Eric Vandebroeck 2 October 2007

The Scandal of the Indigenous Boarding Schools Part Two of Five

Violent Occupations

Initial encounters with indigenous peoples were generally cloaked in surprise and uncertainty on both sides of the cultural frontier. Indigenous peoples did not know much about the newcomers and were mystified and intrigued by many aspects of the outsiders' material and social world. They were, on first sight, impressed with the technologies of ocean navigation and combat, although they subsequently discovered that the loud and frightening guns and cannons were less threatening than initially assumed. They did not initially understand the imperatives of international trade and commerce, however experienced they were at more localized trades, for the imperatives of sedentary and specialized societies bore little resemblance to their own ways of addressing personal and collective needs.

The newcomers were likewise somewhat daunted by what they saw. The majestic buildings of some of the newly encountered peoples - the Chinese, Japanese, Thais, Inca, and Aztecs - startled outsiders who were used to seeing their societies as being at the forefront of innovation, high culture, and social organization. The lack of rigidity among the indigenous peoples - who followed mobile lives, occupied temporary structures, and appeared without cultural or religious form - bewildered the outsiders, who subsequently assigned them to the bottom rung of the ladder of humanity. Facial markings, clothing (or lack thereof), semipermanent housing, and the other accoutrements of indigenous cultures were baffling, off-putting to most, curious to some, and to all further proof of the depravity and lack of "civilization" on the part of the original peoples. Add to this confusing array of images, social realities, and the many nuances of new lands -jungles, open plains, rich marine environments, barren Arctic or desert territories - and one can better understand the difficulties that the newcomers had in characterizing or placing the indigenous peoples.

Misunderstanding was a common element in the outbreak of hostilities. Newcomers misunderstood indigenous ceremonies, intentions, or curiosity. They responded, in many instances, with violent outbursts. Aboriginal peoples, likewise, often reacted out of anger, disbelief, and worry, attack­ing the newcomers whom they viewed as a major and mysterious threat.

The Jarawas of the Andaman Islands, for example, have long used unpro­voked attacks on outsiders to keep people off of their territories. Violence often generated additional confrontation. An attack, provoked or other­wise, by indigenous peoples convinced the newcomers of the brutality and untrustworthiness of the original inhabitants. A comparable attack on an individual or a community by newcomers - and the soldiers, sailors, traders, and miners who represented the vanguard of the colonial powers were not noted for their caution and carefulness - demonstrated to the aboriginal peoples that the outsiders were brutal, barbaric, and not to be trusted. Fundamental misunderstandings at the initial stages of contact could, and did, shape relations for generations, with the memories of the conflicts lingering in community consciousness through to the present.

Memories lingered, too, of the brutality and violence associated with the initial expansion of Europeans into indigenous territories. The Devastation of the Indies by Bartolomé de Las Casas created a sensation when it was published in 1522 and was quickly translated and circulated around Europe, largely because of its frank and disturbing descriptions of European actions in the Caribbean:

And the Christians attacked them with buffets and beatings, until finally they laid hands on the nobles of the villages. Then they behaved with such temer­ity and shamelessness that the most powerful ruler of the islands had to see his own wife raped by a Christian officer. From that time onward the Indians began to seek ways to throw the Christians out of their lands. They took up arms, but their weapons were very weak and of little service in offense and still less in defense ... . And the Christians, with their horses and swords and pikes began to carry out massacres and strange cruelties against them. They attacked the towns and spared neither the children nor the aged nor preg­nant women nor women in childbed, not only stabbing them and dismem­bering them but cutting them to pieces as if dealing with sheep in the slaughter house. They laid bets as to who, with one stroke of the sword, could split a man in two or could cut off his head or spill out his entrails with a single stroke of a pike. They took infants from their mothers' breasts, snatching them by the legs and pitching them headfirst against the crags or snatched them by the arms and threw them into the rivers, roaring with laughter and saying as the babies fell into the water, "Boil there, you offspring of the devil." ... They made some low wide gallows on which the hanged victim's feet almost touched the ground, stringing up their victims in lots of thirteen, in memory of Our Redeemer and His Twelve Apostles, and then set burning wood at their feet and thus burned them alive ... With still others, all those they wanted to capture alive, they cut off their hands and hung them round the victim's neck, saying, "Go now, carry the message," meaning, Take the news to the Indians who have fled to the mountains.(1)

The viciousness - degrading, demoralizing, and destructive - spread throughout the region and reappeared in numerous sites in indigenousnewcomer contact around the world.

In many situations, misunderstanding was not required; the actions and attitudes of the newcomers provided sufficient spark for a wave of bitter and destructive conflict. The outsiders came into new lands with specific objectives. Whether their goal was the pursuit of wealth, military/strategic advantage, or simply the assertion of political dominance, they often used violence as an initial means of establishing their place in the New World. The Europeans, in particular, came confident of their superiority and found great solace in the reaction of the indige­nous peoples to their military technology. Guns, cannons, and iron tools proved of enormous benefit in conflicts with rivals whose weaponry was made out of wood, flint, or bone. Personal imperatives - the desire of a military leader for fame, wealthy, glory, or God's blessing - pushed many outsiders to move aggressively against the typically smaller and less prepared indigenous populations.

The pursuit of slaves motivated Europeans to expand aggressively in Africa and created a foundation for the military conflict which shaped the history of the continent. As recent scholarship has demonstrated, the dynamics of the slave trade within Africa played a major role in determining how this industry and this wave of European domination developed. African tribes raided each other, trading the human spoils of war to outsiders. These internal conflicts, which in turn reflected age-old rivalries, increased in bitterness and intensity in the face of external markets and the seemingly insatiable demand for men, women, and children to fill the holds of slave ships heading for Europe and North, South, and Central America. Europeans moved into the midst of these internal conflicts, using their military prowess and economic might to expand a hitherto small trade into a global exchange network. There were similar experiences in other regions. The Agta of the Philippines had troubles with slave traders well before Spanish colonization brought even more disruptive changes, as did the Batek with the Malays.

Few episodes in world history have matched the African slave trade for brutality and scope. Hundreds of thousands of tribal peoples were captured, transferred within Africa, sold to outsiders, and transported to markets in Europe and the New World. Thousands upon thousands perished in the initial conflicts, were killed on the tragic marches to coastal ports, or perished during inhumane journeys to the slave markets. Many more thousands died at the hands of slave owners or from the punishing cruelty of the plantations. While a great deal is known about the institution of slavery and its manifestations in Europe and the Americas, much less has been written about the impact of slavery on the tribal societies of Africa. Hundreds of indigenous cultures lost many of their people to the slave traders, and suffered from the pain and collec­tive dislocation which_ followed. Entire regions - the Congo being the best example - were devastated by the rapaciousness of the Europeans. King Leopold of Belgium, for example, launched a malicious and aggressive campaign against the people of his colony in the Congo, aimed at both personal aggrandisement and the creation of wealth for the home country. While the origins of slavery clearly involved inter-African rivalries, raids, and violence, the escalation of the trade to meet the manpower needs of Europe and the Americas brought sweeping changes throughout the continent. More expansively, the institutions of slavery and the racial assumptions which underpinned the demoralizing structures based on notions of civilization and ethnic dominance established a pattern of control, racism, and poverty which the passage of several centuries has not yet erased.

Africa was not the only place where newcomers became embroiled in the intricacies of indigenous rivalries and territorial conflicts. Most famously, the Aztecs had dominated the smaller societies in their region for several generations. Economic and social pressures, including the Aztec need for thousands of human sacrifices each year (the degree of which remains a matter of intense and continuing scholarly debate) resulted in the Aztecs exerting their dominance over surrounding soci­eties. These peoples came under Aztec military control, but had not internalized their allegiance to this aggressive, centralizing power. When the Spaniards arrived under Hernan Cortez in 1518-19, they encoun­tered an Aztec empire in considerable disarray. The smaller peoples rallied around the newcomers and aided them in their subsequent con­flict with the Aztecs. The newcomers were strange and small in number. But the weaker peoples of the Aztec empire counted on the Spaniards' technological superiority - firearms, gunpowder, horses, and other armaments - to topple a much-hated regime. Indigenous accounts of the Spaniards aggressiveness in battle captured the frightful brutality of the initial conflicts:

And when this had been done, thereupon they entered the temple courtyard to slay them. Those who task it was to slay them went only afoot, each with his leather shield, some, each one, with his iron-studded shield, and each with his iron sword. Thereupon they surrounded the dancers. Thereupon they went among the drums. Then they struck the drummer's arms; they severed both his hands; then they struck his neck. Far off did his neck [and head] go to fall. Then they pierced the people with iron lances and they struck them each with iron swords. Of some they slashed open their backs; then their entrails gushed out. Of some they cut their heads; their heads were absolutely pulverized. And some they struck on the shoulder; they split openings, they broke openings in their bodies. Of some they struck repeatedly in the shanks; of some they struck repeatedly the thighs; of some they struck the belly; then their entrails gushed forth. And when in vain one would run, he would only drag his intestines like something raw as he tried to escape. Nowhere could he go. And him who tried to go out they there struck; they stabbed him ... For this reason were the Mexicans very angry; because [the Spaniards] had completely annihilated the brave warriors; without warning them they had slain them by treachery.(2)

The original people, even if they were pleased to see Montezuma dis­placed, did not anticipate - and tew peoples have had the prescience to anticipate the multi-generational impact of initial developments - that the Spaniards would come in large numbers, establish dominance overall peoples and, long after the Aztec had been vanquished, rule the indigenous societies with an iron hand.

Newcomers represented an additional element within complex social, economic, and strategic indigenous relationships. It is hardly surprising that the indigenous peoples sought to use the outsiders to their advan­tage whenever possible. They tried, where they could, to align the new­comers within their political and territorial agendas. Many used alliances and treaties to solidify - or so they thought - these relationships. Early decisions, including the manner in which the First Nations in Eastern North America aligned themselves with the English, French, Spanish, or Dutch, proved to have lasting significance, depending on the success of their colonial ally in defending their space and authority on the continent. Maori military leaders likewise sought to entwine British officials in longstanding local conflicts, as did African peoples in the messy and complicated colonial apportionment of Africa.

Colonial powers were not averse to shooting indigenous people in large numbers. In the initial years of contact, small displays of technological superiority, as with Cortez and the Aztec, could be successful. Over time, larger armies, well-armed and carefully supplied, were required to ensure success against determined foes. They resisted Japanese incursions into Hokkaido, with major conflicts at Kosyamain in 1457, Syaksyain in 1669, and Kunasiri-Menasi in 1789. They managed to slow, but not stop, the Japanese advance into their territories. Their population declined steadily from almost 24,000 in 1804 to less than 19,000 seventy years later. By the early 1870s, the Japanese population on Hokkaido had soared to over 150,000 (and by 1970, the Ainu people counted less than 20,000 while there were over five million Japanese). The Russia expansion into Siberia and Central Europe was marked by the repeated use of military force and, in several instances, the destruction of communities. The Cossacks moved aggressively across indigenous lands, terrorizing the peo­ple and generating a strong antipathy toward the newcomers.

Ferocious battles erupted in Central and South America, and along the eastern seaboard of North America. A chilling description of the Dutch attacks on Indians in the region provides a sense of the intense violence of the occupation:

After midnight, I heard a great shrieking, and I ran to the ramparts of the fort, and looked over to Pavonia. Saw nothing but firing, and heard the shrieks of Indians murdered in their sleep ... When it was day the soldiers returned to the fort, having massacred or murdered eighty Indians, and con­sidering they had done a deed of Roman valour, in murdering so many in their sleep; where infants were torn from their mother's breasts, and hacked to pieces in the presence of the parents, and the pieces thrown into the fire and in the water, and other sucklings being bound to small boards, and then cut, stuck, and pierced, and miserably massacred in a manner to move a heart of stone. Some were thrown into the river, and when the fathers and mothers endeavoured to save them, the soldiers would not let them come to land, but made both parents and children drown - children from five to six years of age, and also some old and decrepit persons. Many fled from this scene, and concealed themselves in the neighbouring sedge, and when it was morning, came out to beg a piece of bread, and to be permitted to warm themselves; but they were murdered in cold blood and tossed into the water. Some came by our lands in the country with their hands, some with their legs cut off, and some holding their entrails in their arms, and others had such horrible cuts, and gashes, that worse than they were could never happen.(3)

There was considerable duplicity as well. According to one analyst, "The English in 1623 negotiated a treaty with rebellious tribes in the Potomac River area. After a toast was drunk symbolizing eternal friendship, the Chiskiack chief and his sons, advisers, and followers, totalling two hun­dred, abruptly dropped dead from poisoned sack, and soldiers put the. remainder out of their misery."(4)

The battles across North America continued. The Pequot War (1636-37) and King Philip's War (1675-76) in New England devastated numerous Indian communities, who responded to the brutal attacks by using guerrilla warfare tactics. The Indians then found themselves drawn into the equally ferocious English-French conflicts, suffering sig­nificant losses in an almost continuous series of raids and wars. Conflict with the settlers erupted again in 1763 during Pontiac's Rebellion and the aboriginal attack on Detroit. With the defeat of the French and the occupation of Quebec, British settlers again pushed westward, sparking conflicts over land and resources with the original inhabitants. Warrior chiefs like Little Turtle and Tecumseh led the resistance against the intruders, but the hope of holding back the settlers disappeared after Tecumseh's loss to the Americans in 1811 and the defeat of the Creek Indians in the south in 1814. There were a few armed conflicts in the east after this time, particularly involving the Seminoles of Florida, but the authority of government and the preeminence of the settlers had been firmly established by this time.

Indigenous peoples learned quickly from these conflicts, many of which reduced their settlements to smouldering embers and left many dead and wounded. Historian Francis Jennings, reflecting on the expe­riences of the pivotal Pequot War, wrote that the Indians took three main lessons from the conflict. First, they realized that the firm promises and formal commitments of the British could not be relied upon to protect their communities from attack. They discovered, to their dismay, that British military tactics had little place for mercy or compassion and that the battles, once launched, would be total assaults on Indian peoples. Finally, they discovered that traditional Indian weapons and tactics had little chance against the military hardware, tactics, and bloodthirstiness of the newcomers. Not only did the Pequot and their neighbors learn these hard-won and painful lessons, but indigenous peoples far removed from the eastern battlefields found out through trading and social contacts about the vicious and brutal British tactics. Hardly surprisingly, indigenous communities readied themselves for bitter and lengthy conflicts, based on a fundamental distrust for the integrity and reliability of the British state and armed forces.

The most famous indigenous-newcomer conflicts, memorialized in movies, television programs and novels, involved the western expansion of the United States during the nineteenth century. The American West earned its reputation for conflict and brutality. The seemingly inexorable expansion of the settlement frontier, combined with the aggressive actions of miners and the steady mid-nineteenth-century destruction of the buffalo herds, brought conflict between the indigenous peoples and newcomers. The United States army clearly took sides, defending the settlers' and miners' interests, even when these encroached on Indian territory and rights, and working to keep supply lines open to the far west. In a lengthy series of conflicts through the 1850s and 1860s, the United States defeated such groups as the Apache, Kiowa, and Cheyenne. Some of the attacks, like the massacre of the Cheyenne at Sand Creek in 1864, were particularly brutal and soured relations between newcomers and Indians for generations.

The determination and military prowess of the Apache, Comanche, Cheyenne, and Nez Perce struck fear into the hearts of western migrants, who believed that the land and its resources were theirs for the taking. Leaders like Sitting Bull, Geronimo, Crazy Horse, and others became internationally famous for their battles with the US army. The famous Battle of the Little Big Horn, which saw Sitting Bull's Sioux warriors annihilate the 7th Calvary under Lt. Col. George Armstrong Custer in 1876, highlighted the Indians' military ability. Sitting Bull and his people, however, fled to Canada to escape retribution, only to return in despair and hunger five years later. Across the military frontier,indigenous peoples faced attacks against villages (including several bloody massacres), entrapment on small and ill-suited reservations, poor food, and government determination to keep them under control. The Nez Perce fought a bitter and lengthy war for independence in 1877, and were chased hundreds of miles across the west before being forced to surrender and be spilt up by American authorities. The sur­render of Geronimo and the Apache in 1886 and the bitter conflict with the Sioux at Wounded Knee that same year signalled the military demise of the Indian fighters on the plains.

Similar conflicts erupted in other regions. The Mapuche of southern Chile waged a long and bitter campaign against the Spaniards, holding them at bay for years through the successful application of the tactics of guerrilla warfare. In New Zealand, wars between the British and the Maori broke out several times during the nineteenth century, with major conflicts in 1845-47, 1860-61, and 1863-66. Although the British forces ultimately prevailed, the military prowess and determination of the Maori made it clear to the colonial authorities that a struggle to the end would result in major losses and great hardship. The larger, well-organized tribes of Africa, particularly in the southern part of the conti­nent, represented a major threat to the newcomers. Several major tribal wars, including the famous battle with the Zulu at Isandhlwana, which demonstrated to a surprised western world both the scale of indigenous organization and their fury at the colonial intrusion, established a socio-military framework for subsequent relations on the continent.

The military conflicts were not always one-sided. In some instances, indigenous peoples used their superior knowledge of local conditions to harass and overcome intended invasions. Military tactics better suited to specific geographical and climatic situations also helped aboriginal warriors to fight against the newcomers. The Maori pa or fortifications, for example, proved to be a formidable barrier to British armed forces sent to establish authority over New Zealand. In what New Zealand historians call the First Taranaki War, Maori leader Te Rangitake led a concerted campaign against the British, who seemed determined to take over Maori land. While the British prevailed, the Maori provided to be formidable foes. In North America, Iroquis, Huron, and Algonquin fighters used the guerrilla-like tactics of the forest to inflict considerable damage on British, French, and Dutch troops trained to operate in the "civilized" open field warfare of Europe. Although the final struggles involving the Métis (people of mixed French and indigenous ancestry) in Canada were of comparatively minor scale, the well-trained Métis fighters resisted a substantially larger Canadian force during the 1885 Rebellion before succumbing to the Canadian troops.

In many parts of the world, living in undesirable, inhospitable or inaccessible territories was the only real protection from newcomer invasion and occupations. The 'Ibba of northern Argentina inhabited land that was initially of little interest to newcomers. Left substantially alone, they devel­oped a strong horse-based culture and found themselves in a lengthy struggle with the authorities and, after 1880, settlers and developers. Other groups, particularly the Tehuelche and Puelche, stood in the way of Argentinian exploitation of the Pampas. They were quickly shouldered aside militarily. The indigenous peoples of the North American sub-Arctic experienced little military intervention due to the limited interest in their lands before the twentieth century, when administrative and legislative tools were available to move the original inhabitants off their lands.

Through the course indigenous peoples dis newcomers' military the horse, were adopte the invaders. In other colonial power provide measures against the n soldiers, farmsteads.

Through the course of many conflicts in lands around the world, indigenous peoples discovered both the strengths and limitations of the newcomers' military system. Some elements, such as the use of the horse, were adopted by indigenous groups and soon used against the invaders. In other instances, trading activities with enemies of the colonial power provided the armaments necessary for strong countermeasures against the newcomers. Guerrilla tactics, with small groups of soldiers, farmsteads, and isolated communities singled out for strategic strikes, were implemented with great effectiveness in many parts of the world - all the more successful because the evident brutality of the attacks coincided with the newcomers' fears and assumptions about the original peoples. The prospect for retribution was also considerable. When a newcomer was killed at Coniston Station in the Australian out­back in 1928, the government launched an attack on the Warlpiri which killed between 30 and 100 people. It was only one of many such revenge attacks designed to keep the indigenous communities in line.

The greatest military conflicts - and the ones which appear to have defined for all time the images and assumptions about many indigenous groups - were tied to newcomer attempts to occupy the land for the pur­poses of settlement. So long as contact was limited to traders, govern­ment officials, and soldiers, 'conflicts were generally strategic and political in nature. Once settlers arrived on the scene, conditions changed rapidly. Governments mustered armies to defend the colonial settlers. Indigenous peoples, for their part, now witnessed for the first time the scale, permanence, and impact of the colonizers' occupation. The desire to oust newcomers from traditional territories was very strong, and resulted in bitter and ferocious struggles. The settlers, aware of the economic and social potential of the various "new worlds" they had encountered, were just as determined to hold onto to the land and opportunity they had been granted by government or had simply taken as their right.

Settlement frontiers were only rarely compatible with indigenous habitation, and the resulting moving line of occupation became a battleground between world views and assumptions about land ownership. The most famous struggles occurred in the east coast colonies of British North America, and then proceeded as the voracious and land-hungry settlers of the newly formed United States of America headed further west. Earlier, the establishment of Spanish and Portuguese control of Central and South America required the dispossession and removal of large numbers of indigenous peoples and their replacement by large commercial land owners. Very often, the contest over land ownership and use erupted into battles and guerrilla wars. The arrival of large numbers of settlers in South Africa, New Zealand and, to a lesser extent, Australia, touched off a variety of local military and police conflicts, most of them ending at considerable cost to the indigenous peoples.

Colonial governments felt compelled to support their settlers, even if the latter had moved in violation of treaties or had undertaken unau­thorized expansions onto indigenous lands. They mobilized armies to protect the settlers, established fortified posts to assert their political and military authority, and unleashed their soldiers and sailors on the indigenous peoples if they felt that the settlement frontier was being threatened. The compulsion to protect their settlers meant that the indigenous peoples could count on very little protection from the government and armies, even in the face of misdeeds and malfeasance on the part of the newcomers.

The military conflicts took their toll. Rarely were the indigenous peoples able to repulse the newcomers entirely. Short-term victories were often followed by large-scale attacks and even military occupations. Some groups could and did flee into inhospitable terrain, using geog­raphy to keep the invaders at bay. But the scale and technological strength of the newcomers' armies generally wore the indigenous resisters down over time. Chief Joseph of the Nez Perce provided one of the most classic statements of resignation and despair when he said:

I am tired of fighting. Our chiefs are killed. Looking Glass is dead. lbohulsote is dead. The old men are all dead. It is the young men who say no and yes. He who led the young men is dead. It is cold and we have no blan­kets. The little children are freezing to death. My people, some of them, have run away to the hills and have no blankets, no food. No one knows where they are - perhaps they are freezing to death. I want to have time to look for my children and see how many of them I can find. Maybe I shall find them among the dead. Hear me, my chiefs, I am tired. My heart is sad and sick. From where the sun now stands I will fight no more forever.(5) 

 

For updates click homepage here