Talk:Native American genocide in the United States

Feedback from New Page Review process

I left the following feedback for the creator/future reviewers while reviewing this article: Thanks a lot for creating this much-needed article, a surprise that it wasn't there earlier!

ChaotıċEnby(talk · contribs) 23:25, 27 January 2024 (UTC)

Did you know nomination

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by AirshipJungleman29 talk 20:00, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

(

• Comment or view
• Article history

)

• ... that British colonel Henry Bouquet's men giving smallpox-infected blankets to Delaware scouts during Pontiac's War is given as an example of Native American genocide in the United States? Source: (Calloway, p. 73)
  • ALT1: ... that because the Cherokee people were deliberately routed through cholera-stricken areas, their dislocation has been given as an example of the Native American genocide in the United States? Source: (Stannard, p. 124)
  • Reviewed:
  • Comment: The image to use would depend on the hook chosen. I think I actually prefer ALT1 because there was no war/rebellion involved...

Created by CarmenEsparzaAmoux (talk). Nominated by SashiRolls (talk) at 22:19, 1 February 2024 (UTC). Post-promotion hook changes for this nom will be logged at Template talk:Did you know nominations/Native American genocide in the United States; consider watching this nomination, if it is successful, until the hook appears on the Main Page.

• The article is new enough, long enough, and no copyright issues detected. The image is only tangentially related to both of the hooks and the article topic and for this reason it is not a good candidate to be featured at DYK. The hook facts can not be verified to the cited sources; at least not on those particular pages. Calloway doesn't use the word genocide at all on page 73 and seems to be linking the events to "germ warfare". That's not really the same thing. Likewise, Stannard also does not use the word genocide on page 124 although the chapter title does... Calloway links the events described to a death march but again that is not really the same thing as a genocide. Is there more obvious text somewhere else in these chapters that explicitly links these events to "genocide". If so, where? Unfortunately DYK review does not lend itself well to inference or original analysis of sources. There really needs to be a hook that can concretely reflect direct text.

Further, I am concerned with some of the use of "ongoing research" and "ongoing debate" type sentences within the lead and body of the article. The sources being cited for these statements in many cases date back to the 1990s and early 2000s. While these statements certainly may be an accurate representation of research and debate in 2024, I don't think we can use sources published in the 1990s or 2000s to verify those assertions. If you are going to make comments about current or ongoing research or current or ongoing debate then these statements need to be cited to something published post 2020 and ideally in 2023 or 2024 (such as a literature review in a journal or doctoral dissertation). Sources published from twenty to thirty-five years ago can't be used to verify statements about the year 2024. They can only tell us about the state of research and debate at the time of publication. Ultimately there needs to be better and more contemporary sources added to verify those claims, or the text needs to be modified. In general I would avoid making blanket claims about ongoing debate and research, because that is an unstable claim that can change with time and the older the source is the less reliable it becomes.4meter4 (talk) 22:22, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

• I've added a 2015 reference from the body to the lede (Oxford Encyclopedias). There are quite a few more recent books among the references, but that gives an overview. I agree with you that the photo isn't appropriate (it's not on the page). I'll remove it from the nomination. -- SashiRolls ^{🌿 · 🍥} 01:40, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

@SashiRolls I updated my review of the hooks above. I am a concerned that the word genocide isn't to be found on those pages. We really need a hook verified to a source with concrete language that uses the term genocide (and preferably "Native American genocide") in the text.4meter4 (talk) 01:54, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

I agree the source for the first hook does not use the word genocide. This is another reason why I prefer the second hook, it is incontestably sourced: when Stannard writes on that page "[...] more than 8000 Cherokee men, women, and children died as a result of their expulsion from their homeland. That is, about half of what then remained of the Cherokee nation was liquidated under Presidential directive, a death rate similar to that of other southeastern peoples who had undergone the same process--the Creeks and the Seminoles in particular." the words appear under two headers "American Holocaust" (book title on the even pages) and "Pestilence and Genocide" (chapter title on the odd pages). Four pages earlier he was quite explicit in the thesis statement of this part of the chapter (subheading III) which talks about the Trail of Tears: "The European habit of indiscriminately killing women and children when engaged in hostilities with the natives of the Americas was more than an atrocity. It was flatly and intentionally genocidal." (118-119) -- SashiRolls ^{🌿 · 🍥} 02:25, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

Yes, I am inclined to agree that viewing the chapter as a whole the meaning behind the Alt1 hook fact is strongly inferred if not directly stated within a concrete quote. But as I said earlier, I'm not sure that inferred context is enough to approve a DYK hook. Usually we require a hook fact to be explicitly stated within the text. I am going to place a note on the DYK talk page and ask others to comment to make sure this isn't an issue. I personally would be ok with Alt1, but I could see a promoter possibly raising a red flag. Best.4meter4 (talk) 02:41, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

• Based on the feedback at Wikipedia talk:Did you know#Template:Did you know nominations/Native American genocide in the United States I am going to approve hook alt1. @SashiRolls There are several other refs from google scholar listed there that could also be used to verify the hook as well if you care to add additional refs. The other issues raised appear to have been addressed. Good work.4meter4 (talk) 04:57, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

Topic needs to be broader

Hey @CarmenEsparzaAmoux:. I appreciate the article. But I think it should be changed to be broader than just genocide. (Which in my view the article already goes into. Meaning it wouldn't have to be substantially reworded.)

My suggestion is that the scope of the article should be expanded into including other forms of atrocities against Native Americans. Historians, even Ostler, reject the claim that the United States uniformly committed genocide against Native Americans. They'll say that there was forced population transfers/ethnic cleansing with small-scale genocides of particular indigenous groups by state/local actors with national indifference.

Does that work with you? KlayCax (talk) 18:53, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

Hi Klay, what you're describing is a substantially different article from the one here. If you're interested in writing an article about all forms of atrocities historically committed against Native Americans, I would certainly encourage you to start working on that (sounds ambitious). This article is specifically limited to acts committed against American Indians in the U.S. which arguably fall under Lemkin's categories of genocide. There is pretty substantial debate as to what the scope of genocide in the U.S. was, which is why this academic debate is thoroughly addressed in the lead. Here are a couple of great reads if you want to learn a bit more about why an article about genocide specifically is useful here:

Emily Prey wrote for Foreign Policy: there has been no similar epiphany when it comes to the legacy of the genocide against Native Americans... Until this history, like the history of slavery, is properly excavated, reflected upon in the public political discourse, and internalized by the general public, Native American citizens will remain marginalized and oppressed.[1]

Ostler wrote for Oxford Ref: the issue of genocide in American Indian history is far too complex to yield a simple yes-or-no answer. The relevant history, after all, is a long one (more than five hundred years) involving hundreds of indigenous nations and several European and neo-European empires and imperial nation-states. While it would be absurd to reduce this history to any single category, genocide included, it would be reasonable to predict that genocide was a part of this history.[2] CarmenEsparzaAmoux (talk) 23:28, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

When it comes to the topic of genocide, even that topic is diverse and complex. You had literal structural genocide, both physical and cultural, where thousands were directly killed by forced marching them thousands of miles during the Removal period in the US (Indian Removal). Then you had genocide through assimilation in compulsory education at boarding schools and programs meant to "kill the Indian, save the man" (Cultural assimilation of Native Americans). Now, and I do include this, you have programs at private schools conducting inculturation (St. Joseph's Indian School), such as images of a Lakota Jesus and singing Christian hymns in Native tongue. Last time I checked Jesus was not Lakota, he was Hebrew. I think the title of these articles is just fine as they are. --ARoseWolf 16:07, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

Acts of genocide are still being committed in native communities. Children are still removed because of policy maker's that require their removal in order to fund the ICWA program. A sneaky effective way to continue to succeed in our demise which puts our very families at the forefront of their removal. No different than slavery however slaves were bred to have more children. Native American people still need to become extinct what better way than to allow them to create their own demise by paying them to do so. My name is Sabrina Richey mother of 8 youngest sister of chief Floyd Buckskin pit river tribe of northern ca. My son became the first to die due to his removal in 2008. 2021 he committed suicide. 2600:6C52:68F0:2D90:7D81:CE40:F5FB:4AD0 (talk) 01:18, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

I have reverted a recent intentional violation of WP:BOLDMOVE. -- SashiRolls ^{🌿 · 🍥} 04:21, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

Bold Move

Hi @SashiRolls:. What were your objections to these changes? KlayCax (talk) 04:18, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

Is this not a case similar to:

• Uyghur Genocide → Persecution of Uyghurs in China (Per RFC)
• Palestinian genocide → Palestinian genocide accusation
• Etc.

There was also other improvements in the edit that were also fully reverted. KlayCax (talk) 04:23, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

Look. You've been arguing about this issue for years. WP:1AM applies. -- SashiRolls ^{🌿 · 🍥} 04:25, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

The article should represent all significant perspectives. Most historians, political scientists, and sociologists don't characterize it as such.

And many other editors have agreed with me. KlayCax (talk) 04:30, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

If the article on the "Uyghur Genocide" has been changed to "Persecution of Uyghurs in China" per the reasoning: Support and oppose !votes here are roughly split, but I am giving the supporters more weight due to the stipulation #3 of WP:NCENPOV (as cited by Butterdiplomat below) which instructs as that "if there is no common name for the event and no generally accepted descriptive word, use a descriptive name that does not carry POV implications". It was demonstrated with evidence that although some independent reliable sources use the term genocide, many others describe the matter under discussion without ever using that word. As such, the use of genocide here isn't yet generally accepted, and the alternative of persecution, which I think all agree has fewer POV implications, is what the guideline instructs us to do. then the same applies here. This is obvious WP: RIGHTGREATWRONGS and WP:NPOV-pushing.

As the sources in the article note: this is by no means a consensus, and Wikipedia rules clearly dictate that all majority and significant minority opinions need to be represented (including in the title). KlayCax (talk) 04:33, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

This move needs to be discussed before moving the page. Please create a proper requested move discussion per WP:PCM. The one at the other article lacked input from editors who worked on this page.  oncamera  _{(talk page)} 05:42, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

Creating it now, will be online in 1-2 mins. KlayCax (talk) 05:45, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

Edit warring rather than seeking consensus via WP:BRD

As usual, you edit war rather than seeking consensus for your edits. WP:BRD Just because I do not choose to engage with you for the umpteenth time on the umpteenth page, does not mean that nobody else may choose to. Meanwhile, nobody has supported your edits yet. Perhaps they will eventually, but you should have waited to restore until someone else supported you. -- SashiRolls ^{🌿 · 🍥} 04:56, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

I responded above, @SashiRolls:. KlayCax (talk) 05:37, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

I'm simply confused on why you disagree with this edit.

• Version #1 is the pre-edit changes.
• Version #2 is the post-edit changes.

As for the title: Beyond WP: BOLDMOVE, this article's title clearly violates WP:NCENPOV, as it is not a generally [(i.e. non-controversial)] accepted word in the literature. Michael F. Magliari, Jeffery Ostler, and Gary Clayton Anderson all state it is, and I know of nothing else in the literature that clearly contradicts their unified claims. I'll create a RFC if we must. But I was hoping to save the time of editors. KlayCax (talk) 05:45, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

Please self-revert to the last stable version while others determine what (if anything) of your addition should be added. (I do not mind if you remove the rebuttal I added of your The Spectator op-ed as long as you remove The Spectator op-ed itself.) Thank you. -- SashiRolls ^{🌿 · 🍥} 07:23, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

Could you do it for me (per my permission: I won't consider it edit warring). I'm not sure how to revert it without also removing the merge request. KlayCax (talk) 07:30, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

What specific objections do you have to the changes? I don't think it's controversial to state that this is a significantly contentious issue among mainstream historians. KlayCax (talk) 07:30, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

As for Jeff Fynn-Paul: I don't really care if he's included or not. Robert V. Remini's probably a better example. KlayCax (talk) 07:31, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

 Done. Feel free to propose specific changes below or take the time to introduce them one at a time over a longer period of time. The lede can wait for example, first see what people (note plural) agree to add to the body. -- SashiRolls ^{🌿 · 🍥} 07:56, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

Requested move 21 April 2024

Native American genocide in the United States → Persecution of Native Americans – Indisputably fails WP:NCENPOV and WP:NPOVTITLE. Also violates WP: PRECEDENT in numerous ways.

Per WP:NCENPOV, "genocide" should not be stated in an article event's title unless there is at least a general scholarly agreement in the literature, which is a claim that both supporters/opponents of the label agree has "no consensus" or is a minority opinion. (See Michael F. Magliari's writeup for H-Net Network on American Indian Studies, Gary Clayton Anderson in Ethnic Cleansing and the Indian: The Crime That Should Haunt America, and lastly Jeffrey Ostler in Genocide and American Indian History, who states as his personal opinion that it was genocide, while also noting that "the concept of genocide has had only a modest impact [so far] on the writing of American Indian history" and states that the characterization (which he affirms) is a predominantly minority one. While there is an essentially unanimous agreement that the United States committed mass atrocities, including ethnic cleansing, massacres, and other horrific actions against its native populations, the term "genocide" is clearly not anywhere near a scholarly consensus.

The title also violates WP: PRECEDENT surrounding the use of "genocide" in article titles. For instance, the Uyghur genocide article has been renamed to Persecution of Uyghurs in China under the reasoning that: It was demonstrated with evidence that although some independent reliable sources use the term genocide, many others describe the matter under discussion without ever using that word. As such, the use of genocide here isn't yet generally accepted, and the alternative of persecution, which I think all agree has fewer POV implications, is what the guideline instructs us to do. Similar conclusions have been made for the War in Darfur (which WP:NCENPOV specifically cites), Allegations of genocide of Ukrainians in the Russian invasion of Ukraine, Palestinian genocide accusation, and in every other case where there is significant scholarly disagreement over the application of the term, comparable to this article. Furthermore, even in cases where genocide is agreed by scholars to have occurred, a topic that is covered by pages such as "Persecution of homosexuals in Nazi Germany", "persecution" is usually used in the title instead of "genocide", as the articles (including this one) generally include events that almost no one categorizes as genocide, at least in of itself.

What the United States did to Native Americans was utterly horrendous. However, this article's title is a clear case of WP: RIGHTGREATWRONGS, even if it was created with the best of intentions. KlayCax (talk) 05:52, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

• Support (RFC submitter) For the reasons listed above. KlayCax (talk) 06:11, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose. Folks should probably look at the stable version of the page, rather than the version KlayCax has edit-warred to its current state (renaming the (partial list of) scholars who use the term "genocide" as revisionists and then copying wholesale large swathes of his POV into the lede). -- SashiRolls ^{🌿 · 🍥} 06:16, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

  Revisionism doesn't mean wrong. It means: "Going against the traditional understanding of an event". KlayCax (talk) 06:18, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

  And what POV? My belief is similar to Gary Clayton Anderson's. Not Robert V. Remini's or Jeff Fynn-Paul's. Every majority or significant minority view in the literature is expressed in the lead.

  Guidelines are clear here. If there's not a consensus (and even a majority opinion on the matter): it violates WP:NCENPOV to have it in the title. KlayCax (talk) 06:31, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

That's an excellent example of your POV. You cite Magliari's review of Anderson but fail to mention anything from the following topic sentences from the review:

Unfortunately, Anderson’s own work with the Rome Statute does not provide a very encouraging model for others to follow. [...] Much more damaging to his project, however, is Anderson’s inability to resist tampering with his adopted framework [...] But is he correct? [...] Anderson errs badly by imposing “ethnic cleansing” onto the Rome Statute, which does not define or even mention the term. [...] Such abrupt dismissals do not permit any meaningful analysis or careful weighing of complex and often contradictory evidence. [...] The assertions fly thick and fast. [...] Anderson’s California chapter is replete with errors.[...] Anderson affords just one incorrect and misleading sentence to the infamous Humboldt Bay Massacre of February 26, 1860 [...] Not only does Anderson omit the other attacks that took place simultaneously with the assault on the Indian Island village, he consequently understates the actual death toll [...] etc. source

Surely just an oversight, like suggesting that an op-ed in The Spectator (second footnote in your version of the entry) is more significant than a Yale University Press book by Madley (not mentioned in the lede). -- SashiRolls ^{🌿 · 🍥} 06:48, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

1.) The article's about US-Indian relations as a whole. @SashiRolls:, I support including An American Genocide: The United States and the California Indian Catastrophe, 1846-1873 in the California section. It wasn't added into the lead because I don't believe he took a position on American-Indian relations outside of the narrow state he conducted his research on. If he did make a broad statement about the United States as a whole: then I'd definitely support you adding it.

2.) We could just leave it at Robert V. Remini.

Jeff Fynn-Paul and Guenter Lewy (Lewy infamously wouldn't even include the Armenian genocide into his definition of the term) are extreme minimalists who promote views that haven't been widely accepted since the 1960s, but I included them for the purposes of having an extreme minimalist position to the extreme maximalism of Ward Churchill and David E. Stannard. Most historians wouldn't take Fynn-Paul and Lewy very seriously. But I don't think a sentence or two really matters.

Wouldn't care if Lewy + Fynn-Paul are cut per WP: FRINGE and we just included Remini in terms of the lead for now.

3.) I'm aware of Magliari's personal opinion. I was pointing to this: Often waxing bitter and acrimonious, especially when it spills beyond the confines of the academy, the ongoing Native American genocide debate has generated a great deal of scholarship, an intense degree of heat, but no sign yet of an emerging consensus. Instead, the debate appears hopelessly deadlocked, and much of the discussion has become frustratingly circular..

Per WP:NCENPOV, WP:NPOVTITLE, and WP: PRECEDENT, I don't see how this doesn't end the debate over the article's title. No one opposes mentioning it in the lead or body. KlayCax (talk) 07:15, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

California is not a narrow state. Delaware is a narrow state. Cf. Pontiac's War in which "both sides seemed intoxicated with genocidal fanaticism" according to Dixon (2005).

No more gish gallop, k? -- SashiRolls ^{🌿 · 🍥} 07:34, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

I meant: Madley never commented on genocide outside of the narrow parameters of California. If he did, I wouldn't be opposed to adding it in the lead. It's 2:41 AM here — so I'm tired. KlayCax (talk) 07:42, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

• Strong oppose. You can fill a library with scholarly literature about Native American genocide. Google scholar gets 91.8K hits [3]. Obviously, the terms are subject of much research, not just the few quotes cherry-picked in the move proposal. WP:IDONTLIKEIT is not an excuse for a move. Yuchitown (talk) 15:23, 21 April 2024 (UTC)Yuchitown