The Annihilation of the Native Americans
Pre-Columbian Population:
Pick a number, any number.

Sometimes it seems that this is the way historians decide how many Indians lived in the Americas before the European Contact. As The New York Public Library American History Desk Reference puts it, "Estimates of the Native American population of the Americas, all completely unscientific, range from 15 to 60 million." And even this cynical assessment is wrong. The estimates range from 8 to 145 million.

If you want to study the question of pre-Columbian population and its subsequent decline in detail, two good books to start with are David Henige, Numbers From Nowhere (1998) and Russell Thornton, American Indian Holocaust and Survival (1987).

The number of Indians who died at the hands of the European invaders is highly debatable, and it basically centers on two questions:

1. How many people lived in America before the population plummeted?
2. How many of the deaths during the plummeting can be blamed on human cruelty?

There are several accounts and estimates of the total body counts of the native death toll caused directly or indirectly due to the European invasion of the Americas, however all the experts agree on one thing, the annihilation of Native American peoples made Hitlers Holocaust look like child's play.
Most experts agree that between 13 and 20 million Native Americans died due to their arrival on this continent

Below is excerpts from an article written by Rob Hunter in "The Madison Times" concerning a talk delivered at the University of Wisconsin by Lilian Friedberg.
Friedberg will earn a Ph.D. for her work from the University of Illinois-Chicago this spring.
**********************************************************************

Friedberg began by asserting that the treatment of Native Americans during the colonial and expansion periods in U.S. history constituted a genocide not simply in a moral sense, but in a legal one as well. Because Native Americans were at various times killed outright, forcibly removed from their homelands, made to endure appalling conditions on reservations, or subjected to cruel treatments, such as forced sterilization or having their children removed to foster homes, their treatment at the hands of Euro Americans is a genocide according to the definitions outlined in the U.N. Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide, a document not ratified by the United States until late in the last century.

Friedberg said that the genocide was a deliberate part of U.S. policy, citing the writings and orders of American presidents George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, Andrew Jackson, and Theodore Roosevelt, all of whom either broke treaty agreements with Native tribes or publicly expressed their desire to “exterminate … the Indians” in favor of what Roosevelt called the “mighty civilized races” of America. Friedberg presented evidence suggesting that over the course of U.S. history, perhaps over 10 million Native Americans were killed, uprooted, or forced to endure cruel treatment in this way.

Was the killing and displacement of Native Americans by Europeans an act of genocide, and if so, is it meaningful or appropriate to compare it to other genocides in history, such as that perpetrated by the Nazis? These were among the questions Lilian Friedberg dared to ask during her Nov. 6 talk at the University of Wisconsin-Madison titled “Dare to Compare: Americanizing the Holocaust.”

Friedberg identified three approaches in looking at genocide: revisionism, exclusionism, and comparativism. Unlike revisionists, like holocaust deniers, or exclusivists, who believe, for instance, that the Nazi holocaust was a morally unique event unlike any other, comparativists like Friedberg believe it is possible and fruitful to study different acts of genocide in relation to one another. In this way, she said, it becomes possible to better learn the roots of hatred and how and why communities perpetrate the crime of genocide.

Because of America’s intense awareness of the holocaust, Friedberg argued, Americans are in fact more conscious of and more willing to discuss a non-American genocide than they are to approach what happened within U.S. borders: namely, the genocide of Native Americans.

This is observable in the deplorable socioeconomic status of most Native Americans in the United States today. Friedberg said it is also evident in the media: While anti-Semitic stereotypes or figures would be unthinkable in contemporary American television, movies, or literature, anti-Native American sentiments and prejudices abound.

Additionally, Friedberg argued, while it is considered acceptable to discuss Germany’s responsibility for the Nazi holocaust, to suggest that the United States was responsible for genocide in its treatment of Native Americans is “charged with anti-Americanism” in what she described as a “seditious reversal of identity politics.” Whereas holocaust denial is considered “an affront to Jews,” discussing Native Americans as victims is seen as “assaulting American ideals.”

There is also a book written by Ward Churchill titled "A Little Matter of Genocide" its worth the read!

It is a well known fact that in nature only the fittest survive, the fittest and the most easily adaptable. This “rule” of nature encompasses everything, including people. We have seen this rule put to the test time and time again throughout history, and those people or animals that couldn’t live up to the challenge of nature, or their fellow man- kind, fell away into extinction. In fact, we have seen this very thing happen pretty recently. When Columbus discovered America, all the Native Americans were immediately put to the test, trying to cope with white diseases, new ideas, foreign weapons, and everything else that followed the first European explorer to America. Many tribes were pushed to extinction by European pioneers, either killed by the foreigners or each other. In proportion to the number of tribes before the time of Columbus, today there are very few surviving Indian tribes, and most of those are only a fraction of their former glory. One of the Indian tribes that have managed to hang around are the Apache Indians. The Apache have had perhaps one of the most trying existences, yet they have survived to hurdle over all obstacles. This is a reflection on the strength of their character and shows the durability of the people.
Although the Apache people have lived in what we know as the United States for the past few hundred years, they originated from the northwestern corner or North America, the western Subarctic region of Alaska and Canada. The Apaches actually broke away from the Athabascan speaking tribe of Canada and were the first band to migrate as early as AD 850. The Apache were used to living in mountainous areas and followed the Rocky Mountain range down to the Southwest U.S. in about 1500. Food in the Subarctic region wasn’t very dependable; the climate didn’t allow for too much agriculture and the availability of game varied with the seasons and climate. In order to survive the Apache had to constantly move from place to place and this characteristic of the tribe continued with them even after they migrated south.

Early Apache hunted buffalo and other wild game and followed them around the Southwest and the Great Plains. Other factors of their economy were seed and fruit gathering, the sale and trade of livestock, and farming to some degree. The tribes of the Southwest were very nomadic and seemed unwilling to farm and settle down into permanent communities. Although the western Jicarilla tribe, one of the exceptions, survived mainly on farming and hunting, most Apaches were constantly moving around in small bands surviving on game, whatever vegetation was around, and
the spoils captured in raids on other Indians, wagon trains, and settlers.

As the Comanches moved onto the buffalo hunting grounds, they pushed the Apache south, causing them to lose their main food source and to rely more heavily upon raiding, trading, and farming. Raiding had been something the Apache had only done once in awhile but now that they couldn’t hunt buffalo any longer raiding became necessary for their survival. The hostility between the Apache and the Spanish settlers increased when New Mexico became a Spanish colony. Because of Spanish interference the Apache relied more heavily upon other food sources and they would raid other tribes or Spanish settlers to get the supplies and food they couldn’t acquire on their own. Raiding other people, whether Indian or European, became a major part of the Apache survival. When the Apache raided other groups they didn’t stick to just crops, they also took livestock which they later sold; this became the main source of income for most Apaches. Because not everyone owned cattle to sell or trade there were members of the tribe who were poor, though they were never in any danger of starving to death. A tribal fund was usually created so that the less fortunate members of the tribe would still be able to survive even though they had no cattle.

More European settlers meant more changes to the Apache way of life. As the flow of immigrants increased, the Apache’s freedom to live as they had been living for hundreds of years diminished. European settlers were part of the cause behind the Apache’s dependence on raiding as a major part of their economy, and they were also the reason the why the Apache stopped. After the U.S. Military defeated Geronimo of the Apaches in the Indian Wars begining in 1848, the raiding economy ceased to exist. Geronimo, along with many other Apaches, was sent to a reservation in Florida; later the reservation was moved to Mt. Vernon, Alabama and Fort Sill,
Oklahoma after that. Geronimo has been refered to as Chief of the Apache, although he never was Chief!

When the Apache were herded onto reservations by the U.S. army their whole lifestyle was completely changed. Once they had been able to live off of natural resources and didn’t have to farm to survive. Now that they were confined to these desolate reservations they were forced to stick to farming and livestock trading in order to feed their families. They still supported each other with the tribal fund but conditions weren’t as beneficial as before and the community as a whole began to suffer. The government didn’t give much help as they has promised they would and the Apache couldn’t do much to help themselves as long as they were being kept within the reservations. In fact, what little land they got in the first place grew smaller over time because as soon as precious minerals or ideal grazing land was discovered on reservation land that land was either taken away, moved, or drastically reduced. The Apache were very proud of their heritage and were among the last of the Indians of North America to accept the customs and lifestyles of the white man. All the change the Apache had gone through was without the “educational advantage of their white neighbor.”

It’s just been recently that the Apache have been adapting to modern world and accepting some of the “whiteman’s” ideas. Although life on the reservations is now a little easier than when the Apache first moved to these designated lands, a very big majority of the Indians are still living in poverty and unemployment is no stranger. This does not mean that the Apache are still farmers trading livestock with one another. In fact the Jicarilla Apache tribe owns thousands sheep, a large number of horses, and fewer cattle and earn a lot of income from wool sales. They also get a pretty big amount of revenue from hundreds of oil and gas wells on the reservation. There are also the White Mountain Apaches in Arizona who run the Sunrise Ski Resort and the Fort Apache Timber Company; then there’s the family operated ranch that provides game hunting on the Mescalera Apache reservation. There is a fraction of the Apache Indians who do manage to break out of poverty and carve out a good life for themselves but these few Indians don’t represent the rest of their tribe members.
Many would say that the future of the Apache Indians doesn’t look too bright but this is just the beginning, not the end. The Apache are strong people and although they are struggling now they will eventually begin to prosper. More kids are staying in school and learning the importance of an education and the result of that will show in future generations. People are finally beginning to recognize the some of the problems that these kids are having. Children on the reservations don’t take school seriously, they start drugs at a young age, some drop out of high school and not many move on to college. Kareem Abdul Jabbar is setting a great example for us all. He wants to see these kids doing better in school and he’s taking action. Kareem Abdul Jabbar agreed to coach basketball at the White Mountain Apache’s high school for the sky-high price of $1 a year. You see, he isn’t doing it for the money, he’s doing this because he realizes that these kids need some sort of motivation to keep them in school and he’s willing to give them that. With help like this the Apache people can make a better life for themselves, it’s just a matter of time. The Apache have been around for a long time and will continue to prosper for years to come despite what problems they may face.

According to the Hyde Amendment, the Indian Health Service (IHS) is required by law to provide abortion services to Native American women in need of abortions because of rape, incest and life endangerment. However, IHS facilities have only provided 25 abortions in the past 20 years, according to IHS statistics. Meanwhile, Native American women are victims of rape at a rate that is three and a half times higher than women of all other races in this country, according to the Native American Women’s Health Education Resource Center.

“Twenty-five in 20 years is obviously a contradiction of the number of violent crimes committed against indigenous women.” Charyn Asetoyer, who is a member of the Yankton-Sioux tribe in South Dakota says. “When a woman is turned down for rape, incest and life endangerment a law is being broken. (IHS) needs to be held accountable.”

Asetoyer noted that many doctors who work on the Indian reservations tend to be from Catholic nations such as Puerto Rico and are either ideologically opposed to abortion or have not received training in reproductive healthcare. Many doctors refuse to provide emergency contraception and no IHS facility provides "mifepristone" for early medical abortion.

“Those individuals are choosing to interpret the Hyde amendment as they see fit and no one is overseeing them,” Asetoyer said.

Asetoyer hopes to convince a pro-choice lawmaker to sponsor a bill that would require IHS to follow the dictates of the Hyde Amendment. Ultimately, she would like to see the US do away with the restrictions imposed by Congress on abortion services to low income women through the Hyde Amendment.

“We haven’t even aspired to the provisions of the Hyde Amendment,” she said. “We’re the only group in the US denied abortion services solely on the basis of our race.”

In 1978, the Supreme Court ruled in Oliphant v. the Suquamish Indian Tribe that tribal governments have no criminal jurisdiction over non-Indians. When a crime is committed, tribal police and their non-Indian counterparts must hash out whether the suspect is Indian or not.

Amnesty International's study was carried out in 2005 and 2006, drawing on victim interviews, questionnaires submitted to law enforcement officials such as police and prosecutors, and numerous reports. More than 86 percent of rapes against Native American women are carried out by non-native men, most of them white, according to the Justice Department.

The legal issues involved strike non-legal me as confusing and, in some cases, downright perverse. What earthly reason is there for making the question whether tribal police can arrest a suspect depend on that suspect's ethnicity? If the suspect won't tell, do the police have to wait for some sort of evidence of ethnicity before making an arrest? As far as I can tell, the case that established this peculiar principle, Oliphant v. Suquamish Indian Tribe, wasn't based on positive law, but on the absence of any explicit provision, combined with various treaties, etc., that led the Court to assume that Congress must have assumed that tribes lack jurisdiction over non-members. If so, Congress should rectify this by creating some system that actually makes sense. In addition, of course, we should fund the Indian Health Service adequately. We should also fully fund the Violence Against Women Act, which includes money for battered women's services on Native American reservations.