What do you think?
Rate this book
Ethnic Cleansing and the Indian: The Crime That Should Haunt America
Mention “ethnic cleansing” and most Americans are likely to think of “sectarian” or “tribal” conflict in some far-off locale plagued by unstable or corrupt government. According to historian Gary Clayton Anderson, however, the United States has its own legacy of ethnic cleansing, and it involves American Indians.
In Ethnic Cleansing and the Indian, Anderson uses ethnic cleansing as an analytical tool to challenge the alluring idea that Anglo-American colonialism in the New World constituted genocide. Beginning with the era of European conquest, Anderson employs definitions of ethnic cleansing developed by the United Nations and the International Criminal Court to reassess key moments in the Anglo-American dispossession of American Indians.
Euro-Americans’ extensive use of violence against Native peoples is well documented. Yet Anderson argues that the inevitable goal of colonialism and U.S. Indian policy was not to exterminate a population, but to obtain land and resources from the Native peoples recognized as having legitimate possession. The clashes between Indians, settlers, and colonial and U.S. governments, and subsequent dispossession and forcible migration of Natives, fit the modern definition of ethnic cleansing.
To support the case for ethnic cleansing over genocide, Anderson begins with English conquerors’ desire to push Native peoples to the margin of settlement, a violent project restrained by the Enlightenment belief that all humans possess a “natural right” to life. Ethnic cleansing comes into greater analytical focus as Anderson engages every major period of British and U.S. Indian policy, especially armed conflict on the American frontier where government soldiers and citizen militias alike committed acts that would be considered war crimes today.
Drawing on a lifetime of research and thought about U.S.-Indian relations, Anderson analyzes the Jacksonian “Removal” policy, the gold rush in California, the dispossession of Oregon Natives, boarding schools and other “benevolent” forms of ethnic cleansing, and land allotment. Although not amounting to genocide, ethnic cleansing nevertheless encompassed a host of actions that would be deemed criminal today, all of which had long-lasting consequences for Native peoples.
In Ethnic Cleansing and the Indian, Anderson uses ethnic cleansing as an analytical tool to challenge the alluring idea that Anglo-American colonialism in the New World constituted genocide. Beginning with the era of European conquest, Anderson employs definitions of ethnic cleansing developed by the United Nations and the International Criminal Court to reassess key moments in the Anglo-American dispossession of American Indians.
Euro-Americans’ extensive use of violence against Native peoples is well documented. Yet Anderson argues that the inevitable goal of colonialism and U.S. Indian policy was not to exterminate a population, but to obtain land and resources from the Native peoples recognized as having legitimate possession. The clashes between Indians, settlers, and colonial and U.S. governments, and subsequent dispossession and forcible migration of Natives, fit the modern definition of ethnic cleansing.
To support the case for ethnic cleansing over genocide, Anderson begins with English conquerors’ desire to push Native peoples to the margin of settlement, a violent project restrained by the Enlightenment belief that all humans possess a “natural right” to life. Ethnic cleansing comes into greater analytical focus as Anderson engages every major period of British and U.S. Indian policy, especially armed conflict on the American frontier where government soldiers and citizen militias alike committed acts that would be considered war crimes today.
Drawing on a lifetime of research and thought about U.S.-Indian relations, Anderson analyzes the Jacksonian “Removal” policy, the gold rush in California, the dispossession of Oregon Natives, boarding schools and other “benevolent” forms of ethnic cleansing, and land allotment. Although not amounting to genocide, ethnic cleansing nevertheless encompassed a host of actions that would be deemed criminal today, all of which had long-lasting consequences for Native peoples.
472 pages, Hardcover
First published March 1, 2014
8 people are currently reading
129 people want to read
About the author
Gary Clayton Anderson
22 books8 followersA specialist in American Indians of the Great Plains and the Southwest, Gary Clayton Anderson is a professor of history at the University of Oklahoma.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 4 of 4 reviews
February 18, 2015
A provocative and problematic book. Provocative because it challenges the loose talk about genocide in American history that prevails when activist commentators paint with the broad brush. Problematic because it is dismissive of genocide where it occurred. Anderson argues that genocide is not an appropriate term for American treatment of native peoples, however odious. He suggests calling it "ethnic cleansing" and cites episodes as "war crimes."
It seems Anderson sets a high bar--or would that be a low bar?--for genocide. In the conclusion he writes, "The crime that Winston Churchill attributed to Adolph Hitler, the one that he could not name, certainly was genocide. But the crime that Indians in the United States suffered never reached that level, even though some might argue that various incidents approached genocide. The crime was ethnic cleansing, at times violent" (337). He comes mighty close to saying that if it wasn't of the character and magnitude of Hitler, it wasn't genocide.
I am all for careful delineation of circumstances and discrete use of the genocide label. There are several ways, however, in which Anderson falls short of the sort of discretion he advocates.
First, he takes no cognizance of cultural genocide. In the nineteenth century and again in the twentieth, it has to be admitted that the United States sought to eliminate native peoples as nations, or peoples, through forced assimilation.
Second, Anderson applies definitions and criteria that are of questionable applicability in settler society situations, especially one complicated by federalist structure. There may not have been a long-term American policy of hard genocide, but at times there were genocidal states, territories, and communities.
Third, the research behind the various chapters is uneven--sometimes strong and deep, other times not so much. Thus Anderson joins the ranks of those misguided historians dismissing the atrocities at Sand Creek as the excesses of "militia," even placing the episode into an invented class of "a few murdering militia colonels determined to commit war crimes" (245). This is bad information and bad characterization.
Fourth, Anderson is determined to shoehorn every episode into the label, "ethnic cleansing," in a manner such that a sense of anachronism pervades. Maybe we need first to consider events in context and in their own terms. After that, we might reflectively proceed to connect past situations to present standards and terminology.
It is good to lay down the broad brush and open a discussion that inquires into facts, circumstances, and consequences. It is better to do that without a predetermined conclusion.
It seems Anderson sets a high bar--or would that be a low bar?--for genocide. In the conclusion he writes, "The crime that Winston Churchill attributed to Adolph Hitler, the one that he could not name, certainly was genocide. But the crime that Indians in the United States suffered never reached that level, even though some might argue that various incidents approached genocide. The crime was ethnic cleansing, at times violent" (337). He comes mighty close to saying that if it wasn't of the character and magnitude of Hitler, it wasn't genocide.
I am all for careful delineation of circumstances and discrete use of the genocide label. There are several ways, however, in which Anderson falls short of the sort of discretion he advocates.
First, he takes no cognizance of cultural genocide. In the nineteenth century and again in the twentieth, it has to be admitted that the United States sought to eliminate native peoples as nations, or peoples, through forced assimilation.
Second, Anderson applies definitions and criteria that are of questionable applicability in settler society situations, especially one complicated by federalist structure. There may not have been a long-term American policy of hard genocide, but at times there were genocidal states, territories, and communities.
Third, the research behind the various chapters is uneven--sometimes strong and deep, other times not so much. Thus Anderson joins the ranks of those misguided historians dismissing the atrocities at Sand Creek as the excesses of "militia," even placing the episode into an invented class of "a few murdering militia colonels determined to commit war crimes" (245). This is bad information and bad characterization.
Fourth, Anderson is determined to shoehorn every episode into the label, "ethnic cleansing," in a manner such that a sense of anachronism pervades. Maybe we need first to consider events in context and in their own terms. After that, we might reflectively proceed to connect past situations to present standards and terminology.
It is good to lay down the broad brush and open a discussion that inquires into facts, circumstances, and consequences. It is better to do that without a predetermined conclusion.
November 12, 2025
This book is for serious students of native American- government relations, and not for the general reader. There are almost 100 pages of notes and bibliography. The introduction examines the difference between genocide, crimes against humanity, ethnic cleansing, and war crimes. Anderson examines in minute detail the various interactions and policies that have defined US government relations with native peoples, as well as pre-colonization relations.
February 27, 2015
This is one of those books that is meaningful primarily to a few dozen specialists: an attempt to place a deep, broad, and complex historical phenomenon of clashes between cultures in the narrow context of Anglo-European "international law" since the mid-19th century.
Historian Anderson attempts to present a comprehensive review of the conflicts, but misses many important encounters and narratives for which records exist, as well as an unknown, but presumably vast, number for which there are no records, rendering his conclusions suspect.
As revisionist history it's only a baby step, since it's presented almost exclusively from the American (Anglo-European) point of view. To even begin to understand what happened, we need to understand Native societies and cultures, and that understanding is mostly denied to non-Natives.
If you have the patience to stick with it, the book does present a disturbing, but mind-numbing, litany of injustices and atrocities that contemporary Americans, the beneficiaries, remain guilty of to this day.
Historian Anderson attempts to present a comprehensive review of the conflicts, but misses many important encounters and narratives for which records exist, as well as an unknown, but presumably vast, number for which there are no records, rendering his conclusions suspect.
As revisionist history it's only a baby step, since it's presented almost exclusively from the American (Anglo-European) point of view. To even begin to understand what happened, we need to understand Native societies and cultures, and that understanding is mostly denied to non-Natives.
If you have the patience to stick with it, the book does present a disturbing, but mind-numbing, litany of injustices and atrocities that contemporary Americans, the beneficiaries, remain guilty of to this day.
February 3, 2015
A detailed study of the effect on native American populations of European immigration and expansion over some 300 years. The author concludes that the overall effect is comparable with modern definitions of ethnic cleansing, rather than genocide. A heartbreaking story of broken treaties, betrayals of trust and random acts of callous brutality and that is only the start.
Displaying 1 - 4 of 4 reviews