Was the Pequot War Genocide? Colonists vs. Native Americans

Introduction: The Weight of the Word 'Genocide'

"Genocide" is a harsh word. It describes the decimation of an entire people and culture. Sadly, it has become common cultural and political parlance in America and around the world, given the horrific events that transpired during World War II in Europe and, later in the twentieth century, in Cambodia, Rwanda, and Bosnia. But is the present American nation — long before these chronicled events of recent memory — stained with a similar historical blemish of cultural eradication? Were the words spoken by one English colonist, "the only good savage is a dead savage" (Relle & Madras, 2003), merely hyperbole, or were they representative of the English nation's entire ideology regarding the native peoples of the Americas?

The Pequot War offers a revealing test case for these questions. Two prominent historians — David Stannard and David Katz — offer sharply opposing answers, and examining their arguments reveals how much depends on whether genocide is defined by intent, by outcome, or by both.

Stannard's Case: Cultural Annihilation of the Pequot

David Stannard argues that what transpired between the colonists and the native peoples was genocide. Specifically, he contends that in the war between the colonists of Connecticut and Massachusetts and the Pequot Indian tribe, death and cultural annihilation were the only goals of the English. As early as the first colonies in the 1500s, there was debate among settlers about whether it was best to kill all the natives or to capture them and put them to work as slaves (Stannard, cited in Relle & Madras, 48). The Indians were always judged by Western European standards, and their methods of fighting were frequently dismissed (50). They were considered inferior peoples — evidenced, apparently, by the "leaping and dancing" they engaged in — although Stannard suggests that rather than pursuing a winner-take-all strategy, the warriors were demonstrating their prowess at shooting arrows in a manner the English colonists simply did not understand.

Regardless, this shows that even though the Indians were mocked as a military threat, the settlers were still determined to move against them. When the British stormed the Pequot encampment, in contrast to the Indian displays of might, the English settlers simply slashed at anything that moved, wielding superior technology with ruthless force (52). The Pequot were hunted to a state of "near extermination." "Having virtually eradicated an entire people," the English also wished to erase all cultural memory of the Pequot — every trace of "past existence" (53).

This dual destruction of both a people and their cultural record is central to the definition of genocide as it has been understood since Raphael Lemkin coined the term in 1944. Stannard's account suggests the Pequot War meets that standard on both counts.

Katz's Counterargument: Territorial Dispute, Not Genocide

Historian David Katz offers a contrasting characterization. He argues that the war must not be viewed in strict terms of "red vs. white" (Katz, cited in Relle & Madras, 57). Katz concedes that the mere presence of Europeans constituted, in the eyes of the Indians, an act of aggression (58). However, as a defense against the charge of genocide, he points out that none of the mainland Pequot were to be harmed — provided they capitulated to English demands and kept out of the territories the English had settled (58–59). This, Katz argues, demonstrates that the English simply wanted to establish a territorial and economic presence; it mattered very little to them whether the Pequot survived as a cultural force. Only because the Pequot "plagued the settlers with a series of raids, ambushes, and annoyances" did the English move against them (59).

Katz suggests, in other words, that this was a war of contested territory — fair or unfair — and not a war against a culture, and thus does not merit the term genocide. "In effect, both sides moved to defend what they saw as rightly theirs" (59). The colonists of Connecticut and Massachusetts feared the Pequot forging stronger alliances with neighboring tribes, which could have made the Pequot a formidable fighting force — a portrait that stands in complete contrast to Stannard's depiction of a weaker, less militarily capable tribe.

Conclusion: Land, Culture, and the Genocide Question

Even if one accepts the fiercer portrait of Indian braves painted by Katz, ultimately it was not the colonists' land in the first place, and the Pequot's efforts to take it back seem justified. Even if cultural eradication was not the stated intention before the wars began, the fact that it was the result — driven by the Europeans' rapacious attitude toward the land — seems to justify applying the term genocide. After all, what are a people without a land? How can any people endure in history without a place to practice their way of life and culture?

Works Cited

Stannard, David. American Holocaust. Oxford University Press, 1992.

Katz, David. "The Pequot War Reconsidered." The New England Quarterly. June 1991.

Relle, James, and Larry Madaras. Taking Sides: Clashing Views on Controversial Issues in American History. Volume I. 10th ed. Duskin McGraw-Hill, 2003.