The Numbers Game?

A lot of people are not going to like what I have to say in this essay. Some of my Native relations aren't going to like it because it runs counter to what is, for some, a popular way of supporting their just contention that a massive, yet largely disregarded, genocide occurred in the Americans. And a lot of non-Natives won't like it because it points out why the genocide is disregarded.


Stirring trouble is expected from me. I am, after all, Mohawk, and we have a tradition of causing trouble for those who violate our sense of justice.

I'm referring to the estimates of the indigenous population of the Americas at the time of the arrival of Columbus, and during the ensuing centuries of conquest. This is a controversial topic, and the estimates vary widely from a low of 10 million made by historians at the end of the 19th Century, to as high as 100 million made by more contemporary advocates of the First Nations.

Calculating even a relative number is difficult because most of the First Nations kept nothing in the way of a written record of such things. Even those Nations which did have a form of writing, such as the Aztec, did not maintain a completely accurate census.

Why is the population at the onset of conquest so important? Because, in the colonist way of thinking, the numbers give a scale to the rightness-or wrongness-of what happened from 1492 onward. In colonist thinking, it's more acceptable to displace, rob and annihilate 10 million people than it is 100 million. Still, this is where-and why- I have an issue with Natives adapting the same mindset when declaring how many Native Americans were here when Columbus ran aground-and by inference, how many were killed by conflict or disease.

I studied archeology in high school. I'm familiar with the ways in which archeologists and anthropologists estimate population when clear written records are not extant. They do a pretty good job of it, even if cultural biases can interfere with their thinking at times. Estimates by contemporary researches into the area use a wide ranger of resources to come up with population totals ranging from a low of 18 million to a high of around 60 million. (From what I've seen, this variance depends on how accurate contemporary accounts of the Aztec and Inca empires were). The mean number tends to be around 30 million.

I think 30 million is about right. Given the way in which our ancestors lived, the historical condition of the land shows this number being the ideal level at which impact on the environment would be minimal. Not all Nations were wonderful stewards of the earth who had minimal impact on the ecosystem. The empires of Central and South America despoiled the land just as much as similar Nations in Europe did. Sound research shows that 100 million people-greater than the population of Europe at the time of Columbus-would have left a much bigger “footprint” both environmentally and in archeological evidence than is the case.

Granted, it can be argued that the majority of Native Americans lived a lifestyle that had less impact on the environment than their European contemporaries. Also, they were spread out across a geographical area five times as large as Europe. So it's not unreasonable to think that 100 million people could occupy the 16 million plus square miles of the Americas and leave little evidence behind of their presence.

However, my issue is not with the number itself, but why some Natives seem so intent on increasing the population to the maximum imaginable number. We want people to understand the scope of the crimes committed against the First Nations, of course. But do we have to get involved in a colonist-thinking Numbers Game to do so?

In Mohawk tradition, the life of a single person, taken unjustly, is a crime which effects the entire community. Great reparations would be demanded, or a war of retribution engaged in, in response to such a death. To our way of thinking, if there were only 18 million people on Turtle Island when conquest began, it's as much an injustice as if there were 100 million.

Unfortunately, colonist culture has a habit of making such assessements of the value of a human life relative to quantity. The murder of 10 people makes the news for a week or a month. Genocide against 800,000 becomes a movie. Genocide against 6 million becomes a tragic specter haunting a period of history. Therefore, genocide against 100 million must be an aspect of a Nation's history that demands immediate recognition and response, right?

Wrong on a couple of counts.

First, consider that those who commit the genocide in the name of conquest, and those who profit from it now, have a vested interest in disregarding the data. Especially if it happened far enough in the past that those who perpetrated it are long dead, and the resultant changes to the country so vast, as to make proper reparations impractical, if not impossible.

Second, overestimating the population of Natives can work against us, culturally. Consider how Europeans and Americans respond to genocides of the 20th Century. 6 million European Jews were killed during WW2. This is something that nearly every school child in the US is taught, and of which nearly every adult in the US is aware.

Now, how many of those same people are aware that Mao Ze-Dung murdered anywhere from 48 to 75 million of his own people during his reign in China? Not that many because, sadly, to a lot of people they are "just" Chinese and at the time the US didn't care if the Chinese communists were killing each other off. And now, the US is reluctant to bring it up because business with China is very profitable.

Or look at the response of Europe and the US to the genocide of 800,000 Rwandan Tutsis. The US government couldn't even admit to the genocide, using the term “acts of genocide” (what's the difference?) in vague official statements to justify not becoming involved. Europe and the US stood by and watched, using UN troops simply to ensure the evacuation of their own white citizens, without regard for what happened to the Rwandans. As a character in the movie “Hotel Rwanda” put it, the Rwandans didn't matter because not only were they black, but they were African.

So here's my thinking, as much as some may not like it. When Natives try to “high ball” the estimates of our population at the time of conquest, we are displaying the effects of colonization by playing the Numbers Game. I know we do so to try to overcome the indifference of people, hoping that if they are touched by the deaths of 6 million European Jews, they should be totally outraged by the deaths of 60 million Native Americans. But, to play Devil's Advocate, let me ask this question:

Isn't this in essence saying that it takes 10 Native Americans to add up to the importance of 1 European?

Isn't this sort of devaluation and trivialization what we have suffered from for over 500 years? Wasn't it the colonists' who declared that we were worth less than they were, so it was acceptable to take our land, enslave and murder our people, then act like it was all doing us a favor as they “tamed” the land and made it profitable?

Let's be accurate in our presentation of data regarding the First Nations. Let's realize that the number of people who will respond accordingly are few. Let's not let the colonization rob us of any more of our identities than has already happened. If we get too wrapped up in the Numbers Game, we have to play it the way those who are masters of it do. In doing that, we become too much like those who would destroy us altogether.

In Mohawk tradition, according to the Gayanashagowa, The Great Law of Peace of the Haudenosaunee, the unjust death of a single person is the same as the death of the entire community in importance. Let us maintain that noble thinking, and take our own measures to redress the deaths of so many, rather than try to win the Numbers Game with a people who compare those numbers to a profit margin anyway.