Genocide of indigenous peoples
The genocide of indigenous peoples, colonial genocide, or settler genocide is the elimination of indigenous peoples as a part of the process of colonialism.
According to certain genocide experts, including Raphael Lemkin – who coined the term – colonialism is intimately connected with genocide. Lemkin saw genocide as a two-stage process: the destruction of the targeted group's way of life, followed by 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 and added the requirement of genocidal intent. Although some scholars use the Genocide Convention definition, others have "criticized 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 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 as genocide, such as instances of forced or coerced attendance at Canadian residential schools.
The concept of genocide was coined in 1944 by Raphael Lemkin:
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:
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.
Indigenous peoples of Europe (pre-1947)
British colonization of Ireland
Ben Kiernan details how genocidal massacres were employed as a strategy in the colonisation of Ireland during the 16th century.The numerous massacres and widespread starvation that accompanied the Cromwellian conquest of Ireland has led to it being called a genocide by some nationalist historians; during the conquest over 200,000 civilians died due to the destruction of crops, forced displacement, and the mass killing of civilians, and about 50,000 Irish were sold into indentured servitude. In the aftermath of the conquest, thousands of native Irish were forcibly deported to Connacht in accordance with the Act for the Settlement of Ireland 1652.
The Plantations of Ireland were attempts to expel the native Irish from the best land of the island, and settle it with loyal British Protestants; they too have been described as genocidal. The Great Famine has also been blamed on British policy and called genocidal. Katie Kane has compared the Sand Creek massacre with the Drogheda massacre. R. Barry O'Brien compared the Irish Rebellion of 1641 with the American Indian Wars, writing "The slaughter of Irishmen was looked upon as literally the slaughter of wild beasts. Not only the men, but even the women and children who fell into the hands of the English were deliberately and systematically butchered. Year after year, over a great part of all Ireland, all means of human subsistence was destroyed, no quarter was given to prisoners who surrendered, and the whole population was skillfully and steadily starved to death."
Circassia
Throughout the 19th century, the Russian Empire conducted a genocidal campaign against the Circassians and other Muslim populations in the North Caucasus. During the genocide, many Circassians were subjected to massacres and mass rapes, while others were deported from their homeland and resettled in the Ottoman Empire.Calculations including those which take the Russian government's own archival figures into account have estimated a loss of 80%–97% of the Circassian nation in the process.