world, millions do not need to be wiped out to classify as a genocide. I believe our view of what qualifies as a genocide is altered due to these events that happened on a larger scale.

Allen MacMillan
10/29/2019 09:27:02 pm

I think the more extreme genocides we have seen in the past 100 years are the only ones that have been taught to us in our history classes so we don't relate other events to be genocide. Also the severity of what happened in these is taught to us in a manner which makes us grimace, westward expansion until APUSH has always taken the subject lightly.

Allen MacMillan
10/29/2019 08:54:39 pm

If one considers what happened to the Native Americans a genocide what other historical events would you also have to classsify as genocide?

Noel Garcia
10/29/2019 09:50:02 pm

This question is a little broad in part because I can answer the Holocaust because it is classified as a genocide, but I'm going to assume you're alluding to events that aren't popularly considered genocide. I think you can relate the genocidal indoctrination of Natives to the indoctrination of enslaved people. Both groups had the "white-ified" bible used to against them to justify the actions against them.

Anushka Vaidya
10/29/2019 09:01:33 pm

The experience of the Native Americans was compared to the experience of the Jews during the Holocaust. How did this comparison either support or go against the claim that Native Americans were victims of genocide? Why did the authors of the articles choose to compare the two events? Were there any other similar events in history that could also relate to this situation?

Nishka Mathew
10/29/2019 11:34:00 pm

The experience of Native Americans with the experience of Jews during the Holocaust supported the claim that Native Americans were victims of genocide because it showed many comparisons between the experiences. For example, the Germans believed that they were good, wiping out the bad (the Jews) and the Americans believed that they were good, wiping out the bad (the Native Americans). The belief in the superiority of the Aryan race can be compared to the white supremacy during that time. Not to mention, the Germans called Jews 'subhumans', while Americans called Native Americans "savages" and “untamed and untameable creatures” (Article 1, page 3). Dunbar Ortiz wanted to compare these two events to show the similarities but Lewy wanted to find the differences. For example, Lewy talks about the differences between the conditions of the Jewish ghettos from the conditions under which the Indians labored. Missionaries from the colonies were concerned about the Native Americans welfare but there was little they could do to help but Nazis knew what could help and purposefully implemented conditions which raises the question of accidental versus deliberate.

Anushka Vaidya
10/29/2019 09:06:22 pm

Dunbar-Ortiz claims, "The objective of US authorities was to terminate their existence as peoples—not as random individuals. This is the very definition of modern genocide." To what extent is this true, and how did Dunbar-Ortiz support her claim? How would this affect the argument that Native Americans were not victims of genocide?

John Bass
10/30/2019 07:21:32 am

The idea that termination of Native American's national identity is genocide is true because it shows prejudice towards and a wish to get rid of the group. Dunbar-Ortiz supports this by citing examples of US culture being forced on native, such as the boarding schools. This affects the argument that genocide was not present by invalidating the argument that the was not large-scale, federally ordered killing.

Grayson Cochran
10/29/2019 09:27:09 pm

The historian Lewy argued that the removal of Native Americans was not genocide. He stated that he grew up as Jewish and fought against the Germans for pushing his family out of Poland and beating his father. Due to this, do you think Lewy had any bias in the article because of his experience with genocides? If so what?

Annabel Elvin
10/29/2019 09:50:01 pm

I believe that because Lewy experienced arguably the largest genocide in history, he does have some bias. If his view of genocide is the Holocaust, he may not identify smaller scale events as genocides.

Varun Pillai
10/30/2019 07:26:48 am

I believe that Lewy did have some bias. Due to the fact that he knows about the hardships which had taken place during the holocaust, I believe he tries to compare the two instances together. Because, arguably, the native situation was not as gruesome as the holocaust, I believe Lewy classifies it as not a genocide.

Leo Cheng
10/30/2019 03:58:54 pm

I believe that Lewy definitely did have bias due to his history but I do not think it was evident in the arguments he provided and the evidence he cited. I think that his article had a much more objective tone compared to Dunbar-Ortiz's article, and gave solid evidence to back his arguments. His opinion on the matter may have been influenced by his past, but it was not evident in his writing

Annabel Elvin
10/29/2019 09:28:29 pm

The United Nations definition of genocide is any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such:
Killing members of the group;
Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group;
Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part;
Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group;
Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.
How is this definition similar or different than the two authors' personal definitions?

Anisha Harkara
10/29/2019 09:30:18 pm

Has the US government admitted to the genocide of Native Americans? If so, did they offer compensation to their descendants?

Annabel Elvin
10/29/2019 09:47:15 pm

No the US government has never fully admitted to the genocide of Native Americans, as it is still in discussion today. The government has given little compensation towards Native Americans and nothing compared to the treatment the Native American population had to face.

Clare Whittelsey
10/29/2019 09:59:40 pm

No, the government never fully admitted to the genocide, nor did they classify it as a genocide. However they do have Native American reserves, but that is not enough to give back to people who we stole land from.

Ameena Farooqui
10/29/2019 11:19:16 pm

Although the government has recognized the unjust treatment of Native Americans they have not specifically used the word "genocide". I do not believe anything can particularly "compensate" for the wrongful actions in the past. However what can be done on a larger scale it is to spread awareness and have discussions about topics like these to identify trends and prevent similar events to occur in the future.

John Bass
10/30/2019 07:17:02 am

The US has not admitted to the Native American genocide. In terms of compensation, it could be said that this is the self-rule granted to the reservations, but this is not very good compensation and simplifies the situation immensely.

Semeon Petros
10/30/2019 08:20:22 am

The Us Govenment has not admitted to the genocide of Native Americans. Although they ignore this issue, they also didn’t offer enough compensation for what they did. The US gave small reservations to the people who they destroyed and stole land from.

Joey Schifano
11/2/2019 12:18:38 am

I think American's widely acknowledge the poverty within Native American reservations, but never corolated the state of Native Americans today with past treatment

Jane Cho
10/29/2019 09:33:16 pm

How have these attempts to exterminate the population of the native Americans such as preventing births within the group or transferring children to different groups and areas affect the indigenous people in America today?

Noel Garcia
10/29/2019 09:43:40 pm

According to the U.S Census, the Native American population makes up under 1% of the American population. To say the extermination of Natives effected their population today is an understatement. Native Americans used to have tens of millions in population before 1860 and our actions after that time period decelerated the population drastically.

Annabel Elvin
10/29/2019 09:44:19 pm

I think that these effects have led to a sharp decline in the population of Native Americans, forcing them to become that much more of a minority. This caused them to loose even more power with the US government, eventually leading to them becoming such a fraction of the US population today.

Logan Siege
10/31/2019 02:56:55 pm

The attempted genocide of the native population has led to a near extinction of today's native population. Some researchers believe that there was at most 18 million natives pre colonialism. Now according to the US Census Bureau, there are a total 6.8 million natives in the United States even though the overall population has increased to 327 million people.

Kingston Hill
10/29/2019 09:34:27 pm

I would say the US most definitely committed what could be called a genocide to the Native Americans of our country. When looking at the list provided by the United Nations as mentioned in the Dunbar-Ortiz article, everything on that checklist was crossed off. The US government killed members of that group, caused serious bodily/ mental harm, imposed measures to prevent births, and transferred children from the group into another.

Logan Phinney
10/31/2019 02:03:33 pm

I agree with what you are saying, but I would like to ask you do the modern standards even apply to what happened during that time period? Nearly every aspect of daily life was completely different during this time period. The conflicts between Indians and Americans could be compared to many other wars from the past, such savagery was simply commonplace.

Annabel Elvin
10/29/2019 09:38:52 pm

Could conflict with Colonists and Native Americans have been avoided entirely? How would our country be different today if we had been able to achieve this social harmony between the groups?

Peixian Tian
10/29/2019 09:43:28 pm

I highly doubt conflict could of been avoided completely, as Americans were expanding very aggressively onto native lands making conflict almost inevitable. Unless American colonies didn’t try to colonize America, these conflicts would be virtually unavoidable. Our country would be drastically different if we avoided those conflicts, as we probably would have a lot less territory due to negotiations and a more diverse population.

Ameena Farooqui
10/29/2019 11:40:00 pm

I do not believe that conflict between natives and colonists could have been entirely avoided. Unfortunately colonists were more advanced in technology and tactics in general which gave them an advantage. Also European powers were hungry for land and white supremacy drove their ideas of superiority. Also the introduction of diseases was inevitable and would leave a toll on native populations no matter what. If there was social harmony between groups I believe that territorial lines would be different and perhaps more diversity would be introduced earlier. Unfortunately that thought would merely be a fantasy and because of the different circumstances and ideals both group had that "social harmony" would be very hard to achieve.

Ameena Farooqui
10/29/2019 11:45:41 pm

Also I believe that to achieve social harmony one group would have to assimilate into the other completely erasing someones culture and identity.

Noel Garcia link
10/29/2019 09:41:05 pm

The largest question I feel we did not reach during the seminar is the effects of the genocide on Native Americans today. Whether genocide or not, what are the remnants of these action on Native Americans today?

Aman Kumar
10/29/2019 11:47:27 pm

The Native Americans today only make up a small fraction of the population as a result of the "genocide" and disease. Although there are reservations for Natives today, living conditions in these reservations are comparable to the third world. Over 90,000 natives are homeless as well.

Joey Schifano
11/2/2019 12:16:43 am

I agree, I understand the effects that the genocidal policy has on Native Americans today but I think it is important to ensure minorities are not subjected to the same treatment today

Clare Whittelsey
10/29/2019 09:57:58 pm

Do you believe that if other widespread genocidal events never occured, the Native Americans would be considered victims of genocide?

Karen Jean
10/29/2019 11:05:09 pm

I do not think that it would have been consider. If right now there is still controversy about wether it was or not, even when there is examples of previous genocides then it more likely for people to not believe it when they don't have an example to compare it to.

Regan Glass
10/31/2019 11:43:55 pm

Yes, I do believe that Natives would still be considered victims of genocide because, for example, the Holocaust is probably the most known genocide in history but is not similar to the native genocide whatsoever. So I feel that people don't count the natives as a genocide because of the events that happened in the Holocaust. Yet, wouldn't the mindset be different if the Holocaust didn't occur? Or, if people do view the Natives as a genocide, wouldn't it continue to be viewed that way since the Natives and Holocaust are much more contrasted than similar?

Pratina Kandru
10/29/2019 09:59:26 pm

According to Dunbar-Ortiz, colonization came with a genocidal intent, could the Europeans have colonized America without genocidal consequences?

Noel Garcia
10/29/2019 11:31:53 pm

Yes. Manifest Destiny may not have occurred so easily in the 1800s though. If we remove all genocidal acts, then that means the Indian Removal Act never happens and that slows down the process of Manifest Destiny. Also, without the genocidal acts, the Native population would’ve grown over the next few generations and created them into a larger population. I feel the US would’ve just waited longer to “buy” the land.

Isadora Siguenza
10/29/2019 09:59:47 pm

I agree with the statements that Dunbar Ortiz had provided within her article. While in class we had debated about the definition of genocide, we had come to the conclusion that the official definition declared in Ortiz's work was in fact correct. The elements to what can classify an event as a genocide were all included in this situation. Although we discussed that throughly I do wish that we had focused on main ideas of the article more, such as how we discussed the role of settler colonialism. Yet a topic that was brought up but discussed very briefly was the doctrine of discovery. I believe this should have been more significant in our discussion because it is the logic behind the elimination of the Native Americans. It was used as a method to colonize and to gain resources from the Native Americans.

Pratina Kandru
10/29/2019 10:00:17 pm

Why aren’t many US citizens aware of the precarity of the situation of Indigenous people in the US?

Karen Jean
10/29/2019 11:03:11 pm

Many people are not aware of it because there have been efforts by the government to keep it quiet to preserve their image. Also the Natives never put enough effort to try to involve media and make it know in a larger scale.

Noel Garcia
10/29/2019 11:28:45 pm

Ms. Jean, I feel the reason Natives don’t put their conditions on a national scale is because of the lack thereof. Native Americans usually live in small reservations that statistically aren’t technologically advanced and their voice can be nationally heard. I can’t blame Natives for not spreading their cause because of the restrictions applied to them.

Ameena Farooqui
10/29/2019 11:30:46 pm

I believe that many citizens are not aware because unfortunately we as an American society tend to brush over events that look "bad" weather that be on the news or in the classroom itself. Unfortunately those natives who speak out and other supporters can't garner enough attention through the media. I myself was unaware of this particular topic until this discussion, therefore it is important that topics like these are discussed in areas like schools so that people are aware.

Ameena Farooqui
10/29/2019 10:09:13 pm

What the Native Americans experienced heavily coincides with the five acts that are used to classify a genocide. We condemn these acts yet they are very much relevant in today's society. For example one genocide that is still occurring today is towards the Rohingya in Myanmar where ethnic cleansing and displacement is taking place which also coincides with the five acts. Its important to study past genocides to give insight on social behavior, a deeper understanding of human rights and to understand why genocide is perpetrated.

Javairia Qadir
10/30/2019 09:56:53 pm

Yes, I definitely think it is important to study past genocides so that we can avoid future repetition and one of the events that remind me of the fact that our government hasn't publicized this is the Rwandan genocide we learned about last year that also had conflict erupt due to discrimination and a biased leader.

Ameena Farooqui
10/29/2019 10:29:28 pm

While we all know about the battles and wars against Native Americans and even the Jacksonian era treatment of Natives including the infamous Trail of Tears, why do so many Americans not know about the re-education schools, and the forced sterilization of Natives?

Nishka Mathew
10/29/2019 10:51:01 pm

I believe that the battles and wars against Native Americans or even the Jacksonian era treatment of Natives during the infamous Trial of Tears is known because Manifest Destiny could justify these actions. Many believe that Manifest Destiny was a positive doctrine that helped the United States achieve greatness and so the removal of Native Americans could be justified. However the re-education schools and the forced sterilization of Natives can't be justified by Manifest Destiny. Instead these actions contribute to the claim that there was a genocide against the Native Americans. These actions also cast a negative light on the past of the United States which many don't want to believe.

Karen Jean
10/29/2019 11:01:37 pm

I feel that people do not know about it because it is something that the government is not proud of and knows that those actions could be counted as a measure of genoise so to try to preserve their image they try to keep it as quiet as possible.

Regan Glass
10/31/2019 11:40:02 pm

In my opinion, wars and battles were too large to ignore which is why they are well known in history, but maybe the re-education schools and forced sterilization occurrences aren't known very well because America has tried to forget about those instances in the past. It wasn't the main focus at the time, and now that it has passed there is a large realization about how horrible it was, knowing that any American would not want to be known for living in a country that continued to do horrible things like that, on top of other horrible occurrences like the wars and slavery.

Nishka Mathew
10/29/2019 10:42:30 pm

I thought it was really interesting how Lewy shows instances in which the colonists used ethnocentrism to justify killing many Native Americans. He says, "The torture of prisoners was indeed routine practice for most Indian tribes, and was deeply ingrained in Indian culture.” (Article 2, page 4) and “The cruelty of these practices strengthened the belief that the natives were savages who deserved no quarter.” (Article 2, page 5) The Puritans considered Native American practices to be barbaric according to their standards but the Native Americans thought these practices were normal. As a result of the colonists' ethnocentrism, the battle of Fort Mystic in May 1637 was brutal and it resulted in the death of several hundred Pequots. Not to mention, the categorization of Native Americans as "savages" lead to even more justification of their death. Another instance of ethnocentrism mentioned in the second article is the colonists saying that the Native Americans failed "to adhere either to the laws of war or to the law of nature” because they would hide instead of openly doing “civilized” battle (Article 2, page 5) The style of battle that the colonists consider "civilized" are purely based on their own customs and practices that the Native Americans don't regularly use. Not to mention, "the laws of war" or "the law of nature" may be different for the Native Americans than the colonists. This 'failure' by the Native Americans lead to even more deaths and desire for retributions.

Logan Phinney
10/31/2019 01:59:10 pm

I think that this clash of cultures was inevitable.Much like Europeans and the Middle East during the crusades, the fight over certain land and the extreme differences in culture left no other option than fighting.

Amritha Alaguraj
10/29/2019 10:53:57 pm

It's mentioned many times throughout the Dunbar-Ortiz text that she believes that disease was intentional and purposeful, whereas Lewwy argues the exact opposite. Do you believe that disease started off unintentional, but then became a beneficial factor that was then manipulated?

Karen Jean
10/29/2019 11:00:10 pm

Do you guys believed that the Americanization of Native Americans could have been a possible solution to avoid the killing? or do you guys believed that the views of Nativism and patriotism found at that time with Americans would have prevented it?

Noel Garcia
10/29/2019 11:26:34 pm

Ms. Jean, I believe the word you’re looking for is assimilation. Although assimilation is practical, you’re asking a government to completely erase an entire nation’s culture, identity, tradition, etc. A lot of Native tribes would’ve rejected this idea and it probably would’ve cause war on the mainland.

Ameena Farooqui
10/29/2019 11:11:53 pm

When debates over the issue concerning genocide and Native Americans comes up why do you believe people tend to ignore the other side of the story, specifically relating to the smallpox blanket incident, is it because they have a set mindset or because they just didn’t look all the way into the backstory?

Logan Talton
10/30/2019 11:14:22 am

I don't think it is ignored, but disregarded as not important. Only a few white settlers embraced this practice, and while the outcome is famous, this tactic was not embraced by many white settlers. Another reason it is "ignored" is because it is an indirect killing, so to say the disease does the killing, not the people. This is also where much of the debate arises, as many wonder, "is that genocide?"

Aman Kumar
10/30/2019 12:14:56 am

As result of disease and war, natives only make up a small amount of the population. With most of the Native population living in poverty, lack of education, unemployed, and homeless today. What should the government do to support native americans?

Logan Talton
10/30/2019 11:10:01 am

Originally, many settlers tried to integrate them into American society. There is some debate over whether this was in the best interest of the Native Americans. Now imagine an imaginary world where settlers came over nondiscriminatory. They still want all the land, even though Natives are on it. They could take it over, and invite Natives to live on it, but the Natives lost, and were probably not very happy about that, as were the whites. Therefore they were confined to their own land. My point is, Natives could never be integrated into society at the formation of America. But now, we enjoy more freedoms, less diseases, and embrace equality. Of course, If Natives were integrated into society, they may face ethnic discrimination and lower wages/worse jobs, as do many blacks today.

John Bass
10/30/2019 07:08:25 am

While the extent and nature of the United States' involvement physical genocide is debatable, it is clear by examples like the Dawes act and the acculturation boarding schools that US attempted to get rid of native American culture. How important do you think the cultural destruction of a group is in determining genocide relative to the killing of that group’s members?

Benson Chen
10/31/2019 06:56:47 pm

I think the cultural destruction of a group is as serious, if not more serious, as physical destruction of a group. What characterizes different people group is their culture, their language, their tradition, and their lifestyle. If a group's culture is destroyed, the group will have no characteristics as a people group and will therefore cease to exist as a distinct people group but as a part of other people group.

Varun Pillai
10/30/2019 07:23:11 am

Is it right to justify the deaths of the Natives through disease as an accident by the Colonizers? Lewy argues that the colonizers had no idea what they were bringing into the new land, so they should not be held accountable for the deaths by disease.

Logan Talton
10/30/2019 10:55:43 am

It is not that black and white, but I would argue that it was no accident that so many Natives died to disease. Lewy also states that Colonizers sold blankets infected with smallpox to the natives, and when a city caught the disease, they were told to seek shelter in other towns, spreading the disease. It was a goal of the colonizers to keep their livestock, property, and family safe from the Natives, and they were more than willing to drive them out. They also wanted to expand west and colonize the savage territories that were occupied by Natives.

Logan Phinney
10/31/2019 01:53:29 pm

Even if the Americans did not intentionally spread disease, they still created many of the conditions for the disease to spread very quickly. By controlling Indian trade routes and interfering with their food supply, they allowed diseases to be spread much quicker than they would have been naturally.

Semeon Petros
10/30/2019 08:01:30 am

Could there have been any other reason for the terrible treatment of Native Americans other than the feeling of racial superiority from Americans?

Varun Pillai
10/30/2019 08:42:15 am

I believe that racial superiority was one of the underlying reasons for Natives, but I also believe the lust for expansion was another. I feel that the colonizers thought if they instill fear into the Natives through how they treated them, then they would give up their land for free.

Alexander N
10/30/2019 10:36:22 am

Another reason the native Americans were treated so badly could be unintentional diseases at spread by the Americans. The Lewy article stated that around 90% of deaths were because of disease.

Alexander N
10/30/2019 10:37:37 am

Neiberger

Leo Cheng
10/30/2019 03:54:24 pm

Though an inherent belief in racial superiority may have played a factor in the terrible treatment of the Natives, I think that it wasn't the main cause. One of the main reasons for the terrible treatment was because they occupied land that Americans at the time believed to be theirs. This came with the idea of westward expansion and manifest destiny and they believed that the land is theirs for the taking and that the Natives did not own any rights to the land. This belief, along with the unexpected resistance that they were met with and how Natives were portrayed in media increased racial hatred towards the Natives which in turn led to the terrible treatment of the Indians

Logan Talton
10/30/2019 10:50:14 am

Most people can agree that disease was the main contributor to the death and decline of Native Americans. Would the large spread of disease be the defining factor in making this a genocide? Is it instead something else, or would you argue that there was no genocide?

Leo Cheng
10/30/2019 04:02:47 pm

I believe that the disease brought by the Europeans was not at all a defining factor in making this a genocide. According to Genocide Conventions, a genocide has taken place when one group has the intent to completely kill off another group. The spread of diseases by the Europeans was completely unintentional as they did not have any medical knowledge of communicable diseases at the time.

Manasvi Marthala
10/30/2019 06:43:12 pm

I do think that there was a genocide because the Americans had the intention of moving the Natives and in some to kill them. The Natives were persecuted by the Americans because of their race which could be considered genocide. I don't belive that the disease brought by the Europeans was a factor in making this a genocide. While the decline of the population from the disease did help the Europeans with taking the land it wasn't intentional and it wasn't something that they would have been able to control at the time.

Kimberly Caputo
10/30/2019 10:21:48 pm

Disease was brought by the settlers and many of them gave the natives disease intentionally to slowly decrease the population, I think disease was a big aspect in the genocide of the Natives, because of intentions.

Molly Norris
10/31/2019 07:43:13 am

Although disease was one of the major contributing factors to the downfall of the native american population I do not believe it could be labeled as genocide since genocide is intentional and they unintentionally brought over disease through many different things and didn’t realize the effects of them coming

Nandana Pillai
10/30/2019 01:09:44 pm

Do you think that there were instances where the Americans played the victim just to find a reason to start the genocide? If so, why do u think this happened even though they had better ammunition than the Indians?

Shazia Muckram
10/30/2019 01:16:50 pm

I believe that in many instances the United States plays the victim by initiating a massacre, causing a reaction from the opponent, and using this reaction as a motive to eradicate a group of people and to protect its own people. For example the Wounded Knee Massacre, which was mainly an attack by the US towards the Native Americans, later blames the Indians and tells them that it is their own fault for their losses and also the death of American soldiers. This is evident when Frank Baum wrote five days after the Wounded Knee massacre, “Our only safety depends upon the total extermination of the Indians. Having wronged them for centuries we had better in order to protect our civilization, follow it by one or more wrong and wipe these untamed and untamable creatures from the face of the earth.”

Javairia Qadir
10/30/2019 10:00:10 pm

I do believe that the U.S. in many instances played as a victim to help its title and make the government look innocent. For example what the government did during the Mexican-American war was provoking the other side until they retaliated making the U.S. look like it was attacked for no reason. In this genocide the government does not publicize it or even mention what had happened or started the genocide.

Regan Glass
10/31/2019 11:29:05 pm

Yes I do believe that Americans wanted to start the genocide because it would allow them to have a violent option of removing the natives from land that they wanted to obtain. By playing the victims and starting war between the natives, it would be an easier option for them to quickly try to win over land.

Aiden Hall
10/30/2019 01:19:52 pm

Throughout history there has been warfare between peoples, much of the time both sides intending to destroy the other. Where is the line drawn between warfare and genocide? Why was the nazi murder of millions of slavs during world war 2 considered warfare while the push west is considered by many to be genocide?

Benson Chen
10/31/2019 06:53:25 pm

Warfare, in fact, is a form of genocide by definition. Warfare is the physical destruction of part, or if "successful," all of a people group. However, genocide is not just limited to warfare, as there are ways to commit genocide through destroying one's culture or preventing one people group from reproduction.

Leo Cheng
10/30/2019 04:04:20 pm

Based on the diction and the tone of the two article, which one do you think is more credible? After analyzing this does it change your perception of whether or not Native Americans were victims to genocide?

Kimberly Caputo
10/30/2019 10:18:45 pm

I feel as thought the first article was more credible due to the fact that the author gives the five characteristics of Genocide and relates all those reasons to the event that happened with the Natives. As for the second article it was based on opinion and what the audience thought about the events.

Molly Norris
10/31/2019 07:41:19 am

I think that both show very obvious bias based on their past and ethnicity however if i were to pick a more credible one to rely on I would pick the first one since although she had bias from being of native american descent she backed up almost all of her points with real factual evidence

Manasvi Marthala
10/30/2019 06:39:48 pm

When many people think about genocide they think about the holocoust and how extensive it was, while this was a genocide, it is one taken to the extreme measures. How much of an impact would something have to have to be considered a genocide?

Kimberly Caputo
10/30/2019 10:15:18 pm

in the first article the events that take place that may be considered a genocide does not need to be as extreme as the holocaust there are many aspects that make a genocide a genocide. Such as the ones stated in the first article as well.

Dylan Thakur
10/31/2019 10:01:18 am

I don't think the impact the impact of a conflict should determine whether or not it is a genocide. Plenty of genocides have had very little impact on society such as the Armenian and Rwandan genocide. What determines a genocide are the stages that the people in power take to exterminate the lower group.

Ryan Xiao
10/30/2019 07:45:52 pm

These readings were clearly biased based on the point of view of the authors. Dunbar-Ortiz's mother was part native american, so it would have skewed her view to the event being more severe. On the other hand, Lewy was a Jew who compared a lot of the events to the most extreme case of genocide, the Holocaust. Do you think there is any way that bias could be reduced?

Evan Villani
10/31/2019 07:09:54 am

I thought this bias was reduced by their work as historians. They did a great job organizing a lot of valuable information and arguing the perspective of people in history for and against the case of intent. While their pasts may have been a reason to become a historian, they both understand that bias must be reduced as much as possible in historian's writing

Javairia Qadir
10/30/2019 10:07:13 pm

In Dunbar Ortiz's document she mentions how the battles between the U.S. and the Indians were based on race and discrimination and how brutal they acted with each other. In Guenter Lewy's document he argues that the battles were solely based on property and control of land. What do you guys think mainly caused the battles between them and how did they effect each side? Do you think they could have lived peacefully together? If so, how would they accomplish this?

Kimberly Caputo
10/30/2019 10:12:25 pm

In class the topic of what Genocide really meant and what events define a genocide came up many times . I feel as though the document that was written by Dunbar-Ortiz was well thought out and consisted of factual evidence but the article really left the question up to the readers, which frustrated some of our classmates.

joey schifano
11/2/2019 12:13:33 am

I think that the Dunbar article defined genocide thougoughly and it left the question of what other historical events could be classified as genocide

Evan Villani
10/31/2019 06:27:00 am

Why is there such a discussion over this topic today? What has most impacted the view of these events and how does it relate to progressivism today?

Molly Norris
10/31/2019 07:38:45 am

I think there is so much discussion over this topic still to this day because now there is a lot reparations being offered to not only Native Americans but descendants of slaves so there is the topic of what happened to the Native Americans in order to give relief to them.

Benson Chen
10/31/2019 06:49:42 pm

I think one of the main purpose that we are having this discussion over the terminology and, in fact, one of the main reason that we study history is so that we learn about and learn from what happened in the past. And if it was as terrible as what happened to the Natives, we discuss it to prevent it from happening again

Molly Norris
10/31/2019 07:36:30 am

We talked a lot about if the cause of the violence and force by the europeans was because of racial tensions or just over land dispute. Many said they believed that racial tensions did have some say in their violence so one question I had is that do you think if the first settlers were a different ethnic group other than white europeans do you think that the tensions would have been as strong?

Dylan Thakur
10/31/2019 09:47:09 am

Do Native Americans today think that the persecution of there people was a genocide?

Logan Phinney
10/31/2019 01:44:18 pm

Lewy writes that "The torture of prisoners was indeed routine practice for most Indian tribes, and was deeply ingrained in Indian culture." Based of this quote, do you believe that Americans were justified in calling their attacks retaliation. In my opinion, the Indians 'savagery' was simply their way of life, which Americans were not used to.

Logan Siege
10/31/2019 02:52:16 pm

One question I wish our class had talked about during our discussion was, Is the belief of white or European superiority still a relevant cause to the misinformation of the public about the native genocide? This point can be argued by either side by the differing views of Dunbar-Ortiz and Lewy.

Aakash Gala
10/31/2019 06:37:55 pm

Guenter compares and contrasts the Nazis and the Natives, in what ways do you believe that both of these events were similar and do you think that since the Natives weren’t treated as brutal, it means that they didn’t face genocide?

Benson Chen
10/31/2019 07:00:39 pm

What the US did to the Natives surely was bad, but consider this: US and Mexico were both independent countries formed from former European colonies having a revolution. Then why was it that Mexico seemed to get along fine with the Natives, developing biracial communities such as the mestizos but US is credited with all the horrible destruction of Natives, physically and culturally?

Regan Glass
10/31/2019 11:22:52 pm

Is the lowered percentage of Natives in the modernized population most likely due to assimilation into the newer communities or because Natives were totally driven out of their land by white expansionists?

Joey Schifano
11/2/2019 12:09:27 am

How did the United States government negate established laws unchecked, in an effort to further marginalize Native Ammericans.
-Treaty of Fort Laramie recognized the Black Hills as Sioux Nation Reservation. Then in 1874 miners moved into the Black Hills
-Religious practices were outlawed depriving Natives First Amendment Rights to freedom of religion
ext.


Comments are closed.

    Scored Discussion 2

    Was Westward Expansion Genocide?
    ​Roxanne Dunbar-Ortiz and Guenter Lewy

    Archives

    October 2018

    Categories

    All

    RSS Feed

Proudly powered by Weebly
  • Calendar
  • Blog
  • Textbook
  • Period Materials
    • Period 1 - 1491-1607
    • Period 2 - 1607-1754
    • Period 3 - 1754-1800
    • Period 4 - 1800-1848
    • Period 5 - 1844-1877
    • Period 6 - 1865-1898
    • Period 7 - 1890-1945 >
      • New Deal Murals
      • Response to Economic Crisis
      • Hitler Documents
      • WWII Homefront Circles
      • Holocaust Intervention
    • Period 8 - 1945-1980
    • Period 9 - 1980-present
  • APUSH Exam Review
  • Writing Tips