Lably
Skip to content

Genocide of indigenous peoples

Elimination of indigenous inhabitants

  • 63 min read
  • 8 chapters

Related on Lably

Through Indigenous peoples, Colonialism and Settler colonialism

According to certain genocide experts, including Raphael Lemkin – who coined the term Genocide – colonialism is intimately connected with genocide. Lemkin saw genocide as a two-stage process: (1) the destruction of the targeted group's way of life, followed by (2) the perpetrators' imposition of their own national pattern. Other scholars view genocide as associated with but distinct from settler colonialism. The expansion of various Western European colonial powers such as the British and Spanish empires and the subsequent establishment of colonies on indigenous territories frequently involved acts of genocidal violence against indigenous groups in Europe, the Americas, Africa, Asia, and Oceania.

The designation of specific events as genocidal is frequently controversial. Lemkin originally intended a broad definition that encompassed colonial violence, but in order to pass the 1948 Genocide Convention, he narrowed his definition to physical and biological destruction (as opposed to cultural genocide) and added the requirement of genocidal intent. Although some scholars use the Genocide Convention definition, others have "criticized [it] as a highly flawed law for its overemphasis on intent, the imprecision of a key phrase 'destruction in whole or in part', and the narrow exclusivity of the groups protected"—factors which reduce its applicability to anti-indigenous violence.

Genocide debate

The determination of whether a historical event should be considered a genocide is a matter of scholarly debate. Issues of contention include what construes genocidal intent and whether or not cultural destruction (sometimes called cultural genocide or "ethnic cleansing") constitutes genocide.

Some scholars narrowly define genocide so that it requires the intent to eliminate an entire group of people. Without this genocidal intent, a group or individual may commit "crimes against humanity" or "ethnic cleansing," but not genocide. Steven Katz defines genocide in the context of the Holocaust, arguing it requires the complete physical eradication of a group. He believes this distinguishes the Holocaust from other instances of violence against groups, including the genocide of Indigenous peoples.

Broader conceptions of genocide

Scholars focusing on genocides of Indigenous peoples criticize the view of the Holocaust as unique, arguing it diminishes the significance of Indigenous genocides, which are often seen as lesser or primitive and reinforce Eurocentrism. They believe this comparison undermines the moral standing of Indigenous survivors compared to Jewish survivors. There are differing views on genocide, with liberals focusing on intent and post-liberals on broader structural factors. Certain scholars and genocide experts draw on broader definitions of genocide such as Lemkin's, which considers colonialist violence against indigenous peoples inherently genocidal.

For Lemkin, genocide included all attempts to destroy a specific ethnic group, whether they are strictly physical, through mass killings, or whether they are strictly cultural or psychological, through oppression and through the destruction of indigenous ways of life.

A people group may continue to exist, but if it is prevented from perpetuating its group identity by prohibitions of its cultural and religious practices, practices which are the basis of its group identity, this may also be considered a form of genocide. Examples of this include the treatment of Tibetans and Uyghurs by the Government of China, the treatment of Native Americans by the United States Government, and the treatment of First Nations peoples by the Canadian government. Some modern scholars advocate for defining forcible assimilation, such as the Canadian residential schools, as genocide.

The concept of genocide was coined in 1944 by Raphael Lemkin:

New conceptions require new terms. By "genocide" we mean the destruction of a nation or of an ethnic group. This new word, coined by the author to denote an old practice in its modern development, is made from the ancient Greek word genos (race, tribe) and the Latin cide (killing), thus corresponding in its formation to such words as tyrannicide, homicide, infanticide, etc. Generally speaking, genocide does not necessarily mean the immediate destruction of a nation, except when accomplished by mass killings of all members of a nation. It is intended rather to signify a coordinated plan of different actions aiming at the destruction of essential foundations of the life of national groups, with the aim of annihilating the groups themselves. The objectives of such a plan would be the disintegration of the political and social institutions, of culture, language, national feelings, religion, and the economic existence of national groups, and the destruction of the personal security, liberty, health, dignity, and even the lives of the individuals belonging to such groups. Genocide is directed against the national group as an entity, and the actions involved are directed against individuals, not in their individual capacity, but as members of the national group.

Lemkin wrote: "Genocide has two phases: one, destruction of the national pattern of the oppressed group: the other, the imposition of the national pattern of the oppressor. This imposition, in turn, may be made upon the oppressed population which is allowed to remain, or upon the territory alone, after removal of the population and the colonization of the area by the oppressor's own nationals." Some genocide scholars separate the population declines of indigenous peoples which are due to disease from the genocidal aggression of one group towards another. Some scholars argue that an intent to commit a genocide is not needed, because a genocide may be the cumulative result of minor conflicts in which settlers, colonial agents or state agents perpetrate violent acts against minority groups. Others argue that the dire consequences of European diseases among many New World populations were exacerbated by different forms of genocidal violence, and they also argue that intentional deaths and unintentional deaths cannot easily be separated from each other. Some scholars regard the colonization of the Americas as genocide, since they argue it was largely achieved through systematically exploiting, removing and destroying specific ethnic groups, which would create environments and conditions for such disease to proliferate.

According to a 2020 study by Tai S. Edwards and Paul Kelton, recent scholarship shows "that colonizers bear responsibility for creating conditions that made natives vulnerable to infection, increased mortality, and hindered population recovery. This responsibility intersected with more intentional and direct forms of violence to depopulate the Americas... germs can no longer serve as the basis for denying American genocides."

Other scholars have said that the population decline cannot be explained by disease only. The vectors of death raised by displacement, warfare, slavery, and famine played an important role.

Ethnocide is a term also created by Lemkin in 1944, to describe the destruction of a people's culture. Lemkin did not see a clear distinction between ethnocide and genocide, both relating to the persecution of groups.

United Nations' definition of Genocide

The UN's 1948 definition, which is used in international law, is narrower than Lemkin's definition. Lemkin supported including cultural genocide in the Genocide Convention to protect groups tied to their culture. The term was excluded from the Genocide Convention due to objections from colonial states such as Australia, Canada, Sweden, the United Kingdom, and the United States. A draft by the UN Secretariat included a definition of cultural genocide, which encompassed acts intended to destroy a group's language, religion, or culture. The final version of Article 2 of the Genocide Convention did not mention cultural genocide. Instead, it included "forcible transfer of children from one group to another" as a punishable act.

According to the UN, for an act to be classified as genocide, it is essential to demonstrate that the perpetrators had a specific intent to physically destroy the group, in whole or in part, based on its real or perceived nationality, ethnicity, race, or religion. Intention to destroy the group's culture or intending to scatter the group does suffice. The following five acts comprise the physical element of the crime:

(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."

The United Nations' definition of genocide does not offer a broad enough explanation of all that goes into a genocide, especially in the case of indigenous peoples. The destruction of nonhuman animals, land, water, and other nonhuman beings constitute forms of genocide according to indigenous metaphysics.

Sign in to keep reading

7 more chapters are free with a Lably account.

More in History by topic