An Indigenous Peoples' History of the United States

“The notion that settler-indigenous conflict is an inevitable product of cultural differences and misunderstandings, or that violence was committed equally by the colonized and the colonizer, blurs the nature of the historical processes.”

Dunbar-Ortiz critiques methods and frameworks used to analyze U.S. history that are common among historians and schools. Here, she particularly rejects the characterization by some historians, as seen in many U.S. History textbooks, of colonialism as encounters or clashes between cultures, or “cultural differences.” Instead, she argues for the need to view history through a colonial framework to properly understand what happened and how the effects of the past carry into the future.

“We must act with vindictive earnestness against the Sioux, even to their extermination, men, women and children […] during an assault, the soldiers can not pause to distinguish between male and female, or even discriminate as to age."

This is a quote describing U.S. government genocidal policy toward the Sioux Nation from General William T. Sherman in 1873. It summarizes the popular attitude among Anglo-Americans at the time. It is also one of many examples that Dunbar-Ortiz includes to illuminate historical evidence of this type of policy throughout U.S. history. It reflects the recurring theme that the way of war for the United States has historically been part of a culture of conquest and has relied on irregular warfare and total war, which, as the quotes demonstrates, includes women, children, and elderly noncombatants. Dunbar-Ortiz would argue this attitude was the rule, not the exception.

“By the time of European invasions, Indigenous peoples had occupied and shaped every part of the Americas, established extensive trade networks and roads, and were sustaining their populations by adapting to specific natural environments, but they also adapted nature to suit human ends.’”

This quote is part of Dunbar-Ortiz’s detailed tackling of the myth of a virgin wilderness or “New World” that is often used to describe the North American continent prior to the arrival of European colonizers. On the contrary, the land was not only occupied, but Indigenous peoples had placed their imprint on it in many ways, including through agriculture, land management, and roads. The erasure of Indigenous peoples from the narrative is another way in which colonialism and genocide shaped U.S. history and the myths that arose from it. By debunking this myth, Dunbar-Ortiz accomplishes her goal of revealing a reality that is often ignored or distorted.

“The institutions of colonialism and methods for relocation, deportation, and expropriation of land had already been practiced, if not perfected, by the end of the fifteenth century.”

In discussing the “culture of conquest” that developed in Europe prior to colonization of the Americas, Dunbar-Ortiz demonstrates how that culture developed out of the Crusades and England’s conquest of Ireland. As a result, Dunbar-Ortiz argues that European colonial powers had already developed the practices, beliefs, and tools they would use in their conquest and colonization of Indigenous peoples of the Americas. Her argument implies that Europeans knew exactly what they were doing, as they had already done it before in Europe. It also provides support for her later arguments that the United States, with a foundation in this culture of conquest, operated on colonialist and genocidal policies by design and with intent, not just because of some incidental circumstances or because of cultural differences with Indigenous people.

“The Crusades in the Iberian Peninsula (Spain and Portugal today) and expulsion of Jews and Muslims were part of a process that created the core ideology for modern colonialism-white supremacy and its justification for genocide. The Crusades gave birth to the papal law of limpieza de sangre—cleanliness of blood—for which the Inquisition was established by the Church to investigate and determine. Before this time the concept of biological race based on "blood" is not known to have existed as law or taboo in Christian Europe or anywhere else in the world.”

White supremacy is another ideology Dunbar-Ortiz discusses as present from the beginning of European colonization. She also discusses the roots of the United States and settler colonialism as including white supremacy. Here, she provides an insightful history of the idea of blood purity or cleanliness as a biological way to differentiate between people. Of particular interest is her point that the concept had not existed prior to this. The significance of this is that the idea of white supremacy had already developed its roots among Europeans, and as a result, it was brought over by colonizers to North America and eventually applied to Indigenous peoples, enslaved peoples, and refined into the version we see today.

“The United States is not unique among nations in forging an origin myth, but most of its citizens believe it to be exceptional among nation-states, and this exceptionalist ideology has been used to justify appropriation of the continent and then domination of the rest of the world.”

Dunbar-Ortiz uses this quote to emphasize the strength of the U.S. origin myth and the strong belief in U.S. exceptionalism prevalent among U.S. Americans. Here, she notably states that having an origin myth is not unique, as citizens of many nations have similar origin narratives. However, the key difference is the way many in the U.S. elevate its origin narrative to the level of exceptional among all nations. Dunbar-Ortiz believes that this ideology is so grounded in U.S. American identity that it has been used to overlook the country’s colonialist roots and ongoing imperialism overseas. For this reason, Dunbar-Ortiz believes it is necessary to overcome these myths to shatter the illusions that they create.

“These early settlers came mostly from the Scottish lowlands. Scotland itself, along with Wales, had preceded Ireland as colonial notches in the belt of English expansion. Britain's colonization of Indigenous lands in North America was foreshadowed by its colonization of northern Ireland.”

In discussing conditions in Europe pre-colonization of the Americas, Dunbar-Ortiz details England’s colonization of Northern Ireland to illustrate the way in which settler colonialism in North America would mirror this colonization. In particular, she discusses the group of settlers called the Ulster-Scots or Scots-Irish because they had been settler-colonialists in Ireland just as they would later be in North America, bringing along with them the experience they had from Europe. Dunbar-Ortiz helps the reader understand who early settlers were and what they believed in based on their experiences in Europe prior to crossing the Atlantic.

“Settler colonialists again chose their own means of conquest. Such fighters are often viewed as courageous heroes, but killing the unarmed women, children, and old people and burning homes and fields involved neither courage nor sacrifice. So it was from the planting of the first British colonies in North America.”

Dunbar-Ortiz rejects the hero narrative often associated with early settlers, historical figures, or U.S. presidents. Here, she does so in context of discussing the way of war through irregular warfare tactics used against Indigenous peoples by early settlers, particularly the targeting of civilians. By pointing this out, she highlights the absurd nature of calling people heroes or referring to them as courageous for such actions. These arguments are part of her overall efforts to break down common narratives associated with the U.S. origin narrative.

“Why should you take by force that from us which you can have by love? Why should you destroy us, who have provided you with food? What can you get by war? […] What is the cause of your jealousy? You see us unarmed, and willing to supply your wants, if you will come in a friendly manner, and not with swords and guns, as to invade an enemy.”

This quote is by Powhatan Confederacy’s leader Wahunsonacock in response to the Jamestown settlement’s leader John Smith. Due to a lack of food supply for Jamestown settlers, Smith threatened to kill the Powhatans if they did not supply settlers with food, clothing, land, and labor. The Powhatan response poses questions as to why the settlers would threaten them instead of working with them. This situation demonstrates the culture of conquest and way of war Dunbar-Ortiz discusses as seen in the settlers’ willingness to resort so quickly to violence against Indigenous nations to get what they wanted.

“The trading posts established by US merchants further divided Muskogee society, pulling many deeply into the US economy through dependency and debt, and away from the Spanish and British trading firms, which had previously left their lands undisturbed. This method of colonization by co-optation and debt proved effective wherever employed by colonial powers in the world, but only when it was accompanied by extreme violence at any sign of indigenous insurgency. The United States moved across North America in this manner. While most Muskogees continued to follow their traditional democratic ways in their villages, the elite Muskogees were making decisions and compromises on their behalf that would bear tragic consequences for them all.

This quotation provides a broader analysis of colonialism as the root cause of many negative consequences on Indigenous communities. Here, Dunbar-Ortiz discusses how the U.S. would create conditions that forced Indigenous people to become economically dependent and demonstrates how colonialism caused disruptions and divisions among communities, such as the Muskogee. Demonstrating the wide array of ways colonialism operated and damaged Indigenous lives is a key part of understanding the U.S. as a settler-colonialist state.

“The pattern [of irregular warfare] would continue in US military interventions overseas, from the Philippines and Cuba to Central America, Korea, Vietnam, Iraq, and Afghanistan. The cumulative effect goes beyond simply the habitual use of military means and becomes the very basis for US American identity. The Indian-fighting frontiersmen and the "valiant" settlers in their circled covered wagons are the iconic images of that identity. The continued popularity of, and respect for, the genocidal sociopath Andrew Jackson is another indicator.”

Here, Dunbar-Ortiz not only connects irregular warfare in the wars against Indigenous nations to U.S. military actions abroad but also argues that this militarism became a part of U.S. American identity over time along with the image of fighting Indigenous people. Dunbar-Ortiz’s tone is also revealing, especially in her scathing criticism of Andrew Jackson that stands in stark contrast to the general respect for him as a president in U.S. society and culture. She presents all these things in this quote as evidence of a deep problem within U.S. society that romanticizes military culture, military heroes, and warfare in general.

Democracy, equality, and equal rights do not fit well with dominance of one race by another, much less with genocide, settler colonialism, and empire. It was during the 1820s-the beginning of the era of Jacksonian settler democracy-that the unique US origin myth evolved reconciling rhetoric with reality.”

This quote summarizes a crucial contradiction that Dunbar-Ortiz highlights throughout the book as one that still lingers in the present day. The origin narrative of the United States has become so entrenched in U.S. society that to most U.S. Americans, the country is synonymous with democracy, equality, and freedom. What Dunbar-Ortiz strives to point out is that this positive rhetoric does not in reality match the genocidal and settler colonialist origins of the U.S. Yet, the origin myth, particularly under the Jackson presidency, developed in a way that refined or rewrote the origin story so that it would fit a positive twist relying on the disappearance or exclusion of Indigenous peoples.

“It was then the middle of winter, and the cold was unusually severe; the snow had frozen hard upon the ground, and the river was drifting huge masses of ice. The Indians had their families with them; and they brought in their train the wounded and sick, with children newly born, and old men upon the verge of death. They possessed neither tents nor wagons, but only their arms and some provisions. I saw them embark to pass the mighty river, and never will that solemn spectacle fade from my remembrance. No cry, no sob was heard amongst the assembled crowd; all were silent.”

This account by Alexis de Tocqueville who witnessed the forced march of Indigenous people to “Indian Territory” in the middle of winter underscores the tragic details of forced removal and settler colonialism in general. Many lives were lost on the Trail of Tears that was the result of removal policies under the Jackson administration. The forced marches reflect the genocidal policy and overall attitude that was prevalent toward Indigenous peoples as the U.S. expanded across the continent, displacing more and more Indigenous people as it sought even more land for settlers. Acknowledging grim realities like the one revealed by this quote is a means to addressing lingering effects of the country’s past.

“The affirmation of democracy requires the denial of colonialism, but denying it does not make it go away.”

Dunbar-Ortiz provides this succinct quote in context of commenting on a speech by former President Barrack Obama, who once said that “America was not born as a colonial power” (116). She describes this denial as a “key element of the national myth” (115). Her quote reveals that the contradiction between the past and what portrayals dominate U.S. society. Such denial not only erases Indigenous experiences with colonialism in the past but also ignores their ongoing colonization. Denial also fails to create the understanding needed to move toward a better future.

“Traversing the continent "from sea to shining sea" was hardly a natural westward procession of covered wagons as portrayed in Western movies. […] Why then does the popular US historical narrative of a "natural" westward movement persist? The answer is that those who still hold to the narrative remain captives of the ideology of "manifest destiny," according to which the United States expanded across the continent to assume its preordained size and shape. This ideology normalizes the successive invasions and occupations of Indigenous nations and Mexico as not being colonialist or imperialist, rather simply ordained progress. In this view, Mexico was just another Indian nation to be crushed.”

This quote provides crucial insight into the power of the belief in manifest destiny, which is often a term taught in U.S. History textbooks and classes. Similarly, the idea of westward movement and the image of settlers journeying westward in wagons is a persisting image in media. The problem with this idea, Dunbar-Ortiz argues, is it glosses over and obscures how that westward movement was accomplished. Westward expansion of the United States involved numerous wars and invasions against Indigenous nations and Mexico too. However, manifest destiny created a sort of mythology around westward expansion as being the divine destiny of the United States.

“After the war many Black soldiers, like their poor white counterparts, remained in the army and were assigned to segregated regiments sent west to crush Indigenous resistance. This reality strikes many as tragic, as if oppressed former slaves and Indigenous peoples being subjected to genocidal warfare should magically be unified against their common enemy, "the white man." In fact, this is precisely how colonialism in general and colonial war fare in particular work. It is not unique to the United States, but rather a part of the tradition of European colonialism since the Roman legions.”

After the Civil War, Black soldiers of the U.S. Army were sent west to fight the continuing wars against Indigenous nations. Dunbar-Ortiz’s argument here provides an explanation that points back to colonialism and its effects among various oppressed groups. She provides this quotation in context of further discussion of the use of various ethnic troops in armies of colonial powers. The use of one oppressed group against another is, as Dunbar-Ortiz argues, a crucial tactic of colonialism. She similarly discusses at points how one Indigenous community was pitted against another or even divided amongst themselves. Detailing these less obvious effects of colonialism allows Dunbar-Ortiz to support her arguments that highlight how a settler-colonialist state can trickle into many areas just as it has trickled into present day.

“Obviously, the Apache resistance was not a military threat to the United States but rather a symbol of resistance and freedom. Herein lies the essence of counterinsurgent colonialist warfare: no resistance can be tolerated. Historian William Appleman Williams aptly described the US imperative as ‘annihilation unto total surrender.’"

Apache resistance lasted decades, and US counterinsurgency against the Apache Nation was the longest in its history, from 1850 to 1886. Dunbar-Ortiz zones in on a key point regarding US counterinsurgency efforts against Indigenous nations, which is that any resistance, large or small, would be unacceptable and crushed immediately. The quote she cites from a historian summarizes well the genocidal policy Dunbar-Ortiz refers to as a long-standing policy of the U.S. government against Indigenous peoples. Elimination of Indigenous peoples was the approach until and unless they completely surrendered. This approach reflects the theme of the U.S. way of war and culture of conquest.

“The continuity between invading and occupying sovereign Indigenous nations in order to achieve continental control in North America and employing the same tactics overseas to achieve global control is key to understanding the future of the United States in the world. The military provided that continuity.”

A recurring argument Dunbar-Ortiz makes is that the wars against Indigenous peoples in North America were a template for overseas U.S. imperialism. She believes that understanding this direct link would give someone an insight into understanding U.S. tactics and approaches in both the present and future throughout the world because they are based on the same methods. The key piece of that is the military, as it has been the organization to carry out these tactics across the continent and abroad. By connecting what happened between the U.S. and Indigenous nations to what has happened or is happening overseas, Dunbar-Ortiz provides readers a lens through which to understand how the past continues to affect present day.

“Despite the piecemeal eating away of Indigenous landholdings and sovereignty and federal trust responsibility based on treaties, the US government had no constitutional or other legal authority to deprive federally recognized Native nations of their inherent sovereignty or territorial boundaries. It could only make it nearly impossible for them to exercise that sovereignty, or, alternatively, eliminate Indigenous identity entirely through assimilation, a form of genocide.”

Here, Dunbar-Ortiz rejects U.S. authority to take away Indigenous sovereignty but makes a crucial point about how the U.S. gradually made it more and more difficult for Indigenous sovereignty to have authority. Her characterization of assimilation as a form of genocide argues that it has the effect of erasing Indigenous peoples by erasing their identities, cultures, and values in preference for non-Indigenous culture. For this reason, this quote also reflects Dunbar-Ortiz’s recurring theme of the importance of sovereignty as a means of survival. Through sovereignty, Indigenous nations can also resist assimilation or other forms of erasure.

“As we have seen, the term ‘Indian Country’ is not merely an insensitive racial slur to indicate the enemy, tastelessly employed by accident. […] ‘Indian Country"’ and ‘In Country’ are military terms of trade, like other euphemisms such as "collateral damage" (killing civilians) and ‘ordnance’ (bombs) that appear in military training manuals and are used regularly. ‘Indian Country’ and ‘In Country’ mean ‘behind enemy lines.’ Its current use should serve to remind us of the origins and development of the US military, as well as the nature of our political and social history: annihilation unto unconditional surrender.”

Dunbar-Ortiz discusses this quote in context of the continued use of the term “Indian Country” as a technical military term to mean enemy territory or behind enemy lines. Other than criticizing its obvious racist and offensive implications, Dunbar-Ortiz highlights that it even appears in manuals, which only shows the persistence of the effects of the “Indian wars” in military and cultural memory. Equating Indigenous territory and land with the enemy reveals the type of policies and attitude that defined U.S. policy from the beginning.

“Under this legal cover for theft, Euro-American wars of conquest and settler colonialism devastated Indigenous nations and communities, ripping their territories away from them and transforming the land into private property, real estate. Most of that land ended up in the hands of land speculators and agribusiness operators, many of which, up to the mid-nineteenth century, were plantations worked by another form of private property, enslaved Africans. Arcane as it may seem, the doctrine remains the basis for federal laws still in effect that control Indigenous peoples' lives and destinies, even their histories by distorting them.”

This quote is in regard to the Doctrine of Discovery from the 15th century. For centuries and even today, European powers regarded the doctrine as a valid authority that gave them the ability to claim Indigenous lands as their own over any rights of Indigenous peoples. Dunbar-Ortiz, however, sees it as an excuse for theft and arbitrary claim of power. Rejecting this doctrine is important to acknowledging the devastating and tragic harm that was done through it.

“In other words, sovereignty equates to survival—nationhood instead of genocide.”

Dunbar-Ortiz emphasizes the need for Indigenous nations to protect sovereignty, as it is the key to their survival. She advocates for Indigenous sovereignty throughout the book, as it allows Indigenous peoples to also maintain their traditions and cultures. In contrast, losing their sovereignty has “a direct link to the powerlessness manifest in depressed social conditions” among Indigenous communities (211). By equating sovereignty to survival, she impresses upon readers the need to support Indigenous sovereignty as part of their larger struggle for rights.

“In the United States the legacy of settler colonialism can be seen in the endless wars of aggression and occupations; the trillions spent on war machinery, military bases, and personnel instead of social services and quality public education; the gross profits of corporations, each of which has greater resources and funds than more than half the countries in the world yet pay minimal taxes and provide few jobs for US citizens; the repression of generation after generation of activists who seek to change the system; the incarceration of the poor, particularly descendants of enslaved Africans; the individual ism, carefully inculcated, that on the one hand produces self-blame for personal failure and on the other exalts ruthless dog-eat-dog competition for possible success, even though it rarely results; and high rates of suicide, drug abuse, alcoholism, sexual violence against women and children, homelessness, dropping out of school, and gun violence. These are symptoms, and there are many more, of a deeply troubled society, and they are not new.”

Dunbar-Ortiz links all these issues to the settler colonialism roots of the country and what make it a troubled society today. By again connecting the past to the present, Dunbar-Ortiz reminds readers that what she has discussed throughout the book is not just to illuminate the past but also to demonstrate that action is still required today to alleviate existing and ongoing harm from colonization.