Raphael Lemkin's Genocide

The label of “genocide” can be an indefinite term, much like a binary model of examination, where discrepancies are not simply viewed as right or wrong, but rather with multidirectional perspectives. With respect to the atrocities the Native Americans endured, it is important to determine how to label the events based on the formal definition of Raphael Lemkin’s genocide which, in short, is defined as the intent to kill or destroy a specific group of people based on race, ethnicity or religious affiliations (Convention). I strongly assert that it is essential to define the Native American case study initially as genocide. With such a strong label, most will gravitate towards it and express more interest. However, that attention is more than

likely initial shock value that fails to initiate a full understanding of the events. Therefore, it is important, not only, to define these case studies as genocide, but also as mass murder, greed, and cultural destruction of the indigenous people. Based on the horrendous crimes committed during the Native American time, Christopher Columbus’ attempt to spread Christianity and civil war against Natives provides a perspective where mass murder and motives will come into question.

Scenes from the California Gold Rush where Natives were targeted for mass extermination will be examined to define the situation for genocide and greed and by contrast, the boarding schools designed to reshape and reconstruct those whom the Europeans deemed as “savages” and “uncivilized” will be critical to use as a way to display how genocide and cultural destruction provide a look at how emotional harm can be deemed as genocide.
Raphael Lemkin’s genocide has different methods of human destruction that can be formally defined as genocide. According to Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide, “Genocide means any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such: (a) Killing members of the group; (b) Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group; (c) Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part; (d) Imposing measures intended to prevent

births within the group; (e) Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group” (Convention). In the particular case of civil war and a forceful push for Christianity found in Alex Alvarez’s Native American and the Question of Genocide, the story of Christopher Columbus’ interaction with the Native Americans in October 1942 is told. First, he embarks on a journey for resources and the hopes of spreading Christianity. Columbus writes, “I gave them a thousand pretty things that I had brought, in order to gain their love and incline them to become Christians. I hoped to win them to the love and service of their highness” (46). This first instance of Alvarez’s piece is where it becomes unclear whether using Lemkin’s definition is useful or harmful to the understanding of genocide. Consequently, it is indefinite whether it can be classified as genocide because the “perfect” evidence of intent is simply not there. Initially, Columbus did not intentionally seek to commit murder or implement a “genocide” but arguably, his actions are the underlying cause for the demise of the indigenous people. Because of Columbus’ absence of intent to respect and protect the Natives, it caused dramatic consequences to the population. Although the incentives motivated some to convert, those who did follow Columbus’ ideas were used as servants and slaves. About 50,000 refused to submit and therefore, those people “destroyed their food stores and committed mass suicide” (47). The population significantly declined due to the mass suicides. This occurrence, then raises critical questions such as; can Columbus be blamed for the significant loss of Native people? Is there an intent to kill? How can it be defined? Although, Columbus did not seek or intent to kill the population, he also did not do explicitly do anything when he was seeing these atrocities occur. Therefore, I argue that it becomes important to define this as a genocide AND mass murder by lack of care and respect for the Natives. The Natives were dehumanized, looked down upon and targeted based on Columbus’ intention to gain and spread of Christianity, there was no reliable or clear evidence that supports an intent to kill the Natives but there was also the absence of intent to respect and protect the indigenous people.
By contrast, in the case of the California Gold Rush of 1849, it was notably one of the most horrific scenes in Native American history. At face value, it clearly meets the guidelines and criteria of Lemkin’s intentional genocide; however, the intentions can also be seen as greed for financial gain. Carolyn Lehman’s ”Gold Rush and Genocide: What Are We Telling Children About Our Bloody Past?” shows the brutal numbers of the event by expressing, “When gold was discovered, over 150,000 Native people lived in California. Within two years, 100,000 of them were dead. At the same time, twice that number of gold seekers poured into the territory. By 1860, the Native population was down to 30,000 and by 1910 that number was halved. It was the worst slaughter of Native people in American history” (Lehman). I contend that the Gold Rush can be inevitably viewed as genocide and it is important to define it in this way because of the intention to kill Natives. However, it can be argued that the settlers murdered the Natives because they were in the way of gaining gold. The settlers would have targeted anyone, regardless of their race. Subsequently, there becomes a grey area where these incidents can be seen as genocide where the acts of the violence were based on greed. The gold was found in the Native land and in order to seek financial gain, it was important to exterminate them in order to have complete and exclusive access for profit. That is a clear motive for slaughtering a significant amount of the indigenous population. Although, the settlers did target Natives, their true intention was to obtain gold. Exterminating the Natives was simply a task they had to complete in order to get what they truly wanted. Nevertheless, the settlers still had the intention of dehumanizing and making a profit out of the Native people. Alvarez makes a disturbing point in his book when he showcases how non-indigenous people in California drastically used and treated Natives, he writes: “Towns began offering rewards for proof of a dead Native American. The proof could be offered with different body parts, such as scalps, arms, or hands” (110). The fact of this matter extremely disturbs me and makes me question so many different things as to how anyone could be that inhumane? This example that Alvarez shows seems definite that the objection was to target Natives and act on it not only, solely for gold and discrimination but for monetary incentives. In other words, Alvarez summarizes the case very powerfully when he argues, “The case of the Natives in California illustrates one of the clearest examples of genocide in North America. The evidence appears quite compelling that many, if not most, within the Anglo community intended to eliminate Natives from within the state of California. The intent in other words, was genocidal” (113). I completely agree with Alvaret, although some events may seem unclear, this particular one dealing with the Gold Rush of 1849 is an explicit attempt at exterminating the indigenous population because of the thirst for gold and money. It is vital to define it for what it is. Subsequently, it becomes evident when studying this case, that it was genocide AND greed that caused the mass extermination of the Native Americans.
In the final case study, which pertains to the dehumanization and cultural destruction of the Native Americans, the indigenous people were forced to go to boarding schools of 1882 to conform to societal expectations of becoming a “true white man”.

This could possibly be much harder to define as genocide compared to the California Gold Rush study. However, when carefully applying the concept of Lemkin’s genocide to the cultural destruction that the Natives had to endure, it becomes clear that the events can be defined as genocide AND cultural destruction. For example, the film, The Thick Dark Fog directed by Randy Vasquez showcases a Native American Lakota man, Walter Littleton, who was made ashamed of his culture, forced to forget his Lakota language, abused, and deemed uncivilized and as a savage because of his traditional Native American ways (Vasquez). As a result, Littleton forgot his culture and became the epitome of white man, he conformed and got nothing out it. At this point, it shifts from being physical harm to cultural harm, where the intent is to destroy Native values, beliefs and culture. By doing so, the Europeans hoped to change the future of Native American culture, making it nonexistent. As a result, the indigenous people are faced with severe psychological consequences of past abuse experienced in the boarding schools. The physical and mental harm that was endured then translated to their children and future generations. As explained in the film,

traditional Lakota Natives did not believe in physical punishment or abuse of their children, but the surviving Natives from the boarding schools were more prone to reflect their pain on their children and spouses. This is one of the many examples where traditional Natives ways are shifted to go against its own belief system. Overall, I assert that the events regarding the boarding school system in 1882 is a true and intentional case of genocide AND cultural destruction. The fact that the intention was to socially reconstruct the Native men and turn them into “more favorable” white men seems like an adequate example of how the “teachers” of the schools sought to destroy the culture and beliefs of the Natives. It can almost be compared to the first case where Columbus came to force Christianity upon the Natives. Whereas in this case, the attempt was to reeducate but also spread the religion of Christianity among the Natives. Both are seen as genocide based on the fact that the initial intention was to bring superiority of one way of living and force it upon those who they believed were uncivilized, but also, in this study - the intent was to destroy culture rather than physically destroy the Native man and therefore, it can be defined as genocide AND cultural destruction.
All in all, studying the three cases is challenging, but work to enhance the understanding of these events and how they can be defined. Arguably, the cases are initially classified as genocide, but it is important to not only look at it from a genocidal perspective, but also take into account that the events can also be subcategorized sections of genocide AND mass murder, greed or cultural destruction. By looking at the Native American atrocities through this specific lens, it becomes engaged by promoting further analysis of asking questions and deciding why an event can be deemed as genocide based on Lemkin’s definition of intent but also through a personal definition of the absence of intent to respect and protect. In other words, I believe that by acknowledging Lemkin’s formal definition, but also considering one’s own understanding of the events helps to strengthen the understanding of the three case studies and forces some to look at it beyond the surface rather than superficially define it broadly as genocide. It is important to promote a detailed definition filled with interest and action for someone to fully comprehend the human destruction that occurred within the Native Americans.