Posted on 11/21/2005 9:47:06 AM PST by Tolerance Sucks Rocks
Was Texas built on ethnic cleansing?
Assertions in book by an Oklahoma history professor might rile proud Texans.
By Mike Cox
SPECIAL TO THE AMERICAN-STATESMAN
Sunday, November 20, 2005
Last summer, while I was visiting my bookseller friend Felton Cochran in his San Angelo bookstore, he picked up a copy of the fall University of Oklahoma Press catalog and with clear disdain showed me a blood red photograph of a Comanche chief wearing a U.S. Cavalry hat with a star on its crown. The "X" in the word "Texas" had been superimposed over the Indian's face in red ink.
"Have you seen this?" Cochran asked. "They're putting out a book called 'The Conquest of Texas: Ethnic Cleansing....' I called 'em and told 'em to cancel all my orders."
Cochran made some other comments about the book, but you get the point. He didn't care for yet another revisionist history portraying early Texans as land-hungry, wanton exterminators of American Indians and Mexicans.
Indeed, Gary Clayton Anderson's book — the complete subtitle is "Ethnic Cleansing in the Promised Land, 1820-1875" ($29.95) — might ignite the literary equivalent of the century-old Texas-Oklahoma football war. Defenders of the Texas myth doubtless are tightening their figurative saddle cinches and oiling their verbal Winchesters in anticipation of a raid on Oklahoma's well-respected press.
As a news release puts it, "This is not your grandfather's history of Texas."
Anderson, an Oklahoma history professor who also wrote the award-winning "The Indian Southwest, 1580-1830: Ethnogenesis and Reinvention," gets to the point quickly in his introduction. After correctly pointing out that Texas saw nearly a half-century of bloody cultural war during the 19th century, Anderson spits out his theme: "Although the following statement may seem 'presentistic' to some, in hindsight the conflict can be seen for what it was: an Anglo-Texas strategy and a policy (at first haphazard, debated, and even at times abandoned) that gradually led to the deliberate ethnic cleansing of a host of people, especially people of color."
At least he isn't accusing our Texas forebears of practicing genocide, a charge even he believes too broad. Nineteenth-century Texas, in Anderson's view, was more like 20th-century Yugoslavia than 20th-century Nazi Germany.
For proud Texans, the news in Anderson's book gets worse: "Recent studies of Yugoslavia and elsewhere reveal that political elites often direct the actions of paramilitary groups involved in ethnic cleansing. The situation was similar in Texas, where politicians supported Texas Ranger units that became the agents of ethnic cleansing."
Many Texans will find Anderson's thesis offensive. Even a quick perusal of the Internet shows that ethnic cleansing claimed tens of thousands of lives in Bosnia, with instances in other countries going into the hundreds of thousands or millions. In Texas, as Anderson points out, the death toll on either side stayed in the hundreds.
No one familiar with Texas history can deny that violence occurred at the hands of all parties involved in Texas' cultural warfare (a much more reasonable term than ethnic cleansing). But most historians see what happened as a struggle for control, not systemic elimination. The history of the world is the series of stories of one people conquering another. It might not be pretty, but it's why this column is written in English instead of Spanish.
The likely prospect that many Texans will not agree with Anderson's conclusion does not detract from the quality of his research. Anderson has clearly dug deep. His bibliography lists a considerable amount of primary material, and he certainly read the mail of key figures in the Texas government, the military and federal agencies that handled Indian affairs.
Three things would have improved this book. First, better editing to eliminate sentences like this: "Ford agreed, inspecting the well-made bison-skin tepees before he departed, with their hair turned inside for warmth, and noting the dozen hides that graced the floors of each lodge." On another page, the date 1841 is misprinted as 1941.
Second, Anderson's subjectivity robs the book of much of its persuasive power. Sentences such as "Some Texans began to see rangers for what they really were — an embarrassment and a threat to law and order" are certainly open to argument. Not every ranger shot first and asked questions later, but this book does.
In another passage, Anderson suggests that Sam Houston, while governor of the state on the eve of the Civil War, "buried" an exculpatory letter in his state papers. The organization of those papers would have happened long after Houston's death. Where the letter ended up was likely the handiwork of some clerk or latter-day archivist.
Finally, the book would have benefited from more use of the actual words of the people Anderson sees as murderous villains. If they were guilty, we need to see smoking guns, in their writing or that of some other contemporary figure.
Though I do not think Anderson has proved his case, his book offers new information on this bloody period of Texas history. For instance, a large number of white and mixed-race renegades, apparently believing that it made for good cover, posed as American Indians and stole livestock, raped and murdered. This aspect of frontier history has not been well-explored.
Anderson concedes that the Texas myth "will always live on in John Wayne films and the distorted history created by Anglo Founding Fathers....But let us remember that the conqueror first tells the tale of his successes. In its retelling, heroism and myth soon dominate. But the truth's reemergence is always in the offing."
True enough. But the horses those pioneer Texans rode were not all black and not all white. Neither is the truth Anderson has strived for.
Texana columnist Mike Cox is the author of 12 books about Texas history and culture.
PING!
Only the euros have the sack/ taint of immorality needed to engage in absolute genocide to make room for their families. Argentina anyone?
Yep. now give your house to some indian. give him the keys to your car also, and everything you own. Until you, dear enlightened writer, are willing to do this- -- STFU
Apparently that is the book cover.
HISTORY was built on "Ethnic Cleansing".
I'm sure that before this is over, it will somehow turn out to be Bush's fault.
And the Indians "Ethnically Cleansed" other Indian tribes before whites even came on the scene.
Was Haliburton involved?
I would say Texas was built by tough pioneers, in harsh conditions. If the natives attacked, kidnaped, tortured and killed the newcomers, well, the newcomers fought back. People with these soft hearts should watch the animal world and even better biology, now there is some rough play.
Hey it's alright! The English stole it from the Spanish who stole it from the aborigines. Remember the Alamo? P.S. ask the border patrol or the vigilantes or Tancredo:'Who owns it now?'. Those paths across desert have been documented to have probably been in use for tens of thousands of years. No harm , no foul. Grin and Bear it. Dale.
They tried at the Alamo.
Figures this book came from a bunch of jealous land thieves... you do know where "Sooner" came from, right?
Hook-em, Ted
Texas ping
There was extreme violence on both sides.
I will assume it's BS.
The Comanche were foes that wouldn't quit until their tribes were decimated and their horse herds destroyed, limiting their war-making ability, mostly by the US Army under McKenzie.
While the Rangers took no prisoners, their operations against the Comanche were mere pinpricks comparted to the sustained operations of the US Army after the Civil War.
I'll have to get the book.
I think the feds are holding some 'indian money', but they can't find it to count or return?
Ding, ding! We have a winner! What these professors conveniently forget is that tribal wars over hunting grounds were the natives' version of ethnic cleansing. After the white man came, rights to be the trading middlemen were another factor.
Anyway, what the Hell did the Indians do with the land when THEY had it? These Stone Age people were ripe for a takeover by any technologically advanced society, whether they were white, brown, black or polka-dotted. Evidently it's Whitey's fault that he got here first.
Bush's fault. No doubt about it.
Well, at one time, he was one of the owners of the Texas Rangers. There ya go, that's the link.
Ranald learned that the Comanche rode horses and getting rid of their quick mode of transportation made subjugation of the Kiowas and Comanches somewhat easier. The Comanche are good folks nowadays and are as good Americans as any one of us. I will have to see what this professor calls ethnic cleansing because IMHO the Comanches in Comanche County, Oklahoma, are doing pretty well right now.
Along this line, there is an interesting story on frontier children who had been stolen by Indian tribes and then returned to the white people. These children almost unanimously had a very difficult time fitting into their families and some never did. The story was featured in Texas Co-op Power's November issue. The web address is http://www.texas-ec.org/publications/documents/tcp_nov05_000.pdf
I moved to Texas by choice because it reflected Americana and had a proud, self-reliant culture. I read numerous books after arriving here in the mid-90s and realized just how savage the savages were. Texas by Michener (every new arrival should be required to read this-I give it to family members who have joined me here), Lonesome Dove, Dead Man Walking, etc.
The savages would sometimes kill pioneers by ripping out their intestines, staking the end 20 feet away and allow the victim to die while a wild animal slowly ate their guts while they watched. Other times the savages would cut off the male genitals and stuff them in your mouth. Other times they would tie you to a wagon tongue and slowly cook you over a fire.
Yeah, those are the folks I want living next door to me in 1880.
 |
COLT WALKER |
 |
Mobilehoma.
Well, we've cleaned out most of the DemocRATS...
Of course it was Bush's fault, he's an Anglo Texan aint he? BTW, the Anglos did an unusually lousy job ethnically cleansing the Indians and the Mexicans, from what I was able to observe during my eight years in Tejas.
Fact is, it was a violent clash of cultures...both incompatable with the other...and it was a fight to the death. In such a scenario, all of the niceties that we typically associated with our refined way of thinking go out the window in the effort to survive. In this case, survival meant we had to win...and win hard.
It was a violent clash of incompatable cultures that led to an abject battle for survival.
Thats true. The reason the Mexican inhabitants and earlier Anglo settlers had so much violent contact with the Apaches was that Apaches were being driven southward by the Comanches to the north. The Kiowa were the only people able to live alongside the Comanches, and they weren't no choirboys, either.
___________________________________________________________________________
Good examples -
I have read they would lay your intestines on a fire as you were tied to a post sitting -
I imagine Murtha and Kerry would have said it was time for "diplomatic exchanges" -
Being part American Indian myself I have never undestood how ignorant people are about America's history -
Indians killed more other Indian than the US military ever did -
Today it is all a Disney movie-length revisionist cartoon -
Before the Spanish brought horses and Americans early longarms hunting for American Indians was a primitive and desperate hit or miss survival attempt -
Pueblo Indians lived on corn and lacked the nutrients and minerals necessary for health and growth and were often crippled and using crutches at early comparative ages -
Americans are misled by Hollywood movies and TV -
We see no authentic movies on what life was like before the white Europeans brought horses and firearms - and "the wheel" -
Amazingly the few honest documentaries on this have been on PBS -
I have my own thoughts on why Indians often cut arms from cavalry troopers they had killed - the Japanese sought protein the same way in some areas during WWII -
But then last night on the History Channel they had survivors of Stalin's Siberian camps tell of bodies fed to prisoners/"workers" as late as 1948 -
The party of Indians committing these massacres and depredations are represented to be Lipans, with some other tribes, about one hundred fifty in number, with pack mules, &c., very deliberate in their movements, indicating great confidence in their strength.
1st. In Uvalde county, on the Rio Frio, killed Henry M. Adams and Henry Robinson, wounded and scalped Miss Kelsey, aged twelve years. Miss Kelsey has been found, and will probably recover from her wounds. Wounded also, a youth named Robinson.
2d. This party subsequently met with and killed a party of toradoras, while on their way from San Antonio to Eagle Pass, at a place near the Chicon. The number of this party was not ascertained.
3d. In Atascosa county, on the Nueces, killed Mr. Eastwood, and wounded Mr. Spears.
4th. On the Rio Frio killed old Mr. Sanders, mutilating very much the body, besides removing the very long white beard worn by the gentleman.
5th. On the Sabinal, killed Mr. McFarland. In Atascosa county, on the Laguniellas, twenty or more families are forted at the house of Mr. Odom, and such has been the extent of robbery, that throughout the region of country traversed by this party, the men are nearly all afoot, because of their horses having been driven off. Cattle have also been killed in great numbers.
Be more specific please.
Excellent -
Early records were quite complete -
If you had to pick any single tribe in N. America as the fiercest warriors, you'd probably have to go with the Comanche. After they obtained horses, they became the "finest light cavalry in the world" according to Phil Sheridan.
The effectively stopped the march of Euro-American civilization for the longest time--approx. 150 years--of any American tribe. They stopped the vaunted Spanish conquistadors in their tracks. Same for the invading Anglos who moved to Texas. Most people don't know it, but they also raided yearly deep into Mexico, coming back with tales of seeing the Pacific and sporting tropical bird feathers.
First mentioned by the Spanish in 1703 as horse thieves, they used their acquisitions to basically take over the Southern Plains, drove the Apaches south and west. They remained in control of an area from S. Texas to the Arkansas river in Colorado/Kansas for over a century. None of the Plains indians (except their Kiowa cousins) liked them. Their symbol in Plains sign language was the snake.
and stopped the vaunted Spanish conquistadors in their tracks. Same for the invading Anglos who moved to Texas.
Then repeating fire-arms came along and the Rangers use of Colts evened up the odds somewhat. Even then, during the Civil War, they moved the survival line of the frontier back 150 miles along a line from San Antonio to Dallas which was basically their original domain.
The fight in Texas wasn't so much about ethnic cleansing as it was that the Comanche finally just about fought themselves out of existance.
Commanches hadn't been around Texas very long before the White Man came.
Before the Commanches were other tribes, including an interesting one called the Tonkawa.
The Commanches exterminated them.
Cherokees weren't quite as bad when they went about ethnic cleansing throughout what is now the Appalachians. They aborbed tribes such as the Lumbee, the Creeks, and numerous others whose names endow the lakes and rivers, but are otherwise utterly lost. It was sad that so many were driven from the Blue Ridge--but a lot remain and many return.
People are people--red, yellow, black and white.
Some Indians joined with Texans to fight their common enemy, the Comanches. From the State Gazette of May 29, 1858:
Mr. Editor: Knowing that you would like to hear something about our doings out on the frontier, I will now try to post you up, to the best of my ability.
On the 22nd of April, Capt. John S. Ford made a forward movement from this place [Camp Runnels]. We left here with 102 men all told, officers, non-commissioned officers and privates. On the 25th of April arrived at Cottonwood Springs, about 10 or 15 miles north-west of Fort Belknap, where we struck camp, and the next day were joined by about 113 Indians from the Brazos Agency, under the command of Capt. Ross, the Agent. All were well armed; very near all of them had rifles and bows and arrows. Our men all had six shooters and rifles.
On the afternoon of the arrival of our dusky friends, we took up our line of march. It was a very imposing scene -- Indians and white men together hunting one common enemy, the wiley Comanche, the terror of mothers and children on this frontier.
That was from a letter to the paper signed by "R. C." 76 Comanches were killed in the battles described in the letter but only one white and one friendly Indian. "R. C." said in his letter that "our Indian friends fought well and bravely."
Captain Ford, in his report of the battle mentioned the following (reported in the same issue of the State Gazette):
... the head chief [of the Comanches], Iron Jacket, had ridden out in gorgeous array, clad in a coat of mail, and bore down upon our red allies. He was followed by warriors and trusted for safety to his armor. The sharp crack of five or six rifles brought his horse to the ground, and in a few moments the chief fell riddled with balls. Our Shawnee guide, Does, and Jim Pockmark, the Anadarco Captain, claim the first and last wounds.
... The second Chief had rushed into the conflict with the friendly Indians. A shot from Shawnee Captain, Chul-le-qua, closed his career.
... In justice to our Indian allies I beg leave to say they acted their part with zeal and fidelity; and they behaved most excellently on the field of battle. They deserve well of Texas, and are entitled to the gratitude of the frontier people.
fwiw, my people the Tsalagiyi Nvdagi didn't get along with the Comanch either!
the Comanche were a "real piece of work".
free dixie,sw
Does " The Trail of Tears" mean anything to this redneck Okie.
Mohawk. Of the Iroquois Federation. Especially loved to feast on the roasted hearts of brave men they felled in battle.
As they said at Goliad, "Come and take it." (p.s., who DOES own it now?)
Wasn't "Come and Take It" at Gonzales?
My foot. Comanches didn't like Settlers on 'their' land, so they did a little killin', whites fought back, Comanches killed a few women and childrens, and it was ON. There may have been violence on both sides, but that doesn't mean there was moral equivalence.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.