![]() | This ![]() It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
|
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 30 August 2018 and 13 December 2018. Further details are available
on the course page. Student editor(s):
Frankie aceves.
Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT ( talk) 18:32, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 26 August 2019 and 16 December 2019. Further details are available
on the course page. Student editor(s):
Brad.R.J.
Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT ( talk) 18:32, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
I do not see myself as quite qualified to make this judgement but I'm confused. I am leaving this message here in the hope that someone with a greater oversight of this will sort it. The title box on the top right lists total death toll as 4,500 - 16,000. All of the charts on the page show population numbers going down 250k and back again (I assume due to births) with an additon of around 50 years as it starts in 1830 (vs 1846) and goes up to 1910 (vs 1873 in the title box). Then near the bottom of the Statehood section is a cited claim that over 100,000 people were killed by non-state actors (miners). Personally I think this is a case of the victor writing the history books, but generally speaking are we really supposed to stick to the number 4,500 to 16,000 when it's so clearly incorrect (it's less than 10% of the numbers that disappeared and we have cite reports on the same page that 100k people were killed by non-natives).
Also with the fact that these were civilians apparently making most of the killings and the Indians weren't exactly the sort of community with passports and census papers, I don't expect a death record or citations for most of the deceased... Is it specifically breaking any WP rules to change the death toll to something more obviously sane?
Also, when I was a kid at school I used to hear that disease killed most of the Native Americans, but later found out that this was largely becausue it was weaponised as soon as the non-natives discovered native susceptibility to disease. This kind of makes the idea that disease is killing NA people secondary as disease is already weaponised and thus those who die still die effectively at the hands of the Spanish and British Settlers. 91.125.89.33 ( talk) 19:15, 8 September 2019 (UTC)
Full text
An Act for the Government and Protection of Indians
April 22, 1850
http://www.indiancanyon.org/ACTof1850.html
An interesting read. Cassandra — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.74.63.70 ( talk) 15:32, 23 January 2019 (UTC)
It was way more complicated: Spanish Catholic priests enslaving by force, then Russians bringing Inuits who decimated the locals and more.
19th c. clash of civilizations plus geopolitics, of sorts. History is not black and white.
I have fixed the false photo description and infobox and lead.
Discuss it here, pinging me.
Zezen (
talk)
12:12, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
1. Thank you User:GPRamirez5 for doing so and for not taking it personally.
Please thus also revert yourself on https://commons.m.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/390089191 so it is not misused by clueless Wikipedians or press again.
2. I say no to what you did again. The photo that you removed does have a lot to do with this genocide. It illustrates it: Aborigines killed aborigines, on purpose, details as per my note above or the URL to the source that you had removed as per Point 1, as well.
-> Let us keep this photo, elaborating on when it all started, and whodunnit, as per the very statistics in the article itself and photo's background.
Now two general requests to you:
3. As per my fuller note on your Talk, I assumed WP:GF of the previous editors here and on WikiMedia but then Amicus Plato, sed magis amica veritas: let us also obey the latter rule.
-> Let us not falsify history, as it borders on genocide denial.
4. I also assume that I may be wrong hereby, too, myself. Maybe completely in the wrong. If so, convince me by using WP:RS and quoting Wiki policies herein first, as I asked for above, commenting my original edits to the article itself before such silent reverts.
Bows to all.
Zezen ( talk) 08:43, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
Zezen, my reverting you was no bolder than you editing in the first place. But WP:ONUS is on you to justify inclusion. I don't see where you've provided RS, just a one hundred year article from an Arctic journal. The best and most recent scholarship on California genocide does not mention Inuits at all. GPRamirez5 ( talk) 17:35, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
Dear @ talk:
I assume WP:GF also in regards to your edits, and I thus treat your (alas short) comment as Wikipedia:CHALLENGE to the RS I had provided, that is that the relevant page from the special subsite about the island part of this genocide ( http://calliope.cse.sc.edu/lonewoman/about) was insufficient.
I am not sure if you had read it before reverting me, so here we go, a direct quote:
This digital archive collects, transcribes, annotates, and maps more than 450 nineteenth- and twentieth-century documents relevant to the story of the Lone Woman of San Nicolas Island. This Nicoleña was isolated alone on the most remote of the California Channel Islands between 1835-53, an event triggered by a massacre resulting from the international sea otter trade and then by the Spanish policy of reducción, or the in-gathering of Native tribes to Catholic Missions ...
Do the words "massacre" and "the Spanish" figure there prominently?
Here is another RS then: Journal of California and Great Basin Anthropology | Vol. 36, No. 1 (2016) https://www.nps.gov/subjects/islandofthebluedolphins/upload/JCGBA_36-1_Morris-etal_final.pdf, page 91 and ff.:
In 1814 a massacre of Nicoleños occurred when a Russian American Company (RAC) hunting crew composed of Alaskan natives, led by Yakov Babin, was brought to the island. Some Nicoleños reportedly killed one of the RAC Alaskan native hunters, and in retribution the remaining hunters killed many of the native islanders [...] what one RAC official termed an “extermination”
quoting four other 21 c. researchers and their publications (q.v.).
Let thus start with your restoring point 1 above, maybe adding also these other sources above, so that we can use image 1 to illustrate real history of this genocide, as per point 2.
If I am wrong, please convince me, quoting another WP policy that I am not aware of, or finding a better RS, e.g. claiming that it did not happen, so that we may arrive at the middle ground: a well-sourced truth, thus creating another NPOV Wikipedia article and also discovering something about ourselves and our prejudices or previously mistaken beliefs, as well.
Zezen ( talk) 20:28, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
Dear
User:GPRamirez5
You have neither self-reverted nor enhanced the source in https://commons.m.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:History/File:Californiakillingfields.jpg
as per Point 1 above, so I do not WP:GF to you anymore.
Please use WP:3 should you doubt mine.
Now, partially acknowledging your arguments about the scholarly consensus or lack thereof, I will revert you fully on 1 and update 2 accordingly.
I will try again to provide rationale here, mostly by quoting other WP:RSes for my further edits to this article.
Hopefully, we will reach a compromise.
Zezen ( talk) 09:43, 31 January 2020 (UTC)
I spot checked the first source: https://yalebooks.yale.edu/book/9780300181364/american-genocide
for the number of the victims in the current version of this article, which posits:
Between 1846 and 1873, European Americans are estimated to have killed outright some 9,492[1] to 16,094[1]
->
Madley, Benjamin (2016). An American Genocide, The United States and the California Catastrophe, 1846–1873. Yale University Press. pp. 11, 351
The claimed figure is not there on Page 11.
Just the opposite, the author makes a modest and justified reservation on the same page 11:
[...] These pages [of this book] cite very little archaeological evidence. Written histories draw from imperfect sources, and this book is no exception. The non-Indian perpetrator and bystander reports that form the backbone of this monograph were often written or delivered by biased individuals, sometimes by the very men organizing, inciting, or perpetrating the killing. Some may have deliberately exaggerated, minimized, misconstrued, or concealed genocidal intentions and actions. Moreover, because many sources had little interest in or knowledge of specific California Indian names, tribal groups, or geography,their reports often fail to include important information. This book is the product of the surest available sources and frequently draws on multiple sources to describe a single event.
Interestingly, further down on the next page the author attributes genocidal motivations for some massacres, so Inuit decimation of the "indigenous peoples of California on the San Nicolas island" (the original photo illustrating guilt of the presumed White perpetrators) would qualify as genocide using his definition, see also a critiquebthis book and of such claims here: https://www.nytimes.com/2016/05/29/books/review/an-american-genocide-by-benja.html
One more argument to expand the current POV scope by naming all the perpetrators.
As by now both the original illustrating photograph and the first quoted source failed verification, I alert fellow Wikipedians that the other claims and sources in this article may also be false.
Zezen (
talk)
10:04, 31 January 2020 (UTC)
Yes, and I wrote it. I left the other checks and critique for the other colleagues (e.g. you), as a WikiDragon.
A. I am removing this claim due to the failed ref. B. Please elaborate about Page 351, using a similar detailed quote to mine, and contrasting to his caveat on Page 11 then for us, before restoring.
Zezen ( talk) 14:04, 29 February 2020 (UTC)
It’s there: “the fact that non-Indians killed many more California Indians (at least 9,492-16,094) than had previously been estimated” [1] Volunteer Marek 20:51, 29 February 2020 (UTC)
Is there any reason in particular for there to be an article specifically on the "California" 'genocide' of Native Americans? The vast killings/genocide of Native Americans in the USA was across every state, not just specifically "California". In a way, this kind of article seems to be a misplaced focus. What about the "Trail of Tears"? Ryoung122 16:25, 26 July 2020 (UTC)
Understandable question, in the case of the California Native Americans, there was no place for them to go after such harassment, land theft, and diplacement as occurred with other nations. Seldom has there been such an open formal and recorded policy to "exterminate" peoples as worded by the California Governor on January 6, 1851, at his State of the State address to the California Senate, 1st Governor Peter Burnett said: "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." This statement and its effects were the direct root of the recent formal apology by the State Governor on June, 2019, for the genocide: "That’s what it was, a genocide. No other way to describe it... " More scholarly evidence will be forthcoming to emphasise the nation-wide aspects of genocide perpetrated on Native Americans: see for example "Surviving Genocide: Native Nations and the United States from the American Revolution to Bleeding Kansas" by Jeffrey Ostler, Yale University Press, (Part 1), and expect more from Part 2. https://www.nybooks.com/articles/2020/07/02/native-american-genocide/-- Richard Hawkins ( talk) 20:49, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
It is a politician's obfuscation of the truth; "newspeak", the pretence of being ethical and caring while you simultaneously promote the extermination of a people.-- Richard Hawkins ( talk) 12:52, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
You interpret it as you will. It was a public, recorded statement of policy. Whether you believe in his "regret", is up to you.-- Richard Hawkins ( talk) 11:08, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
The full speech makes it quite clear that the Native Americans constantly perpetrate theft and murder against white settlers, and that the white settlers respond in kind. This ridiculous, absurd politically correct Wikipedia page would have its readers imagine that whites attacked natives out of pure malice, rather than out of a tit-for-tat cycle of violence.
From the same speech, here's just one example of a native massacre of whites which is of course not mentioned anywhere on this idiotic page:
The first of these attacks was made on the 23d day of April last, at the confluence of the Gila and Colorado, where Glanton and a party of thirteen men had established a ferry across the latter stream. The attack was preconcerted, sudden, and unexpected and successful, that eleven of Glanton's party, including himself, were killed on the spot, and only three were able to escape, one of whom was wounded. It is possible that Glanton's party may have been guilty of some impropriety that gave immediate offence to the Indians; but the true motive no doubt arose from that jealousy which the Indian entertains of the white man, and which would naturally be aroused by the establishment of a ferry near the point where the Indians had a ferry of their own across the same stream. However this may be, the attack was excessive and unjustifiable, and amounted to a decided and serious act of war.
https://governors.library.ca.gov/addresses/s_01-Burnett2.html AvidReader11663 ( talk) 22:17, 19 March 2022 (UTC)
Ed Castillo's claim of 100,000 Native Americans killed in 1848 and 1849 strikes me as dubious and unreliable. This is a claim made by an activist who has built a career around sensationalizing the (very real) plight of Native Americans. What's really strange is that he was asked to write the State of California's Native American Heritage Commission's history of the genocide which is where this article sources this figure from but no other reliable source that I could find backs up his 6 figure (100,000) claim. Should his dubious stats even be included when it's so radically different than anything else found in the academic literature? Monopoly31121993(2) ( talk) 22:43, 17 June 2021 (UTC)
Many of the killings by vigilantes, soldiers and militiamen were not recorded. So the actual deathtoll is estimated to be much higher. For example this video by Insider News (see from 8:30): Why The Gold Rush Is One Of The Darkest Moments In US History | Whitewashed shows a lot of the casualties were not recorded in official documents. The state of California paid bounties, anywhere from 50 cents to 5 dollars (source: California Research Bureau). They found the receipts in the 1990s which totaled over $1.6 million dollars. So if you put a rough estimate of bounties into that $1.6 million dollar figure, you'll see easily 300,000 (three hundred thousand) people died during the gold rush itself. So many details continue to be ignored and omitted from school and history books such as Holt McDougal's United States History. - Artanisen ( talk) 05:42, 31 January 2022 (UTC)
It is misleading to include Michael Magliari in the 'against' section since he agrees with the term genocide in his review of Benjamin Madley's book. Nor is the large quote from him necessary, since the article does not include any other large quotes. ReadingBooks22 ( talk) 23:57, 6 May 2023 (UTC)
The "California Genocide" was a specific set of historical events, not every racist act committed against Native Americans in California. In fact the whole timeline section is very poorly written and could easily be removed. Eldomtom2 ( talk) 21:53, 29 May 2023 (UTC)
commonly agreed to have ended in the 1870s
No one has yet provided an argument for treating Indian boarding schools and forced sterilization as part of the California Genocide. If no one does in the next few days, I will remove them from the timeline.-- Eldomtom2 ( talk) 19:50, 5 June 2023 (UTC)
I see that the sources have again been changed. Unfortunately they continue to reenforce my point. From one of the latest ones added to the boarding school section:
The source is clearly separating the "California Genocide" (massacres primarily in northern California) from other actions that took place in California that also arguably counted as genocide.-- Eldomtom2 ( talk) 22:07, 8 June 2023 (UTC) Asking again if anyone would object to me removing the content in question, since there hasn't been any disagreement with Pliny's argument (which I agree with).-- Eldomtom2 ( talk) 11:28, 18 June 2023 (UTC)
So what is the 'California genocide' whose dates academics all agree on? If I glance at the bibliography I see both Madley and Lindsay use 1846-1873 in their subtitles, but the former's title is "An American Genocide, The United States and the California Catastrophe, 1846–1873". If taken narrowly the first date would seem limited to the federal govenment's role: 1846 and the start of the Mexican War is chosen to exclude Spanish, Mexican and Russian genocide, and the California legislature doesn't seem to have met till 1850. The WP article doesn't explain the 1873 watershed either. Sparafucil ( talk) 01:23, 12 September 2023 (UTC)
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 11 September 2023 and 18 December 2023. Further details are available
on the course page. Student editor(s):
LiliaCD (
article contribs).
— Assignment last updated by Llynn2 ( talk) 17:36, 15 December 2023 (UTC)
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 21 August 2023 and 14 December 2023. Further details are available
on the course page. Student editor(s):
Historian11233 (
article contribs).
— Assignment last updated by Afh1858 ( talk) 23:00, 9 November 2023 (UTC)
Why is indigenous capitalized? It is just an ethnic/racial term like white, black, and so on, right? 98.109.137.129 ( talk) 08:58, 13 March 2024 (UTC)
![]() | This ![]() It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
|
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 30 August 2018 and 13 December 2018. Further details are available
on the course page. Student editor(s):
Frankie aceves.
Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT ( talk) 18:32, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 26 August 2019 and 16 December 2019. Further details are available
on the course page. Student editor(s):
Brad.R.J.
Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT ( talk) 18:32, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
I do not see myself as quite qualified to make this judgement but I'm confused. I am leaving this message here in the hope that someone with a greater oversight of this will sort it. The title box on the top right lists total death toll as 4,500 - 16,000. All of the charts on the page show population numbers going down 250k and back again (I assume due to births) with an additon of around 50 years as it starts in 1830 (vs 1846) and goes up to 1910 (vs 1873 in the title box). Then near the bottom of the Statehood section is a cited claim that over 100,000 people were killed by non-state actors (miners). Personally I think this is a case of the victor writing the history books, but generally speaking are we really supposed to stick to the number 4,500 to 16,000 when it's so clearly incorrect (it's less than 10% of the numbers that disappeared and we have cite reports on the same page that 100k people were killed by non-natives).
Also with the fact that these were civilians apparently making most of the killings and the Indians weren't exactly the sort of community with passports and census papers, I don't expect a death record or citations for most of the deceased... Is it specifically breaking any WP rules to change the death toll to something more obviously sane?
Also, when I was a kid at school I used to hear that disease killed most of the Native Americans, but later found out that this was largely becausue it was weaponised as soon as the non-natives discovered native susceptibility to disease. This kind of makes the idea that disease is killing NA people secondary as disease is already weaponised and thus those who die still die effectively at the hands of the Spanish and British Settlers. 91.125.89.33 ( talk) 19:15, 8 September 2019 (UTC)
Full text
An Act for the Government and Protection of Indians
April 22, 1850
http://www.indiancanyon.org/ACTof1850.html
An interesting read. Cassandra — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.74.63.70 ( talk) 15:32, 23 January 2019 (UTC)
It was way more complicated: Spanish Catholic priests enslaving by force, then Russians bringing Inuits who decimated the locals and more.
19th c. clash of civilizations plus geopolitics, of sorts. History is not black and white.
I have fixed the false photo description and infobox and lead.
Discuss it here, pinging me.
Zezen (
talk)
12:12, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
1. Thank you User:GPRamirez5 for doing so and for not taking it personally.
Please thus also revert yourself on https://commons.m.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/390089191 so it is not misused by clueless Wikipedians or press again.
2. I say no to what you did again. The photo that you removed does have a lot to do with this genocide. It illustrates it: Aborigines killed aborigines, on purpose, details as per my note above or the URL to the source that you had removed as per Point 1, as well.
-> Let us keep this photo, elaborating on when it all started, and whodunnit, as per the very statistics in the article itself and photo's background.
Now two general requests to you:
3. As per my fuller note on your Talk, I assumed WP:GF of the previous editors here and on WikiMedia but then Amicus Plato, sed magis amica veritas: let us also obey the latter rule.
-> Let us not falsify history, as it borders on genocide denial.
4. I also assume that I may be wrong hereby, too, myself. Maybe completely in the wrong. If so, convince me by using WP:RS and quoting Wiki policies herein first, as I asked for above, commenting my original edits to the article itself before such silent reverts.
Bows to all.
Zezen ( talk) 08:43, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
Zezen, my reverting you was no bolder than you editing in the first place. But WP:ONUS is on you to justify inclusion. I don't see where you've provided RS, just a one hundred year article from an Arctic journal. The best and most recent scholarship on California genocide does not mention Inuits at all. GPRamirez5 ( talk) 17:35, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
Dear @ talk:
I assume WP:GF also in regards to your edits, and I thus treat your (alas short) comment as Wikipedia:CHALLENGE to the RS I had provided, that is that the relevant page from the special subsite about the island part of this genocide ( http://calliope.cse.sc.edu/lonewoman/about) was insufficient.
I am not sure if you had read it before reverting me, so here we go, a direct quote:
This digital archive collects, transcribes, annotates, and maps more than 450 nineteenth- and twentieth-century documents relevant to the story of the Lone Woman of San Nicolas Island. This Nicoleña was isolated alone on the most remote of the California Channel Islands between 1835-53, an event triggered by a massacre resulting from the international sea otter trade and then by the Spanish policy of reducción, or the in-gathering of Native tribes to Catholic Missions ...
Do the words "massacre" and "the Spanish" figure there prominently?
Here is another RS then: Journal of California and Great Basin Anthropology | Vol. 36, No. 1 (2016) https://www.nps.gov/subjects/islandofthebluedolphins/upload/JCGBA_36-1_Morris-etal_final.pdf, page 91 and ff.:
In 1814 a massacre of Nicoleños occurred when a Russian American Company (RAC) hunting crew composed of Alaskan natives, led by Yakov Babin, was brought to the island. Some Nicoleños reportedly killed one of the RAC Alaskan native hunters, and in retribution the remaining hunters killed many of the native islanders [...] what one RAC official termed an “extermination”
quoting four other 21 c. researchers and their publications (q.v.).
Let thus start with your restoring point 1 above, maybe adding also these other sources above, so that we can use image 1 to illustrate real history of this genocide, as per point 2.
If I am wrong, please convince me, quoting another WP policy that I am not aware of, or finding a better RS, e.g. claiming that it did not happen, so that we may arrive at the middle ground: a well-sourced truth, thus creating another NPOV Wikipedia article and also discovering something about ourselves and our prejudices or previously mistaken beliefs, as well.
Zezen ( talk) 20:28, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
Dear
User:GPRamirez5
You have neither self-reverted nor enhanced the source in https://commons.m.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:History/File:Californiakillingfields.jpg
as per Point 1 above, so I do not WP:GF to you anymore.
Please use WP:3 should you doubt mine.
Now, partially acknowledging your arguments about the scholarly consensus or lack thereof, I will revert you fully on 1 and update 2 accordingly.
I will try again to provide rationale here, mostly by quoting other WP:RSes for my further edits to this article.
Hopefully, we will reach a compromise.
Zezen ( talk) 09:43, 31 January 2020 (UTC)
I spot checked the first source: https://yalebooks.yale.edu/book/9780300181364/american-genocide
for the number of the victims in the current version of this article, which posits:
Between 1846 and 1873, European Americans are estimated to have killed outright some 9,492[1] to 16,094[1]
->
Madley, Benjamin (2016). An American Genocide, The United States and the California Catastrophe, 1846–1873. Yale University Press. pp. 11, 351
The claimed figure is not there on Page 11.
Just the opposite, the author makes a modest and justified reservation on the same page 11:
[...] These pages [of this book] cite very little archaeological evidence. Written histories draw from imperfect sources, and this book is no exception. The non-Indian perpetrator and bystander reports that form the backbone of this monograph were often written or delivered by biased individuals, sometimes by the very men organizing, inciting, or perpetrating the killing. Some may have deliberately exaggerated, minimized, misconstrued, or concealed genocidal intentions and actions. Moreover, because many sources had little interest in or knowledge of specific California Indian names, tribal groups, or geography,their reports often fail to include important information. This book is the product of the surest available sources and frequently draws on multiple sources to describe a single event.
Interestingly, further down on the next page the author attributes genocidal motivations for some massacres, so Inuit decimation of the "indigenous peoples of California on the San Nicolas island" (the original photo illustrating guilt of the presumed White perpetrators) would qualify as genocide using his definition, see also a critiquebthis book and of such claims here: https://www.nytimes.com/2016/05/29/books/review/an-american-genocide-by-benja.html
One more argument to expand the current POV scope by naming all the perpetrators.
As by now both the original illustrating photograph and the first quoted source failed verification, I alert fellow Wikipedians that the other claims and sources in this article may also be false.
Zezen (
talk)
10:04, 31 January 2020 (UTC)
Yes, and I wrote it. I left the other checks and critique for the other colleagues (e.g. you), as a WikiDragon.
A. I am removing this claim due to the failed ref. B. Please elaborate about Page 351, using a similar detailed quote to mine, and contrasting to his caveat on Page 11 then for us, before restoring.
Zezen ( talk) 14:04, 29 February 2020 (UTC)
It’s there: “the fact that non-Indians killed many more California Indians (at least 9,492-16,094) than had previously been estimated” [1] Volunteer Marek 20:51, 29 February 2020 (UTC)
Is there any reason in particular for there to be an article specifically on the "California" 'genocide' of Native Americans? The vast killings/genocide of Native Americans in the USA was across every state, not just specifically "California". In a way, this kind of article seems to be a misplaced focus. What about the "Trail of Tears"? Ryoung122 16:25, 26 July 2020 (UTC)
Understandable question, in the case of the California Native Americans, there was no place for them to go after such harassment, land theft, and diplacement as occurred with other nations. Seldom has there been such an open formal and recorded policy to "exterminate" peoples as worded by the California Governor on January 6, 1851, at his State of the State address to the California Senate, 1st Governor Peter Burnett said: "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." This statement and its effects were the direct root of the recent formal apology by the State Governor on June, 2019, for the genocide: "That’s what it was, a genocide. No other way to describe it... " More scholarly evidence will be forthcoming to emphasise the nation-wide aspects of genocide perpetrated on Native Americans: see for example "Surviving Genocide: Native Nations and the United States from the American Revolution to Bleeding Kansas" by Jeffrey Ostler, Yale University Press, (Part 1), and expect more from Part 2. https://www.nybooks.com/articles/2020/07/02/native-american-genocide/-- Richard Hawkins ( talk) 20:49, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
It is a politician's obfuscation of the truth; "newspeak", the pretence of being ethical and caring while you simultaneously promote the extermination of a people.-- Richard Hawkins ( talk) 12:52, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
You interpret it as you will. It was a public, recorded statement of policy. Whether you believe in his "regret", is up to you.-- Richard Hawkins ( talk) 11:08, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
The full speech makes it quite clear that the Native Americans constantly perpetrate theft and murder against white settlers, and that the white settlers respond in kind. This ridiculous, absurd politically correct Wikipedia page would have its readers imagine that whites attacked natives out of pure malice, rather than out of a tit-for-tat cycle of violence.
From the same speech, here's just one example of a native massacre of whites which is of course not mentioned anywhere on this idiotic page:
The first of these attacks was made on the 23d day of April last, at the confluence of the Gila and Colorado, where Glanton and a party of thirteen men had established a ferry across the latter stream. The attack was preconcerted, sudden, and unexpected and successful, that eleven of Glanton's party, including himself, were killed on the spot, and only three were able to escape, one of whom was wounded. It is possible that Glanton's party may have been guilty of some impropriety that gave immediate offence to the Indians; but the true motive no doubt arose from that jealousy which the Indian entertains of the white man, and which would naturally be aroused by the establishment of a ferry near the point where the Indians had a ferry of their own across the same stream. However this may be, the attack was excessive and unjustifiable, and amounted to a decided and serious act of war.
https://governors.library.ca.gov/addresses/s_01-Burnett2.html AvidReader11663 ( talk) 22:17, 19 March 2022 (UTC)
Ed Castillo's claim of 100,000 Native Americans killed in 1848 and 1849 strikes me as dubious and unreliable. This is a claim made by an activist who has built a career around sensationalizing the (very real) plight of Native Americans. What's really strange is that he was asked to write the State of California's Native American Heritage Commission's history of the genocide which is where this article sources this figure from but no other reliable source that I could find backs up his 6 figure (100,000) claim. Should his dubious stats even be included when it's so radically different than anything else found in the academic literature? Monopoly31121993(2) ( talk) 22:43, 17 June 2021 (UTC)
Many of the killings by vigilantes, soldiers and militiamen were not recorded. So the actual deathtoll is estimated to be much higher. For example this video by Insider News (see from 8:30): Why The Gold Rush Is One Of The Darkest Moments In US History | Whitewashed shows a lot of the casualties were not recorded in official documents. The state of California paid bounties, anywhere from 50 cents to 5 dollars (source: California Research Bureau). They found the receipts in the 1990s which totaled over $1.6 million dollars. So if you put a rough estimate of bounties into that $1.6 million dollar figure, you'll see easily 300,000 (three hundred thousand) people died during the gold rush itself. So many details continue to be ignored and omitted from school and history books such as Holt McDougal's United States History. - Artanisen ( talk) 05:42, 31 January 2022 (UTC)
It is misleading to include Michael Magliari in the 'against' section since he agrees with the term genocide in his review of Benjamin Madley's book. Nor is the large quote from him necessary, since the article does not include any other large quotes. ReadingBooks22 ( talk) 23:57, 6 May 2023 (UTC)
The "California Genocide" was a specific set of historical events, not every racist act committed against Native Americans in California. In fact the whole timeline section is very poorly written and could easily be removed. Eldomtom2 ( talk) 21:53, 29 May 2023 (UTC)
commonly agreed to have ended in the 1870s
No one has yet provided an argument for treating Indian boarding schools and forced sterilization as part of the California Genocide. If no one does in the next few days, I will remove them from the timeline.-- Eldomtom2 ( talk) 19:50, 5 June 2023 (UTC)
I see that the sources have again been changed. Unfortunately they continue to reenforce my point. From one of the latest ones added to the boarding school section:
The source is clearly separating the "California Genocide" (massacres primarily in northern California) from other actions that took place in California that also arguably counted as genocide.-- Eldomtom2 ( talk) 22:07, 8 June 2023 (UTC) Asking again if anyone would object to me removing the content in question, since there hasn't been any disagreement with Pliny's argument (which I agree with).-- Eldomtom2 ( talk) 11:28, 18 June 2023 (UTC)
So what is the 'California genocide' whose dates academics all agree on? If I glance at the bibliography I see both Madley and Lindsay use 1846-1873 in their subtitles, but the former's title is "An American Genocide, The United States and the California Catastrophe, 1846–1873". If taken narrowly the first date would seem limited to the federal govenment's role: 1846 and the start of the Mexican War is chosen to exclude Spanish, Mexican and Russian genocide, and the California legislature doesn't seem to have met till 1850. The WP article doesn't explain the 1873 watershed either. Sparafucil ( talk) 01:23, 12 September 2023 (UTC)
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 11 September 2023 and 18 December 2023. Further details are available
on the course page. Student editor(s):
LiliaCD (
article contribs).
— Assignment last updated by Llynn2 ( talk) 17:36, 15 December 2023 (UTC)
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 21 August 2023 and 14 December 2023. Further details are available
on the course page. Student editor(s):
Historian11233 (
article contribs).
— Assignment last updated by Afh1858 ( talk) 23:00, 9 November 2023 (UTC)
Why is indigenous capitalized? It is just an ethnic/racial term like white, black, and so on, right? 98.109.137.129 ( talk) 08:58, 13 March 2024 (UTC)