I am currently taking an American history course in which we read an essay titled, "Andrew Jackson and His Indian Wars," by Robert V. Remini, and while reading, I immediately identified a number of characteristics in Jackson's motivations and actions that were similar to those we've discussed in this class.
As with other genocidal leaders we have studied in this course, Jackson focused on an invented security threat and nationalism as an excuse to marginalize and deport an ethnic group, the native population of the now-southeastern United States, and gave assimilation of the group in dominant society as the only means by which they could remain. The means used to eliminate the native population were primarily deportation when discussing specifically the Indian Removal Act, but assimilation of natives also had been a part of life for quite a while. Natives assimilated not just by converting to Christianity and speaking English, but also by creating constitutions and even newspapers, both out of colonial influence.
When discussing this in a small group in my class, my group vehemently disagreed with me that deportation was genocide. One group member said, "There is a huge difference between going into someone's home and shooting them and making them move elsewhere." Even though they were aware of the problems of population exchanges and that deportations were a part of most genocides, and often killed people also, they were unmoved. The only way in which they agreed with me that this was genocidal was with regard to the cultural piece. We agreed that culture was tied to the land, particularly for natives to the land who depended upon it for their livelihood and survival and had adapted to a particular ecosystem. The conversation with them brought up a number of questions for me.
In talking about cultural genocide, how loose of a definition are people willing to create? Is all colonialism an attempt at cultural genocide? If so, what does this mean for the definition of genocide? Should this discourage us from using the term cultural genocide?
And finally, as my group in my other class argued, is deporting people from their native land cultural genocide?
As with other genocidal leaders we have studied in this course, Jackson focused on an invented security threat and nationalism as an excuse to marginalize and deport an ethnic group, the native population of the now-southeastern United States, and gave assimilation of the group in dominant society as the only means by which they could remain. The means used to eliminate the native population were primarily deportation when discussing specifically the Indian Removal Act, but assimilation of natives also had been a part of life for quite a while. Natives assimilated not just by converting to Christianity and speaking English, but also by creating constitutions and even newspapers, both out of colonial influence.
When discussing this in a small group in my class, my group vehemently disagreed with me that deportation was genocide. One group member said, "There is a huge difference between going into someone's home and shooting them and making them move elsewhere." Even though they were aware of the problems of population exchanges and that deportations were a part of most genocides, and often killed people also, they were unmoved. The only way in which they agreed with me that this was genocidal was with regard to the cultural piece. We agreed that culture was tied to the land, particularly for natives to the land who depended upon it for their livelihood and survival and had adapted to a particular ecosystem. The conversation with them brought up a number of questions for me.
In talking about cultural genocide, how loose of a definition are people willing to create? Is all colonialism an attempt at cultural genocide? If so, what does this mean for the definition of genocide? Should this discourage us from using the term cultural genocide?
And finally, as my group in my other class argued, is deporting people from their native land cultural genocide?
This being the 3rd time I'm responding to this post because the goddamn website doesn't know how to do it's job, I apologize for the lack of enthusiasm.
ReplyDeleteClearly your group members have not been obsessively studying genocide for the past 10 weeks, Brittany, because they are very misguided. The member you singled out is particularly out of touch since he thinks that genocides occur by stuffed suits knocking down doors and firing bullets. That's subsidized murder. We don't call that genocide. Genocide, in popular terms, becomes genocide when masses are deported to "resettlement zones" or camps. Deportation is the central tool of genocide.
Maybe elimination is not the goal of some deportations, but neither is a deathless process. There are no water breaks and trips to the ice cream truck during a deportation. Do the guys carrying the guns care if people are dropping dead under the weight of the sun and possessions? I think not.
We haven't explicitly discussed it in class, but I'm pretty sure we're all in agreement that the Native Americans were (are) victims of genocide. It's tough to say exactly when they became victims of genocide, but I think the Trail of Tears is not a bad first indicator. I really can't get behind this categorization of genocide business because it sounds way too apologist. Cultural, physical, psychological, theological, linguistic, it makes no difference. "Uhh, well, we were really only asking them to move from their ancestral lands so it's only cultural genocide." Hell no! We killed the shit out of them! It wasn't a matter of politely requesting the Cherokees move down a couple of landplots and they'd be automatically signed up for a co-op program from their former lands. We kicked them off, told them to get trekking, and did absolutely nothing to support their journey. We encouraged them to die.
I don't like this cultural genocide nonsense. It's just adding more derivative bullshit to the equation that does nothing but complicate conceptions of the problem. We're smart people, let's call a spade a spade. Lemkin did.
I have also had less than positive discussions surrounding genocide in the recent past, that have made me find popular conceptions of genocide cursory and inadequate. I’ve found that many of our cultural views of genocide come from overly dramatized, inaccurate, and black-and-white depictions of historical events. It has made me want to bring this discussion to more members of our community here at Oberlin.
ReplyDeleteIn talking with people who have not considered genocide very much, the first barrier I hit is usually that of death. In the minds of many, genocide cannot take place without people dying, and its status as genocide becomes shakier when small numbers have died. I believe that this is tied to how genocide functions as a symbol in our culture and others.
American culture has a sweet tooth for gory tales surrounding World War II, and American involvement in what many see as “the last good war”. The Nazi antagonist has become the archetype of evil in wartime story telling. This has made Nazism, and genocidal intention a catchall for anything ludicrous and abhorrent in human nature. But in my mind these depictions have not drawn adequate attention to the underlying problems of genocide and have marginalized the reality of it. These depictions allow us to distance ourselves from genocide and reframe our own ethnically driven abuses as something entirely different.
It is hard for Americans to put our historical figures, such as Andrew Jackson, in the same category as Hitler as architects of genocide. In reality, however both of these leaders targeted ethnic minorities for the acquisition of wealth. The trail of tears and other Indian “wars” sought the destruction or removal of ethnic groups to make way for “Americans”, just as the Nazis seized lebensraum for “Aryans”.
If we are to take away a meaningful lesson from the discussion of genocide in our culture, we have to shift the conversation from universally dismissing the evil Nazis and start talking about why organic nationalism is dangerous.