1/August 20: On this day in 1810, Tecumseh (Shawnee), one of the greatest Native American leaders of all time, delivered a lecture on settler colonialism and genocide. 219 years later, it has inspired an obscure professor to write a twitter thread.
2/The audience for Tecumseh's lecture was William Henry Harrison, Governor of Indiana Territory and a future U.S. president.
3/Tecumseh’s lecture to Harrison is not nearly as well known as Frederick Douglass’ 1852 speech, “What To the Slave is the Fourth of July.” But it is equally critical of the United States (maybe even more so).
4/Tecumseh and Harrison were meeting at Vincennes, the territorial capital of Indiana, on lands taken from the Shawnees in the 1795 Greenville Treaty (the result of a war of conquest).
5/Tecumseh had come to Vincennes to contest the legitimacy of recent treaties Harrison had “negotiated” using some pretty shady tactics.
6/Robert Owens details Harrison’s modus operandi in his wonderfully titled book MR. JEFFERSON’S HAMMER (Harrison being the blunt instrument President TJ used to take Indian lands).
7/After several days of discussions, Tecumseh gave his lecture. It started with some history.
8/First item: The Gnadenhutten massacre of 1782. “Men women and children murdered” (96 total) by a Pennsylvania militia. This is the sort of thing you guys do.
9/Second item: Americans’ murder of Shawnee peace chief Moluntha in 1786 under a white flag. Also, this is the sort of thing you guys do.
10/Third item (much farther back in time): “When Jesus Christ came to earth and you killed him and nailed him to a cross.” How could a people who killed the Son of God be trusted?
11/After this history lesson, Tecumseh criticized Harrison’s deceitful practices in treaty making, especially his divide-and-conquer strategy, which pitted Indians against each other.
12/Tecumseh also accused Harrison of biological warfare: When Harrison issued annuity goods to Kickapoos just a few months before, “you killed many.” Why? The goods carried “smallpox by which many died.”
13/Tecumseh’s accusation that Harrison intentionally infected Kickapoos with smallpox is pretty amazing, isn’t it? But historians who have summarized Tecumseh’s speech to Harrison have either ignored or glossed over this point.
14/Maybe it seems too explosive to acknowledge that one of the most famous Native Americans of all time accused a future U.S. president of biological warfare. But he did.
15/Did Harrison actually distribute smallpox infected blankets to Kickapoos? I don't know. To me the important thing is that Tecumseh believed that Harrison had done it and that it was typical of Americans to do things like this.
16/All told, Tecumseh’s lecture added up to a powerful indictment of U.S. Americans. Not only did they take Native lands, they consistently used violence and biological warfare to do it.
17/The phrase “settler colonialism” did not exist, but that’s what Tecumseh was talking about. The word “genocide” hadn’t been coined, but that what he was accusing of Harrison of doing.
18/I talked about Tecumseh's lecture to Harrison in an article describing "an indigenous consciousness of genocide." I also gave lots of examples of Native people saying: "Americans want to take our lands, and to do it, they intend to kill us all." bit.ly/2MrmfQ8 end/
Correction: 209 years later.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
I'm honestly puzzled by the desire of western historians to tame the 1889-90 Ghost Dance,
making it into a religion of accommodation,
instead of (what I think it was), an anti-colonial movement.
A short thread:
Elliot West's monumental new book Continental Reckoning objects to characterizing the Ghost Dance as "reactionary, a reflex to reverse the unstoppable flow of events"
This seems to me an overly easy way to dismiss the perspective that the Ghost Dancers wanted to reverse colonialism and return to the undeniably much better world that existed prior to its advent.
My article refuting Gary Anderson’s denial of genocide during the California Gold Rush has been published by AICRJ.
A thread about why I wrote the article and its arguments (if you don’t have access, DM me and I’ll send a pdf).
As I was writing a chapter on California for vol. 2 of Surviving Genocide I realized that I had to look at Anderson’s argument that genocide did not happen in California (made in Ethnic Cleansing and the Indian [2015] and a forum in Western Historical Quarterly [2016])
Anderson is a credible historian and his argument against genocide has received support from credible sources.
I was dismayed to learn today from @develvishist that a 2019 publication by a prestigious academic press @OxUniPress @OUPHistory claims Wounded Knee was not a massacre.
A thread on why OUP should retract this publication:
The claim that WK was not a massacre appears in this book:
"In Harm's Way: A History of the American Military Experience."
It purports to be "the most current, comprehensive, clear, yet concise survey of US military history from colonial times to the twenty-first century."
Here is what the book says about Wounded Knee (thanks to @develvishist):
A year ago Trump’s 1776 Commission decided to honor MLK day by releasing its REPORT!
Let’s have a look at a few of the slimy ways the commissioners appropriated MLK for their reactionary* agenda.
*Note: I did not say conservative.
In defense of American exceptionalism and upholding colorblind white supremacy, the 1776 Report opportunistically quoted MLK upholding the values of the Declaration of Independence.
The Report even had a photo of MLK at the March on Washington, as if MLK would agree with an agenda to stop all talk about race.
In 1960, the great Dakota artist Oscar Howe painted "Wounded Knee Massacre," which I am posting today on the 132nd anniversary of the massacre, along with Howe's own little-known commentary on the painting.
In describing Wounded Knee, Howe wrote, "I have kept the painting semi-objective rather than abstract. It was not meant to be a shocker but merely a recorded true event." (yet, it really is a shocker!)
"There was more to the massacre, but I left out some of the gory details." (but note that a woman in the background is holding up a child, pleading for her life with a soldiers and to the right a soldier is bayoneting a child, so some of the gory details are there).
Catching up on some of the responses by Jeffrey Flynn-Paul to criticisms of his Spectator piece. I'm struck by their fundamental dishonesty. Here's why:
In this one F-P says his essay is "mostly a response" to a BBC piece. That's just not true. In the Spectator he writes, "as this piece was going to press, an article was published by the BBC." He had written the whole thing BEFORE the BBC thing caught his attention.
(The BBC piece is probably idiotic, but so what. For F-P to hold it up as a target is a ridiculous strawman. He can't use it to dismiss hundreds of scholars who have worked hard for an accurate account of Indigenous history.)