{[ promptMessage ]}

Bookmark it

{[ promptMessage ]}

AMST301.class24.Nov12.CloseofFrontier.Part2

AMST301.class24.Nov12.CloseofFrontier.Part2 - “Our Indian...

Info iconThis preview shows pages 1–6. Sign up to view the full content.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
Background image of page 1

Info iconThis preview has intentionally blurred sections. Sign up to view the full version.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
Background image of page 2
Background image of page 3

Info iconThis preview has intentionally blurred sections. Sign up to view the full version.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
Background image of page 4
Background image of page 5

Info iconThis preview has intentionally blurred sections. Sign up to view the full version.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
Background image of page 6
This is the end of the preview. Sign up to access the rest of the document.

Unformatted text preview: “Our Indian Wars Are Not Over Yet” Ten Ways to Interpret the War on Terror as a Frontier Conflict by John Brown The Global War on Terror (GWOT) is, like all historical events, unique. But both its supporters and opponents compare it to past US. military conflicts. The Bush administration and the neocons have drawn parallels between GWOT and World War II as well as GWOT and the Cold War. Joshua E. London, writing in the National Review, sees the War on Terror as a modern form of the struggle against the Barbary pirates. Vietnam and the Spanish-American War have been preferred analogies for other commentators. A Pulitzer-prize winning journalist, Anne Applebaum, says that the war in Iraq might be like that in Korea, because of "the ambivalence of their conclusions,“ For others, the War on Terror, with its loose rhetoric, brings to mind the "war on poverty" or the "war on drugs. " I'd like to suggest another way of looking at the War on Terror: as a twenty-first century continuation of, or replication of, the American Indian wars, on a global scale. This is by no means something that has occurred to me alone, but it has received relatively little attention. Here are ten reasons why I'm making this suggestion: 1. Key supporters of the War on Terror themselves see GWOT as an Indian war. Take, for example, the right-wing intellectuals Robert Kaplan and Max Boot who, although not members of the administration, also advocate a tough military stance against terrorists. In a Wall Street Journal article, "Indian Country," Kaplan notes that "an overlooked truth about the war on terrorism" is that "the American military is back to the days of fighting the Indians." Iraq, he notes, ”is but a microcosm of the earth in this regard." Kaplan has now put his thoughts into a book, Imperial Grunts: The American Military on the Ground, which President Bush read over the [Christmas/New Year’s] holidays. Kaplan points out that "'Welcome to Injun Countiy' was the refrain I heard from troops from Colombia to the Philippines, including Afghanistan and Iraq.... The War on Terrorism was really about taming the frontier." As for Max Boot, he writes, "‘small wars‘ -- fought by a small number of professional US. soldiers -- are much more typical of American history than are the handful of ‘total' wars that receive most of the public attention. Between 1800 and 1934, US. Marines staged 180 landings abroad. And that's not even counting the Indian wars the army was fighting every year until 1890.“ A key GWOT battlefield, Boot suggests, is Afghanistan, noting that "[i]f the past is any indication of the future, we have a lot more savage wars ahead." 2. The essential paradigm of the War on Terror —- us (the attacked) against them (the attackers) -- was no less essential to the mindset of white settlers regarding the Indians, starting at least from the 1622 Indian massacre of 347 people at Jamestown, Virginia. With rare exceptions, newly arrived Europeans and their descendants, as well as their leaders, saw Indians as mortal enemies who started the initial fight against them, savages with whom they could not co-exist. The Declaration of Independence condemned "the inhabitants of our frontiers, the merciless Indian Savages whose known rule of warfare, is an undistinguished destruction of all ages, sexes and conditions." When governor of Virginia (1780), Thomas Jefferson stated: “If we are to wage a campaign against these Indians the end proposed should be their extermination, or their removal beyond the lakes of the Illinois River. The same world would scarcely do for them and us." President Andrew Jackson, whose "unapologetic flexing of military migh " has been compared to George W. Bush's modus operandi, noted in his "Case for the Removal [of Indians] Act" (December 8, 1830): "What good man would prefer a country covered with forests and ranged by a few thousand savages to our extensive Republic, studded with cities, towns, and prosperous farms, embellished with all the improvements which art can devise or industry execute, . . . and filled with all the blessings of liberty, civilization, and religion?" Us vs. them is, of course, a feature of all wars, but the starkness of this dichotomy —- seen by GWOT supporters as a struggle between the civilized world and a global jihad -- is as strikingly apparent in the War on Terror as it was in the Indian Wars. 3. GWOT is based on the principle of preventive strike, meant to put off "potential, future and, therefore, speculative attacks" -— just as US. Army conflicts against the Indians often were. We have to get them before they get us -- such is the assumption behind both sets of wars. As Professor Jack D. Forbes wrote in a 2003 piece, "Old Indian Wars Dominate Bush Doctrines," in the Bay Mills News: "Bush has declared that the US will attack first before an ‘enemy' has the ability to act. This could, of course, be called ‘The Pearl Harbor strategy' since that is precisely what the Japanese Empire did. But it also has precedents against First American nations. For example, William Henry Harrison, under pressure from Thomas Jefferson to get the American Nations out of the Illinois-Indiana region, marched an invading army to the vicinity of a Native village at Tippecanoe precisely when he knew that [Shawnee war chief and pan-tribal political leader] Tecumseh was on a tour of the south and wes ." 4. While U. S. mainstream thinking about GWOT enemies is that they are total aliens -- in religion, politics, economics, and social organization -- there are Americans who believe that individuals in these "primitive" societies can eventually become assimilated and thus be rendered harmless through training, education, or democratization. This is similar to the View among American settlers that in savage Indian tribes hostile to civilization, there were some that could be evangelized and Christianized and brought over to the morally right, Godly side. Once "Americanized," former hostile groups, with the worst among them exterminated, can no longer pose any threat and indeed can assist in the prolongation of conflicts against remaining evil-doers. 5. GWOT is fought abroad, but it‘s also a war at home, as the creation after 9/11 of a Department of Homeland Security illustrates. The Indian wars were domestic as well, carried out by the US. military to protect American settlers against hostile non-US. citizens living on American soil. (It was not until June 2, 1924 that Congress granted citizenship to all Native Americans born in the United States.) While engaged in the Indian wars, the US. fought on its own, without the help of foreign governments; such has essentially been the case with GWOT, despite the support of a few countries like Israel, the creation of a weak international "coalition" in Iraq, and NATO participation in Afghanistan operations. 6. America's close partner Israel, which over the years has taken over Arab-populated lands and welcomes U. S. immigrants, can be considered as a kind of surrogate United States in this struggle. Expanding into the Middle East, the Israelis could be seen as following the example of the American pioneers who didn't let Indians stand in their way as they settled, with the support of the US. military, an entire continent, driven by the conviction that they were supported by God, the Bible, and Western civilization. "1 shall need," wrote Thomas Jefferson, "the favor of that Being in whose hands we are, who led our fathers, as Israel of old, from their native land and planted them in a country flowing with all the necessities and comforts of life." Less eloquently, Ariel Sharon put it this way: "Everything that's grabbed will be in our hands. Everything we don't grab will be in their hands. " 7. As for the current states that are major battlefields of GWOT, Afghanistan and Iraq, it appears that the model for their future, far from being functional democracies, is that of Indian reservations. It is not unlikely that the fi'agile political structures of these states will sooner or later collapse, and the resulting tribal/ethnic entities will be controlled -- assuming the US. proves willing to engage in the long-term garrisoning in each area -- by American forces in fortified bases, as was the case with the Indian territories in the Far West. Areas under American control will provide US. occupiers with natural resources (e. g., oil), and American business -- if the security situation becomes manageable -- will doubtless be lured there in search of economic opportunities. Interestingly, the area outside of the Green Zone in Baghdad (where Americans have fortified themselves) is now referred to as the Red Zone -- terrorist-infested territory as dangerous to non-natives as the lands inhabited by the Redskins were to Whites during the Indian wars. 8. The methods employed by the U. S. in GWOT and the Indian wars are similar in many respects: using superior technology to overwhelm the "primitive" enemy; adapting insurgency tactics, even the most brutal ones, used by the opposing side when necessary; and collaborating with "the enemy of my enemy" in certain situations (that is, setting one tribe against another). What are considered normal rules of war have frequently been irrelevant for Americans in both conflicts, given their certainty that their enemies are evil and uncivilized. The use of torture is also a feature of these two conflicts. 9. As GWOT increasingly appears to be, the Indian wars were a very long conflict, stretching from the seventeenth century to the end of the nineteenth -- the longest war in American history, starting even before the US. existed as a nation. There were numerous battles of varying intensity in this conflagration with no central point of confrontation -- as is the case with the War on Terror, despite its current emphasis on Iraq. And GWOT is a war being fought, like the Indian wars in the Far West, over large geographical areas -- as the Heritage F oundation's Ariel Cohen puts it, almost lyrically, "in the Greater Middle East, including the Mediterranean basin, through the Fertile Crescent, and into the remote valleys and gorges of the Caucasus and Pakistan, the deserts of Central Asia, the plateaus of Afghanistan." 10. Perhaps because they are drawn-out wars with many fronts and changing commanders, the goals of GWOT and the Indian Wars can be subject to many interpretations (indeed, even Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld at one point was eager to rename the War on Terror a "Global Struggle Against Violent Extremism"). For many abroad, GWOT is a brutal expression of a mad, cowboy-led country's plans to take over the world and its resources. In the United States, a large number of Americans still interpret these two wars as God-favored initiatives to protect His chosen people and allow them to flourish. But just as attitudes in the U. S. toward Native Americans have changed in recent years (consider, for example, the saccharine 1990 film Dances with Wolves, which is sympathetic to an Indian tribe, in contrast to John Wayne shoot-the- Inj uns m0vies), so suspicious views among the American public toward the still-seen—as— dangerous "them" of GWOT might evolve in a different direction. Such a change in perception, however, is unlikely to occur in the near future, especially under the current bellicose Bush regime, which manipulates voters' fear of terrorists to maintain its declining domestic support» 0.5...me 0 . . . 50 $00.00.. 3.00 8 00.83.00 «030% .30 N000§mx00000§00 ”0.3.8.0.. SE80 900033. 3:. $0330.03 00 1.0 0.3.8003» 3.03.0.0 030 $8.00“ 00 $0 @200. “$300800. 38 $00 $0 00002.03 03:0"..m00mo: 000.300 00300. $08—$85 5083.. 88000 000.0 808 83000 200.0 8 008- 3030000 90 B0000m0. :02 can 80 mos." €000 0.00 709.0... msccvwnm. mrcbbmnm. m0mn0m0aos. 009850 63.00%. 03030: 003000. 0:880- :0: 0m 0 800 0035.. .8308. 9.0003. 000200080. 80.83. 000 35.. 007.0: 0m 8000 m008000 r0<0 U00: 0000 8 000. 8 80:. 30:90am. $60.0 W00” 0m 0000 v.0: mo... 9: 0m 500.0... x0300: $380 89.8 E8 "07 183. 900 50:03 0—05.00. 000 00000005.. £000 £300 00308000 8- "02080 2:7 5&0: moon «828m 008 800 $800.59 30:03 8800 8 8000 83000 @0308 cm 00880800080 8 00... 0&000205. 000 30300020.. :02 0:”... >0 0.00.800 E0000 008 3.000. m0=<0a=m 030. B0000M0 8 €500 8- 380mm. 5&0: @0090 000m 80 8: 8006053. 0m 0008..." m3. WE. 002.59 00.00. 30800. 08 Ban—0:00. w000000 0m 80 088:0. 303000 8 8000 098000. 39.“: 833000 0m 80.30.00 €03 <3: =0<0n 00 05.0 on £00... W082 800 5.5m 8 V0 0058 0m 000390000 000 00370 0000000000. 50:050. 0005 U0 080— 000 08303.. 8 80? 0"- "00—8 0: 2300 882.000 5.3000 0303000 000 H00 808 8 80 Snobm 3000 00 80 Enosm 280. . 003033035 8000 02005.. 3081000 000080 20900— 0309.8- :5. 00.0.00... 0008m 00.80... 000:5. :9 088:3. 00 80 0.88020 0800:... cm 03. macaw. grmwwamg 02005 00 87:0 38:0. r0<0 3:80 08 $0200 80 303: $0.80 0m 3083000. 800. 8080000— 000 050.500 80 89.0; 8080030 0m €300 00303 000 Omani? 0:00 80 Han—W000 30m 8 80.830 00:03 58 0030.0. 8 90 89% 0m >5m8- >3010000. 80 830 0m 0mmn0mmon 08 3033 500003. 0.00.0300. 40.180 000000 8 00min»... 00 58000.0 000 088—88 0m 00:90" 000 00- .,.. _. . _, {mfg 175.30: 00900.. 800000. 80 00080 0m 50000.0” $380. 438 «Em 0E? 0:00:00 0m wsmmmomflWOD 00.00 00309 30:08 r0m 000300 80 2.0: 00m 00m 0%00 80 003038000. 000 5.7.000 0005.. m0 $509.2 .0 W00 8 mo. 5 0800. 8 0038 808007.00. 7.880 $03.. H.000 m 3000 80 390000 0" H000 W20... 80 780000 080000 H50 E05. 0 80w n0mcm0 8 00 099008803. 1000. 8100.0 00% 0m 09.808 n R0030. €30: r0 r008 80 5080 0m 80 yawn—0m 05.00" 008 80 2: 0m 80 7.8800. 008:3 $.00? 350080. 00000.0 000 80500.0 00 B00&0m 0&8... m0: 000050830 003E008 E E0 0808000E0m 250 8 mo 00.? $0 $005 0000850 0 80.00 0930003 0m :58 00% 0.09053 0am 00:80.30 000 00.080 0.083002. 0.8 r0 29 B000: 88 80 ~0<0 00% 8.88 80 7880 02.00805 5 80 009 0009.05 80 00030000. 08 00mg" 808. .A no 0.00 00:30 20 0000 . 306000 0 003808 30.000000 $.03 8mm :30 @000 0m 78000" 0300080 85 0.00000— N. W. m. 0003... 0003.. 8 88. 0.009.000 80 9:0." .4 mo 09 85W 80 0008.85 SE U0 082.0089... H: 3.0. 0580. 00003: $5008 #005007 $000.30: 3.0803000 80 <0an B0mm0m0m 0». 0.0130000 V0 700— 0000w<0m $.08 90 .800" 00000 00m 2 "r0 $000003. 0m 300 80" 0003. £0 8 0080— 00830.8 0m 0: A "8000 08 000000000 0m 80 00005. 08 2E 000.9000 98m "E0 8“ 89. 8 0 003030083. 08.... F H8003. Hmum. 008:0— 430008: 30.0 8 m9: 030 008E000 E E8 0300. WE 0 058$. 0800 59.0502 80 Em? 0080.0 :00 0,03 80 78800 08 89:08 80 09.00008 9. 008100. 0: 900003. 0 0 Q0000 8m 09.00.00 80 @950. .200 "8000 000300 829.08 000 E 00:80 808007.00 00 000mg. m9. 78.80 00:08. 0:00 3603.. 00: 00.00. 4.70 005.03 0005 000 80 50300 08 00080 088000 3. 80 00:08. can 2:: 80 80w mom 08 80 805.. amm0&8w8 b08000“ . 80v. 0005 00505 000 80 5058 $50 2000 mnbm 9.. 80B. U03: 0:80. 90 0.800... mnocsa 8 0 :05 03003 0005 09 9. 20:5 09 m. ~90. 80 3553 E00 8 0509.20. 80 0080.805. 9. 0538:. n C3000 @0000 80000 500.0 5 0 0:09.023. H0900". ~00<5m @0050. m 80 780000. :00. B03. 0m 809. $000.80 008 8:0: 0m 80?. 0835 :00 08 0.008030% B03. 0m :00 $000000. .200 900003. 3 020. 080.00 8 U0 0 0080—000 0000000.. «3 1.0 83.0.». n» 1.» 27.2.3. 3:80 8 firm 30008. 2:0 0E 00” ~03 0:0 2032. F222 9m: 35‘ K800 Ba: 30 mnmnufloa 98¢ F5030 855m. $3,me m H?“ as; ohm: 00%“: SE» a: 5&3: 3.9.09 \auaxwatv. 38:3 SSE.“ $30 ocm‘noamuwxu 0:0 $0:me «Fa mmwuxm 0 30.3035. :3. nonfunmnanmu «:33. 80:5 00 «$2 SR flaw». ma m: :8 852m 0m EES >525»: 01%. Ma £850 :23 080 85% 8 08" n 8" 0m ammoaon? cummmowwsaom 01395? .25" 0x88 om now—magma. #02985 090: Km 8 u: magi, mamas. 3 $58 .nnoowm Ecbmam 53 008.“ Summon"? 8305 93 98. rpm 0 n58. mmfibfimo 0<on m 38%» mo? > woman 5 00% 9,5 530303001038» 908 «mu—«0 003nm 008032.080. 8:5 00 m amumanocm. «<00 was: nor». £00. .28 manna 0% >838: 338 "Edam: 0 30m: @0300 0m 8. 089.5325 memsw 8 90 23885V Snowing :5" 3%»: «<8. 20m 810% 9.5529 noacwnmnm 33859: 8385595 0m €002.31? E8659 3:683". 050. 8390.5. 33:5. .28 00308 85383. 30322.» En 3&0: 0m 90 2E8». 0m :5 «BER—oar gamma $389 33.2 owmncanm :5 033% flaw—3‘ 0m €38 ”36.305. 39.0003. 82:. gm mmmnommmo? H009»? Bomn mavozmar "#80 588 30% 23:8 950%. 093330 05 <onmomnnn mam csSEEm 8 88K? 0H- 8309\8 8 3o 88—300 0m "to $8.. 30000 macaw H00! 0 Ucnmam nro €05 0 amino?” 0:802. 0m 30008 £0on 00 «Va 508er Woman§30=w «008 €an 3800939 880 £80? bazaar ~50 88a 0000an 8 00085 Hmnw 0:0 Em «3:0. gran "so >32 mm. 903 son 8 "Q 8 :8 Komoom ”manna 50008. 805 5me? Hunt- 85 80w 0»: 5 9o “055.30 HV 0200—“ 0: :8 r?» 00%. £50: "to 32? 83am mmwmsmn as >23» ommnonm Enema moan 0m "rm 200.5 00 9a 5080:; m9. mmrasm 5:58:00? is >23. «so: 83580 0 0:80am om 5&0: 050558 $.03 :8 $030 mvaumm ”08230:. .258 305.3 mega 8000830: €50 imam 8 co. 0: 0888:. u. 50.930833 arm—Kama. O: 03 0888:. 58 E $8 $8”. $5 €250 mwnmumm gamma 300.8 880 8 :8 ma 0m 0 E000 0m 8552. fiwo 30 085 0835?; 3 30008. wunmnwom man 02:55:? :5 8553 mama on "raw. 3859.? U238 98% ammo: on :5 08." 0m :5 838 $5sz 5&8; 8 $25? $583728 8 33%. «row 8:5 00" m2 "ram 058 8 $00 383% 2 908. E :8 gm 0m 9o 38.. 03 00303 0m 2:0»— moEmaQ ram 080 £55880. 03035 gnaw run :22. can: 0: 3903030 095008 0m 23. .58 5653s” 28 0m 2005“” 58¢ 33» E EEnm "rm Homn W32 moan—2m. :3 mega 0003:: “wow 53 m 5.3 to 0E so" $53. 5 En mwasm 0m $3. 8 magi 03055 300 m9. 0. namonmfinm 38:50; 8 ”to spy "so Eamon 8:508 083080 Hwow 38 855m 0»: E 0 20802.05 38% on :5 038 88323003. O: 30% HH. Hm“? $8 30008 Esau 329.050 Eouuwn .3533 0.50 Onbowfl w. W. .m. 005% 35 0::N Manama 5:2“ 5 a8 3%»: $03 van— 830%? 8000000 Ewan 339mg. F 7930 0m Hmum. moowfi. $8. $33000” 1330 mrmowawmQ .35. man woman 03028» :5ng 0m :5 SE. 003‘” .0? 0003:: War 050 333033 8 En E50183. O<2. "rm 089 $85. $5 50000 88 fire run 05:00 03:»? Wow ES $8.. 000 33.85000: 50% 823 mm :5 wannwvanm. ragfim :5 >33. "Sow EB @9519. w as»: 00028. Ha Ha? 0m 13.»: 00035 “war 000 m5 0903 $9.0 Sam 25 80. $300 mop. Ea 85.02.. 0m 50 00838533. moo—8n .3: man 0903 0m "to 01%an $8.. 09638”. €08 son 3am m9. 392. $5 85.02. 0m :5 F03 332.. mag—n3 9. $8 555mm 0m $5 8333852? 00 9a 8335» :5 >33 823an :58 m9. «ran 033$— om 0385,32“ S Sam—Bung :58 9.05 wan—”msgnsnv 5 0&9. no man a: 28:6? 9»: $005 obnoznwma 092. 5033 8 055% man? 0385 Fox 23 00- $05? <oQ 809 3.0023 3 "Em or»? 0m Unfimvmr .4 05:." 55$ magnum 0m 00% 830% gsm 5:3 as": $0053. at: 350 25» gm gum ~50 85 Ba... to $5 m" an 33. 2000 0m Em 02: 00020 $50 55¢ 03‘ 0m :8 S38? 25 H an :95. SE moor? a8 mam Em 03% 3 3:32. 03‘ 332mm mam H 05 no" 203 908 8 $30 $3; Bo... E028... .mB Sam ago 03 "rm” £285 20580 no mmrn. 0:0 88. :80an Exam mum Banmoanmw wan 00$u 00085 Hunk $30 .A :35 8 ~08“. :5 20:8 mom EB 85 :5 3m" 0m :88...“ ...
View Full Document

{[ snackBarMessage ]}