Was the Native American genocide necessary for the growth and expansion of the United States?

Answer 1

This is almost a "have you stopped beating your wife" question. You assume that what happened to the Native Americans is correctly characterized as "genocide".

Note the definition of this word at dictionary.com (others are similar):"the DELIBERATE and SYSTEMATIC extermination of a national, racial, political, or cultural group"

Were great wrongs done to Native Americans? Yes indeed. Were many unujustly killed? Sadly true. But the charge of genocide is totally unwarranted. There was nothing planned, deliberate, systematic about what happened.

For example, one of the greatest killers of Native Americans was Europeans DISEASES to which they had not developed immunity (and which the Europeans had only developed over several centuries, through some plagues that decimated THEIR population). But with perhaps one or two odd exceptions there is NO evidence that Europeans ever undertook a PLANS to wipe out the Native American population by exposing them to disease. (And, on the other side, there are some tremendously heroic stories of the lengths to which some went to try, for example, to provide them with inocculations).

So please, before you ask the question, get your facts and terms straight. If you wish to ask whether the various U.S. actions against Native Americans --from warfare to driving them west to placing them on reservations-- were "necessary", that's a fair question. To that I would have to say, 'No, it was not'. And there were always some citizens of the U.S. (though not enough) who opposed various governmental actions such as the forced removal of Indians (again, note that removal to other lands is NOT "genocide").

By the way, in discussing the "Native Americans" it is not helpful to consider them as one monolithic block. The fact is there were many different groups --and their different responses to each other and to various European groups paints a much more complex picture than you are suggesting. To start with, we should observe that some tribes were peaceful and others quite warlike, even vicious (e.g., the Iroquious, who were engaged in savage warfare against other natives before any white man showed up). To move further south, the Aztec and Mayan civilizations could be brutal.

In fact, treating ANY group of people as ALL good and innocent victims distorts human history, and does a disservice to those who truly are victims. In EVERY area there are both good AND bad. No reasonable assessment can be made until this is recognized.

The causes of various interactions between European settlers and Native American groups is also complex -- a whole variety of factors on both sides...fear, misunderstanding, different ideas about land 'ownership'... must be considered. (I'd suggest starting by studying some of the EARLY interactions and earliest problems that developed, e.g., the events leading up to King Phillip's War in New England, and the fear, tensions, etc. that came out of it.)

Answer 2

Genocide never serves a valid purpose and is never necessary to achieve a positive end. It is usually a horribly misguided policy that does far more harm than good.

That said, many of the early leaders of colonial America did believe that pushing the Native Americans far away from the towns and cities WAS necessary for the growth of the US. Among the most prominent was Ben Franklin. In the early colonial times as many as 50% of the people who migrated here from Europe left the cities and towns to go live with the Indians. Franklin believed that this would eventually cause the colonization efforts to fail and he advocated doing almost anything necessary to push the Indians away.

Answer 3

Is never justified, just look around you and the destruction with our youth! The destruction of our natural resources, the dying of ourselves! Is never ever justified!!!

Answer 4

I dont think the killing of people are "necessary".

Answer 5

Who said we've grown?