holocaust and genocide

AI Overview: 

 The Holocaust was a specific, historical genocide carried out by Nazi Germany and its collaborators, whereas genocide is a legal and academic term for the systematic destruction of a national, ethnic, racial, or religious group. The Holocaust is therefore an example of a genocide, not a separate category of crime.   

Holocaust or Shoah? The word 'holocaust' comes from ancient Greek and means 'burnt offering'. Even before the Second World War, the word was sometimes used to describe the death of a large group of people, but since 1945, it has become almost synonymous with the murder of the European Jews during the Second World War. 

 Origin of the word:

• The word "holocaust" itself is not new; it originates from the ancient Greek term  holokauston. 
• It was used in both English and other languages to describe a burnt offering or a sacrifice completely consumed by fire. 
• It also had a broader meaning of destruction or a massacre. 

 Before World War II, the word "holocaust" was used to describe events such as the Armenian massacres and other events of mass death and destruction, according  to Wikipedia 

By the 1950s, it became the commonly accepted term, moving from a general word to a proper noun for this specific historical event. 

 Alternative terms:

• The Hebrew word Shoah (meaning "catastrophe") is also used, especially within Jewish communities, to refer to the same events. 
• The Nazis themselves used the euphemism "Final Solution" to refer to their plan to exterminate the Jews. 

No single person coined the term "Holocaust"; instead, the word has ancient Greek roots for "burnt offering" and was used in English for centuries to describe mass slaughter 

The word holocaust has a complex history, evolving from ancient Greek for "burnt offering" to its modern meaning as a proper noun referring to the Nazi genocide. Its current usage was cemented in the mid-to-late 20th century. Pre-20th century meaning

The word's origin traces back over 2,000 years, with a much different meaning than it holds today:

• Ancient Greek: The term comes from the Greek word holokauston, a compound of holos ("whole") and kaustos ("burnt"). It was used to translate the Hebrew word ʿolah, meaning a sacrifice to God that was completely consumed by fire.
• 13th–17th centuries: The term entered the English language around the 13th century and was used in English Bible translations. By the 1670s, its meaning broadened to denote a massive slaughter or destruction, still in the general sense of being "wholly burnt".
• 19th century: By the 1800s, it could refer to any great catastrophe or disaster that resulted in a tragic loss of life, not just those involving fire. 

Use during World War II

While the term was used at the time, it did not yet serve as the specific proper noun it is today:

• 1942: The word was first used in English to refer to Hitler's policies against the Jews in a news report, but not yet as the formal name for the event.
• 1943: A New York Times article referred to "the hundreds and thousands of European Jews still surviving the Nazi holocaust," though the term was still used with a lowercase 'h'. 

Adoption as a proper noun

The modern, capitalized "The Holocaust" became the standard term after the war. 

• 1950s–1960s: The term gained greater prominence among historians and scholars in the decades following the war. For instance, it was featured in the introduction to Elie Wiesel's Night (1960).
• 1978: The highly influential American television miniseries Holocaust brought the word into common parlance for the general public, solidifying its association with the Nazi genocide in English and other languages. 

Alternative term: Shoah

For many Jews, particularly those in Israel and France, the Hebrew word Shoah ("catastrophe") is the preferred term for the genocide. For some, the traditional meaning of holocaust as a burnt sacrifice is theologically offensive when applied to the Nazi killings.  

 The atrocities committed against Native Americans are widely described by historians as genocide, though the term "holocaust" is generally not used. While the suffering was immense and catastrophic, the term "Holocaust" is typically reserved for the specific, state-sponsored, industrialized extermination. The near-total destruction of many Native American peoples occurred over centuries through a combination of deliberate violence, forced displacement, disease, and the destruction of their cultures. Forms of genocide against Native Americans

• Massacres and direct violence: Throughout the period of European colonization and the formation of the United States, thousands of attacks and massacres were carried out by settlers and government forces.
  • Pequot War (1630s): Colonists offered bounties for the scalps and heads of Pequot people and sold survivors into slavery, nearly eradicating the tribe.
  • Sand Creek Massacre (1864): The U.S. Army massacred 70–163 peaceful Cheyenne and Arapaho, predominantly women and children.
  • Wounded Knee Massacre (1890): U.S. troops killed 150 to 200 Lakota at Wounded Knee, South Dakota.
• Destruction of food sources: American bison were systematically and extensively hunted, cutting off a primary food source for many Plains tribes and causing them to starve. President Theodore Roosevelt advocated the slaughter of bison herds to weaken Native American populations.
• Forced displacement and ethnic cleansing: Policies like the Indian Removal Act of 1830 forced some 100,000 Native Americans from their homes east of the Mississippi.
  • Trail of Tears: The forced migration of Cherokee, Creek, and other nations resulted in thousands of deaths from starvation, disease, and exposure.
  • Long Walk of the Navajo (1864): Navajos were forced on a brutal march to a desolate reservation in eastern New Mexico, during which many died.
• Biological warfare: Historical evidence shows deliberate attempts to spread disease. For instance, British officials discussed using smallpox-infected blankets during Pontiac's War in 1763.
• Cultural genocide: This includes the forced assimilation of Native Americans into Euro-American culture, with the goal of "killing the Indian to save the man".
  • Boarding schools: A 150-year federal policy removed Indigenous children from their families and placed them in boarding schools where they were often abused and forbidden to speak their languages.
  • Involuntary sterilization: In the 1960s and 1970s, the U.S. Indian Health Service sterilized thousands of Native American women, sometimes without their full consent. 

Comparison with the Jewish Holocaust

The Longest Genocide or Holocaust is to the Native American Indian genocide: 

• Systemic vs. protracted violence: While the Native American genocide was a deliberate and systematic process, it was carried out over centuries by multiple actors, unlike the highly centralized, rapid Nazi extermination program, however more lives of Native American Indians were exterminated to nearly total extinction, thus 90% of the total population from the  Inter caetera is a papal bull issued by Pope Alexander VI in 1493  forward and still continues today. 
• Varying motivations: The genocide against Native peoples was driven primarily by settler colonialism and a hunger for land and resources, along with racist ideology.
• Political acknowledgment: Germany has officially acknowledged and made efforts to atone for the Holocaust. In contrast, the U.S. government has only recently begun to reckon with the Native American genocide, and there is no comparable national acknowledgment or memorial. 

 The term "Indians" can refer to people from the country of India or Indigenous peoples of the Americas, but the provided search results discuss the genocide of Native Americans in the United States. Over 4 million Native Americans are estimated to have died between 1492 and 1776, resulting in a 96% population drop by 1900. Historical Population Decline of Native Americans in the United States 

• Population Decline (1800–1890): 350,000 people, or a 58% decline.

Causes of Death

The high death toll was the result of numerous forms of violence and oppression, including: Genocide and mass murder, Forced displacement and ethnic cleansing, Starvation and slavery, Internment and genocidal rape, and Cultural genocide and loss of homelands.  

Number of Indigenous Died in the Americas

 Estimates of Indigenous deaths in the Americas vary significantly, but studies suggest the number is in the tens of millions, with one study proposing around 55 million deaths after the European conquest began in 1492. A historian also estimated a total of approximately 100 million deaths due to extermination. These deaths resulted from a combination of disease, violence, warfare, displacement, and starvation. Key factors contributing to the death toll:

• Disease: European diseases like smallpox and measles were devastating, with some epidemics causing millions of deaths in specific regions. 
• Violence and Warfare: Colonizers engaged in acts of mass murder, ethnic cleansing, and warfare, contributing to the high death toll. 
• Displacement and Forced Migration:Indigenous peoples were forced from their homelands, leading to a loss of life due to starvation and the disruption of their societies. 
• Cultural and Economic Factors:Genocide and forced cultural assimilation also played a role, leading to a significant decline in population. 

Population Estimates and Decline:

• A pre-Columbian population of over 60 million people is estimated to have dropped to about 6 million by 1600, though this is a highly debated figure. 
• In the United States, the Indigenous population experienced a 96% drop between 1492 and 1900. 

Estimates of the death toll:

• One study by Koch, Brierley, Maslin, and Lewis estimated that 55 million Indigenous people died following the European conquest. 
• Historian David Stannard estimated the total number of deaths to be around ONE HUNDRED MILLION (100 MILLION).   
• The "Great Dying" is considered one of the largest human mortality events in proportion to the global population in history.

 A precise total number of Indigenous deaths in the Americas is impossible to determine due to a lack of reliable record-keeping before and during the initial phases of colonization. However, modern academic estimates generally range from 55 million to 100 million people, a demographic catastrophe often called the "Great Dying". Key population decline estimates

• A 2019 study published in Quaternary Science Reviews estimated that the Indigenous population of the Americas dropped from about 60.5 million in 1492 to 6 million by 1600. This represents a 90% population decline in just over 100 years.
• Historian David Stannard, author of American Holocaust, estimates that the total extermination of Indigenous peoples across the Americas over several centuries eventually reached nearly 100 million deaths. 

Causes of the massive population loss

The steep decline in the Indigenous population was caused by a combination of factors, including: 

• Disease: The most devastating cause of death was infectious diseases such as smallpox, measles, and influenza, which were brought by Europeans. Indigenous peoples had no immunity to these new pathogens, leading to "virgin soil" epidemics that ravaged communities.
• Warfare and violence: Direct violence, massacres, and genocidal campaigns by colonizers killed millions.
• Forced labor and slavery: Indigenous peoples were often enslaved and subjected to brutal labor in mines and plantations, which contributed to high mortality rates.
• Famine and atrocities: The disruption of Indigenous societies and agriculture, along with colonial atrocities, led to widespread famine. 

Long-term demographic and environmental impacts

• The "Great Dying" is considered one of the largest human mortality events in proportion to the global population in history.
• The massive depopulation and subsequent abandonment of farms allowed forests to regrow over vast areas. This led to a large-scale absorption of carbon from the atmosphere, which may have contributed to a global cooling period known as the "Little Ice Age" during the 17th century.

 However, the international community created the legal term genocide after the Holocaust to ensure that similar crimes would "never again" be allowed to happen. Since then, the term has been applied to other mass atrocities, including events in Cambodia, Rwanda, and Bosnia, however the international community still does not collectively  honor stopping of genocides today. 

The tens of millions of mass killings of the Native American Indians is forever linked to the holocaust through the Nazi making a decision to use many of the methods used against the Native American Indian to carry out their own elimination.

Historians have documented that the Nazi regime was inspired by the US's historical mistreatment of Native Americans, including policies of territorial conquest and the establishment of reservations. Adolf Hitler and other Nazis studied American history and law to formulate their own racial and territorial policies.  

 Nazi racial policy and the concept of Lebensraum In developing their ideology, the Nazis drew specific connections between US policies toward Native Americans and their own ambitions: 

• Expansion based on "Manifest Destiny": Hitler was influenced by the American concept of "Manifest Destiny," which justified westward expansion and the forced displacement of Native Americans. He modeled his concept of Lebensraum (living space) for the German people on this precedent, with the intent to conquer Eastern Europe and subjugate its inhabitants.
• "Redskins" of the East: According to historian Timothy Snyder, Hitler explicitly framed the Slavs and other Eastern Europeans as his "redskins" to be displaced or eliminated, just as American settlers had done to Native Americans.
• Reservations and ghettoization: Evidence suggests Hitler was aware of the American reservation system. Some historians argue that the Nazis saw the reservations as a model for containing "undesirable" populations and that the concept influenced the ghettoization of Jews. 

Parallels in American and Nazi law Nazi officials extensively studied US federal and state laws in the 1920s and 1930s while formulating their own race-based legislation. 

• Anti-miscegenation laws: The US provided a legal precedent for racial purity laws. In the 1920s, 41 states had laws against interracial marriage, which the Nazis noted when drafting their own anti-miscegenation laws.
• Citizenship laws: In Mein Kampf, Hitler praised the US for using race to determine citizenship. Nazi lawyers also examined US federal Indian law and other discriminatory statutes against minority groups.
• Eugenics programs: The Nazis studied American eugenics policies, which included forced sterilization. The US eugenics movement, funded in part by groups like the Rockefeller Foundation, provided a scientific veneer for Nazi sterilization and euthanasia programs. 

American atrocities as an example Hitler reportedly admired the "efficiency" of how the US government systematically eliminated or confined Native Americans, viewing it as a historical blueprint. 

• Military tactics: Some military strategies used against Native Americans, such as campaigns of terror and mass shootings, may have influenced the Nazis.
• Concentration camps: According to biographer John Toland, Hitler admired the use of camps against Boer prisoners in South Africa and Native Americans in the US. 

Scholarly perspectives on the connection Historians differ on the precise extent of the connection between the genocidal acts, but a general consensus exists that the Nazis were, at minimum, influenced by American policies.

• Some scholars argue the events are distinct and not directly comparable in scope or intent.
• Others emphasize that Hitler's perception of American actions, even if flawed, served as a potent inspiration.
• Many highlight the need to compare the "conquest of the West" with the Nazi conquest of Eastern Europe, as both were expansionist projects fusing national and racial ideologies. 

 Historians have documented that the Nazi regime, led by Adolf Hitler, studied and was influenced by the United States' policies toward Native Americans. Hitler and Nazi officials specifically looked to the American genocide of Indigenous peoples, the reservation system, and U.S. federal and state race laws as a model for their own plans for territorial expansion and racial discrimination. American influence on Nazi ideology and policy

• Lebensraum and Manifest Destiny: Hitler explicitly drew a parallel between his concept of Lebensraum ("living space") in Eastern Europe and the American expansion westward, known as Manifest Destiny. He saw the conquest and depopulation of Native American lands by white settlers as a successful model for his own plans to displace or eliminate populations in Eastern Europe to make room for Germans.
• Admiration for conquest: Hitler openly praised the "efficiency of America's extermination" of Native Americans by starvation and unequal combat, which he viewed as a successful subjugation of Indigenous people. In Mein Kampf, he praised the U.S. for "clearing the soil" of Native Americans to create a racially "pure" settler state.
• Study of US law: Nazi lawyers and officials actively studied U.S. federal and state laws that discriminated against Native Americans, Black Americans, and other minorities. They analyzed laws related to Native American reservations, as well as broader race-based statutes, and used them as justification and precedent for their own discriminatory legislation, such as the Nuremberg Laws.
• The reservation system: Nazi leaders were aware of the American reservation system and sometimes referenced it in their propaganda to defend their own segregationist policies. 

Scholarly debate and key differences 

While the link of influence is documented, some scholars also draw important distinctions when comparing the two atrocities. 

Similarities and parallels explored by scholars:

• Both cases involved fusing a sense of national purpose with racial stereotypes to justify the exclusion, expropriation, and killing of peoples.
• Historians such as David Stannard and Ward Churchill have explored parallels by explicitly using the term "Holocaust" to refer to the massive devastation of Indigenous populations in the Americas caused by disease, warfare, and conquest.
• The comparison has helped frame the discussion of historical trauma and genocide for Native American scholars. 

Key differences and points of contention:

• Intent: A significant point of debate centers on intent. Critics of the direct comparison argue that the intent of American policy was generally assimilation or acculturation, while the Nazi policy was one of systematic and total extermination. However, some scholars and Native American communities argue that the deliberate policies of displacement, starvation, and massacre constitute intentional genocide.
• Method: While both involved widespread atrocities, the methodologies differed. American expansion involved a complex mix of disease, warfare, forced removal, and massacres conducted over centuries, while the Nazi Holocaust was a centrally planned, systematic, and industrialized effort to annihilate a specific group in a short period.
• Context: The historical contexts of American expansion and Nazi conquest in Eastern Europe were not causally linked in a direct, empirical sense, though Hitler clearly took inspiration from the American example. 

Conclusion

The connection lies in the fact that the Nazi regime viewed American policies toward Native Americans as an inspiring and successful model for its own racial laws and expansionist goals. While there are key historical and methodological differences, the documented influence of American racism and conquest on Nazi ideology confirms a chilling historical connection between the two atrocities. 

Nazi Documented The Holocaust Connected To The Native American Indian Genocide

 Nazi leaders, including Adolf Hitler, drew upon the American extermination of Native Americans and the establishment of reservations as inspiration for their own genocidal and territorial expansion plans. However, the Nazis did not document the Holocaust by connecting it to the genocide of Native Americans. Instead, Hitler cited the subjugation of Native Americans as a model for Germany's conquest of Eastern Europe and the extermination of its inhabitants. Evidence of Nazi inspiration from the genocide of Native Americans

• Expansionist parallels: Hitler explicitly drew parallels between the U.S. policy of Manifest Destiny and his own plan for Lebensraum ("living space") in Eastern Europe. The Nazis viewed Eastern European Jewish and Slavic peoples as their "redskins" in a mission to conquer and claim new territory for a "racially pure" German population.
• Reservations as a model: Hitler expressed admiration for how white Americans "gunned down the millions of redskins" and confined the survivors to reservations. Pulitzer Prize-winning author John Toland noted that Hitler praised the "efficiency of America's extermination" and studied U.S. history on concentration camps and genocide.
• Targeting and extermination: The Nazi regime studied U.S. laws and policies that discriminated against Native Americans, Black Americans, and other minority groups. When planning the Holocaust, Hitler even considered deporting Jewish people to a large "reservation" where they would be reduced through starvation and disease, a concept directly inspired by the U.S. reservation system. 

Key differences and distinctions

While the Nazis were influenced by U.S. policies toward Native Americans, there are crucial distinctions between how the two atrocities were documented and carried out: 

• Nazis as observers, not documentarians: The Nazis documented their own genocidal programs, such as the "Final Solution," but they did not connect this documentation to the genocide of Native Americans. Their engagement was based on studying and admiring the American historical precedent, rather than creating a joint record.
• Methodology and scale: The Nazis developed a planned military campaign with a methodical, industrialized extermination process in concentration and death camps. The genocide against Native Americans, though devastating, was a more chaotic and decentralized process over centuries, relying on displacement, massacres, and disease, which led to a different pattern of destruction.
• Documentation style: The extensive documentation of the Holocaust, including records from camps like Auschwitz, is distinct from the historical records of the genocide of Native Americans. Nazi documentation was focused on their own operations and ideology, not a comparative analysis linking their actions to earlier events in U.S. history. 

 Historical documentation shows that the Nazi regime studied and drew inspiration from the U.S. government's historical treatment of Native Americans, including federal Indian law and the reservation system. Nazi officials noted these American policies and practices when developing their own laws and plans for conquering and eliminating "undesirable" populations. 

How the Nazis documented the connection

• Admiration of U.S. policies: Adolf Hitler explicitly expressed his admiration for the United States' subjugation of Native Americans. He praised the U.S. for "gunn[ing] down the millions of redskins" and containing the remainder on reservations.
• Study of U.S. law: German lawyers and officials intensively studied U.S. race-based laws in the 1920s and 1930s while formulating their own race laws, including the Nuremberg Laws. This included reviewing federal Indian law and state laws that discriminated against Native Americans.
• "Living Space" analogy: When planning for Germany's expansion into Eastern Europe, known as Lebensraum ("living space"), Hitler drew a direct parallel to America's westward expansion under Manifest Destiny. He reportedly referred to the Jewish people and other Eastern Europeans as his "redskins" in this context.
• Concentration camps: According to historian John Toland, Hitler told his inner circle that his concept of concentration camps was influenced by his studies of U.S. history, including the "camps for...the Indians in the wild west". 

Context for Comparison

It is important to note that while the Nazis studied and admired the American treatment of Native peoples, there are also historical distinctions between the two genocidal projects.  

The Total Extermination of the  Native American Indians was very real and should be no room for debate to the evidence that supports the facts.

There is substantial historical evidence indicating that the systematic extermination of Native Americans was a goal of colonial and U.S. policy. Throughout the 17th, 18th, and 19th centuries, Native Americans faced violence, forced removals, and policies aimed at cultural destruction. While debates continue about whether every specific act fits the legal definition of genocide, scholars increasingly describe the cumulative impact of these actions as a genocidal process. 

Intent and rhetoric of elimination

The idea of exterminating Native Americans was present in the language and actions of political, military, and settler groups:

• "Merciless Indian Savages": The Declaration of Independence used this phrase to refer to Native Americans, framing them as antagonists to be subdued.
• "Extirpate this execrable race": During Pontiac's War in the 1760s, British military leader Jeffrey Amherst discussed plans for biological warfare against Native Americans by deliberately using smallpox-infected blankets.
• "The only good Indian is a dead Indian": This phrase was popularized by U.S. Army General Philip Sheridan during the Indian Wars of the mid-19th century, reflecting a goal of total annihilation.
• "Kill the Indian, save the man": This phrase, coined by Captain Richard Henry Pratt, encapsulated the philosophy behind the forced assimilation of Native American children into boarding schools. The goal was to erase their Indigenous identity, language, and culture. 

Policies of forced removal and ethnic cleansing

Native American land was a primary target of expansionist policies, resulting in numerous devastating consequences:

• Indian Removal Act of 1830: President Andrew Jackson signed this act, which authorized the forced relocation of Native American tribes from their ancestral lands east of the Mississippi River to territory in the West.
• Trail of Tears: As a direct result of the Removal Act, tens of thousands of Native Americans were forcibly removed by the U.S. military. Thousands of Cherokee, Choctaw, Chickasaw, Creek, and Seminole people died from exposure, disease, and starvation during the brutal marches.
• California genocide: Between 1846 and 1873, California experienced a state-subsidized genocide against Native Americans. The first governor of California openly called for a "war of extermination," leading to a series of massacres and mass displacement that reduced the Native population by over 75%.
• Depletion of food sources: The U.S. government systematically encouraged the hunting of American bison, a key food source for Plains Indians. The near-total destruction of bison herds in the 19th century was a deliberate tactic to induce widespread starvation and subdue Native resistance. 

Massacres and violence

Throughout the colonial and post-independence periods, numerous massacres were carried out by European and American militias and military forces:

• Pequot War (1636–1638): New England colonists, with allied Native tribes, killed and enslaved hundreds of Pequot people. A treaty at the end of the war attempted to formally erase the Pequot identity by banning their language and name.
• Sand Creek Massacre (1864): A Colorado militia force attacked and massacred an unarmed, peaceful camp of Cheyenne and Arapaho people, killing mostly women, children, and infants.
• Wounded Knee Massacre (1890): The U.S. Army killed between 150 and 300 unarmed Lakota people, primarily women and children. For their roles in the massacre, dozens of soldiers received Medals of Honor. 

Consequences beyond physical elimination

The efforts to eliminate Native American peoples extended beyond direct killing and forced displacement:

• Boarding school system: Between 1819 and the late 20th century, the U.S. government forcibly removed Native American children from their families and sent them to boarding schools. The explicit purpose was cultural erasure through assimilation, forcing children to abandon their languages, religions, and traditions.
• Systemic disenfranchisement: Surviving Native Americans were denied equality before the law and subjected to discriminatory policies. This includes voter suppression, insufficient healthcare funding, and the use of reservations as toxic waste dumps.
• Historical and intergenerational trauma: The centuries of violence, discrimination, and policies of cultural destruction have left a legacy of intergenerational trauma. Indigenous communities today continue to face higher rates of poverty, health problems, and violence due to the systemic racism embedded in U.S. policy.

The historical idea of eliminating Native American Indians was a driving force behind U.S. government policy and settler violence from the colonial era through the 19th and 20th centuries. Policies and actions against Native Americans included forced removal, massacres, cultural assimilation, and biological warfare, all of which led to a catastrophic population decline and the destruction of Native societies. 

Ideological justifications

The campaign to eliminate Native American cultures and peoples was founded on a belief in white supremacy and the concept of "manifest destiny". 

• "Merciless Indian savages": From the very beginning, the Declaration of Independence referred to Native Americans this way, providing a rationale for viewing them as subhuman enemies.
• Justification for taking land: This ideology helped justify the seizure of Native lands and resources for white expansion and economic gain.
• "Kill the Indian, save the man": This phrase, attributed to military officer Richard Henry Pratt, encapsulated the belief that Native cultures must be destroyed to force assimilation into white society. 

Policies and actions that led to depopulation

Government policies and private actions systematically targeted Native American populations, leading to a precipitous decline from an estimated 5–15 million before colonization to fewer than 238,000 by the late 19th century. Forced removal

• Indian Removal Act (1830): President Andrew Jackson signed this act, forcibly relocating tens of thousands of Native Americans from the southeastern United States to "Indian Territory" west of the Mississippi.
• Trail of Tears: This is the most infamous result of the Indian Removal Act, during which over 4,000 Cherokee people died from cold, hunger, and disease on a forced march.
• Long Walk of the Navajo (1864): In one of the final forced marches, the U.S. Army forced the Navajo people to walk hundreds of miles from their lands in Arizona to a reservation in eastern New Mexico. 

Massacres

• California Genocide (1846–1873): During the Gold Rush, state-subsidized massacres killed an estimated 9,400 to 16,000 Native Americans in California.
• Sand Creek Massacre (1864): A U.S. militia unit attacked a peaceful Cheyenne and Arapaho village in Colorado, killing and mutilating between 70 and 163 people, most of whom were women and children.
• Wounded Knee Massacre (1890): U.S. troops killed as many as 300 Lakota men, women, and children in South Dakota, effectively ending armed Native resistance. 

Biological warfare and disease

• Intentional spread of disease: In some cases, there is evidence that diseases were intentionally spread to decimate Native populations. During the French and Indian War, British officers discussed and carried out a plan to give smallpox-infected blankets to Native Americans.
• Virgin-soil epidemics: Even unintentional exposure to European diseases like smallpox, measles, and influenza was catastrophic. Native populations lacked immunity to these diseases, resulting in a dramatic population collapse that facilitated colonial conquest. 

Cultural genocide

• Assimilation boarding schools: From the late 19th century through the 20th century, thousands of Native children were forcibly removed from their families and sent to boarding schools. Here, they were forbidden to speak their languages, practice their culture, or use their given names.
• Destruction of food sources: The U.S. government systematically destroyed the bison herds that Plains tribes relied on for survival, leading to mass starvation and the collapse of their societies. 

Historiographical debate

Historians and scholars continue to debate the extent to which U.S. actions constitute genocide under the legal definition, which often hinges on intent. However, many point out that whether viewed as explicit extermination or as a consequence of systemic violence, displacement, and forced assimilation, the outcome for Native populations was devastating and genocidal in effect. 

Numerous U.S. presidents and other leaders have made statements and policies that supported the oppression, dispossession, and violence against Native American peoples, particularly in the 18th and 19th centuries. While some presidents expressed paternalistic or benevolent goals, their rhetoric was often grounded in the racist belief that Native Americans were inferior and should either assimilate or be removed. 

President statements

George Washington

While his official policy was to deal with Native Americans with "justice and humanity," his private writings and actions demonstrated a harsher view and an opportunistic approach toward land acquisition. 

• "The gradual extension of our Settlements will as certainly cause the Savage as the Wolf to retire; both being beasts of prey tho' they differ in shape." (Letter to James Duane, 1783) 

Thomas Jefferson

Jefferson's policies pressured Native Americans to cede land through debt and trade, with the goal of assimilation or removal. He called Indigenous warriors "merciless Indian savages" in the Declaration of Independence. In 1807, he wrote that if forced to fight, the objective would be to exterminate or drive the tribe beyond the Mississippi. 

Andrew Jackson

A key figure in the Indian Removal Act of 1830, Jackson viewed Native Americans as an obstacle to American expansion. He oversaw their forced removal, known as the Trail of Tears. In 1830, he unfavorably compared "the wandering savage" to "the settled, civilized Christian" and told the Cherokee they must "remove to the West". 

Abraham Lincoln

After the U.S.–Dakota War of 1862, Lincoln approved the execution of 38 Dakota men, the largest mass execution in U.S. history, though he commuted hundreds of other sentences. 

Theodore Roosevelt 

Roosevelt's views were influenced by racial theories and a belief in Anglo-Saxon superiority. He saw Indigenous people as an obstacle to white expansion. In 1886, he stated, "I don't go so far as to think that the only good Indians are dead Indians, but I believe nine out of ten are, and I shouldn't like to inquire too closely into the case of the tenth." He also wrote that it was vital for America to "pass out of the hands of their red...aboriginal owners". Other U.S. leaders and policies

Henry Knox 

As the first U.S. Secretary of War, Knox initially favored a more just approach, but Congress and settler pressure overrode this. He acknowledged the policy of seizing tribal land led to "bloody conflicts". The Indian Removal Act of 1830This law enabled the president to negotiate the removal of Native American nations to lands west of the Mississippi, resulting in the forced displacement of thousands. 

Termination Policy (1940s–1960s)This policy aimed to end the federal government's relationship with tribes and promote assimilation. It led to the termination of federal recognition for over 100 tribes and caused significant harm. Presidents Richard Nixon and Ronald Reagan later rejected this policy. 

Modern presidential statements of apology and support 

Recently, presidents have acknowledged past injustices and supported tribal sovereignty.

• Richard Nixon (1970): Nixon admitted in a message to Congress that Native Americans had been "oppressed and brutalized" and supported tribal self-determination.
• Barack Obama (2010): Obama signed a resolution acknowledging "sad and painful chapters" and the inability to undo the damage.
• Joe Biden (2024): Biden issued an apology for federal Native American boarding schools, recognizing the harm of assimilation policies and pledging investment in tribal communities. 

 Throughout US history, many presidents and other leaders have made statements and policies that supported the oppression, forced removal, and cultural assimilation of Native American peoples. While some modern-era leaders have apologized for these past actions, the legacy of anti-Native sentiment continues to be a contentious topic. 

Early leaders and founding fathers

• George Washington: While his administration expressed a desire for a "just and humane" Native American policy, Washington also believed that settlers and Native Americans could not coexist. He authorized military campaigns against Native nations, and in 1796, acknowledged that "scarcely anything short of a Chinese wall" could stop land-grabbers and settlers from encroaching on Native territories.
• Thomas Jefferson: Held a paternalistic view, believing that Native Americans were intellectually equal to whites but culturally "savage". He pushed for policies that encouraged Native Americans to adopt European-style agriculture and assimilate, or else "be driven with the beasts of the forest into the Stony mountains". In the Declaration of Independence, Jefferson famously referred to Native warriors as "merciless Indian savages". In a 1807 letter to his Secretary of War, he stated that if the US was forced to "lift the hatchet against any tribe, we will never lay it down till that tribe is exterminated". 

19th-century presidents

• Andrew Jackson: Jackson was a major proponent of Indian removal and instrumental in negotiating treaties that forced Native nations to surrender millions of acres of land. In his 1830 Message to Congress "On Indian Removal," Jackson described Native Americans as "wandering savages" with less attachment to their homes than "the settled, civilized Christian".
  • Indian Removal Act (1830): Jackson supported this act, which forcibly relocated tens of thousands of Native Americans from their ancestral lands in the Southeast to territories west of the Mississippi River, a tragic event known as the "Trail of Tears".
• Abraham Lincoln: Despite his reputation as "the great emancipator," Lincoln approved the executions of 38 Dakota warriors in Minnesota in 1862. His generals also carried out atrocities against Native communities during the Civil War, such as the Sand Creek and Bear River Massacres.
• Theodore Roosevelt: As president, Roosevelt promoted conservation efforts that removed Native Americans from their traditional lands. He expressed his racist views in a quote from 1886, stating, "I don't go so far as to think that the only good Indian is the dead Indian, but I believe nine out of every ten are, and I shouldn't like to inquire too closely into the case of the tenth". 

20th and 21st-century leaders

• Ronald Reagan: In a 1980 presidential debate, Reagan expressed paternalistic and dismissive views about Native American culture. He remarked that "Maybe we made a mistake" in "humoring" Native people in their desire to maintain a "primitive lifestyle" on reservations, suggesting they should instead assimilate.
• Donald Trump: Trump's stance on Native issues has been inconsistent.
  • 1990s Casino Disputes: Before his presidency, Trump engaged in a public smear campaign against Native American-owned casinos to eliminate competition for his own casino interests, running ads that falsely accused tribes of having ties to organized crime.
  • Presidency and Policy: As president, Trump expressed both support for and antagonism toward Native American interests. In 2017, he made a pro-sovereignty statement but also voiced admiration for Andrew Jackson, a figure notorious for his role in Indian removal. His administration pursued policies that some critics viewed as threats to tribal sovereignty and funding.
  • Post-Presidency: After leaving office, the Trump administration's actions regarding Native communities continue to be debated. In January 2025, during his second term, Congresswoman Teresa Leger Fernandez wrote a letter to the Trump administration detailing recent incidents of ICE agents harassing and detaining Native Americans. 

Modern statements of reconciliation

In recent decades, some US leaders have acknowledged and apologized for the historical injustices perpetrated against Native Americans:

• Richard Nixon (1970): In a Special Message to Congress on Indian Affairs, Nixon detailed centuries of oppression and abuse, urging a new policy of self-determination for tribes.
• Barack Obama (2009): Signed a resolution apologizing for past injustices against Native Americans.
• Joe Biden (2024): Issued a historic apology for the US government's role in Native American boarding schools, which worked to forcibly assimilate Native children.

 European colonizing powers like Spain, France, and England, and later the United States, made statements and created policies that ranged from hostile and dehumanizing to paternalistic and assimilationist. These positions enabled and justified atrocities against Native Americans, such as massacres, forced displacement, and cultural destruction. 

Spain

From the very beginning of its colonial period, Spain expressed contradictory positions toward Native Americans. While some official statements called for humane treatment, many conquistadors and colonists brutally exploited the native population. 

• Contradictory directives: Queen Isabella of Spain declared natives to be her subjects, morally equal to Spaniards, and decreed they should not be enslaved and should be treated humanely.
• Brutal reality: In practice, Christopher Columbus and other colonizers ignored these directives, engaging in the enslavement, torture, and slaughter of Indigenous peoples, such as the Taíno.
• Calls for reform: The Spanish priest Bartolomé de Las Casas, in his 1542 work A Short Account of the Destruction of the Indies, described the extreme cruelty of the conquistadors and successfully advocated for new laws to prevent the exploitation of natives. His writings, though, also fueled the "Black Legend," which other European powers used to demonize Spain.
• Justification for violence: In 1599, the Acoma Massacre saw Spanish forces kill hundreds of Acoma people and enslave the survivors. The expedition leader ordered adult males to have one foot amputated, a punitive act that was eventually condemned by King Philip. 

France

France, particularly in New France (North America), is often contrasted with Spain and England for having more cooperative relationships with Native Americans. However, its policies were also motivated by self-interest and still contributed to cultural destruction. 

• Pragmatic alliance: French officials established trading partnerships, primarily in the fur trade, and allied with certain tribes, such as the Algonquin and Huron, against rival groups and English colonists.
• Cultural adoption: Some French trappers and missionaries, particularly Jesuits, lived with and adopted native customs to gain support. Louis XIII's 1627 declaration considered baptized natives "natural Frenchmen," theoretically integrating them into French society.
• Paternalistic conversion: While less violent than the Spanish, French Jesuit missionaries still aimed to convert Native Americans to Catholicism and assimilate them into French culture.
• Conflict and decline: French relations were not uniformly peaceful and broke down with groups like the Natchez. Additionally, the French presence contributed to the spread of European diseases, which decimated Native populations regardless of France's official policies. 

England

English statements and policies were often based on a view of Native Americans as uncivilized and in the way of colonial expansion. Unlike the Spanish focus on conversion or the French focus on trade, the English hunger for land was the primary driver of hostile relations. 

• Justification for land grabs: The English concept of vacuum domicilium—that only lands "used" by a people could be owned—was used to justify seizing Native lands considered uncultivated.
• Paternalistic views: As seen in Benjamin Franklin's 1784 Remarks concerning the Savages of North America, some English views acknowledged the validity of Native culture but still framed it through a lens of European "civility".
• Declaration of Independence: The 1776 Declaration explicitly refers to Native Americans as "merciless Indian savages," showing how dehumanizing rhetoric was embedded in the nation's founding documents to justify colonial actions.
• Brief protection: The Royal Proclamation of 1763 temporarily protected Native American lands west of the Appalachians, but this was a pragmatic military move to reduce conflict, not a sign of respect for Native sovereignty. 

United States

The US carried forward and amplified English colonial attitudes, resulting in systematic violence, forced removal, and assimilation that historians have increasingly characterized as genocidal. 

• "Merciless Indian savages": The Declaration of Independence's language became an ideological pillar justifying the removal and extermination of Native Americans.
• The Indian Removal Act (1830): This legislation, passed under President Andrew Jackson, forced the relocation of tens of thousands of Native Americans from their ancestral homelands, resulting in the "Trail of Tears".
• "Kill and scalp all": During the 1864 Sand Creek Massacre, Colonel John Chivington led a militia in slaughtering peaceful Cheyenne and Arapaho villagers, justifying the act with the phrase "nits make lice," suggesting even children were legitimate targets.
• Forced assimilation: In the late 19th and early 20th centuries, federal policy focused on forced assimilation through boarding schools, which worked to strip Native children of their culture, language, and heritage.
• Contemporary acknowledgments: In recent years, some leaders have acknowledged the atrocities. For example, California Governor Gavin Newsom apologized in 2019 for the state's role in the genocide of Native Americans during the Gold Rush. Federal-level apologies, however, have been more cautious and have not formally acknowledged genocide. 

Political and legal statements made by Spain, France, England, and the United States against Native Americans consistently framed Indigenous peoples as inferior and lacking land rights, justifying policies of conquest, forced removal, and assimilation. These statements often portrayed Native people as "savages" who needed "civilization" or posed a threat to colonial expansion, which was seen as inevitable. 

Spain

Early Spanish statements reflected debate over how to define and treat Indigenous peoples. In the 16th century, theologians and colonists debated whether Native Americans were subhuman or had souls. 

• Royal decrees: Queen Isabella of Spain declared Native Americans her subjects, morally equal to Spaniards, and decreed that they should be treated humanely and not enslaved. This was largely ignored by conquistadors.
• The Valladolid Debate (1550–1551): This debate featured arguments from opposing viewpoints.
  • Juan Ginés de Sepúlveda argued that Indigenous people were "natural slaves" and their conquest was just.
  • Bartolomé de Las Casas countered that the natives were rational human beings and accused the Spanish of terrible cruelties.
• The encomienda system: This labor system was justified by the stated need to "Christianize" Indigenous people, but in practice, it forced them into brutal slavery. 

France

French interactions with Native Americans were more often focused on trade relationships than on large-scale land displacement, but statements still reflected a paternalistic and exploitative attitude. 

• Early trade relations: French colonial officials like Governor Joseph-Antoine de La Barre referred to Native Americans as "savages," while still depending on them as trade partners.
• Undermining autonomy: Officials like José de Galvéz sought to undermine tribal autonomy by making Indigenous people dependent on trade for alcohol and firearms.
• Priests' influence: While French priests and administrators sometimes expressed regret over the effects of alcohol on Native populations, they still sought to convert them to Christianity and encourage assimilation. 

England

English statements and attitudes were characterized by a view of Native Americans as obstacles to be removed or assimilated, rather than conquered and integrated. 

• The "Black Legend": English and French colonists fueled the narrative that the Spanish were uniquely cruel to Indigenous people. They argued that Native Americans would therefore welcome them as "liberators," which provided a humanitarian pretext for their own colonial ambitions.
• Removal or assimilation: Many English colonists held the view that Native Americans were inferior and should either be pushed off the land or forced to adopt English ways. A 1637 text by Thomas Morton, for example, portrays natives both as simple people leading a "happy and freer life" and as an obstacle to be overcome. 

United States

Statements by the U.S. government were more systematic, legally binding, and foundational to U.S. Indian policy, repeatedly violating treaty rights and justifying the forced removal of Indigenous peoples. 

• Jeffersonian assimilation: Thomas Jefferson's policies aimed to assimilate Native Americans by encouraging them to adopt European-style agriculture and lifestyles. This policy was based on the belief that it would help Indigenous people "progress" from "savagery" to "civilization".
• Indian Removal Act of 1830: President Andrew Jackson's message supporting the act framed it as a benevolent policy, claiming it would protect Native Americans by isolating them from white settlers. In reality, the act led to the forcible and deadly relocation of thousands of Indigenous people on the Trail of Tears.
• Broken treaties: Despite Article VI of the U.S. Constitution, which defines treaties as the supreme law of the land, the U.S. has a long history of violating treaty obligations with tribal nations.
• Modern resistance: In 2016, NCAI President Brian Cladoosby highlighted the long history of diminishing tribal voices, stating that the Standing Rock protests reflected a long-running issue where Indigenous lands and resources were treated as "disposable". 

Colonials Statements Against Native American Indians

 Colonial statements against Native Americans reveal a history of dehumanization, land dispossession, and violence rooted in a belief in white superiority. These statements evolved over time, reflecting shifting colonial attitudes and justifications for expansion. 

Dehumanizing and religious condemnation

From the earliest days of colonization, English settlers and religious leaders used derogatory language and biblical justifications to paint Native Americans as inferior and worthy of subjugation. 

• "Merciless Indian Savages": The Declaration of Independence (1776) famously referred to Native Americans as "merciless Indian Savages," casting them as a hostile threat to the American frontier.
• "Naked slaves of the divell": In 1613, prominent minister Alexander Whitaker described Native people as "naked slaves of the divell".
• "Ignorant savages": Even figures like Benjamin Franklin, who praised certain aspects of Native American culture, would describe them as "ignorant savages".
• "Little of humanitie but shape": An English cleric, Samuel Purchas, warned readers that Native Americans had "little of humanitie but shape, ignorant of Civilitie, of Arts, of Religion" and were "more brutish than the beasts they hunt". 

Justifications for land theft

As settlers moved westward, they used specific rationales to justify taking Native lands and destroying Indigenous ways of life. 

• "Vacuum domicilium": The concept of vacuum domicilium ("vacant land") was used to claim that Native Americans were not properly using the land, particularly because they hunted rather than practiced European-style agriculture. In 1722, Puritan minister Samuel Stoddard asserted, "The Indians made no use of it, but for Hunting".
• Worthless land until "improved": Colonists argued that Native lands were of little value until they were "improved" by settlers. As Rev. Samuel Stoddard put it, the land "was worth but little" and "it is our dwelling on it and our Improvements that have made it to be of worth". 

Threats of extermination

As the United States government pursued expansion, officials openly discussed and implemented policies of extermination against Native people. 

• Extermination threats: In an 1807 letter, Thomas Jefferson stated that if forced to fight a tribe, "we will never lay it down until that tribe is exterminated or driven beyond the Mississippi".
• "Total annihilation": In the wake of the Wounded Knee Massacre in 1890, newspaper editor L. Frank Baum (later author of The Wonderful Wizard of Oz) wrote that "our only safety depends upon the total extermination of the Indians".
• "Utter extirpation": Secretary of War Henry Knox instructed a general in 1790 to "extirpate, utterly, if possible," a group of Native Americans defined as "banditti". 

Systemic and cultural destruction

Colonial statements also demonstrate an ideology of systemic violence and cultural destruction aimed at Native people. 

• "The Rescue" sculpture: The 19th-century sculpture displayed at the U.S. Capitol, titled The Rescue, was explicitly created to "convey the idea of the triumph of the whites over the savage tribes," according to its sculptor.
• Forced assimilation: Beyond direct violence, officials implemented policies to systematically dismantle Indigenous identity. This included forcing children into boarding schools, a policy intended to "kill the Indian, save the man".
• Cultural erasure: Today, the impact of these historical attitudes persists. Statements like Rick Santorum's 2021 claim that "there isn't much Native American culture in American culture" echo the historical effort to erase Indigenous history. 

 Colonial statements against Native Americans were rooted in racist stereotypes, a belief in European superiority, and an appetite for land. These views, expressed in a variety of official and unofficial documents, were used to justify land seizure, forced assimilation, and violent conflict. 

Official documents

• The Declaration of Independence (1776): In a list of grievances against King George III, the declaration refers to Native Americans as "merciless Indian Savages." This language reveals the pervasive prejudice and dehumanization of Indigenous people by American leaders at the time.
• The Indian Removal Act (1830): This act, advocated by President Andrew Jackson, institutionalized the forced removal of Native Americans from their ancestral lands. Jackson believed he could only accommodate Native self-rule on federal lands west of the Mississippi River, requiring the resettlement of Native tribes. The subsequent removal of 100,000 Indigenous people to the west is now known as the "Trail of Tears," in which thousands died.
• The Johnson v. McIntosh Supreme Court ruling (1823): This case established the "Doctrine of Discovery," which denied Native Americans the right to hold or sell their own land based on the idea that they were an "inferior race." The court ruled that Native Americans had no title to their lands and could only occupy them. 

Colonist perspectives

• Racist depictions in early writings: Many early colonial writings portrayed Native men as "savage images of the Indian as not only hostile but depraved".
• Vacuum domicilium: Some colonists, such as Reverend Samuel Stoddard, used the concept of vacuum domicilium ("vacant land") to justify seizing Indigenous land. They asserted that Native Americans only used the land for hunting and had not sufficiently "subdued" it, therefore leaving it open for European possession.
• Religious justifications: Some early Puritan settlers viewed Native Americans as "godless heathens" who needed to be forcibly converted to Christianity. The Papal Bull of 1493 also set a precedent for this type of thinking, claiming that any non-Christian-inhabited land was available to be "discovered" and exploited by Christian rulers.
• Statements from officials and leaders:
  • Peter Burnett (First Governor of California): He proposed a "war of extermination" against Native Americans during the California Gold Rush, which led to a massacre of thousands.
  • Colonel John Chivington (Sand Creek Massacre): In 1864, after massacring peaceful Cheyenne and Arapaho people, Chivington stated, "Damn any man who sympathizes with Indians!... Kill and scalp all, big and little; nits make lice".
  • Thomas Jefferson: He stated that if forced to "lift the hatchet against any tribe, we will never lay it down until that tribe is exterminated, or driven beyond the Mississippi".

  The phrase "Kill the Indian, save the man" was the guiding principle behind the US and Canadian governments' forced assimilation of Indigenous children in the 19th and 20th centuries. It was coined by Richard Henry Pratt, a US Army officer who founded the Carlisle Indian Industrial School in 1879, and encapsulates the belief that Native American culture was a barrier to assimilation and should be erased. The man behind the phrase

Richard Henry Pratt, a former soldier, first developed his idea of assimilation by educating Native American prisoners of war at Fort Marion in St. Augustine, Florida. His assimilationist ethos was influenced by his belief that Native American culture, not their race, made them "savage," and that they could become "just like everybody else" if isolated from their traditions and immersed in white American culture. 

The purpose of Indian boarding schools

Pratt's philosophy became the foundation for the federal Indian boarding school system. These schools were established to systematically strip children of their Indigenous identities and erase their connection to their culture. Policies included: 

• Forbidding Indigenous languages: Children were punished for speaking their native tongues.
• Forcing new names: Students were given new Anglo-American names.
• Cutting their hair: Traditionally, long hair was significant in many Native cultures, and cutting it was a powerful act of forced conformity.
• Imposing new religion and dress: Students were forced to abandon their spiritual practices and adopt Euro-American clothing and Christian ideals. 

A legacy of multigenerational trauma

The boarding school system had a devastating, long-lasting impact on Native American communities: 

• Widespread abuse: Many children experienced physical, sexual, and emotional abuse, as well as disease and poor nutrition.
• Cultural erosion: The policy successfully stripped many children of their language, spiritual traditions, and kinship ties, damaging the traditional family structure and causing a profound loss of cultural knowledge.
• Intergenerational trauma: The pain and trauma from these experiences have been passed down through generations, contributing to social issues such as high rates of suicide, alcoholism, and family breakdown. 

Calls for truth and healing

Today, the lasting effects of the boarding school system are widely recognized. Efforts are underway to address this painful legacy through: 

• Repatriation of remains: The US Army has been working to return the remains of children who died at schools like the Carlisle Indian Industrial School to their relatives.
• Truth and healing initiatives: Organizations like the National Native American Boarding School Healing Coalition work to document the history and effects of these schools and to support healing in Native communities.

 The phrase "Kill the Indian, save the man" was the guiding principle behind the US and Canadian governments' forced assimilation of Indigenous children in the 19th and 20th centuries. Promoted by Captain Richard Henry Pratt, the motto reflected the belief that stripping Native people of their culture and identity was the only way to "civilize" them and integrate them into white society. 

Origin and Meaning of the Phrase

• Coined by Richard Henry Pratt: Richard Henry Pratt was a U.S. cavalry officer. He founded the Carlisle Indian Industrial School in Pennsylvania in 1879, the first off-reservation boarding school. In an 1892 speech, he said, "In a sense, I agree with the sentiment [that the only good Indian is a dead one], but only in this: that all the Indian there is in the race should be dead. Kill the Indian in him, and save the man".
• Justification for forced assimilation: Pratt believed Native cultures were inferior. He thought Native children could be "civilized" by removing them from their families and tribal communities. The "man" to be saved was a version of the child remade in the image of middle-class white Americans. 

The Indian Boarding School System

Pratt's model for the Carlisle school was replicated across the United States and Canada. Nearly 150 government-backed schools opened over the next several decades. 

• Cultural erasure: Children were forbidden from speaking their Native languages, practicing their religions, or using their own names. They had their hair cut, were given new Anglo-American names, and their tribal clothing was replaced.
• Forced separation: The system separated children from their families for long periods. This caused severe intergenerational trauma that persists today.
• Abuse and neglect: Conditions were often harsh. Students were subjected to military-style discipline, forced labor, and physical, sexual, and emotional abuse.
• Deadly consequences: Disease was rampant, with tuberculosis and the flu leading to high mortality rates among students. Many children died and were buried in school cemeteries. Their families were often unaware of what had happened to them. 

Legacy and Modern Understanding

Today, Pratt's boarding school policy is widely understood as an attempt at cultural genocide and a brutal chapter in settler colonialism. 

• Continued search for justice: Efforts are underway to uncover the truth and seek justice. This includes repatriating the remains of children who died at the schools and acknowledging the lasting trauma inflicted on Native communities.
• Recognition of resilience: The phrase also represents the resilience of Indigenous cultures. Native people resisted these attempts at erasure. Today, many Indigenous languages and traditions are being revitalized.

How Bad Was Kill The Indian

 The phrase "Kill the Indian, save the man" is a notorious expression of the violent and traumatic policy of forced assimilation at American Indian boarding schools. Coined in 1892 by Captain Richard Henry Pratt, the founder of the Carlisle Indian Industrial School, the phrase summarizes a federal policy of cultural genocide that inflicted immense suffering on generations of Indigenous children. The policy and its effects were devastating, leading to widespread abuse, death, and intergenerational trauma. The systematic destruction of Native American cultures and communities is increasingly described as a form of cultural genocide, a concept that the U.S. government long opposed being included in international treaties. In 2024, President Joe Biden issued a formal apology on behalf of the U.S. federal government for the abuse suffered in these schools. 

The mechanisms of "killing the Indian" Between 1819 and the 1960s, hundreds of thousands of Native American children were removed from their families, often forcibly, and placed in federal or church-run boarding schools. The methods used to strip children of their identity were deliberately cruel and systematic: 

• Cultural erasure: Upon arrival, children had their hair cut, their traditional clothing and possessions were confiscated and burned, and they were assigned new English names.
• Language suppression: Students were forbidden to speak their Native languages and were severely punished for doing so, often having their mouths washed with lye soap or their tongues pierced with pins.
• Religious conversion: Traditional Indigenous spiritual practices were suppressed and forcibly replaced with Christianity.
• Physical and emotional abuse: Students were subjected to military-style discipline and widespread physical, emotional, and sexual abuse by school staff. Punishments ranged from beatings to solitary confinement.
• Forced labor: Students, including young children, were forced to perform manual labor to sustain the school, sometimes under conditions that violated child labor laws. 

The deadly consequences

Boarding schools were often plagued by overcrowding, malnutrition, and unsanitary conditions, causing communicable diseases like tuberculosis and influenza to spread rapidly. 

• A 2022 federal report identified marked or unmarked burial sites at 53 of the 408 federally funded schools.
• More than 500 child deaths were documented across 19 of these institutions, with the actual number believed to be much higher. 

The lasting legacy of trauma

The policies of the boarding school system created deep, lasting trauma that has affected generations of Indigenous peoples. The effects, referred to as historical or intergenerational trauma, include: 

• Loss of culture, language, and spiritual practices.
• Mental health struggles such as depression, PTSD, and substance abuse.
• The breakdown of family systems and traditional parenting skills. 

Despite this, many Native communities are actively engaged in healing and revitalization efforts, working to reclaim their languages, cultures, and traditions.  

 The phrase "kill the Indian, save the man" is a notorious expression of the devastatingly brutal U.S. policy of forced cultural assimilation in the 19th and 20th centuries. It was the guiding principle of the American Indian boarding school system, which forcibly removed hundreds of thousands of Indigenous children from their families to eradicate their Native identities, languages, and cultures. The policy and the residential schools inflicted severe and lasting harm on generations of Indigenous people through a wide range of abuses. Erasure of Native culture

• Forced assimilation: School officials stripped children of their cultural identity by cutting their hair, replacing their traditional clothing with military-style uniforms, forbidding them from speaking their Native languages, and giving them new Anglo-American names.
• Destruction of community: By severing family and community bonds, the boarding school system was an attack on the fundamental social fabric of tribal nations.
• Internalized trauma: Students were taught that their Native heritage was inferior and "uncivilized," leading to internalized shame and low self-esteem. Many survivors later chose not to teach their children their Native languages to protect them from the same trauma. 

Physical and sexual abuse

• Systemic abuse: A 2024 investigation by The Washington Post revealed widespread sexual abuse of more than 1,000 children by over 100 priests and staff at Catholic-run schools. Experts believe this is likely a significant undercount.
• Brutal punishment: Corporal punishment for speaking Native languages or breaking other rules was rampant. Punishments included beatings with fists, belts, and razor straps, as well as being locked in dark closets.
• Neglect and disease: Poor living conditions, overcrowding, malnutrition, and inadequate healthcare were common, which contributed to high rates of disease and death. A 2022 federal report identified at least 973 confirmed deaths at boarding schools, a number expected to increase. 

Intergenerational and lasting effects

• Historical and intergenerational trauma: The pain and abuse inflicted by the schools created historical and intergenerational trauma that continues to affect Native communities today, manifesting as disproportionate rates of substance abuse, suicide, and depression.
• Weakened social structure: The boarding school era damaged Indigenous communities and family structures, as parents who were stripped of their culture often struggled to pass on traditions and healthy parenting practices.
• Cultural revitalization: Today, many Native communities are engaged in efforts to heal from this trauma and revitalize their languages and cultural practices. In 2022, the U.S. Department of the Interior launched an investigation into the legacy of the boarding schools, acknowledging their long-running demand for recognition and documentation of the abuse. 

The systematic theft of Native American land and resources by European settlers and the United States government spans centuries and has had devastating and lasting effects. This dispossession was carried out through warfare, forced migration, coerced treaties, and discriminatory policies designed to erode tribal sovereignty and assimilate Native people. Land theft and dispossession tactics

Violent conquest and forced removal

From the early 1800s onward, the US government began forcibly removing tribes from their ancestral homes to make way for westward expansion. 

• The Indian Removal Act of 1830: This act initiated the forced relocation of Native tribes, particularly from the American South, to territories west of the Mississippi River.
• The Trail of Tears: This infamous forced migration resulted in the deaths of thousands of Cherokee people from hunger, disease, and cold as they were marched from their homelands in the Southeast to present-day Oklahoma. 

Broken treaties and bad-faith negotiations
The US government frequently negotiated treaties with Native American nations only to violate the terms later, seizing even more land. 

• Treaty violations: Treaties were often made in bad faith, with the US government writing provisions in English that Native leaders could not read, or having them signed by "false chiefs" who did not represent their nations.
• Black Hills seizure: In 1877, the US government illegally seized the Black Hills from the Sioux Nation, violating a treaty that had set the land aside for them. 

The Allotment Era (1887–1934)
This period was one of the most devastating for Native American land ownership, resulting in the loss of over 90 million acres of tribal land. 

• The Dawes Act of 1887: This law broke up communal tribal lands into individual plots. The stated goal was to assimilate Native Americans by forcing them into a Euro-American system of private property and agriculture.
• "Surplus" land sales: After individual allotments were distributed, any remaining tribal lands were declared "surplus" and sold to non-Native settlers. 

Corporate and federal exploitation of resources
Beyond land theft, Native Americans were systematically denied control over the valuable natural resources on their remaining territories.

• Trust fund mismanagement: The federal government, as the trustee of Native lands, collected billions of dollars from the leasing and sale of resources like timber, oil, and gas. However, for decades, it failed to properly account for or disburse these funds to the tribes. This was addressed, in part, by the Cobell v. Salazar lawsuit, which resulted in a $3.4 billion settlement for historic mismanagement.
• Extractive industries: For generations, Native Americans were given a passive role in the mining and extraction of their resources. For instance, the discovery of oil on Osage lands in the 20th century led to a series of targeted murders and thefts by white settlers.
• Federal "takings": The government and corporations often acquire Native American land and resources for infrastructure projects like highways, pipelines, and railroads, without proper tribal consent or fair compensation. 

Lasting Consequences

The history of land and resource theft continues to affect Native American communities today, contributing to ongoing socioeconomic and cultural challenges.

• Economic disadvantages: Native communities have been deliberately relocated to economically undesirable lands, a legacy that contributes to current struggles with poverty.
• Cultural erosion: Land dispossession is a form of cultural destruction, severing deep spiritual and cultural connections to ancestral homelands and sacred sites.
• Environmental injustice: Resource exploitation and environmental degradation on or near Native lands have a disproportionate impact on tribal communities. 

Ongoing efforts toward reparations

In recent years, Native nations and their allies have pushed back against this legacy, with some successes in reclaiming land and sovereignty. 

• Land Back movement: A growing social movement calls for the return of Native American land, particularly federal public lands, to Indigenous ownership.
• Reparations and legal action: Some reparations have taken the form of cash settlements, but many tribes prioritize the return of land. The Sioux Nation, for example, has famously refused monetary compensation for the Black Hills, insisting instead on the return of their sacred land.
• Protection of cultural resources: The Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA) of 1990 is one example of a law that protects cultural items and requires their return to the rightful Indigenous owners. 

The systematic dispossession of Native American lands and resources began with European colonization and continued through centuries of broken treaties, forced removals, and federal policies designed to exploit tribal assets. These actions not only caused immense economic hardship but also inflicted deep cultural and spiritual trauma that continues to affect Indigenous communities today. Historical methods of land and resource theft

Forced removal and treaties

• European colonialism: From initial contact, European settlers brought diseases that decimated Native populations and introduced conflicting concepts of private land ownership. This disrupted traditional communal land use, which was integral to Indigenous livelihoods and cultures.
• Indian Removal Act (1830): This law authorized the forced relocation of tens of thousands of Indigenous people, particularly from the Southeast, to make way for American settlers. The most infamous result was the Trail of Tears, during which thousands of Native Americans died from disease, starvation, and exposure.
• Treaty violations: The U.S. government routinely broke treaties with Native nations, often after valuable resources like gold or oil were discovered on Indigenous lands. The 1868 treaty with the Sioux Nation, which established the Great Sioux Reservation, was violated nine years later when the U.S. took the Black Hills after gold was found. 

Land allotment and resource mismanagement

• Dawes Act (1887): This policy broke up communal tribal lands into individual allotments, with "surplus" lands sold to non-Native settlers. This led to the loss of 90 million acres of Native land between 1887 and 1934 and fractured tribal territories into a "checkerboard" of mixed ownership.
• Trust fund mismanagement: The federal government held billions of dollars from the leasing of Native American timber, oil, and mineral rights in trust, but for decades it failed to properly account for these funds. This mismanagement deprived tribes of rightful revenue and was eventually addressed by a $3.4 billion settlement for individual Native Americans in 2010. 

Modern-day challenges and issues

Resource extraction and exploitation

• Corporate plundering: Corporations have continued to exploit Native resources, often with the complicity of the Bureau of Indian Affairs. Examples include energy companies gaining access to pipeline easements on unfavorable terms and paying "chump change" for access to tribal resources.
• Mining and contamination: The extraction of minerals, particularly uranium, on or near tribal lands has led to extensive poisoning and contamination. The Navajo and Lakota nations are prominent examples of communities suffering from the toxic legacy of U.S. nuclear and mining industries.
• Climate change impacts: Indigenous communities are disproportionately affected by climate change, experiencing severe impacts on their lands, resources, and traditional ways of life. This is a modern extension of environmental injustice caused by historical land loss. 

Ongoing jurisdictional disputes

• Checkerboarding and fractionation: The legacy of the Dawes Act continues to cause legal and economic problems. The checkerboard ownership of land on reservations creates complex jurisdictional challenges between tribal, federal, and state governments. The fractionation of land ownership, where many heirs hold tiny fractions of a single plot, makes economic development difficult.
• Threats to tribal sovereignty: Challenges to Native American sovereignty continue through political and legal means, limiting tribes' ability to manage their own affairs. 

Responses and recovery efforts

Land back movement

The "Land Back" movement is a modern push by Native Americans to reclaim ancestral lands lost to theft and unjust policies. While land is sometimes purchased back on the open market, the movement is also about restoring cultural and ecological connections and reclaiming sovereignty. Advocacy and legal actionIndigenous groups and advocacy organizations like the Native American Rights Fund (NARF) continue to use litigation and lobbying to protect Native land and resources. This includes holding the federal government accountable for its trust responsibilities and fighting for environmental and water rights. Tribal self-determinationFederal policy has shifted to allow tribes greater control over their resources through laws like the Indian Mineral Development Act of 1982. These agreements, though still requiring federal review, give tribes a greater say in how their energy and mineral resources are developed. Some tribes are also leading collaborative management of federal public lands that were once part of their ancestral territories. 

 A definitive number of Native Americans killed by colonists is impossible to determine due to a lack of precise records and the varying causes of death, which included disease, violence, and forced displacement. However, the population decline was catastrophic, with some estimates placing the total deaths in the tens of millions. The primary killer was disease, but violence and other colonial atrocities also caused a devastating loss of life. The great dying Estimates suggest that by 1600, approximately 56 million Indigenous people had died in the Americas, a number representing about 90% of the pre-Columbian population. 

• Disease: Far more Native Americans died from diseases introduced by Europeans than from direct combat. Indigenous populations had no immunity to pathogens such as smallpox, measles, influenza, and the bubonic plague, leading to massive "virgin soil" epidemics. The spread was so extensive that some Native communities were decimated even before ever having direct contact with Europeans, as the illnesses spread along trade routes.
• Violence: Acts of direct colonial violence, including massacres, prolonged warfare, and targeted extermination, were significant contributors to the population collapse.
  • Some Europeans intentionally used disease as a weapon, as documented in cases of giving smallpox-infected blankets to Native communities.
  • Many colonial governments and individuals offered bounties for the scalps of Native Americans.
  • The U.S. government launched over 1,500 attacks on Native tribes after 1776.
• Forced displacement and starvation: Many died from the brutal conditions of forced relocation, such as the infamous Trail of Tears.
  • The systematic killing of the American bison by settlers cut off the primary food source for many Plains tribes, causing widespread starvation.
  • Loss of land and changes to traditional farming and hunting practices also disrupted societies and created food shortages. 

The debate over genocide

While there is debate over whether all of the population decline meets the specific legal definition of genocide, many historians and scholars describe the cumulative events as such. Raphael Lemkin, who coined the term "genocide," considered the colonial replacement of Native Americans to be a historical example. The reasons for this interpretation include:

• The destruction of Native peoples, cultures, and languages.
• The deliberate massacres and atrocities committed.
• The forced assimilation policies designed to dismantle Native identity. 

The severe population drop was not just a result of war or accidental disease but the overall effect of systematic colonization policies that created fatal circumstances for Native peoples.  

 Determining the number of Native Americans killed by colonists is complex, as scholars disagree on both the pre-contact population and the precise death tolls from various factors. A 2019 study by researchers at University College London estimated that European settlers killed 56 million Indigenous people across North, Central, and South America over about 100 years. However, the total Native American population decline was a result of several contributing factors, including disease, warfare, and forced removals. Factors in population decline

Disease

• Decimation by epidemics: The most devastating cause of death was infectious diseases like smallpox, measles, and influenza, to which Native Americans had no immunity. A 2019 study estimated that around 55 million Indigenous people in the Americas died from violence and disease between 1492 and 1600.
• "Virgin soil" effect: Because these diseases were new to the Indigenous populations, the death rates were extremely high and epidemics caused severe cultural and social disruption.
• Examples of epidemics:
  • From 1616 to 1619, a disease brought by European ships killed approximately 90% of Native Americans in coastal New England.
  • The 1837–38 smallpox epidemic decimated tribes in the northern Plains, killing an estimated 17,000 people.
  • In 1854, a cholera outbreak killed as much as 25% of the Pawnee tribe's population. 

Violence and warfare

• Massacres: Colonial militias and settlers committed numerous massacres, killing non-combatants, including women and children. Historians consider many of these to be genocidal. Examples include:
  • The Pequot War (1636–1638): The decisive defeat of the Pequot tribe included the Mystic Massacre, where a Puritan militia set fire to a Pequot village and killed hundreds of inhabitants.
  • The Sand Creek Massacre (1864): A U.S. militia attacked a peaceful village of Cheyenne and Arapaho people in Colorado, killing between 70 and 163 people, most of them women, children, and infants.
  • California massacres (1849–1870): California's population of Indigenous people dropped from 150,000 to 30,000, with at least 4,500 people killed. State and local militias received bounties for Indian scalps.
• Intentional spread of disease: In at least one case, British officers proposed and enacted a plan to use smallpox-infected blankets as a form of biological warfare during the Pontiac War in the 1760s.
• Total war and resource destruction: Campaigns aimed to destroy Indigenous communities by eliminating food sources, including the widespread hunting of American bison to kill off the main food supply for Plains Indians. 

Forced removal and displacement

• The Trail of Tears (1830s): The U.S. government forcibly relocated tens of thousands of Native Americans from their ancestral lands in the Southeast to Indian Territory west of the Mississippi River. Exposure, starvation, and disease killed thousands along the way.
• The Long Walk of the Navajo (1864): The U.S. Army forced the Navajo people on a several-hundred-mile march to a reservation, with an estimated 3,500 dying during their captivity. 

Summary of estimates

While no exact figure exists, these factors led to a catastrophic population decline.

• Total decline: Between the arrival of Europeans and the end of the 19th century, the Native American population in what is now the U.S. fell from estimates of millions to just under 250,000.
• Debate over specific numbers: The numbers killed through direct violence are debated, with estimates ranging from tens of thousands to millions. However, the broader context of disease, displacement, and starvation during colonization demonstrates a profound and devastating loss of life. 

How Many Native American Indians Were Killed By The Spain France England U.S.

 It's impossible to provide an exact total for Native Americans killed by Spain, France, England, and the U.S. combined, but estimates suggest tens of millions died due to disease, conflict, displacement, and atrocities following European arrival. For instance, a 2018 study estimated 55 million indigenous people died after the 1492 conquest, and the Spanish conquest of the Americas alone resulted in up to eight million deaths, largely from disease. While disease was the most significant factor in population decline, direct violence, massacres, and policies like those in California also led to many deaths and a systematic genocide against Native peoples. Key Factors Contributing to Indigenous Deaths

• Disease:
• The introduction of Afro-Eurasian diseases like smallpox and influenza to which Native Americans had no immunity caused devastating epidemics, leading to the deaths of millions. 
• Conflict and Atrocities:
• Direct violence, warfare, and massacres by European colonizers and later the U.S. government were significant causes of death. 
• Displacement and Starvation:
• The forced displacement of Native peoples from their lands led to starvation and weakened immune systems, further contributing to population decline. 
• Forced Labor and Slavery:
• The enslavement and forced labor of Native Americans by Spanish colonizers and later by settlers, such as in California, also contributed to their demise. 

Examples of Major Population Losses

• Spanish Conquest:
• The initial Spanish conquest led to the deaths of up to eight million indigenous people, with disease being a primary cause, though warfare and atrocities also played a role. 
• California Genocide:
• A recent study in 2018 estimated a total of 55 million indigenous deaths following the European conquest of the Americas starting in 1492. 
• Specific Incidents:
• The Taíno genocide resulted in 80-90% of the Taíno population dying within 30 years due to Spanish actions. In California between 1849 and 1870, at least 4,500 California Indians were killed, and many more perished due to disease and starvation. 

 Pinpointing the exact number of Native Americans killed by European colonizers (Spain, France, England) and the United States is challenging due to the lack of precise records and the complexity of factors contributing to population decline. Estimates for the number of Native Americans who died following European arrival vary widely, with some figures suggesting a total close to 100 million in the Americas overall. A 2019 study published in Quaternary Science Reviews suggests a death toll of 56 million by the beginning of the 17th century. The primary causes of this devastating population decline were:

• Disease: Diseases such as smallpox, measles, and influenza, introduced by Europeans to which Native Americans had no immunity, were responsible for the vast majority of deaths. The estimated 90% mortality rate in the century following 1492 in the Americas is attributed mostly to these epidemics. For instance, Business Insider reports that violence and disease killed 90% of the indigenous population - nearly 55 million people - following Christopher Columbus' arrival.
• Warfare and violence: Direct violence through warfare, massacres, and conflicts with settlers and their allies also contributed to the decline. The Chinese Foreign Ministry notes that the U.S. government launched over 1,500 attacks on Indian tribes, slaughtering Indians and seizing land.
• Forced labor and enslavement: Widespread enslavement of Indigenous peoples by European settlers, particularly by the Spanish in the 15th century, also played a role in the decline of Native American populations. Between two and five million Indigenous people were enslaved from the 15th to 19th centuries, according to Wikipedia.
• Forced removal and displacement: Policies like the Indian Removal Act in the U.S. led to forced migrations like the Trail of Tears, which caused thousands of deaths from starvation, exposure, disease, and violence. According to History.com, the U.S. army removed 60,000 Indians from 1830 to 1840, many of whom died along the way.
• Loss of traditional ways of life: Disruption of traditional societies, including loss of land and access to resources, led to starvation and weakened communities, making them more susceptible to disease and hardship. 

It is important to note that the impact of colonization varied across regions and tribes, and the causes of death were often intertwined. 

Native American Indians Sterilizations

 Beginning in the 1960s, thousands of Native American women were coerced or forced into sterilization by the Indian Health Service (IHS), a federal agency responsible for Native American health care. The practice, which continued into the late 1970s, was part of a larger, long-running eugenics movement in the United States. Scope and practice of sterilizations

• Widespread abuse: During the 1970s, numerous reports estimated that between 25% and 50% of Native American women of childbearing age had been sterilized, with some estimates reaching up to 70,000 victims in that decade alone. In contrast, the sterilization rate for white women during the same period was approximately 15%.
• Inadequate consent: Women were sterilized without their full knowledge or valid consent.
  • Many were lied to and told the procedure was reversible.
  • Some were told they were signing forms for other procedures, such as an appendectomy, or signing a waiver for painkillers.
  • In 1976, a Government Accountability Office (GAO) report investigating four IHS regions found that informed consent forms were inadequate and that many physicians failed to follow the proper consent procedures.
• Targeting vulnerable groups: The IHS and associated health-care providers disproportionately targeted younger, full-blooded Native women. The GAO report also found that 36 women under the age of 21 were sterilized between 1973 and 1976, despite a court-ordered moratorium on the procedure for women under 21.
• Financial incentives: The Family Planning Services and Population Research Act of 1970 subsidized sterilizations for IHS and Medicaid patients. Doctors operating under contract with the IHS were often paid more to perform a sterilization than to provide other forms of contraception, creating a financial motive for the procedures. 

Motivations and contextThe forced sterilizations were a culmination of factors rooted in racism, paternalism, and eugenics. 

• Eugenics: The procedures were based on the eugenics belief that "undesirable" traits like poverty or certain perceived social shortcomings could be inherited and eliminated through sterilization.
• Paternalistic views: Some physicians believed that Native women lacked the intelligence to use other birth control methods effectively. There was also a bias that a smaller family size would be better for Native women in lower socioeconomic positions.
• Population control: Some doctors wrongly assumed that sterilizing women on Medicaid or welfare would reduce government costs. There was also a belief that limiting births among minority groups, including those associated with activist movements, would prevent future "problems".
• Erosion of tribal populations: These procedures were devastating to Native communities, who saw it as a form of genocide. By reducing the number of Native people of childbearing age, forced sterilization threatened the survival of entire tribes. 

Activism and aftermath

• Native resistance: Native women and activists exposed the sterilization abuses.
  • The American Indian Movement (AIM) first uncovered the practice in 1972.
  • Women of All Red Nations (WARN), founded in 1977, was a leading force in organizing and protesting these abuses.
  • Dr. Connie Pinkerton-Uri, a Choctaw/Cherokee physician, conducted a 1974 study exposing the high rates of sterilization without consent.
• New regulations: Due to public pressure from Native activists and other women of color, the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare (now Health and Human Services) adopted new regulations in 1979. The new rules included a 30-day waiting period between consent and the procedure to protect women from unwanted sterilization.
• Lingering impacts: The forced sterilizations remain a source of intergenerational trauma and have created deep-seated mistrust of the federal government and the health-care system within Native communities. The IHS has never issued an apology. 

 Systemic and widespread sterilization of Native American women, often without their consent or knowledge, was carried out by the Indian Health Service (IHS) and other doctors during the 1960s and 1970s. Driven by racist, eugenicist, and paternalistic views, this practice had a devastating and lasting impact on Native communities. Scope of the abuse

• High sterilization rates: Some estimates suggest that between 25% and 50% of Native women of childbearing age were sterilized during the 1970s alone.
• Government report: A 1976 investigation by the U.S. General Accounting Office (GAO) found that 3,406 Native women had been sterilized without authorization between 1973 and 1976 in just four of the 12 IHS regions.
• Young victims: The GAO report also found that 36 of the women sterilized were under the age of 21, in violation of a court-ordered moratorium. 

Methods of forced sterilization

Doctors used deceptive and coercive tactics to carry out sterilizations, including: 

• Misleading consent: Women were often pressured or deceived into signing consent forms they did not fully understand.
• False information: Some women were told their sterilization was reversible or that they were undergoing a different medical procedure, such as a routine checkup or appendectomy.
• Sterilization after childbirth: Some women were coerced into sterilization immediately after giving birth, when they were in a vulnerable state and recovering from delivery.
• Linking sterilization to health benefits: Patients were led to believe that they would lose their government benefits if they refused the procedure. 

Motivation and contextThis government-sanctioned medical abuse was rooted in a history of racist and assimilationist policies. 

• Eugenics: The sterilizations were an extension of the American eugenics movement, which promoted the idea of eliminating "undesirable" traits by controlling reproduction.
• Paternalism and racism: Physicians often held racist and sexist beliefs that Native women were not intelligent enough to use other forms of birth control effectively.
• Economic incentives: The Family Planning Services and Population Research Act of 1970 subsidized sterilizations for patients on Medicaid and the IHS. Some contract doctors were paid more for performing sterilizations than for providing other contraceptives.
• Population control: Some officials and doctors saw sterilization as a way to reduce poverty and curb the growth of Native populations, who were perceived as a social and financial burden. 

Aftermath and lasting impact

• Native activism: In the 1970s, Native activist groups, including the American Indian Movement (AIM) and Women of All Red Nations (WARN), exposed the scandal and fought for justice. Their protests eventually led to new federal regulations in 1979 that offered more protections against involuntary sterilization.
• Continuing harm: The legacy of forced sterilization has created a deep-seated mistrust of the American health care system among many Native communities. The trauma is still felt today, contributing to disparities in reproductive health and healthcare access.
• Unapologetic government: Neither the IHS nor the U.S. government has ever issued an official apology for the sterilizations.

  Over 400 Medals of Honor were awarded during the U.S. "Indian Wars," with the most controversial being the 20 given to soldiers for their role in the Wounded Knee Massacre. In this 1890 massacre, U.S. troops killed approximately 300 Lakota men, women, and children. Medals of Honor at Wounded Knee

• The massacre: On December 29, 1890, the U.S. 7th Cavalry surrounded a band of Lakota led by Chief Spotted Elk (also known as Big Foot) near Wounded Knee Creek, South Dakota. After an altercation broke out during a disarmament, the troops opened fire, killing over 250 Lakota and wounding 51. The soldiers used Hotchkiss guns, which are essentially cannons, to fire into the camp, killing many women and children.
• The awards: Following the massacre, 20 soldiers were awarded the Medal of Honor. Critics argue that these awards celebrated the slaughter of innocent people, not valor in combat.
• Calls for revocation: For decades, Native American advocates, veterans groups, and others have called for the medals to be rescinded, arguing they are a "stain on our nation's conscience".
• Current status:
  • Legislative efforts: In 2019, Congress introduced the "Remove the Stain Act" to revoke the medals, though it has not yet passed.
  • Pentagon review: In July 2024, the Department of Defense announced it would review the Wounded Knee medals to determine if they were awarded for conduct inconsistent with military honor. The review is still ongoing. 

Medals for other "Indian Wars"

• Overall totals: During the period often called the "Indian Wars" (roughly 1860–1898), the U.S. Army awarded hundreds of Medals of Honor for actions against Native Americans.
• Notable examples:
  • Battle of the Little Bighorn (1876): More than two dozen Medals of Honor were given for actions during this conflict, where a large force of Lakota and Cheyenne defeated U.S. soldiers led by General George Custer.
  • Apache Campaigns (1872–1881): Medals were also awarded for campaigns against the Apache in Arizona and New Mexico.
  • Battle of Leech Lake (1898): The final Medal of Honor for an "Indian Wars" campaign was awarded for this battle against the Chippewa in Minnesota.
• Controversial citations: While some citations describe acts of bravery against combatants, others are more general, with some critics arguing they reward the killing of Native people rather than specific heroic actions. 

Context and modern perspective

• Shifting views: At the time of the "Indian Wars," medals were often awarded under different standards than today, reflecting the prevailing racial attitudes and the political climate of the late 19th century.
• Calls for justice: Today, many view these awards as a symbol of historical injustice, and efforts to rescind them are seen as a step toward truth, accountability, and reconciliation.

 At least 19 U.S. soldiers received Medals of Honor for their involvement in the Wounded Knee Massacre of 1890, where between 150 and 300 unarmed Lakota people, many of them women and children, were killed. The Defense Department is currently reviewing these awards, and some officials and historians say they were not warranted. 

The massacre and the medals

On December 29, 1890, the 7th Cavalry was disarming Chief Spotted Elk's (Big Foot) band of Lakota at Wounded Knee Creek, South Dakota, when a shot was fired. This escalated into an indiscriminate massacre of Lakota men, women, and children, many of whom were shot while fleeing. In the aftermath, dozens of soldiers received Medals of Honor for their actions. Many of the citations praised soldiers for their "distinguished conduct" or for "killing a hostile Indian at close quarters," despite the high number of unarmed Lakota casualties. The disproportionate number of medals awarded for the scale of the conflict has been a point of controversy. Efforts to rescind the medalsFor decades, Native American tribes and other advocates have called for the medals to be revoked, arguing that they dishonor the memory of the Lakota victims and tarnish the integrity of the award. 

• Remove the Stain Act: This legislation, first introduced in 2019, seeks to rescind the Medals of Honor given to soldiers at Wounded Knee.
• Defense Department review: In July 2024, Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin directed a review of the Wounded Knee medals to determine if they were awarded for conduct inconsistent with the nation's highest military honor.
• Historical context: Critics of the medals note that at the time of the massacre, Medal of Honor criteria were less stringent than modern standards and the awards may have been influenced by the prevailing racial attitudes of the late 19th century. 

The path forward

Recent steps by the Department of Defense and continued legislative pushes signal a greater effort to reexamine these historical injustices. The outcome of the Pentagon's review will be crucial in determining whether these controversial medals are ultimately rescinded.  

 An instance of US soldiers parading through town with the body parts of Native Americans occurred after the 1864 Sand Creek Massacre in Colorado. Following the attack, Colonel John Chivington's soldiers displayed the scalps and other body parts of their victims through the streets of Denver. The Sand Creek Massacre

• The attack: On November 29, 1864, Colonel John Chivington led a 700-man force of Colorado Territory militia in a surprise attack on a peaceful Cheyenne and Arapaho village along Sand Creek. The Native Americans in the village believed they were under U.S. protection and were flying an American flag and a white flag of truce.
• The victims: The militia killed between 70 and 163 Native Americans, many of them women, children, and the elderly.
• The desecration: As documented in historical accounts, Chivington's men brutally mutilated the bodies of the dead. They took scalps and other body parts, including fetuses and genitalia, as trophies.
• The parade: Upon their return to Denver, the soldiers paraded these gruesome souvenirs through the streets, displaying them to the public. 

Historical Context

The Sand Creek Massacre was one of the most notorious massacres of Native Americans and is recognized as a genocide. This event is part of a long history of systemic violence and atrocities committed against Indigenous peoples by U.S. forces and settlers. For decades, bounties were offered for Native American scalps in some areas, further incentivizing and normalizing such brutal acts.  

 Accounts exist of U.S. soldiers parading through towns with Native American body parts, including genitals and scalps, displayed as trophies. This occurred most famously after the Sand Creek Massacre of 1864, in which Colorado Territory militia killed and mutilated peaceful Cheyenne and Arapaho people. The Sand Creek MassacreOn November 29, 1864, Colonel John Chivington led a force of U.S. soldiers in a brutal attack on a Cheyenne and Arapaho village that had been promised safety by the U.S. government. 

• The troops killed approximately 230 people, most of whom were women, children, and elders.
• After the massacre, soldiers desecrated the bodies. They took scalps, cut off fingers for jewelry, and removed other body parts as "souvenirs".
• Upon their return to Denver, the soldiers publicly displayed these human remains and other plunder. One soldier paraded a woman's genitalia on a pole. 

Documented atrocities and motivationsThe gruesome behavior at Sand Creek was part of a larger pattern of violence and dehumanization against Native Americans during the colonization of North America. 

• Official bounties: In some cases, governments offered financial rewards for Native American scalps. For example, during the 1755 French and Indian War, the Governor of Massachusetts offered bounties for scalps of Native men, women, and children.
• Dehumanization: Racism and anti-Indigenous sentiment were rampant, with Native people often referred to as "savages". This mindset helped justify and normalize acts of extreme violence and mutilation.
• "Trophy" collecting: Taking body parts was a way for soldiers and settlers to flaunt their "victory" and prowess. This practice was also seen in other conflicts, including World War II and the Vietnam War, though with specific racist undertones in the case of Native Americans. 

Condemnation and modern remembrance

The atrocities committed at Sand Creek were shocking enough to provoke a congressional investigation at the time. Today, the site is a National Historic Site where the Cheyenne and Arapaho hold healing ceremonies and remembrance events. The Sand Creek Massacre is one of many documented examples of the violence and exploitation committed by U.S. forces against Native peoples throughout American history. 

 An instance of US soldiers parading through town with the body parts of Native Americans occurred after the 1864 Sand Creek Massacre in Colorado. Following the attack, Colonel John Chivington's soldiers displayed the scalps and other body parts of their victims through the streets of Denver. The Sand Creek Massacre

• The attack: On November 29, 1864, Colonel John Chivington led a 700-man force of Colorado Territory militia in a surprise attack on a peaceful Cheyenne and Arapaho village along Sand Creek. The Native Americans in the village believed they were under U.S. protection and were flying an American flag and a white flag of truce.
• The victims: The militia killed between 70 and 163 Native Americans, many of them women, children, and the elderly.
• The desecration: As documented in historical accounts, Chivington's men brutally mutilated the bodies of the dead. They took scalps and other body parts, including fetuses and genitalia, as trophies.
• The parade: Upon their return to Denver, the soldiers paraded these gruesome souvenirs through the streets, displaying them to the public. 

Historical Context

The Sand Creek Massacre was one of the most notorious massacres of Native Americans and is recognized as a genocide. This event is part of a long history of systemic violence and atrocities committed against Indigenous peoples by U.S. forces and settlers. For decades, bounties were offered for Native American scalps in some areas, further incentivizing and normalizing such brutal acts.  

 Accounts exist of U.S. soldiers parading through towns with Native American body parts, including genitals and scalps, displayed as trophies. This occurred most famously after the Sand Creek Massacre of 1864, in which Colorado Territory militia killed and mutilated peaceful Cheyenne and Arapaho people. The Sand Creek MassacreOn November 29, 1864, Colonel John Chivington led a force of U.S. soldiers in a brutal attack on a Cheyenne and Arapaho village that had been promised safety by the U.S. government. 

• The troops killed approximately 230 people, most of whom were women, children, and elders.
• After the massacre, soldiers desecrated the bodies. They took scalps, cut off fingers for jewelry, and removed other body parts as "souvenirs".
• Upon their return to Denver, the soldiers publicly displayed these human remains and other plunder. One soldier paraded a woman's genitalia on a pole. 

Documented atrocities and motivationsThe gruesome behavior at Sand Creek was part of a larger pattern of violence and dehumanization against Native Americans during the colonization of North America. 

• Official bounties: In some cases, governments offered financial rewards for Native American scalps. For example, during the 1755 French and Indian War, the Governor of Massachusetts offered bounties for scalps of Native men, women, and children.
• Dehumanization: Racism and anti-Indigenous sentiment were rampant, with Native people often referred to as "savages". This mindset helped justify and normalize acts of extreme violence and mutilation.
• "Trophy" collecting: Taking body parts was a way for soldiers and settlers to flaunt their "victory" and prowess. This practice was also seen in other conflicts, including World War II and the Vietnam War, though with specific racist undertones in the case of Native Americans. 

Condemnation and modern remembrance

The atrocities committed at Sand Creek were shocking enough to provoke a congressional investigation at the time. Today, the site is a National Historic Site where the Cheyenne and Arapaho hold healing ceremonies and remembrance events. The Sand Creek Massacre is one of many documented examples of the violence and exploitation committed by U.S. forces against Native peoples throughout American history. 

 Yes, state, colonial, and local governments in the U.S. had policies to pay bounties for the killing and scalping of Native Americans. These practices were widespread from the 17th through the 19th centuries, notably during the colonial wars in New England, the California Gold Rush, and conflicts in the Dakota territories. Examples of state-sponsored bounties

• Colonial Massachusetts: As early as the 1630s, the colonies of Connecticut and Massachusetts offered bounties for Indian heads and scalps during the Pequot War. In 1755, during the French and Indian War, the lieutenant governor of Massachusetts issued a proclamation offering bounties for the scalps of male, female, and child Native Americans.
• California (1850s-1860s): Following its statehood and the discovery of gold, California officials funded and encouraged the extermination of Native Americans.
  • State legislators authorized over $1 million to reimburse militias for "expeditions against the Indians".
  • Some local communities paid bounties for Native American scalps or heads, effectively subsidizing mass murder.
  • Between 1846 and 1873, California's Native American population dropped from 150,000 to 30,000 due to massacres, disease, and starvation.
• Minnesota (1863): In the aftermath of the U.S.-Dakota War of 1862, Minnesota's governor offered bounties for Dakota scalps. The initial bounty of $25 was later increased to $200. 

Dehumanization and Justification

This policy of offering bounties was part of a larger, systemic pattern of violence and dehumanization of Native Americans. Settlers viewed Native Americans as an impediment to territorial expansion and resources, and bounty policies equated their lives with predatory animals whose pelts were also worth money. 

Historical Memory

For centuries, the U.S. government and academic institutions largely ignored or sanitized this part of history. In recent years, however, there has been more reflection, with some state governments like California formally apologizing for the violence committed against Native American tribes. Academic and media scrutiny has also increased awareness of the violence and genocidal nature of these policies.  

 Yes, state, territorial, and colonial governments in North America issued bounties for Native American scalps over several centuries, a brutal practice that was part of a wider policy of land acquisition and dehumanization. While the U.S. federal government did not establish a formal, nationwide scalp bounty policy, it supported and financed local militias engaged in the practice. The use of scalp bounties

• Colonial era: The practice began with European colonial powers as early as the 17th century. For instance, Massachusetts issued dozens of bounties, including the Spencer Phips Proclamation of 1755, which offered payments for the scalps of male and female Native Americans, including young children.
• Post-independence: After the American Revolution, the U.S. government continued to fund militias that paid bounties. One of the most documented examples occurred in Minnesota in 1863, when the state offered escalating bounties for Dakota scalps.
• Expansion period: As the U.S. expanded westward, many new states and territories—at least 23, according to one historian—offered bounties for the scalps of Native Americans. The practice was often framed as a means of controlling "predatory" Indians, a policy that dehumanized Indigenous peoples by comparing them to animals. 

The California genocideCalifornia's history includes documented government-funded campaigns against Indigenous people, sometimes described as genocide by historians. 

• During the California Gold Rush (1846–1873), the state subsidized local militias to exterminate Native Americans.
• State legislature authorized over $1 million for the "suppression of Indian hostilities" in 1851 and 1852, which financed militia campaigns.
• Though records of state-level scalp payments are debated by some historians, bounties for Native American body parts were advertised and paid by local militias and towns, with state funds reimbursing expenses. 

Broader U.S. policy contextWhile scalp bounties were a horrifying tool of extermination, they occurred within a broader context of brutal U.S. government policies designed to remove, assimilate, or eliminate Native Americans and seize their land. 

• Treaty violations: The U.S. government negotiated more than 370 treaties with Native American nations between 1778 and 1871, but frequently broke or ignored them.
• Indian Removal Act: This 1830 act authorized the forced displacement of thousands of Native Americans from their lands in the southeastern United States, most famously resulting in the "Trail of Tears".
• Reservations: As westward expansion continued, surviving Indigenous peoples were forced onto reservations—often remote, barren, and overcrowded territories that displaced them from their traditional homelands and resources.
• Assimilation: The government also implemented policies aimed at destroying Native American cultures. This included forcing Native American children into boarding schools, where they were forbidden to speak their languages or practice their traditions. 

U.S. Policy To Pay For The Killing Of Native American Indians Buffalo Food Supply

 During the 19th century, the U.S. government implemented a policy to systematically eliminate the buffalo (bison) herds as a military strategy to destroy the Plains Indians' food source and force them onto reservations. This was not a policy of paying Native Americans to kill buffalo but a campaign by the U.S. military to destroy Native American subsistence. The U.S. government's role in the buffalo slaughter

• Military support for hunters: The U.S. Army did not do all the killing itself but actively supported and encouraged the mass killings by private commercial hunters.
  • Military commanders such as General Philip Sheridan and General William Tecumseh Sherman openly supported and provided free ammunition to commercial hunters, believing that the destruction of the buffalo was the fastest way to "settle the Indian question".
  • Sheridan famously remarked that hunters had done more in two years to subjugate the Plains Indians than the entire army had accomplished in 30 years.
• Destruction of a way of life: The U.S. government and military saw the buffalo as the foundation of Plains Indian life and culture.
  • By eliminating the buffalo, the government aimed to cut off Native Americans' primary sources of food, clothing, shelter, and tools, thereby removing their ability to resist military expansion and survive independently.
  • As one army colonel put it, "Every buffalo dead is an Indian gone".
• Vetoed protection: In 1874, Congress passed a bill to protect the remaining buffalo herds, but President Ulysses S. Grant vetoed it. This action demonstrated the government's continued commitment to the eradication strategy. 

Devastating impact on Native Americans

The slaughter of the buffalo was an intentional military and cultural strategy that had catastrophic consequences for the Plains Indians. 

• Starvation and suffering: With their main food source decimated, Native American communities faced widespread starvation and were forced to accept dependence on government rations.
• Cultural and spiritual trauma: The loss of the buffalo was not just a physical hardship but a spiritual and cultural one. As the Crow Nation leader Plenty Coups described, "When the buffalo went away, the hearts of my people fell to the ground... After this, nothing had meaning".
• Forced onto reservations: The destruction of the buffalo directly led to the forced relocation of many Plains tribes onto reservations, where they were made to conform to an agricultural lifestyle. 

U.S. Army and other government officials openly encouraged and supported the mass slaughter of bison during the 19th century as a strategic tactic to weaken and control Native American Plains tribes. The extermination of buffalo, which were the central food source and spiritual anchor for many tribes, was a deliberate and calculated effort to force Native Americans onto reservations. Evidence of government encouragement

• Official indifference and inaction: In 1874, after the buffalo population had already been significantly depleted, Congress passed a bill to protect the species. President Ulysses S. Grant, however, pocket-vetoed the measure, allowing the slaughter to continue.
• Military support for hunters: The U.S. Army provided ammunition to professional hide hunters and gave them tacit approval to trespass on treaty-protected lands to hunt.
• Military leaders' endorsement: Prominent military leaders, including General Philip Sheridan and General William Tecumseh Sherman, openly advocated for the destruction of the buffalo. Sheridan reportedly stated, "Let them kill, skin and sell until the buffalo is exterminated," and suggested that the Texas legislature should award a medal to each hide hunter.
• Providing free ammunition: To further incentivize the massacre, the military gave away free ammunition to hunters. The buffalo hunters did much of the work for the army, decimating the herds for profit. 

The impact on Native AmericansThe buffalo was vital to the Plains tribes, providing food, shelter, clothing, and spiritual sustenance. The strategy to destroy the herds was part of a larger plan to decimate the Native American way of life and force their assimilation. 

• Starvation and suffering: The loss of their main food source led to widespread hunger and distress among Native communities, leaving them dependent on the government for food rations.
• Cultural destruction: For many, the loss of the buffalo was a deep cultural trauma, marking the end of a free, nomadic lifestyle. As Chief Plenty Coups of the Crow Nation put it, "When the buffalo went away, the hearts of my people fell to the ground...After this, nothing had meaning".
• Ecological devastation: The massive and wasteful slaughter left the plains littered with millions of rotting carcasses and bleaching bones.

AI Overview: 

From Christopher Columbus's arrival in the Americas in 1492 to the end of the 19th century, the indigenous population of the Americas declined by an estimated 90%, from about 60 million people to a mere 6 million, primarily due to virgin soil epidemics of Old World diseases, coupled with warfare, enslavement, and famine. While a definitive, exact number is difficult to ascertain, and the impact varied regionally, this catastrophic demographic collapse, often referred to as the "Great Dying," was a devastating event caused by the European colonization and continues to affect Indigenous communities. 

Causes of the Catastrophe

Epidemics:

The most significant factor was the introduction of diseases such as smallpox and influenza, to which Native Americans had no immunity, leading to widespread, virgin soil epidemics. 

Violence and War:

European colonizers engaged in warfare, massacres, and forced enslavement of Indigenous peoples, contributing to the massive death toll. 

Famine and Starvation:.

The disruption of established ways of life, displacement from lands, and the destruction of resources led to widespread famine. 

Population Decline

Pre-Columbian Population:

The estimated population of the Americas before European contact ranged from around 45 to over 60 million people. 

Post-Contact Population:

Within a century of Columbus's arrival, this population had plummeted by approximately 90%, leaving about 6 million people. 

Trail of Tears:

A stark example is the forced march of the Cherokee people in the 19th century, during which 4,000 people died. 

Genocide and Its Legacy

Genocide:

The systematic violence, disease, and exploitation against Indigenous peoples have led many scholars and organizations, like the Holocaust Museum Houston, to characterize the process as genocide. 

Ongoing Impacts:

Despite the catastrophic decline, discrimination, cultural destruction, and the violation of rights against Native American communities continued into the 20th century and persist today. 

Determining the total number of Indigenous peoples killed across the Americas from 1492 to the present is impossible, and no single figure exists. However, studies estimate that up to 90% of the pre-Columbian population died within the first century of European contact, with overall losses continuing for centuries afterward due to disease, violence, and exploitation. 

The population collapse

Pre-Columbian population: Scholars estimate that the Indigenous population of the Americas in 1492 ranged widely, with recent analyses suggesting around 60 million people.

Decimation: By the early 1600s, the Indigenous population had dropped to approximately 6 million. This rapid and devastating decline is referred to by some scholars as "The Great Dying". 

Primary causes of death

The mass death was the result of a combination of factors that accelerated and compounded each other. 

Disease

This was the largest cause of death, responsible for millions of fatalities. 

Indigenous peoples had no immunity to diseases brought from the Old World, such as smallpox, measles, influenza, typhus, and cholera.

These "virgin soil" epidemics spread rapidly along Native trade routes, often killing people who had never even seen a European colonizer. 

Violence, warfare, and massacres

Throughout the Americas, Indigenous peoples were killed in conflicts, massacres, and genocidal campaigns. 

Columbus's actions: During his governorship of Hispaniola, Christopher Columbus and his men brutally enslaved and killed the native Taino people, who were nearly wiped out within decades.

Later conflicts: As European settlement progressed, thousands of wars, raids, and massacres were launched against Native Americans. Notorious examples include the Sand Creek Massacre and the systematic extermination of native peoples in California during the Gold Rush. 

Forced labor and slavery

Indigenous peoples were enslaved and forced into brutal labor conditions, particularly in the early stages of Spanish colonization. The strenuous work, poor conditions, and disease contributed to extremely high death rates. 

Displacement and starvation

European colonialism disrupted Indigenous societies and their ability to sustain themselves.

Forced removal: As seen in the "Trail of Tears" and other forced removals, tens of thousands of Indigenous people died from starvation, disease, and exposure during forced migrations.

Destruction of resources: The intentional slaughter of animals like the buffalo by the U.S. Army was a strategic effort to cause widespread famine among the Plains nations and force them onto reservations. 

The ongoing impact

Even after the initial population collapse, ongoing issues of poverty, health disparities, and discrimination continue to affect Indigenous communities. These long-term consequences of colonization demonstrate that the devastating impact of European arrival extends far beyond the "Great Dying" of the first centuries. 

 Some historians and Native American advocates consider the persecution of Native Americans to be the longest genocide in world history, pointing to its multi-century duration and systematic nature. This perspective is based on a long history of policies and actions, from the arrival of European colonists to the 20th century, which aimed to eliminate or forcibly assimilate Native American peoples and their cultures. Arguments supporting the "longest genocide" view

• Hundreds of years of violence: The timeframe of persecution stretches over 500 years, beginning with European contact in 1492 and continuing through the centuries of conquest, displacement, and policies of assimilation. This duration is a key aspect of the "longest genocide" argument.
• Massive population decline: European colonization triggered a devastating decline in the Native American population across the Americas. Estimates suggest that within a few hundred years, populations fell by 90–95%, reduced from millions to a few hundred thousand.
• Systematic and multifaceted actions: This depopulation was a result of various intentional and systemic actions, which supporters of the "genocide" label see as meeting the legal definition of the crime. These actions included:
  • Direct massacres and warfare: There were numerous deliberate massacres of Native Americans, such as the Sand Creek Massacre in 1864 and the Wounded Knee Massacre in 1890, where many women, children, and elderly people were killed.
  • Intentional spread of disease: The use of disease as a weapon, such as giving smallpox-infected blankets to Native peoples, is cited as evidence of genocidal intent.
  • Forced displacement and starvation: The Trail of Tears, which forcibly removed thousands of Native Americans from their lands and caused widespread death from exposure and starvation, is considered an act of ethnic cleansing and genocide by some historians. The systematic slaughter of the buffalo also intentionally destroyed the food source of Plains tribes, causing mass starvation.
  • Cultural genocide: Federal policies forced assimilation by removing Native children from their families and placing them in abusive boarding schools where they were forbidden to speak their languages or practice their traditions. This was a deliberate effort to eradicate Native culture.
• Legitimized by official policy: Racial hatred and violence were often sanctioned by government policy and popular ideology, such as "Manifest Destiny," which viewed Native Americans as a hindrance to progress. This is seen as fulfilling the "intent to destroy" aspect of the genocide definition. 

Counterarguments and nuance in the historical debateWhile many scholars apply the term "genocide" to specific campaigns, others, like historian Gary Anderson, contend that genocide may not accurately characterize every aspect of American history. The debate often hinges on whether the intent to deliberately eradicate an entire group can be proven for every policy and action over five centuries. Historians who question the blanket term of "genocide" often raise these points:

• Distinguishing disease from deliberate killing: A significant portion of the Native American population decline was caused by diseases brought by Europeans, to which Native peoples had no immunity. Critics of the genocide label argue that while horrific, this unintentional spread of disease does not meet the legal definition of genocide, which requires intent. However, some acknowledge cases where disease was used as a deliberate weapon.
• Semantics and definition: The modern definition of genocide was established by the UN in 1948, prompting debate over applying it retrospectively to historical events. Some historians suggest that "ethnic cleansing" or "crimes against humanity" are more precise terms for some aspects of the persecution.
• Historical context: Other events, like the Mongol conquests and the Atlantic slave trade, also resulted in catastrophic loss of life over centuries. While the duration and nature of the anti-Native American campaign are uniquely long and systematic, evaluating and comparing such atrocities is historically complex. 

Conclusion

There is strong historical evidence for classifying the persecution of Native Americans as a multi-century genocide, encompassing massacres, forced removals, and cultural destruction. The ongoing debate primarily centers on the precise definition of genocide and whether every action over five centuries meets the legal standard of intent, or if other terms like ethnic cleansing are sometimes more appropriate. However, the perspective that the systematic destruction of Native peoples and culture constitutes the longest genocide in history is a serious and widely acknowledged position among scholars.  

 There is considerable scholarly support for the claim that the actions against Native Americans constituted a genocide and that, spanning centuries, it is among the longest in world history. The violence and destruction began with European colonization in 1492 and continued through forced removal, wars, massacres, and cultural destruction well into the 20th century. Evidence for a prolonged genocide

• Scale and duration: Some scholars refer to the history of oppression against Native Americans as the "500-year war" or the "American Indian Holocaust," acknowledging the immense loss of life and the long period over which it occurred. The Native American population in the United States plummeted from an estimated 5–15 million in 1492 to a low of 237,000 by 1900.
• Settler colonialism and elimination: Historian Patrick Wolfe's "logic of elimination" describes the inherent genocidal tendency of settler colonialism, where the goal is to acquire Indigenous land and resources, often requiring the elimination or removal of the Indigenous inhabitants.
• Intentional harm: Evidence shows that massacres, forced displacement, and starvation were deliberate tools of war and policy. For example, bounties were offered for Indian scalps, and there are documented cases of officials intentionally spreading diseases like smallpox.
• Cultural genocide: This process also included "cultural genocide," defined by Raphael Lemkin (who coined the term "genocide") as the premeditated destruction of a culture. Policies designed to destroy Indigenous ways of life included:
  • Indian Removal Act of 1830: This legally mandated act led to the forced displacement of tens of thousands of Native Americans, resulting in the deadly "Trail of Tears".
  • Native American boarding schools: From the 19th to 20th centuries, federal policy forced Indigenous children into boarding schools designed to assimilate them by erasing their language, culture, and identity. This was guided by the principle of "Kill the Indian, Save the Man".
  • Sterilization of women: In the 20th century, coercive sterilization of Native American women was also used to control the population. 

Debate over the "longest" genocideWhile many scholars support the claim of genocide, determining the "longest" or "worst" in world history is complex and widely debated by historians and academics. The specific term "genocide" is a legal and academic concept defined by the United Nations and debated in its application to historical events. The debate often centers on:

• Genocidal intent: Some argue that mass death from disease was unintentional, making the label of genocide debatable for some periods. However, many others contend that intentional military and policy decisions, coupled with racist rhetoric, constitute genocidal acts.
• Cultural vs. physical genocide: While some may argue that forced assimilation is not genocide, others, including Lemkin himself, considered it a form of cultural genocide, a key part of the broader campaign of elimination.
• No international conviction: The United States has not been legally convicted of genocide by the international community. The debate continues as Indigenous communities fight for recognition and justice.