Amériques, le génocide oublié

Par Mis en ligne le 15 janvier 2010

1492, la po­pu­la­tion na­tive des Amé­riques était de 100 mil­lions. A la fin du 19ème siècle, la plu­part avaient été ex­ter­minés. De nom­breux décès étaient dus à des ma­la­dies, mais cette ex­tinc­tion de masse a aussi été or­ga­nisée. La bou­cherie a com­mencé avec Chris­tophe Co­lomb. Il a mas­sacré la po­pu­la­tion au­toch­tone d’Hispaniola (aujourd’hui Haïti et Do­mi­nique) avec une fé­ro­cité in­ima­gi­nable. En 1535 la po­pu­la­tion na­tive de 8 mil­lions de per­sonnes avait été ré­duite à zéro, en raison des ma­la­dies, des as­sas­si­nats, ou épui­sées par le tra­vail forcé et la famine.

Avatar, James Cameron’s block­bus­ting 3-D film, is both pro­foundly silly and pro­found. It’s pro­found be­cause, like most films about aliens, it is a me­ta­phor for contact bet­ween dif­ferent human cultures. But in this case the me­ta­phor is conscious and pre­cise : this is the story of Eu­ro­pean en­ga­ge­ment with the na­tive peoples of the Ame­ricas. It’s pro­foundly silly be­cause en­gi­nee­ring a happy en­ding de­mands a plot so stupid and pre­dic­table that it rips the heart out of the film. The fate of the na­tive Ame­ri­cans is much closer to the story told in ano­ther new film, The Road, in which a rem­nant po­pu­la­tion flees in terror as it is hunted to extinction.

But this is a story no one wants to hear, be­cause of the chal­lenge it pre­sents to the way we choose to see our­selves. Eu­rope was mas­si­vely en­ri­ched by the ge­no­cides in the Ame­ricas ; the Ame­rican na­tions were founded on them. This is a his­tory we cannot accept.

In his book Ame­rican Ho­lo­caust, the US scholar David Stan­nard do­cu­ments the grea­test acts of ge­no­cide the world has ever experienced(1). In 1492, some 100m na­tive peoples lived in the Ame­ricas. By the end of the 19th Cen­tury al­most all of them had been ex­ter­mi­nated. Many died as a re­sult of di­sease. But the mass ex­tinc­tion was also engineered.

When the Spa­nish ar­rived in the Ame­ricas, they des­cribed a world which could scar­cely have been more dif­ferent from their own. Eu­rope was ra­vaged by war, op­pres­sion, sla­very, fa­na­ti­cism, di­sease and star­va­tion. The po­pu­la­tions they en­coun­tered were healthy, well-nourished and mostly (with ex­cep­tions like the Az­tecs and Incas) pea­cable, de­mo­cratic and ega­li­ta­rian. Throu­ghout the Ame­ricas the ear­liest ex­plo­rers, in­clu­ding Co­lumbus, re­marked on the na­tives’ ex­tra­or­di­nary hos­pi­ta­lity. The conquis­ta­dores mar­velled at the ama­zing roads, ca­nals, buil­dings and art they found, which in some cases outs­tripped any­thing they had seen at home. None of this stopped them from des­troying eve­ry­thing and eve­ryone they encountered.

The but­chery began with Co­lumbus. He slaugh­tered the na­tive people of His­pa­niola (now Haiti and the Do­mi­nican Re­pu­blic) by uni­ma­gi­nably brutal means. His sol­diers tore ba­bies from their mo­thers and da­shed their heads against rocks. They fed their dogs on li­ving chil­dren. On one oc­ca­sion they hung 13 In­dians in ho­nour of Christ and the 12 dis­ciples, on a gibbet just low en­ough for their toes to touch the ground, then di­sem­bo­welled them and burnt them alive. Co­lumbus or­dered all the na­tive people to de­liver a cer­tain amount of gold every three months ; anyone who failed had his hands cut off. By 1535 the na­tive po­pu­la­tion of His­pa­niola had fallen from 8m to zero : partly as a re­sult of di­sease, partly as a re­sult of murder, over­work and starvation.

The conquis­ta­dores spread this ci­vi­li­sing mis­sion across cen­tral and south Ame­rica. When they failed to re­veal where their my­thical trea­sures were hidden, the in­di­ge­nous people were flogged, hanged, drowned, dis­mem­bered, ripped apart by dogs, bu­ried alive or burnt. The sol­diers cut off women’s breasts, sent people back to their vil­lages with their se­vered hands and noses hung round their necks and hunted In­dians with their dogs for sport. But most were killed by en­sla­ve­ment and di­sease. The Spa­nish dis­co­vered that it was cheaper to work In­dians to death and re­place them than to keep them alive : the life ex­pec­tancy in their mines and plan­ta­tions was three to four months. Wi­thin a cen­tury of their ar­rival, around 95% of the po­pu­la­tion of South and Cen­tral Ame­rica had been destroyed.

In Ca­li­fornia du­ring the 18th Cen­tury the Spa­nish sys­te­ma­tised this ex­ter­mi­na­tion. A Fran­ciscan mis­sio­nary called Ju­ni­pero Serra set up a se­ries of “mis­sions” : in rea­lity concen­tra­tion camps using slave la­bour. The na­tive people were herded in under force of arms and made to work in the fields on one fifth of the ca­lo­ries fed to African-American slaves in the 19th cen­tury. They died from over­work, star­va­tion and di­sease at as­to­ni­shing rates, and were conti­nually re­placed, wi­ping out the in­di­ge­nous po­pu­la­tions. Ju­ni­pero Serra, the Eich­mann of Ca­li­fornia, was bea­ti­fied by the Va­tican in 1988. He now re­quires one more mi­racle to be pro­nounced a saint(2).

While the Spa­nish were mostly driven by the lust for gold, the Bri­tish who co­lo­nised North Ame­rica wanted land. In New En­gland they sur­rounded the vil­lages of the na­tive Ame­ri­cans and mur­dered them as they slept. As ge­no­cide spread west­wards, it was en­dorsed at the hi­ghest le­vels. George Wa­shington or­dered the total des­truc­tion of the homes and land of the Iro­quois. Thomas Jef­ferson de­clared that his nation’s wars with the In­dians should be pur­sued until each tribe “is ex­ter­mi­nated or is driven beyond the Mis­sis­sippi”. Du­ring the Sand Creek Mas­sacre of 1864, troops in Co­lo­rado slaugh­tered unarmed people ga­thered under a flag of peace, killing chil­dren and ba­bies, mu­ti­la­ting all the corpses and kee­ping their vic­tims’ ge­ni­tals to use as to­bacco pouches or to wear on their hats. Theo­dore Roo­se­velt called this event “as rightful and be­ne­fi­cial a deed as ever took place on the frontier.”

The but­chery hasn’t yet ended : last month the Guar­dian re­ported that Bra­zi­lian ran­chers in the wes­tern Amazon, ha­ving slaugh­tered all the rest, tried to kill the last sur­vi­ving member of a fo­rest tribe(3). Yet the grea­test acts of ge­no­cide in his­tory scar­cely ruffle our col­lec­tive conscience. Per­haps this is what would have hap­pened had the Nazis won the se­cond world war : the Ho­lo­caust would have been de­nied, ex­cused or mi­ni­mised in the same way, even as it conti­nued. The people of the na­tions res­pon­sible — Spain, Bri­tain, the US and others — will to­le­rate no com­pa­ri­sons, but the final so­lu­tions pur­sued in the Ame­ricas were far more suc­cessful. Those who com­mis­sioned or en­dorsed them re­main na­tional or re­li­gious he­roes. Those who seek to prompt our me­mo­ries are ignored or condemned.

This is why the right hates Avatar. In the neocon Weekly Stan­dard, John Pod­ho­retz com­plains that the film re­sembles a “re­vi­sio­nist wes­tern” in which “the In­dians be­came the good guys and the Ame­ri­cans the bad guys.”(4) He says it asks the au­dience “to root for the de­feat of Ame­rican sol­diers at the hands of an in­sur­gency.” In­sur­gency is an in­ter­es­ting word for an at­tempt to re­sist in­va­sion : in­surgent, like sa­vage, is what you call so­meone who has so­me­thing you want. L’Osservatore Ro­mano, the of­fi­cial news­paper of the Va­tican, condemned the film as “just … an anti-imperialistic, anti-militaristic parable”(5).

But at least the right knows what it is at­ta­cking. In the New York Times the li­beral critic Adam Cohen praises Avatar for cham­pio­ning the need to see clearly(6). It re­veals, he says, “a well-known prin­ciple of to­ta­li­ta­ria­nism and ge­no­cide — that it is ea­siest to op­press those we cannot see”. But in a mar­vel­lous un­cons­cious irony, he by­passes the cra­shingly ob­vious me­ta­phor and talks ins­tead about the light it casts on Nazi and So­viet atro­ci­ties. We have all be­come skilled in the art of not seeing.

I agree with its right­wing cri­tics that Avatar is crass, maw­kish and cli­ched. But it speaks of a truth more im­por­tant — and more dan­ge­rous — than those contained in a thou­sand ar­thouse movies.

Re­fe­rences :

1. David E Stan­nard, 1992. Ame­rican Ho­lo­caust. Ox­ford Uni­ver­sity Press. Un­less stated other­wise, all the his­to­rical events men­tioned in this co­lumn are sourced to the same book.

2. http://www.latimes.com/news/local/ la-me-miracle28-2009aug28,0,2804203.story

3. http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/dec/09/ amazon-man-in-hole-attacked

4. http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content /Public/Articles/000/000/017/350fozta.asp

5. http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/ news/2802155/Vatican-hits-out-at-3D-Avatar.html

6. http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/26/opinion/26sat4.html

Laisser un commentaire