To whom...,
As I said, but seem to have to repeat, I was not minimizing the criminality and barbarism of the colonial powers. I was merely trying to inject a sober note into an area of discussion (indigenism) that seems to run emotional. I'm sorry if sentences like: "Obviously there was both war and genocide against native people" and "Clearly there was genocidal intent among the European settlers" don't convey the emotion people would like, but they seemed fairly clear to me. The question was whether Cockburn's remarks were appropriate in the face of claims that fifteen million Native Americans were killed by genocide. I think it's reasonable to point out that if fifteen million died, disease probably got the lion's share and genocide the rest. That doesn't argue that genocide didn't happen, it only indicates the scale of the crime. Clearly there were going to be a huge number of deaths from disease when Europeans met indigenous people. That was unavoidable. The genocide happened also.
I think it's completely reasonable for Native Americans to point out this genocide and demand redress for systematic discrimination. The question is how far that will take them. I think Native Canadians are beginning to come up against a resistance even among supporters in terms of expanded land claims. Native Americans may not be there yet in terms of land, but I think they are becoming reasonably successful at alternative economic endeavors (like casinos) and alternative education (like tribal colleges). Clearly there is farther to go and I think fair-minded people see that. I think people like Cockburn also see that the idea of re-establishing native cultures politically is not possible. Native Americans and indios of all stripes are necessarily captives of the modern world, as we all are. The political autonomy indigenism demands is naive in a very real sense. The only real autonomy comes from economic strength and I think that's what Cockburn is suggesting. For Native Americans, casinos are probably more important than political settlements. Making the West confess to genocide will do little to get Native Americans working for themselves instead of working for whites.
The Native American genocide was compared against the Holocaust, implying that if the genocide was really taken seriously there would be a Native American Israel, I suppose. I would venture a guess that Native Americans and Native Canadians have far more land than all of Israel and for far fewer people. So what? The land is not the issue. The issue is the ability to create a self-sustaining society. Native people lack the economic base that built places like Israel. They're not going to get that base from a political settlement. Casinos have far more power to build a self-sustaining economy.
There's no question that Native Americans and other indigenous people should remind the world about the genocide they were subject to. The question is what that "political capital" should be spent on and how it should be husbanded.
peace