Originally posted by viper37
First, the Iroquois kept playing a game between English and French, some tribes waging war against the French, others being "agressive neutral". Same thing happenned with the US revolution. It's no surprise that the Americans attacked their villages, and hadn't they done so, the Loyalists milicia would have done the same in the villages supporting the US (assuming they didn't do it). Also, I think the term genocide isn't really appropriate, as these kind of punitive raids were quite common between colonists (americans or french) and indians.
A quick note about French-Iroquois relations, which were a bit more complicated than that: Kanawake Indians were in fact allied with the French, and the French had some support in certain nations and less in others. The now famous Great Peace of 1701 was equivalent to a non-agression pact. I would recommand on that subject D. Richter, "The Ordeal of the Longhouse".
I certainly am no scholar of the American War of Independance, but I gather from Richard White the situation was a bit more complex than that, with some nations from the Confederacy taking side with the British and others taking side with the Americans, resulting in a pseudo-Civil War. I am not sure that *all* elements dubbed "pro-British" would really have taken part in some attacks upon American villages (according to Tehanetorens, Mohwaks were pro-British, Onondagas were neutral, and Senecas and Cayugas were divided. Oneidas and Tuscaroras were pro-Americans). It seems, in fact, that American attacks did finally reinforce the pro-British side, throwing neutrals into pro-British arms. But, again, I do not know much about this particular period (and I unfortunately lent my books on the Iroquois to a friend).
As for the issue of genocide, one has to be prudent also not to "trivialize" the issue. There were retaliation expeditions in that time, but there were also clearly "extermination" expeditions. The language used in the official correspondence leaves few doubts for a good many cases. "Exterminated", "Wiped out of existence" and similar words or sentences are often used to describe goals or desired results for such expedition, and I would not hesitate to call them genocide. The French certainly tried with the Iroquois in the 17th century or the Chickasaws in the 18th century, and succeeded (or nearly succeeded) with the Renards (Fox) and the Natchez in the 18th century. This is not to say the French were worse (or better) than any other European people in North America: it is just to point out that those Europeans actually *wished*, at some points in time, to commit genocide. The specific case of the Iroquois during the War of Independence, I know to little to comment.
Second: Oexmelin, have you read Fred Anderson's latest book "Crucible of war (The seven years war and the fate of the british empire in Nort America)? It's a very good book (at least, for a non historian like me
). In this book, the author says that there is still no absolute proofs as to wheter or not Washington attacked the French emissary (well in fact, he was killed by the Iroquois leader). Apparently, he himself said they started shooting when they spotted him (or course
) while the French survivors said they started shooting without warning. I'm more inclinded to believe the second theory, but still, I have no proofs to support that
No, I haven't read Anderson's book yet, as it is a bit too "war-narrative" for my taste or interest. As for Washington, it seems to me a silly debate. What we have is the capitulation treaty signed by Washington which recognized the "assassination" (and I think someone knowing very little French could understand that "assassinat" meant something close to "assassination/murder" and not "friendly geasture"). We have Washington writing in his journal (easily verifiable) to have open fire before the French knew of his presence. We know the two nations at the time were not officially at war. We know that Jumonville orders were that of a diplomat, but those were ambigous orders at best. We know Washington had orders to "remove" French presence in the region. Now, I believe Washington was a man, and not a demi-god. He was in a tense situation, not knowing whom he was facing, not knowing the situation he was in. Perhaps he was afraid, perhaps the report he had led him to believe Jumonville was there for war, and perhaps Jumonville had even in fact committed what we now call "acts of war". Perhaps, when defeated, Washington agreed to sign the *very* generous capitulation treaty to be able to save his hide and his men. What we know is, he signed it. Whatever went into Jumonville and Washington thoughts, we shall never know. So, to blame Washington for what he did in that very tense moment or to blame Jumonville for being there (Washington was also there, wasn't he ?) or, more laughable, to blame everybody but Washington doesn't seem to me very serious. In fact, the whole debate solves nothing, and serves, in my opinion, only one thing: for us to recognize that, in difficult situations, people act as best as they can, sometimes leading to unforseen consequences, and sometimes leading to something one is not quite proud to admit in later yeats, be it the French or Washington.
