Talk:California genocide/Archive 1

Speedy deletion nomination of California Genocide


A tag has been placed on California Genocide requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done for the following reason:

fabricated event lacking credible sources

Under the criteria for speedy deletion, pages that meet certain criteria may be deleted at any time.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. Asilah1981 (talk) 14:06, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

I would like to contest the nomination but do not see any button on the page to enable that.--Richard Hawkins (talk) 01:21, 8 September 2016 (UTC)
 * the article was proposed for deletion back in May but is not in danger of being deleted at present. clpo13(talk) 22:55, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

Thank you.--Richard Hawkins (talk) 00:58, 9 September 2016 (UTC) Thank you for your corrections too.--Richard Hawkins (talk) 01:07, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

Credible sources have been provided
There are abundant credible sources from professional historians, see the references on this page and those added today to the article. Please provide evidence of ``fabrication``.

``That a war of extermination will continue to be waged between the races until the Indian race becomes extinct must be expected. While we cannot anticipate this result but with painful regret, the inevitable destiny of the race is beyond the power or wisdom of man to avert.``Governor Burnett regrets the required extermination of California`s Indians

Madley, Benjamin. "Reexamining the American genocide debate: meaning, historiography, and new methods." The American Historical Review 120, no. 1 (2015): 98–139

--Richard Hawkins (talk) 23:35, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

To quote Burnett from the inauguration speech: "Considering the number and mere predatory character of the attacks at so many different points along our whole frontier, I had determined, in my own mind to leave the people of each neighborhood to protect themselves, believing they would be able to do so, and that a regular force would not find employment in the field. In two instances only have I deviated from the rule I laid down for the government of my own action. In these cases the attacks were far more formidable, and made at points where the two great emigrant trails enter the State. These attacks occurred at a period when the emigrants were arriving across the plains with their jaded and broken down animals, and themselves destitute of provisions."

Thus, it is hardly "credible" to overlook the contention of Madley and other revisionists that this was even remotely let alone widespread genocide in California. To ignore the clear evidence of what happened (predominantly along immigrant routes and borders) and then demand "evidence of 'fabrication'" is disengenuous and clearly an attempt at making 21st century ideation out as "history"

This was a very weak defense (at best) of nomination for summary deletion, which clearly avoided speaking directly to the referenced source (Gov. Burnett's speech.) Absense of additional factual/historic record, the Madley publication which stands alone as the basis for making this history histrionic should be avoided as the sole basis for this wiki article. Dale B. Phelps (talk) 22:27, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 1 one external link on California Genocide. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140201074206/http://www2.learncalifornia.org/doc.asp?id=1933 to http://www2.learncalifornia.org/doc.asp?id=1933

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 01:17, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

Disease biggest cause of death.
No doubt there were many massacres and atrocities - on both sides of this conflict - in this period in California.

But there is no reason to suppose that such deaths were the primary cause of the Indian population crash.

Indian numbers eventually declined by around 90% everywhere that American Indians came into contact with Europeans.

The cause wasn't conflict, the number of such violent deaths was far too few to account for such huge falls in numbers.

The USA Congress enquiry in the late 19th century estimated that there had been on average only 300 Indians killed each year in the whole USA over the previous 100 years.

The underlying cause was the Indians astonishing and tragic susceptibility to common European diseases.

Not only notably virulent disease such as smallpox killed uncounted thousands, but even lesser diseases such as measles could kill half a tribe within weeks.

Modern sentiment seems to prefer think of all these deaths as 'genocide' but the reality is far more mundane.

Cassandra — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.74.63.70 (talk) 14:21, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

"on both sides of this conflict "

"Inter-ethnic violence According to McCarthy, the genocide was a two sided battle: "when they [the Armenians] advanced victoriously under the protection of the Russian Army, the same spectacle occurred as in 1915, but this time it was Turks who were attacked by Armenians, aided and possibly commanded and directed by Russia."[38] Armenian Genocide denial"

"Modern sentiment seems to prefer think of all these deaths as 'genocide' but the reality is far more mundane."

"Incidents A band of 20-30 men, a significant portion of the several dozen White settlers occupying the valley at that time, committed a series of attacks against the Yuki Indians between 1856 and the summer of 1859. These massacres were so frequent as to be uncountable.

One Round Valley settler, Dryden Lacock, testified to the California State Legislature that he regularly took part in expeditions that would kill 50-60 Indians in a trip, as often as two to three a week at times, from 1856 to 1860.[26] Settler William Scott testified before the legislature that H.L. Hall was a leader of vigilantes, killing all the Indians he could find whenever he encountered them and even poisoning their food and supplies.[27] Hall’s culpability was verified by Army Lieutenant Edward Dillon, who referred to Hall as a “monster” who killed men, women, and children, regardless of any crimes committed[28] and lamented that he had basically depopulated the county of Indians.[29][30] Hall, despite remaining silent as to the number of Indians he had killed, did admit under oath to executing Indian women, children, and even infants.[31]

Special Treasury Agent J. Ross Browne’s account of the attacks is vivid:

“At [Round Valley], during the winter of 1858–‘59, more than a hundred and fifty peaceable Indians, including women and children, were cruelly slaughtered by the whites who had settled there under official authority... Armed parties went into the rancherias in open day, when no evil was apprehended, and shot the Indians down — weak, harmless, and defenseless as they were — without distinction of age or sex; shot down women with sucking babes at their breasts; killed or crippled the naked children that were running about.”[32]

As early as September 1857, Superintendent Henley had stated that the campaign against the Yuki would continue until they were either exterminated or driven from the area entirely.[33] Special Treasury agent J. Ross Browne in September 1858 called it a “war of extermination” against the Yuki with 20-30 armed White men engaging in months of constant attacks.[34] By August 1859, after three years of a sustained campaign of atrocities, the Sacramento Union wrote that the local Indians appeared doomed to extirpation.[35]

A few specific attacks of which there is witness testimony are:

A local paper reported 55 Indians killed in Clinton Valley on October 8, 1856.[36] A White farmer, John Lawson, admitted an attack killing 8 Indians, 3 by shooting and 5 by hanging, after some of his hogs were stolen. He stated that these killings were a common practice.[37] A White farmer, Isaac Shanon, testified to killing 14 Indians in a revenge attack after a White man was killed in early 1858.[38] White persons from the Sacramento Valley came into Round Valley and killed 4 Yuki Indians with the help of locals in June 1858, despite having been warned against it by Indian Agents.[39] White settlers attacked and killed 9 Indians in the mountains edging the valley on November 1858.[40] Former Superintendent of Indian Affairs, Thomas Henley (fired two months earlier for embezzling funds), led a massacre of 11 Yuki Indians in August 1859.[41] Due to the overwhelming number of killings, an exact death toll is unknowable. The following estimates were made by government agents and newspapers at the time:

1856: 300 total killed over the course of the year.[36]

Winter 1856-57: About 75 Yuki Indians killed over the course of the winter.[42]

March–April 1858: 300-400 male Yukis killed in three weeks.[43]

November 1858 - January 1859: 150+[44] or 170[45] Yuki Indians killed between November and January

March–May 1859: 240 Yuki killed in assaults led by H.L. Hall in revenge for the slaughter of Judge Hasting’s horse[46][47] and a total of 600 men, women, and children killed within the previous year.[48]

These estimates suggest well over 1000 Yuki deaths at the hands of White settlers. (See Cook, Sherburne; “The California Indian and White Civilization” Part III, pg 7, for an argument in favor of the approximate reliability of figures of Indians killed at this time.) The White settler John Burgess testified that 10-15 Indians were killed for every beef that had been killed.[49] Lieutenant Edward Dillon stated that many crimes were unknown as settlers “will not testify against each other, and in most cases of this nature, Indians are the only witnesses.”[50] Yuki Indian depositions were taken during the investigation of the murders by the California legislature in 1860, but all of these depositions have either been lost or destroyed.[51]

Little retaliation or defense was possible from the Yuki. On 24 September 1857, over three years after the first massacre of Indians in Round Valley, Indian Agent Geiger reported that a White man had been killed by a Yuki for the first time.[15] Another White man was killed in early 1858,[52] and by the end of 1858 a total of four White men had been killed.[53] Reports from the US Army suggest that at least two of the men killed were well known for grievous crimes against the Indians and that the Indians had been provoked in both instances.[54]

...

In 1860, a Joint Special Committee of the California Legislature was formed to investigate the “Mendocino Indian War” and complaints of Indian harassment from politically influential ranchers. The majority report of this committee (authored by four of the committee's five members) states:

“Accounts are daily coming in from the counties on the Coast Range, of sickening atrocities and wholesale slaughters of great numbers of defenseless Indians in that region of country. Within the last four months, more Indians have been killed by our people than during the century of Spanish and Mexican domination. For an evil of this magnitude, some one is responsible. Either our government, or our citizens, or both, are to blame.

“No provocation has been shown, if any could be, to justify such acts. We must admit that the wrong has been the portion of the Indian - the blame with his white brother. In relation to the recent difficulty between the whites and Indians in Mendocino County, your committee desire to say that no war, or a necessity for a war, has existed, or at the present time does exist. We are unwilling to attempt to dignify, by the term “war” as slaughter of beings, who at least possess human form, and who make no resistance, and make no attacks, either on the person or residence of the citizen.”[70]

The majority report recommended that in order to save the Indians, it would be necessary to expand the size of the reservation by a factor of four to include nearly all of Round Valley, to buy out the White settlers with property in the valley, and to invest more money in ensuring that the Indians had protection and an adequate food supply.[71]

The minority report, authored by dissenting California House member Joseph B. Lamar (Mendocino, Sonoma), suggested instead that the settlers had acted appropriately and that the only solution was to round up the Indians as slaves and have the government provide land for their upkeep to their White masters.[72][73]

Despite the support of 4 out of 5 committee members, the California Legislature chose to ignore the majority report and it was never read to the full legislature.[74] Instead, the Legislature generally took the route of Rep. Lamar in blaming the Indians for the conflict. Rep. Lamar helped to push through legislation broadening the Indians eligible to be forcibly enslaved by White settlers. An editorial in the San Francisco Herald tragically mocked the government’s disturbing position.

“We...propose to the Legislature to create the office of Indian Butcher, with a princely salary, and confer it upon the man who has killed most Indians in a given time, provided it be satisfactorily shown that the Indians were unarmed at the time, and the greater portion of them were squaws and papooses.”[75]"

Round Valley Settler Massacres of 1856–1859

It was genocide, if 90% of the Amerindians died of plague, and then settler came and slaughter the last 10% it's doesn't somehow stop being genocide because disease killed more people, you're obfuscating the question of whether genocide occurred (which it obviously did) as to whether it was the cause of the decline, which is mostly irrelevant in assesing the actual well documented policies of California statehood that directly incentized the murder of Indians just for being Indians. Any deaths following those policies are clearly genocide: "Even Guenter Lewy famous for the phrase: "In the end, the sad fate of America's Indians represents not a crime but a tragedy, involving an irreconcilable collision of cultures and values" concedes that what happened in California may constitute genocide: "some of the massacres in California, where both the perpetrators and their supporters openly acknowledged a desire to destroy the Indians as an ethnic entity, might indeed be regarded under the terms of the convention as exhibiting genocidal intent."[15] --Lewis, Guenter. "Were American Indians the Victims of Genocide?". History News Network. https://historynewsnetwork.org/article/7302

Source
https://muse.jhu.edu/article/662449/summary

Does the California Genocide warrant an article?
I definitely think the topic warrants an article, but the title is VERY weasel-wordy, and definitely needs to be changed to something more neutral, like "Murder of Native Americans in California" or something like that. The content itself desperately needs an overhaul, too. This is a subject that absolutely warrants public discussion, and therefore an article, but can it please not be so lopsidedly ridiculous? Johnny Wishbone (talk) 20:57, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

AfD this nonsense, someone. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 20:27, 2 January 2017 (UTC) Blocked sock:Meowy.
 * Go ahead... At first glance I thought you might have had a point but after a bit more consideration I don't see it anymore. It may well be, as is suggested above, that the name is not (yet) accepted (I don't know if we have separate articles for native-American populations in the states, and CA is a big state), but the bare-bones content seems well-verified, and maybe the time is ripe: "roaming bands of Indian-killers played a major role in reducing native numbers by more than 80 percent" (quoted from the NYT review of Madley's book). And that book is published by Yale, so that's pretty solid., what do you think? Drmies (talk) 22:57, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
 * The problem for me is the fringe and extremist title (sourced from a single book and a TV program's deliberately eye-catching title?), and content synthesis going on in the article to support that title. Whether there is a core subject in there, probably minus the "genocide" label, that justifies having an article could come out in an AfD - though I doubt it is one that can be artificially (I suspect) narrowed down to just "California". Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 03:46, 3 January 2017 (UTC) Blocked sock:Meowy.
 * There is another recent academic book Murder State cited in the article, from the University of Nebraska Press which I have heard widely discussed among people interested in the history of California native peoples. A day was devoted to this broad topic at the Wikimedia North America conference in San Diego last October, and several speakers agreed that the genocide term is applicable and justifiable. Given the extreme geographic isolation of California from the rest of the U. S. until the transcontinental railroad was built, I also believe that this is a topic discrete from the similar history in the rest of the country. I do not consider myself an expert and have not fully read the books in question, though I paged through both. I have visited museums, heard speeches, read articles and attended California Native events. Learning about these events is blood-chilling but necessary for Californians. This is an article that I think should be improved rather than deleted. Cullen328   Let's discuss it  06:20, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Here is a review of Murder State. I hope that it will not be dismissed just because it appeared in a Native American publication. Cullen328   Let's discuss it  08:16, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
 * When I read that review, I was struck by how similar that scholar's experience was to the experiences of Wikipedia editors working on this subject matter:


 * It is possible we are seeing yet another example? Xenophrenic (talk) 20:27, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
 * All you have done is highlighted more evidence that "California Genocide" is a fringe academic opinion. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 02:52, 10 January 2017 (UTC)  Blocked sock:Meowy.
 * You have apparently misunderstood what you read. Please read it again more carefully and you'll see that nowhere in what I highlighted does it say the genocide in California is "opinion". It says that there are still people at universities (and I noted the same at Wikipedia) who are unwilling to accept history, preferring to stick with their personal "impressions" instead of reality.  Are you one of those people?  When I asked below for reliably sourced information showing that the genocide in California did not happen, or was mere "opinion", you did not respond, so I am left to wonder.  Xenophrenic (talk) 20:30, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
 * If "California Native American Genocide" is a legitimate academic term and usable for an article title, then "Native American Genocide" must be a legitimate academic term and a title for an article. Except it redirects to "Population history of indigenous peoples of the Americas", with the word "genocide" used just once in tis content (and even that single use seems undue weight given it is used in the lede and there is no associated article content to back up its place there). While other articles exist or do not exist is not an argument to delete or keep, in this case it hints at an extreme marginality to the use of the label "genocide". Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 16:49, 4 January 2017 (UTC) Blocked sock:Meowy.
 * Good catch on that problematic redirect. It has since been fixed. Xenophrenic (talk) 20:27, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
 * There is still no evidence that either are legitimate mainstream academic terms as opposed to headline grabbing titles or fringe opinions. Which is why neither should be used as article titles. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 02:47, 10 January 2017 (UTC) Blocked sock:Meowy.
 * Okay, now I suspect that you are not being serious. An attempt at humor, perhaps?  The terms are prevalent in mainstream academic sources (and Google Scholar shows many thousands of high quality sources on the subject as well).  Xenophrenic (talk) 20:30, 11 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Does the subject of California genocide warrant a Wikipedia article? After reviewing numerous sources on Colonial American and Native American history over the past couple years, my opinion is a definitive yes.  For the past three decades (partially fueled by the backlash to the celebratory 1992 Quincentennial of Columbus' arrival in the "new world"), scholars and researchers have been pouring over the historical records of the colonization of the Americas with renewed interest, especially in light of the formal recognition, defining, and incorporation into international law in the 1940s, of genocide.  The prevailing academic consensus is that genocide did occur against the indigenous Americans, but more importantly for this discussion, that mid-19th century California stands out separately as one of the premier examples of that genocide.  Even historians known to argue against applying the 'genocide label' to events in North America's history still grudgingly agree that textbook genocide occurred in California.  In Ben Kiernan's world history of genocide (also published by Yale), Blood and Soil, a standard in genocide studies, the California events are given a distinct section titled "Genocide in California".  There is a reason historian Wilson described the events as "a sustained campaign of genocide, more Indians probably died as a result of deliberate, cold-blooded genocide in California than anywhere else in North America."  Genocide expert Jones has described "just one of a complex of genocidal strategies that were intended to result in the elimination of Indian peoples from the face of the earth", further explaining how one California tribe was "subjected to one of the clearest and fastest genocides of a native nation in US history." (I highly recommend the 2016 resource Genocide: A Comprehensive Introduction by Adam Jones.)  There are numerous books written specifically about the California genocide (i.e.; Destruction of California Indians by Heizer; Exterminate Them! by Trafzer & Hyer; etc.), so the subject is well documented and notable enough for a Wikipedia article.  Is someone suggesting that there is a reliably sourced denial that genocide in California ever occurred?  If so, I would greatly appreciate it if someone identified it for me.  Xenophrenic (talk) 20:27, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

A Better Suggestion
With respect: an uninformed opinion on this matter terming it 'nonsense' is of little help to any Wikipedia user. Please read the material. See the Conclusion below for an explanation of state and nationwide willful ignorance.

Conclusion

In California, the curriculum for primary grades require schools to teach social studies in third, fourth, fifth, and eighth grades. The standards for the state of California require teachers and publishers to present honest, empathetic, and historically accurate accounts, including the topic of genocide. Since the 1970s, scholars have researched and written on the genocide of California men, women, and children during the Gold Rush era, a genocide perpetrated primarily by small democratically constituted militia groups determined to exterminate California Indians. Beginning with the research of Jack Norton and continuing with the seminal work of Brendan Lindsay, scholars use the United Nations definitions of genocide when addressing the gross actions taken against California’s first people constitute a clear genocide. Newspapers, militia documents, and documents left by government and civilian people document the genocide.

However, as of 2012, the state Department of Education denies the genocide, and so do many residents of California. The general public of California is unaware of the genocide of Indian people because the state of California, major publishers of social studies programs for children, and authors of textbooks refuse to write about the murders, kidnappings, rapes, and slavery. For over 100 years, state officials, authors, and publishers have silenced the American Indian genocide by denying the historical record in spite of overwhelming evidence. Special interest groups oppose the formal recognition of the genocide. Textbook publishers would lose sales if they presented the genocide. Politicians and government staff would have to acknowledge their shortcomings and might be forced to recognize that California Indians have legitimate claims against federal, state, and local governments. And authors would have to admit their errors and revise the way they present genocide at home and abroad.

The authors of this short essay urge readers to examine the articles found in the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide of the United Nations that was passed unanimously by the Assembly of the United Nations on December 9, 1948, and published in Jack Norton, Genocide in Northwestern California: When Our Worlds Cried. People might also read the historical literature and documents of the Gold Rush era found in the sources provided in this essay and new forthcoming scholarly works. Readers could also read the current and past social studies texts provided by the major publishers, comparing their presentations with details offered by university scholars. Readers would see for themselves that textbook publishers of social studies programs have silenced genocide within the boundaries of California and the United States.

In sum, university scholars would find most social studies textbooks created for elementary school children unacceptable as they are presented. The texts may mention killings but universally do not provide details of the genocide committed against California Indians during the Gold Rush era. White pioneers documented the California genocide. Scholars have detailed the acts of genocide. Scholarly works record the killing of Indian men, women, and children by White pioneers. Scholars had documented that pioneers separated children from their parents and tried to end the birthing of future generations by targeting women in murder, kidnap, and rape. Pioneers destroyed Indian economies, disrupted families, burned Indian communities, stole Indian lands, and exploited Native resources. But the pioneers could not destroy all Indians or their cultures. California Indians survived the attempted extermination of their people and lived to share their family and tribal stories about the genocide of the Gold Rush era. These oral accounts, mixed with the written documents left by non-Indians, provide a wealth of evidence ignored by the California state Department of Education and the major textbook publishers of the United States, both of which have successfully silenced the genocide of Californian Indians for far too long."

Trafzer, Clifford E., and Michelle Lorimer. "Silencing California Indian genocide in social studies texts." American Behavioral Scientist 2014, Vol 58(1) 64– 82--Richard Hawkins (talk) 16:17, 4 January 2017 (UTC) :In Turkey it is a crime to study or present the Armenian Genocide as anything other than a lie and an Armenian allegation. The idea that a state enforced educational policy, or statements by a set of lobbying groups, or opinions by wilful activists, makes historical events suddenly become either real or false or turned into something they are not has no foundation. Nor are they usable in deciding on Wikipedia content since none are reliable sources. What your excerpt indicates is that "genocide" is a fringe academic and general public opinion, since it is arguing that it should not be. Also, you need to accept good faith, and stop attacking other editors with allegations of being "uninformed" - you know nothing about me or my academic interests. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 17:05, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
 * What your excerpt indicates is that "genocide" is a fringe academic and general public opinion, since it is arguing that it should not be. --Tiptoethrutheminefield
 * Incorrect. The excerpt (above) doesn't at all argue that the genocide in California should not be an opinion.  To the contrary, the above excerpt accepts as factual that genocide occurred, and makes no attempt to argue that long-settled scholarship.  The only "argument" being made in that excerpt is that the California state Department of Education and the major textbook publishers of the United States have successfully silenced the genocide of Californian Indians, and they are urging people to compare documented factual history with what is now being presented in classrooms and text books.  Xenophrenic (talk) 20:27, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

This does indicate "California Genocide" is a fringe opinion, a condition which the article's author wishes to alter. The opinion of the California state Department of Education or the general public of California would not be a RS source regardless of what stance they take. However, the admittance in the article that "textbook writers" (i.e., "academic RS sources") do not write about this alleged genocide is more significant, and adds more evidence for its fringe-ness. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 02:42, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
 * This does indicate "California Genocide" is a fringe opinion, a condition which the article's author wishes to alter.
 * By "this", do you mean the partial quote you've presented without the critically important part you chose to replace with ellipsis? You chopped off this part:  So you are incorrect (again).  That doesn't indicate a "fringe opinion", it indicates a suppression of factual evidence and information by certain developers of education programs and textbooks -- and that is the condition the article's author wishes to alter.  Perhaps that critical part of the text was overlooked when you altered what the excerpt said? (Don't worry, I undid your change.)  This suppression of factual information by State Education departments and the publishers they commission is not unique.  Oklahoma, Texas and other state boards and publishers have actively worked to suppress unflattering or "bad" historical reality regarding slavery, segregation, oppression of indigenous peoples, etc., in favor of American exceptionalism and ideologically whitewashed accounts.  While it may be difficult for some to accept, Earth really is not flat, our Sun really does not circle our planet, and genocide really did occur in California, regardless of what is suppressed in textbooks.  You can call them "nonsense", "fringe" and "alleged" to your heart's content, but until you start producing reliably sourced information to refute these well--documented facts, your assertions aren't likely to be taken seriously. Regards, Xenophrenic (talk) 20:30, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

It is in fact just further evidence of its current fringe status. Apologies for accidentally altering the excerpt - when making my quote from it I must have cut and pasted from the original rather than copy and pasted. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 04:11, 17 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Stick to academic sources and there is no reason to even have this debate. As far as I know, according to academia there was a genocide coinciding with US occupation, although I am not an expert on the topic. Asilah1981 (talk) 13:46, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

Can we agree on the following: p b  p  00:16, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
 * 1) Thousands, maybe even millions, of Native peoples died due to European settlement.
 * 2) Some people call that a genocide
 * 3) The death of Native peoples in California is discussed in articles other than just this one.


 * Struck sock edits, see Sockpuppet investigations/Meowy/Archive. Doug Weller  talk 08:54, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

Neologism? or accepted topic?
To resolve the issue of whether this is a neologism (which seems to be the thrust of deletion requests), here are some references on the topic:


 * Lindsay, Brendan C. Murder State: California's Native American Genocide, 1846-1873. Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press, 2012. ISBN 9780803224803 (held in over 800 libraries)
 * Trafzer, Clifford E, and Joel R. Hyer. Exterminate Them: Written Accounts of the Murder, Rape, and Slavery of Native Americans During the California Gold Rush, 1848-1868. East Lansing, Mich: Michigan State University Press, 1999. ISBN 9780585188188 (held in nearly 1200 libraries)
 * Duncan, Dalina, and Pratap Chatterjee. Gold, Greed & Genocide: The Untold Tragedy of the California Gold Rush. Berkeley, CA: Oyate, 2003. (Video; 20 libraries)
 * Madley, Benjamin L. American Genocide: The California Indian Catastrophe, 1846-1873., 2009. (PhD dissertation, Yale)
 * Lowry, Chag, and Rebecca Huff. Northwest Indigenous Gold Rush History: The Indian Survivors of California's Holocaust. Arcata, Calif.: Indian Teacher and Educational Personnel Program, 2000.
 * Heizer, Robert F. The Destruction of California Indians: A Collection of Documents from the Period 1847 to 1865 in Which Are Described Some of the Things That Happened to Some of the Indians of California. Lincoln, Neb: University of Nebraska Press, 1993. ISBN 9780585330709

I'm not convinced that the phrase "California Genocide" passes the neologism criteria, although there seems little doubt that a genocide did take place. So the question is: is the deletion impetus because of the phrase itself, or the content? If it is the phrase, is there a better one to be used as the title of the article? LaMona (talk) 00:45, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
 * There are a number of sources supporting the idea of labeling this a genocide (see also, , ). However, as far as I can tell, there's no singular title for this – I've seen "California genocide", "California catastrophe", and "California Indian catastrophe" – so it wouldn't be appropriate for Wikipedia to give the events a proper name that doesn't appear to exist. However, I think the article itself is fine. There's definitely a solid subject here even if we aren't sure what to name it. clpo13(talk) 22:53, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

By what I see all the sources which use the term "Genocide" are referring to the period under US rule, not Spanish or Mexican rule. I will change article accordingly. Asilah1981 (talk) 15:35, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

Pre-contact population numbers
The source used for a population of 300,000 prior to the Spanish arrival is not based on authoritative sources, and that site may not be a reliable source due to its evident bias. Estimates of native American population prior to Western contact vary widely and the article ought to reflect that fact. — btphelps (talk to me) (what I've done) 19:45, 17 October 2016 (UTC)


 * See Population of Native California — Reinyday, 21:31, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

Tribunals ?
Scholar Gerald Vizenor's calls for "tribunals" to "hear evidence and adjudicate in crimes against humanity" seems like a pretty fringe position. Unless there are others also stating the need for such action, I believe this section gives the appeal for adjudication for past crimes undue weight and ought to be removed. — btphelps (talk to me) (what I've done) 20:19, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

For many people the California Genocide itself is a non-issue or fringe issue. Vizenor's stance is authentic, indigenous, and fact. There are more people suggesting ways forward that would recognize the crime and offer some form of resolution.It is also a requirement of international law under the Geneva Convention of 1948 --Richard Hawkins (talk) 00:08, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

"Vizenor's stance is authentic, indigenous, and fact."

Its a fact that he has an opinion. His opinion is authentically his. Is it indigeneous? I dont know was he born here? I was. His opinion is way beyond fringe. Who is he going to put on trial, a pile of bones from a pioneer graveyard? Batvette (talk) 10:35, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

Oh and why would geneva convention which was established in 1948 apply to events in the 19th century? You cannot enforce law retroactively to actions taken a century earlier. Thats why his opinion is fringe. How can people abide by laws that arent passed until after they are dead? Batvette (talk) 10:44, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

Answers to your questions are on the article page:- See: Vizenor See: United States federal law contains no statute of limitations on war crimes and crimes against humanity (genocide) See: Need for Accountability and Reparations. Quote: Therefore, in accordance to Article IV of the Genocide Convention [1948], which requires all parties to prosecute those charged with genocide, conspiracy to commit genocide, direct and public incitement to commit genocide, attempt to commit genocide, and complicity in genocide, regardless of their capacity as a ruler or public official, in a competent tribunal within the State where the crime took place or in a competent international tribunal that has proper jurisdiction over the case, any persons or agencies that commit acts of genocide within the territory of the United States must be held accountable for their crimes. Glauner, Lindsay. "Need for Accountability and Reparations: 1830-1976 the United States Government's Role in the Promotion, Implementation, and Execution of the Crime of Genocide against Native Americans", DePaul Law Review 51 (2001)--Richard Hawkins (talk) 14:38, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

That is still quite irrelevant. The fact of the matter is that in the time in question, there was no criminal code issued by a valid authority in the territory in question, which stated that genocide was a criminal action. You cannot create laws then retroactively enforce them. I am also pretty sure that killing indians was perfectly lawful activity under federal law in the mid 19th century so I am not sure why you bring up federal law. As repulsive as this seems now this is why revisionist history is stupid. We dont judge the actions of people 9 generations ago with the ethics of today. 

In response to the previous comments. The ethical condemnation of the time is clearly represented by the eye-witness accounts of Inspector John Rosss Browne and Dr MacGowan who exposed what they considered to be massacre, land theft, and extermination. That is the ethical judgement of the day. Of the actions that were considered unethical then, and that is why they are included in the brief evidence on this page. The expropriation of Native American land by private citizens and California State officials is in contravention of the successive US Federal Non-Intercourse Acts. I suspect that the mass murder of Native American civilians at a time when the United States was not at war with the Nations of California would have been considered at the time, unethical and illegal by most citizens of the USA had they known the truth. What I am certain of, is that if we could have asked the Native Americans of the time and place, they would not have considered their own murder a perfectly lawful activity. The wisdom of reconsidering history, whether by tribunal or by continuing to study the facts in depth and then make them public, is that ultimately it can bring us closer to the truth. --Richard Hawkins (talk) 14:06, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

This section cites a single scholar, argues for his points with statements such as "would provide venues of judicial reason...", "would surely enhance the moot court programs in law schools...", and states that a group of universities "ought to initiate..." an extrajudicial process by which his university, and presumably himself, are bestowed judicial authority. This section is certainly not NPOV, and also borderline fringe. 2001:14BB:150:8367:214E:D6E0:F04:4DDE (talk) 15:56, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

Read it again. It is a national and international legal requirement. The section cites more than one scholar: "Need for Accountability and Reparations: 1830-1976 the United States Government's Role in the Promotion, Implementation, and Execution of the Crime of Genocide against Native Americans", DePaul Law Review 51 (2001): 911. pp916-917 --Richard Hawkins (talk) 22:40, 19 April 2018 (UTC)


 * Most of the POV language was actually in an unmarked quotation from the scholar in question. Now that I've made it clear that the paragraph isn't in Wikipedia's voice, I think the section is acceptable. Smyth (talk) 12:51, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

RFC at United States
Hello, there's a Request for Comment relevant to this page which may interest you at the United States article. Best, GPRamirez5 (talk) 01:10, 15 August 2018 (UTC)