In defense of the sanctimonious women's studies set || First feminist blog on the internet

Defending the Indefensible

Native Americans were not killed en masse, and Americans did nothing to institute slavery. And he’s serious, folks.

Contemporary followers of Noam Chomsky and Ward Churchill view the entire American experience as a disgrace, even a crime. They stress the nation’s guilt in committing “genocide” against Native Americans, enslaving millions of Africans, stealing Mexican land, despoiling the pristine environment, oppressing working people everywhere, and blocking progressive change with an imperialist foreign policy.

Fools. Who needs “history” and “facts” when we have this pretty flag?

Of course, the idea of conscious “genocide” again Native Americans is absurd – despite Cindy Sheehan’s claims of “virtual extinction of our native population” there are more self-identified Indians alive today than a hundred—or even two hundred – years ago.

Was it an unconscious genocide, then? And there are still quite a few Jews and Armenians alive today, too — was genocide not committed against them simply because their killers weren’t fully successful? Apparently if some members of a group survive and in a few centuries its population grows, genocide never happened.

Moreover, the assimilation and massive intermarriage with white people (even Bill Clinton claimed to be “part Cherokee”) erased far more self-identified Indians than the relatively rare (but undeniably loathsome) massacres by whites.

Blame interracial marriage, not mass murder (er, excuse me, rare murder). And since when does interracial marriage “erase” someone’s heritage?

Also, wouldn’t interracial marriage make more people self-identify as Indians — like Bill Clinton, for example?

Concerning slavery, Americans never invented it or instituted it – we inherited it, and with such great discomfort that anti-slavery activists were far better represented among the founding fathers (Franklin, Adams, Hamilton) than those who made an active case for slavery. David Brion Davis, the Yale professor who’s written magisterially about the history of the peculiar institution, makes clear the positive role of the American Revolution and its ideals in giving life (after many millennia of slavery) to the abolitionist movement around the world that ultimately put an end to this savage oppression. The United States, in other words, played a unique, prominent role in ending the institution, but played no role in establishing it.

We inherited it from who, exactly? The Native Americans, who had a thriving slave trade in which they kidnapped people from Africa and brought them back to the United States?

As for playing a unique, prominent role in ending the institution of slavery, has Michael forgotten that we fought an pretty big war because a good part of the country was very attached to the idea of slavery continuing?

In other words, the best response to America bashing radicals involves celebration, not castigation – an emphasis on joy, gratitude and pride rather than guilt and despair. Among other things, it’s simply more fun to be a patriotic American than a doom-embracing, “anti-imperialist” internationalist. There’s not better occasion than the anniversary of our independence to emphasize our uniqueness and, yes exceptionalism – to light a few firecrackers, eat some cherry pie, and join our neighbors in rejoicing in the Glorious Fourth.

In other words, why worry our pretty little heads about silly things like slavery and genocide and human rights when we can be eating pie?

Congratulations to Townhall.com for bringing on this winning writer.


28 thoughts on Defending the Indefensible

  1. Wow. Just – wow. Medved already won high marks for cluelessness when it came to the cultural (ie sexual) landscape of historic (as opposed to Mythic) America, but this is beyond cluelessness. It’s either the sort of willful denial that you find from the sorts of people who consider “Prussian Blue” to be a witty band name, or the knowing lies of someone who draws a paycheck from the Ministry of Truth.

  2. A few points…

    Contemporary followers of Noam Chomsky and Ward Churchill

    Can anyone name a follower of Ward Churchill? I mean the only reason I even know about the guy is because of right wing hyperventilation.

    there are more self-identified Indians alive today than a hundred—or even two hundred – years ago.

    This is one of those things that is actually true but is very misleading. The big hit in population that American aboriginals took was farther back when Europeans first started to colonize the cotenant. Disease ravaged the population to a shadow of its former number. By the time of the American Revolution the numbers of American aboriginals was already reduced to its low point in American history. Jills point still stands though and it is a good one.

    As a one-eighth Cherokee myself I don’t identify as native at all, I rarely mention it since it is so irrelevant to my life and my leave-it-to-beaver upbringing.

  3. We inherited it from who, exactly? The Native Americans, who had a thriving slave trade in which they kidnapped people from Africa and brought them back to the United States?

    I’m pretty sure he’s referring to the fact that before the creation of America in 1776, the area of land that became America was still part of England. So we inherited slavery from our time being an English colony. Of course, the fact that we couldn’t get it together to ban it entirely during our creation is all us.

  4. I do remember evidence of Indians purposely being sent diseased blankets (smallpox?). Have to see if I can find the reference. Anybody remember?

  5. Of course, the idea of conscious “genocide” again Native Americans is absurd – despite Cindy Sheehan’s claims of “virtual extinction of our native population” there are more self-identified Indians alive today than a hundred—or even two hundred – years ago.

    Right, compare today’s population with what’s probably the hight of that genocide, of course there’ll be more of them today! Question is, how does the population of today compare to that of six or seven hundred years ago—and more importantly, how do they compare economically, socially, and culturally to their ancestors of six or seven hundred years ago? I’m thinking the concept of poverty-ridden reservations is not an improvement.

    But then I don’t much like pie.

    Magis, I’ve heard the same thing. Several times. Can’t pin it down in my memory any further, but I’m thinking the man on the $20 bill might have had something to do with it.

  6. It’s Michael Medved – he’s a dipshit from way back. Mostly he’s known for right-wing movie reviews; his credentials as a reviewer can be discerned from the fact that, in the article you cite, he describes Woody Guthrie’s “This Land is Your Land” as “an unblushing love song to his native soil” (hint: read the words, jackass). (He’s also the one who claimed that “March of the Penguins” was a conservative film about the traditional nuclear family.) He’s got his head so far up his ass he can see daylight glinting off his own back teeth.

    More of the same from Townhall.

  7. Ah yes, Ward Churchill and Noam Chomsky. Totally ignore Howard Zinn dude. I’m sure he feels very snubbed right now to not be on the list of people destroying America according to you.

    I wish this could be said to be just one driveling moron. But it’s not. For instance, the state of Florida is trying to alter its state curriculum so that students never learn any “revisionism” of the traditional ideas about the founding of America (a href=”http://balkin.blogspot.com/2006/06/florida-weighs-in-on-post-modernism.html”>)

  8. Population history of American indigenous peoples

    “However, there is at least one documented incident in which British soldiers in North America attempted to intentionally infect native people. During Pontiac’s Rebellion in 1763, a number of Native Americans launched a widespread war against British soldiers and settlers in an attempt to drive the British out of the Great Lakes region. In what is now western Pennsylvania, Native Americans (primarily Delawares) laid siege to Fort Pitt on June 22, 1763. Surrounded and isolated, and with over 200 women and children in the fort, the commander of Fort Pitt gave representatives of the besieging Delawares two blankets that had been exposed to smallpox in an attempt to infect the natives and end the siege.”

  9. I do remember evidence of Indians purposely being sent diseased blankets (smallpox?). Have to see if I can find the reference. Anybody remember?

    You might be referring to the British general Jeffrey Amherst, who suggested in some correspondence that native peoples be given blankets that had been used in smallpox wards back in Europe. From my recollection, there’s still doubt as to whether this plan was actually carried out.

    There might be evidence of this tactic being used subsequently by either Britain or the United States; I haven’t studied it enough to know.

    Smallpox and other diseases spread rather easily anyway, and because of native trading networks, often native peoples contracted disease without ever seeing or coming into contact with Europeans or Euro-Americans.

    Regardless, Medved’s soft-pedaling of the conquest of native peoples illustrates he either hasn’t studied the issue or doesn’t care to reflect on it for the sake of politics.

    I also don’t understand his statement that the United States played a unique role in ending slavery. Several nations – Britain, Mexico, etc. – had abolished slavery prior to the United States and it didn’t require warfare to do so. What’s Medved arguing?

  10. God, I got bashed by a fan of Medved because I wasn’t perky enough about the war I fought in and Medved didn’t. Holy fuck, this guy is cracked. We didn’t have anything to do with slavery? Hell, this country has been a slave country for longer than it’s been a nation in wihch theoretically all people have been free in the sense that at least they’re not owned by another. Well, except for women. Too many men still believe they own the woman in their lives, but who cares, right?

  11. I would feel safe betting that Mr. Medved just hums once he gets past the second verse, so here are the words to the last two for him:

    As I was walkin’ – I saw a sign there
    And that sign said – no tress passin’
    But on the other side …. it didn’t say nothin!
    Now that side was made for you and me!

    Chorus

    In the squares of the city – In the shadow of the steeple
    Near the relief office – I see my people
    And some are grumblin’ and some are wonderin’
    If this land’s still made for you and me.

  12. the smallpox thing is most likely a myth. the wiki write up doesn’t make it true. People in that time were scared stiff of smallpox. it spread quickly and was deadly. they were not likely to have been handling blankets saturated with it.

  13. One lovely thing about Wikipedia is that the majority of historical write ups do cite their sources. It is obviously then up to us as readers to go on and do more investigation if we want further confirmation. The linked article about the smallpox issue (if you even went to read it) makes it very clear that there seems to be only one historical incident of deliberate infection that has any sort of documentation whatsoever…which confirms your assertion that the practice is largely myth. But rather than quote the entire article, I merely linked it and assumed that reasonable people would go and read the entire thing themselves.

  14. Of course, the fact that we couldn’t get it together to ban it entirely during our creation is all us.

    The US was one of the last countries to ban slavery in the west. Slavery was banned in the US years or decades after Britain and most of the other countries in the Americas had banned it. (IIRC, only Brazil lagged behind.) One of the major causes of the Texas Revolution was Mexico’s decision to end slavery: the Anglos didn’t like that idea.

    People in that time were scared stiff of smallpox. it spread quickly and was deadly. they were not likely to have been handling blankets saturated with it.

    Even in the 17-18th centuries, people were aware that you could only get smallpox once. Survivors of previous epidemics could handle the blankets without fear. The blankets came from smallpox hospitals. If such a thing as smallpox hospitals could exist then clearly there were people around who were willing to deal with smallpox patients and their laundry.

    One of the things I like about Germany is that it doesn’t deny the existence of the Holocaust or try to explain why it was someone else’s fault. I’ve read textbooks meant for German schoolchildren. They do not flinch from acknowledging what happened or that ordinary citizens shared the blame. I wish the US could emulate this behavior at least a little. Claims of innocence in the face of obvious guilt are so wearing.

  15. Did he call slavery “the pecular institution” without irony?

    The United States, in other words, played a unique, prominent role in ending the institution

    Sort of in the same way India played a unique, prominent role in abolishing the caste system?

    At least it’s better than this one David Horowitz article I read, which just came right out and said that black people should be thankful to white people for ending slavery.

  16. The linked article about the smallpox issue (if you even went to read it) makes it very clear that there seems to be only one historical incident of deliberate infection that has any sort of documentation whatsoever…which confirms your assertion that the practice is largely myth.

    That’s interesting, because I found a recent article in the Journal of American History which argues that the technology existed to use smallpox as a biological weapon and that accusations of such use were common in the 18th century. It says:

    Our preoccupation with Amherst has kept us from recognizing that accusations of what we now call biological warfare—the military use of smallpox in particular—arose frequently in eighteenth-century America. Native Americans, moreover, were not the only accusers. By the second half of the century, many of the combatants in America’s wars of empire had the knowledge and technology to attempt biological warfare with the smallpox virus. Many also adhered to a code of ethics that did not constrain them from doing so. Seen in this light, the Amherst affair becomes not so much an aberration as part of a larger continuum in which accusations and discussions of biological warfare were common, and actual incidents may have occurred more frequently than scholars have previously acknowledged.

    The article is called “Biological Warfare in Eighteenth-Century North America: Beyond Jeffery Amherst,” by Elizabeth Fenn, JAH vol. 86, no. 4, March 2000.

    You know what I think? I think most people are smart enough to balance more than one idea in our heads at the same time. For instance, while it is true that the ideas of the Revolution, among other things, mobilized black and white people all over the world to organize against slavery, it is also true that the men who created the American republic realized that there was a contradiction between their commitment to liberty and their tolerance of slavery and decided that they could live with that contradiction. They could have done the right thing at the very start, and they chose not to. The first bit is a part of American history of which we can be proud. The second bit is a part of American history of which I am ashamed. To me, to be a good American is to acknowledge the good and the bad and to try to make our nation live up to the best and not the worst parts of our historical legacy.

    Is that really so difficult for Medved to understand? Does he really think that a patriotism which denies the ugly parts is better than a patriotism which tries to learn from them, in order to make this a better country?

  17. Well maybe if the colonists didn’t conquer the Native Americans we would be living in a Pax Europeana. Seriously imagine if all of europe was on the same page in WWII. Then add our population to that in 1939. Germany could have took over the world under those circumstances. It’s sad that any group of people are part of genocide. I’m a third Cherokee but I’m glad things turn out like they did. I had a grandma that married one of those evil imperialist Europeans and we have had a successful family ever since. Everything happens for a reason.

  18. Of course, the idea of conscious “genocide” again Native Americans is absurd

    Y’know, this can be framed in a way that makes it accurate:

    There was never any grand plan to “ethnically cleanse” the whole continent. It was just a matter of grabbing this piece of land … and then the next one … and the next … until we reached the ocean.

  19. True. We have common ground there. But it pretty much ended up cleansing the population even without those intentions.

  20. Thlayli,

    Well said. Another way to put it is:

    “Of course, the idea of conscious “genocide” again Native Americans is absurd. Aren’t you relieved that Americans are capable of genocide without even meaning to?”

  21. It’s either the sort of willful denial that you find from the sorts of people who consider “Prussian Blue” to be a witty band name

    So named for the blue eyes of its singers, which are not Prussian blue at all, being much too light, ironically enough; Prussian blue is deep, deep, dark.

    Any mention of Prussian Blue the band gets an amused eye roll from me. Silly things can’t do basic research. Honestly.

  22. History 101, wingnut style:

    Charlotte: “Johnathon, I cannot for the life of me un’erstand why them negros want to stay here and work the land. Why, I asked them repeatedly to put down the cotton bag and go.’

    Johnathon: “Yes, I know Charlotte, why I tole’ the drivah to tell them to leave, that I bought their freedom and we don’t need any more money –”

    Jessup: “Why howdy Miss Charlotte! Howdy Massa John! Can I git y’all some victuals? I done tended the garden and whipped ‘ole sallie forya, Lawdy! Lawdy if i don’t love this slavin’ bizniss! I’se so glad you took my daddy from Africa and the savages, I gonna serve you ever day like the Good Lawd wants!”

    ===== Sometime earlier in American history:

    Abenaki 1: How can we show these new white people our love and devotion to them for all the good and kind deeds they have performed for us?
    Abenaki 2: I think we should kill them. And then kill ourselves.
    Abenaki 1: No, our people should walk a thousand miles to live on teh desert and let the white man have the hunting land.
    Abenaki 2: And the water and the plants, after we show them how to grow our plants and prepare them.
    Abenaki 1: But that is not all, we must genocide ourselves.
    Abenaki 2: What?
    Abenaki 1: Don’t ask so many questions, it means we kill ourselves and our women and children and then move off to some desolate land and live like second class citizens.
    Abenaki 2: Cool.
    Abenaki 1: Oh, by the way, there’s a sale over at Isiah Smith’s house on rum and blankets, just over from the old world. They say native people get first dibs.
    Abenaki 2: Hey [running after] wait for me!

  23. Kyra: it’s that codeword thing again. You know, how there are “codewords” that conservatives use so they don’t have to speak explicitly about various subjects, but their supporters all understand what they mean?

    Similarly, I really doubt the “band” was named for the color of their eyes. Actually, I think they’ve mentioned once or twice that it’s linked to evidence cited by Holocaust deniers – maybe they dropped that rationale in order to present more of a “sane” appearance?

  24. Prussian blue is the color of the residue left by Zyklon B, the gas used to wipe out Jews during the Holocaust. I am reasonably certain that this was the inspiration for the band name, and that the kids were given the name by their mother or other adult figures and have no earthly idea what it means.

    Cheers,

    TH

  25. the positive role of the American Revolution and its ideals in giving life (after many millennia of slavery) to the abolitionist movement around the world that ultimately put an end to this savage oppression.

    There are numerous descendants of Black Loyalists who might dispute this interpretation of the American Revolution.

    Yes, abolitionists in Britain, Canada, France…all of them were acting from the example of what was then a slave state. Founding Father Fetishism is, as usual, alive and well.

  26. Tom Head: or rather, the residue left by Zyklon B in some situations under conditions that don’t apply to the gas chambers … not that they care.

  27. Tom Head: or rather, the residue left by Zyklon B in some situations under conditions that don’t apply to the gas chambers … not that they care.

    Right, that was what I’d read: that it was a (positive) reference to revisionist Holocaust denial.

Comments are currently closed.