July 27, 2010

Were Indians "colonists" too?

In Did Indians "Colonize" America? I addressed whether we could call the first Paleo-Indians from Asia "colonizers." Answer: no.

Now someone has raised a similar question: Whether the Indians colonized each other once they were here:

Indians were also colonists

By Wallace AlcornAs an elementary school student I had presumed Indians were homogenous. The fact is some tribes differed from others at least as much as the Spanish colonists differed from the British, French, and Dutch colonists.

Yet, when the literature turns to narratives of the interface of Indians and Anglos, it is just this—Indians and Anglos, as if all Indians were alike and all Europeans were alike.

I recognize this same inconsistency in the term “colonies” for the European settlements and “tribal territories” for the Indians. Except that the tribes were not able to maintain contact with their points of origin, it seems to me they were also colonies, e.g., Apache, Winnebago. The Indians were as much colonists as were the Europeans. If they can be grouped in distinction from each other, we can speak only of the earlier colonists and the later colonists.

The literature of the discipline of Indian history locates the various tribes by their respective geographical territories. This had fascinated me as a student, and I had tried to memorize their locations. Different maps confused me, because they placed the various tribes in different locations. What I didn’t then recognize is that the tribes kept moving around, migrating from one area to another. Each time they settled, they declared this their territory.

The language the literature uses is the Indians “competed for territory” or “struggled over disputed lands” or “vied with each other over watering rights and hunting ranges.” But when it describes Anglos seeking new areas in which to settle, the language changes to “the colonists drove the native Americans off their ancestral lands” or “wrested it out of the hands of the native peoples” or “seized what belonged to the original inhabitants.”
Comment:  Like the previous person, Alcorn doesn't seem to know the definition of "colony":1. a group of people who leave their native country to form in a new land a settlement subject to, or connected with, the parent nation.

2. the country or district settled or colonized: Many Western nations are former European colonies.

3. any people or territory separated from but subject to a ruling power.
So when Alcorn writes:Except that the tribes were not able to maintain contact with their points of origin, it seems to me they were also colonies, e.g., Apache, Winnebago.he's wrong. It seems to Alcorn they were colonies...except they weren't colonies according to the dictionary definition.

Again, Alcorn writes:The Indians were as much colonists as were the Europeans.Nope, completely wrong. Moving into new territory is not the same as colonizing at the behest of an imperial power. Try again.

Here's the problem with Alcorn's thesis: He's conflated several different things: conquering, colonizing, warring, raiding, and simply wandering nomadically. Yes, Indians did some of the things Europeans did. But their actions were much more limited in scope. They sure as hell didn't launch an all-out conquest of several continents (North and South America, Africa, Australia).

While the Indians warred and raided, the Europeans conquered and colonized. The European actions were an order of magnitude more consequential.

Alcorn's not-so-hidden agenda

If you think Alcorn is just innocently disputing a point of history, think again. His agenda should be obvious to the casual reader. If not, he states it for us:Again I assert this inconsistency is the product of current political correctness. Its fundamental doctrine is that all discrimination, intolerance, and other social evil is the action of majorities. Minorities, by PC definitions, can never be charged with any of these and were always the victims.

The sins of American Indians and European settlers were the same: failure to sustain human values and failure to act humanely.
According to Alcorn, Indians were as evil as Europeans. Therefore, Indians don't deserve any special consideration. Don't uphold their treaties, fund their programs, or give them casinos. Let them pull themselves up by the bootstraps like real Americans.

Whenever you hear people talk about how warlike Indians were, you can bet they're about to rationalize the Euro-American genocide of Indians. They won't note that many Indians were peaceful. That many lived in the same place for centuries. That many signed treaties guaranteeing their rights but were killed or relocated anyway.

And that previous wars don't justify subsequent wars. If that were true, Al Qaeda would have no trouble defending 9/11. "By the Alcorn doctrine," Osama bin Laden might say, "your previous wars--against Britain, Mexico, the Indians, Spain, Germany, Korea, Vietnam, Iraq, etc.--justify our attack. Since you believe war justifies war, so do we."

For more on the subject, see "Something You Never Hear" About Indians?, Spaniards = Nazis, and The Wisdom of Albert Speer.

Below:  One good attack, invasion, or war deserves another?

5 comments:

dmarks said...

"According to Alcorn, Indians were as evil as Europeans. Therefore, Indians don't deserve any special consideration. Don't uphold their treaties, fund their programs, or give them casinos. Let them pull themselves up by the bootstraps like real Americans."

Well..... I'm one of those who doesn't see a huge difference between Europeans and Indians. As human beings, anyway. As evil as Europeans? Perhaps.

But the "therefore" does not follow, for me. Treaties should be upheld, regardless. The same is true of funding obligations.

Not sure about "giving casinos". Most casinos I know of were created by Natives, and not "given".

Rob said...

The difference between Europeans and Indians is on the cultural level, not the individual level.

The "according to Alcorn" passage is all from Alcorn's perspective, as I imagine it. Including the part about giving them casinos.

Southern Plainsman said...

DMARKS SAYS:

"Well..... I'm one of those who doesn't see a huge difference between Europeans and Indians. As human beings, anyway. As evil as Europeans? Perhaps."

You sure do not know history very well dmarks! If you want to combine all Europeans into one, even that fall short.

And your statement about casinos, "Most casinos I know of were created by Natives, and not "given".

The myth about gaming is that Natives have full and total control over casinos from inception to operations. This is not so. Many tribal members have no say or idea that their tribe is planning a casino. These decisions are made behind closed doors and approved with the stroke of a pen.

Where you get your ideas dmarks is bizarre and comical!

Natives, collectively, not individually, have consistently upheld environmental issues for over centuries. How is there evil in this compared to our European counterparts. Natives never forced by death or coercion, religious zeal. Where is the evil in this dmarks?

dmarks said...

PL said:

"You sure do not know history very well dmarks! If you want to combine all Europeans into one, even that fall short.

Prove the first. Otherwise, it is a hollow insult. As for the second sentence, I'm not even it is a sentence. Try again on that: it made no sense.

Natives have full and total control over casinos from inception to operations."

My knowledge is anecdotal, hence my saying most casinos that I know of. And these are places where the tribes have controlled their casinos. No doubt Rob has a lot of knowledge about how this usually goes too, and I'd be interested to see what he says.

"Where you get your ideas dmarks is bizarre and comical!"

More insults backed up by nothing. As for my ideas on casinos, I get them mainly from area Natives.

"Natives, collectively, not individually, have consistently upheld environmental issues for over centuries."

This is quite debatable, and wishfull thinking. Pre-Columbian Natives' low impact on the environment had far more to do with their minimal numbers and less-destructive weapons than any conscious policy.

"How is there evil in this compared to our European counterparts. Natives never forced by death or coercion..."

Actually, this was common among Natives in Mesoamerica and the Andes. Such brutality can be found in any part of the world, regardless of race. Natives being no different from others. My point being, that this does not make it so treaties should not be honored. I do not see that as any reason why.

Rob said...

Re the "myth about gaming": Yes, many tribal members have no say over their casinos, and decisions are made behind closed doors. But the people making these decisions are tribal members also. They're Indians whom the tribe has elected or appointed to its business development group.

On the day-to-day level the casino's non-Native managers may run things. But on the long-term, strategic level, the tribe and its representatives make the major decisions. They have the final say.

As for DMarks's point about "created" vs. "given," most casinos originate as a partnership between a tribe and an outside casino company. Even if the company does most of the work, the tribe ultimately decides whether to proceed or not. I don't think anyone's ever forced a casino on a tribe against its will.