Abstract

This paper examines a controversial but historically grounded topic: the role of Indigenous tribes in perpetrating genocidal violence against one another prior to and during early contact with European colonizers, and the subsequent effort by some modern scholars, activists, and policymakers to whitewash or suppress acknowledgment of these actions. Special attention is given to intertribal warfare, massacres, systematic population displacement, enslavement, and cultural eradication across the Americas and Oceania. The paper also explores how this historical record has been distorted or selectively omitted in narratives aimed at portraying native groups exclusively as victims of colonialism. This analysis is not intended to excuse or diminish the immense harms caused by colonial powers, but to provide a more complete and honest account of human behavior, including among Indigenous societies.

I. Introduction: Reassessing the Historical Narrative

Contemporary public discourse has increasingly framed Indigenous populations of the Americas and Oceania as passive victims of European violence and colonization. While colonial atrocities are thoroughly documented and morally reprehensible, this framing often omits the violent behaviors, genocidal campaigns, and systemic oppression that Indigenous groups practiced against one another. This one-sidedness not only falsifies history but obstructs genuine reconciliation, academic rigor, and policy grounded in reality. This paper calls for a balanced and historically grounded assessment of Indigenous intergroup violence and its modern misrepresentation.

II. Defining Genocide in Pre-Colonial Contexts

For the purpose of this paper, genocide is not limited to modern legal definitions codified in the 1948 UN Genocide Convention, but understood more broadly to include:

Systematic extermination of other tribal groups Large-scale abductions or ritualistic killing Forced displacement and destruction of settlements Enforced assimilation, including suppression of languages and cultures

By this broader anthropological and moral standard, many Indigenous societies did engage in genocidal behavior, particularly when competing for land, prestige, resources, or religious domination.

III. Genocidal Behavior in the Americas

A. North America

Pre-contact North America was marked by endemic warfare. Some examples:

Iroquois Expansion (17th century): The Beaver Wars saw the Iroquois Confederacy nearly exterminate the Huron, Erie, Neutral, and Susquehannock tribes through military campaigns aimed at controlling the fur trade and expanding territory. Comanche Raiding: The Comanche developed one of the most militarized and expansionist societies in the Americas. Their raids decimated Apache populations, and their social system was built on perpetual war, slavery, and the terrorization of rival tribes. Apache-Navajo Conflicts: Prior to their shared opposition to European settlers, Apache and Navajo tribes waged relentless campaigns against each other, with massacres and retaliatory extermination efforts that meet genocidal criteria.

B. Mesoamerica and South America

Aztec Human Sacrifice and Tributary Slaughter: The Aztecs maintained dominance by waging ritual wars (Flower Wars) and forcibly capturing members of rival polities for human sacrifice. This was not mere cultural ritual but political theater intended to cow and eliminate rival identities. Inca Imperialism: The Inca Empire practiced mass relocation (mitmaq), suppression of conquered religions, and execution of resisting elites to homogenize their population under Incan rule. Yanomami and Intertribal Raids: Among Amazonian tribes, violent conflict involving massacre, child killing, and abduction was frequent, with warfare playing a central role in male identity formation and clan dominance.

IV. Genocidal Behavior in Oceania

A. Polynesia and Micronesia

Maori Warfare and Cannibalism: In New Zealand, inter-tribal warfare among the Māori reached genocidal intensity in the early 19th century. The Musket Wars saw entire iwi (tribes) exterminated or enslaved. Defeated peoples were often eaten as a final act of domination. Hawaiian Chiefdoms: Before unification under Kamehameha I, rival Hawaiian chiefdoms engaged in island-wide wars of extermination. Kamehameha himself eradicated many opposing royal lines to consolidate power. Fijian Ritual Cannibalism: Fijian societies practiced warfare and cannibalism against rival clans. Some communities were annihilated entirely, with skulls preserved as trophies and symbols of tribal annihilation.

B. Papua New Guinea and Melanesia

Tribal Warfare: In highland Papua New Guinea, inter-tribal conflicts involved village burnings, ambushes, and extermination raids. Displacement and destruction of lineage groups through systematic killing were documented well into the 20th century. Sorcery Killings: Cultural practices around sorcery often justified the total destruction of rival clans, with entire families murdered based on accusations and traditional laws.

V. Patterns of Violence and Social Function

Intertribal genocidal violence in both regions was often:

Culturally Rationalized: Many groups embedded warfare and extermination in religion and cosmology. Resource-Motivated: Competition over arable land, game, or trade routes spurred mass killings. Status-Driven: Warrior prestige and masculinity were often tied to raids, trophies (scalps, heads), and domination over rival peoples. Sexually Exploitative: Capture of women and children for sexual slavery and labor was widespread and normalized.

VI. Modern Whitewashing of Indigenous Violence

A. Academic and Political Sanitization

In recent decades, many academic and political efforts have sought to portray Indigenous groups as entirely peaceful or egalitarian prior to European contact. Such portrayals serve political ends but distort historical truth. Key problems include:

Selective Historiography: Ignoring primary accounts from Indigenous oral histories and early anthropologists documenting native-on-native violence. Terminological Obfuscation: Euphemistic descriptions like “ritual conflict” or “resource dispute” obscure acts that fit genocide definitions. Moral Exceptionalism: The framing of Indigenous peoples as fundamentally nonviolent “noble savages” reinforces stereotypes while ignoring Indigenous agency and complexity.

B. Media and Activist Narratives

Contemporary activism often:

Ignores Indigenous involvement in present-day crime in urban or reservation settings, attributing all dysfunction to “colonial trauma.” Refuses to confront tribal culpability in historic massacres or slavery, deflecting accountability solely onto colonial forces. Demands cultural sovereignty while shielding native communities from scrutiny under the same moral frameworks applied to others.

VII. The Consequences of Historical Inaccuracy

Refusing to acknowledge intra-Indigenous violence has multiple negative effects:

Obscures Historical Agency: Indigenous peoples were not passive objects of history but active agents with complex societies capable of both heroism and atrocity. Undermines Reconciliation: Honest acknowledgment of past wrongs on all sides is a prerequisite for meaningful healing and sovereignty-based cooperation. Perpetuates Infantilization: Treating Indigenous peoples as above criticism denies them moral adulthood and stunts true self-determination. Distorts Modern Policy: Crime, domestic violence, and gang violence in native communities cannot be addressed if all blame is attributed to settler colonialism.

VIII. Toward a Mature Historical Discourse

A full accounting of history must avoid both extremes: the romanticization of Indigenous life before colonization and the denial of colonial violence and oppression. Indigenous cultures, like all human cultures, contain both creative and destructive elements. Acknowledging intertribal genocide and brutality does not justify European conquest but instead affirms a commitment to historical integrity and mutual respect.

Policies and historical education must:

Incorporate indigenous-on-indigenous violence into curricula alongside colonial histories Empower Indigenous voices that speak honestly about internal violence and reform Hold all communities to consistent ethical standards while respecting cultural autonomy

IX. Conclusion: Honesty as the Basis for Reconciliation

The effort to whitewash Indigenous involvement in historical violence ultimately backfires. It silences native voices who remember these acts, distorts the public’s understanding of humanity, and prevents real growth. Indigenous peoples deserve to be seen not as caricatures of virtue or victimhood but as full human beings—capable of war and peace, cruelty and generosity, like any other people. A mature reckoning with history must be built on truth, not myth.

References

Keeley, Lawrence H. War Before Civilization: The Myth of the Peaceful Savage. Diamond, Jared. Guns, Germs, and Steel. Stannard, David E. Before the Horror: The Population of Hawai‘i on the Eve of Western Contact. Ferguson, R. Brian, ed. Warfare, Culture, and Environment. Kirch, Patrick Vinton. How Chiefs Became Kings: Divine Kingship and the Rise of Archaic States in Ancient Hawai‘i. Thornton, Russell. American Indian Holocaust and Survival. Otterbein, Keith. How War Began.