Why do we have a category for Killed by Indians?

Question

Why do we have a category of Killed by Indians? It is part of a broader category of Causes of Death. Most - but not all - of the other causes of death are related to illness. There are not causes of death for war or military action, although Accidental Death, Gunshots, Knife Wounds and others are shown. Here is the complete list: https://www.wikitree.com/wiki/Category:Causes_of_Death

There are currently 11 profiles in this category.

Personally, I find it troubling that we have this category. I would like to us either eliminate this category, or change it to something that can be applied more broadly. For example, what category would be used if an Indian who has a profile on WikiTree was killed by one of the settlers coming to New England?

I am not trying to take anything away from the horror families faced when one of their ancestors was killed by Indians. I have ancestors in my family that died that way. My only point is that in my opinion we need to either have a broader category, or eliminate it.

Comments

If this is to be deleted because it is a medical term, that is logical.  Removing it because it is politically incorrect is inaccurate to history.

What would be better is to create a category for genocides and anyone found to have been killed would be in the genocide group.

[[Category: Genocide, Holocaust]]

[[Category: Genocide, Cambodian Genocide]]

[[Category: Genocide, Armenian Genocide]]

[[Category: Genocide, North American Genocide]]

And do realize that there was genocide committed by both sides, Native and Settler.  And so, to be fair, any white killed by natives as a result of genocide should be labeled as such, and any native killed by settlers should carry the same category.

---

A lot of categories are a little head scratchy like that, Category: One-eyed Stevedores from Upper Volta

---

Why couldn't it be renamed something along the lines of "killed in hostile interaction" .. because something like that would allow its use on both sides of the incident/s .. and it could be more broadly used as well (Australia, for instance, and, maybe, India, Africa, etc.)

There has to be some kind of middle ground where we are not "demonising" only one side of these events.

.

Also @ Thomas Cooper - you would also need to include the Indigenous Australians in those proposals.  There was a lot of wrong done by the early white settlers.  But there were also wrongs done TO them, so, again, two sides of the same coin.

---

What if it was not genocide but in fact revenge?  I am pretty sure that is why we have all wars including Hatfields and Mc Coys - How these all begin

---

You could use the term frontier/colonial violence/war/conflict

I wouldn’t use the term genocide if you want a broad category that applies to everybody since genocide is the specific destruction of a group of peoples and/or their culture

---

I agree that something more general is needed.   Many Indians  (Native Americans/ Cherokee etc) were "killed by settlers " in unnamed conflicts.  In some cases blame for the initiation of the conflict may have been given,  but there was probably a bigger picture if you looked at it from the other side.  We know that native people everywhere have been killed or driven from their homes by newcomers - sometimes by other tribes.   It seems to be a human trait .

---

You are right, I hid it after looking at a different website with more info, should have known better than to trust my local news!

Answer 1

[[Category:Killed by Indians]] will be renamed. We are discussing the appropriate name in our Categorization Project group forum, and we are including the names suggested here in our discussion.

Thanks to all of you wonderful WikiTreers for your participation in this emotionally-charged discussion.

Comments

Thank you, Natalie, and the categorization team.

---

[[Category:Ditto]]

---

I would suggest "Killed by Natives" and place a description of the category on its main page. The description would define this category as being used to identify people who were non-native to an area (like a pioneer or immigrant) who were killed by the native population. This category should not be used for people who were killed in a large scale battle or war. The category description should further encourage the biographer to explain as much of the facts surrounding the killing as possible, and write it in the biographical "notes" section. The category description should further state that biographies failing to give an accurate account of the event may be subjected to removal from the category.

"Killed by Natives" is a legitimate genealogical and historically important event that is worthy of being tracked on Wikitree.

Answer 2

I don't like it and have wanted to delete it many times, so I agree with you.

The entire category should be re-examined. Perhaps these should be limited to the official causes of death as they appear on a death certificate. After all "killed by Indians" isn't the actual cause of death..it would be a medical cause.

Comments

I see that one of the profiles in that category died during King Philip's War. We do have a Killed in Action category.

But I'm guessing that some people may want a category for family members who were killed in raids that were not associated with a particular war.

Answer 3

I agree it should go away.  Is there a matching “killed by whites” category?  I don’t think many people would be happy with that one...   if someone was killed in an Indian attack that information can be included in the biography.

Comments

I think we should eliminate any category that, in its name alone, denigrates a whole segment of the world's population.

---

Well said, SW.

---

"I think we should eliminate any category that, in its name alone, denigrates a whole segment of the world's population." This killed by Indians category does not denigrate anybody. It simply groups by a common fact. It should be renamed as Killed by Native, however, to reflect what the category intended to represent. 

It is a genuine social phenomenon that strangers in someone else's home can elicit fear and violence in some people. We still see this phenomenon, today. It is a valuable observation when we can see patterns of behavior being repeated throughout multiple generations. Noticing that certain pioneers and immigrants were killed at the hands of natives gives us important clues about events that have changed the development of those families.

To use a category like this, it would follow that the biography should give some kind of detail surrounding the death(s). The category is just an index of profiles with common traits. The category is not a badge on the forehead that casts judgment on an entire race of people (unless it is specifically stated in the description of the category.) 

Answer 4

I agree wholeheartedly. Singling out a group of people as a cause of death is fraught with all kinds of difficulties, not to mention being insulting to the supposedly offending group.

Comments

Yeah, as pointed out before, there's no "Killed by Whites" category. It makes it sound as though Indians/Native Americans are some sort of animal species. Not to mention inaccurate -- I doubt South Asian Indians are included in this category!

---

Pip, following that logic, we need to disband any projects related to the Holocaust because we might be offending German people.

If this is to be deleted because it is a medical term, that is logical.  Removing it because it is politically incorrect is inaccurate to history.

What would be better is to create a category for genocides and anyone found to have been killed would be in the genocide group.

[[Category: Genocide, Holocaust]]

[[Category: Genocide, Cambodian Genocide]]

[[Category: Genocide, Armenian Genocide]]

[[Category: Genocide, North American Genocide]]

And do realize that there was genocide committed by both sides, Native and Settler.  And so, to be fair, any white killed by natives as a result of genocide should be labeled as such, and any native killed by settlers should carry the same category.

---

From Merriam-Webster: 

Definition of genocide: the deliberate and systematic destruction of a racial, political or cultural group.

---

Thomas, I understand that completely. As a historian, I know that facts are facts, but also that there are broader issues we need to consider. This is not mean being politically correct. When saying "Killed by Indians," why don't we just say, "Skulls Broken Open By Indians Wielding Hatchets?" The reason we don't say it this way is that we can still be historically accurate without using pejorative language. 

We can list, say, children who died during the Holocaust, what we don't say is "Children Mercilessly Gassed to Death." We can just say they died to the Holocaust. Still historically accurate without the pejorative, even if both are true.

Answer 5

I tend to disagree with most of the comments here.  As politically  incorrect as the category is by today's standards brutal attacks did happen by our Native Americans and it is important to document it as it pertains to our ancestors.  Likewise, I see no problem with Native Americans having a category that indicates themselves being attacked by white settlers such as in the Pequot War and other instances.  Historically we shouldn't whitewash events because we find them offensive but we should just be factually accurate.  By the way, I have a great appreciation and love for our Native Americans and their culture.

Comments

There's a difference between being factually accurate, and a category about an entire race/ethnic group of people being represented as vicious murderers. There's no one war between the Indians and the whites to categorize such deaths under, and anyway, the category name brings to mind "Killed by crocodiles" or "Killed by a marauding elephant" or some such.

---

Sorry, but I just disagree with  your reasoning. Once again trying to be politically correct. I want to KNOW if my ancestors were killed by Native Americans (Indians). It is a part of history I want documented. At that time Indians were considered savages. I don't see them as such now but for that period in time it was just  how they were viewed by white settlers. Indian attacks were a big part of our Westward expansion and it should be recognized.

---

Personally, I don't see an issue with listing the information about the person's death at the hands of another in the profile for the person. That is how I have seen most profiles handle it here on WikiTree. My objection is to the use of a category for it.

Answer 6

LOL I love PC.

First of all Indian is a misnomer.  Columbus thought he landed somewhere around the islands of the East Indies, hence Indians.

Then we typically use the artificial phrase of Native Americans.  While being "native' in the view of the Europeans who began to colonize the Americas, they didn't spontaneously appear here in the distant past.  They came from some place else.  The battles on where they originated will be fought for a long time even with DNA.

So I prefer the term First Americans as they got here first.

Now to the category Killed By Indians.  Some entertain that it is wrong as we have no Killed By Whites category.  If that would mollify that group, then add it.  Of course then we would need to have a Killed By Blacks due to the Buffalo Soldiers. And then there is probably a need for Killed By Asians as I wouldn't doubt that occurred as well.

As probably most of these deaths occurring to both sides cannot be dated to a specific battle or campaign in this dastardly category, but instead are attributed to localized adverse social interactions on the frontier, I say let's rename it Killed, Frontier Skirmish.  With the how, when and where noted in the biography.

Also some pointed out it is not a medical term.  True.  But in the Causes of Death Category there is a subcategory called Accidental Death.  Obviously being killed by someone in a fight is normally not considered accidental.  So then possibly create a new category: Deliberate Deaths.

Not really trying to be facetious here, but once you begin a chain of events, be prepared for all possible outcomes and not necessarily the one you wanted.

Comments

Killed in a Frontier Skirmish would satisfy me. At least both Natives and whites (and blacks and Mexicans, and any other folks...) could be included in that category.

---

Yep, no one group is vilified and no group is, in it's simplicity, left out.

Besides, I like generalized categories where the data is explained in the Bio, not by the Category name. Locations, dates, known events excluded of course.

Answer 7

Friction between "white" settlers and the First Nations peoples here before us did not start out as, and actually took a while to become genocide - at first trade and barter and buying the land from the Natives was the common practice (not so for Columbus in the Islands - but in the East Coast this is mainly true.

Contrary to popular opinion here and generally many white vs Native peoples conflicts were named battles such as King Phillip's War

Revenge for the harming or killing of ones family member is the other way the relations went bad - but only later did greed drive the actual Genocide of the trail of tears and the bounty hunting that occurred generally further west and later on in  our settlement of this continent

Answer 8

The reason Ishi was the last of his kind was because of a widespread genocide effort.  The California Genocide was a particularly evil effort: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_Genocide So yes, "killed by indians" is indicative of the race that was winning establishing the terminology.  We could have "Killed by Mormons" for victims of the Mountain Meadows Massacre or "Killed by Chivington's troops" for victims of the Sand Creek Massacre. Or "Killed by California settlers" for victims of the California Genocide--except those victims are largely nameless. I personally think of the land where I live in Colorado as "Stolen from Utes after the Meeker Massacre" but I could be more refined and change that to "Stolen from scattered Ute Mountain Utes after the Meeker Massacre."  I was raised in an area where, even though we live on stolen land, we always thought Meeker was a misguided idiot.  If I'd been raised in Greeley, Colorado, I'd have thought he was a poor victim of Indians.  The worst thing  to me about "Killed by Indians" is that tribes matter; context matters.  Meanwhile, in WIkitree, all the Ute tribes are lumped into Ute Mountain Utes, even though there were three different bands.  The land where I am sitting was possibly part of the Louisiana Purchase, definitely explored in 1776 by Dominguez and Escalante (well okay, they passed about 20 miles west of my present location), and claimed also by Spain and later by Mexico, stolen from Mexico in an outrageous war in 1848, although the treaty lines are amorphous, and thus was actually stolen from the Utes long before we stole it from them--it's just that we had an actual treaty and were more effective.  So the category is not only offensive, it's meaningless.  But then again, it's just a category.  Changing it to "Killed by Native Americans" doesn't work.  Changing it to "Killed by a band of Cheyennes in x year" might be better.  Nope.  "Killed by" is probably the problem.  We probably have a category for the Mountain Meadows Massacre, but we don't use "Killed by" in the category name.

Answer 9

Killed by Indians as one person pointed out is a misnomer in any case.  We have countless people killed by the Iroquois in the early days of the colony here, notably the Lachine Massacre, which has its own category.  It is a specific event.  Delete the category Killed by Indians outright. 

 

If there are a number of people killed around the same time, then it would get a category like the Lachine massacre. https://www.wikitree.com/wiki/Category:Lachine_Massacre  otherwise, nope, random killings are just that, and they are too frequent in early days to be worth a category.  And grouping them over a large time period serves no purpose, that Jean Lavallée got killed in 1692 doesn't really relate to the fact that Jean de Bréboeuf got killed much earlier.

On the people who were executed, whatever the method used for their execution, Black Sheep project already has categories for executed people.  The individual method used, whether by hanging, shooting, gas chamber etc should be on the profile itself.  Not as a category.  By the same token, Black Sheep project actually has at least one category for murder victims that I recall.

For medical reasons of death, if we are talking about an epidemic or pandemic like the Spanish flu, then that is what the category should be, divided into regions due to the massiveness of that particular event in the number of people who died from it.  But for things like tuberculosis, my own maternal grandmother died of it, certainly would not put her in a category because of that.  It's just too widespread and nebulous.

Comments

But for things like tuberculosis, my own maternal grandmother died of it, certainly would not put her in a category because of that.  It's just too widespread and nebulous.

answered 2 minutes ago by Danielle Liard

.

How is TB different from, for example, Chronic Nephritis?  There is a category for that.

Given that we have worked to eradicate certain medical conditions, I think it can be interesting, for those with a bent toward such research, to know how many died .. and in what eras .. from such things.

My grandmother's doctor, as an example, travelled from Townsville to Brisbane for treatment for diabetes (or some such thing) in the early 1900s.  Today we control that in the home, by the person 9or their parents if they are a child).  Chronic Nephritis used to be called Bright's Disease.  For those interested, it would be something they could look for in certain eras.

In the last couple of days I acquired a death certificate for a child born and died in the 1850s in Scotland.  There was quite a bit of information on this certificate.  The baby died at 11 h Pm, aged around two years (this is stated on the death record, but exact date of birth is unknown as that does not appear to have been registered) after a two week long "battle" (my word) against a chest infection caused by measles.

Given that measles has resurged recently (don't want to get into the whole antivax thing), I would think a category listing deaths from measles, or complications from, would be something interesting to those with a bent for that.  (I usually have a passing interest, but others like to delve deeper.)

Equally, I think knowing how many ups and downs there have been over the years regards TB would be interesting, especially as I almost was a TB case back when I was pregnant with my son.  (My test came back negative, just barely, so I got re-jabbed anyway (I'd been given to needle back in secondary school).  My son has a "natural immunity" to TB, so the clinic told us after he'd skipped out once too often on getting the free BCG test done.)

Just my thruppence worth.  (And, yes, language purists, I KNOW it's threepence /  three pence, but we never said it that way, just as two pence was said "tuppence".)

---

TB has at least three categories already.

Pulmonary Tuberculosis, Consumption, and Phthisis. The puzzling thing is that there is a subcategory in Category:Tuberculosis, Category:Deaths from Tuberculosis. Maybe the thought was if Category:Tuberculosis is categorized under Infectious Diseases as well as Causes of death, then people categorized under Tuberculosis would not have died as the result of the disease?  They'd be placed in Deaths from Tuberculosis?

This is why the whole Causes of Death category needs a review.

---

TB has at least three categories already.

 . . .  

This is why the whole Causes of Death category needs a review.

commented 6 minutes ago by Natalie Trott

.

Uh, wow, I did not know that.  I was just typing a response to what you'd said without going to look.   Three.  Huh.

As an aside, my gr-grand (3 X I think) died of what was named as "Miner's Phthisis" (silicosis), but that could as easily have been "Coalworker's pneumoconiosis".  He wasn't a coal miner in Australia, but had been back in England.  (One of his offspring, or a nephew (don't recall which), died from a mine collapse somewhere in (central?) Queensland.)

You're probably correct on that.  Review is always good, especially if it ends in improvement.  :)

---

The problem is that in older records, at least here, most give no cause of death at all, so these categories will be limited in time.  We get some indication sometimes by where they are buried, for example there are some who are stated to be buried in ''le cimetière des picottés'' (smallpox cemetery), 

I recently was given a link to a very well researched piece tracking epidemics in this part of the world (Québec province and earlier colonial times).  But it doesn't tell me who died from it.  Goes into everything from smallpox to typhus to Spanish flu and so on.