Talk:Kieft's War

POV tag.

Why does this article have a POV tag? Nobody seems to have anything to say about its neutrality!1812ahill (talk) 23:42, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps this was put here in January by Parkwells. The history says: "(Need to reduce POV language and add more sources)".

At any rate, there is no reason given for a neutraity dispute, though there may very well be a good reason for it. Let's have a look, address any possible issues and then remove the status.Ebanony (talk) 03:50, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

I am widely read in the events described and I don't think that there is much in here in the POV that is a matter of historical debate - the article seems to represent a universal or near universal reading of the WIC, Keift, and the events of the conflict. (In some was it is even kinder to Kieft than those histories which dwell on the more sensational aspects of Pavonia.) I think the issue might be some of the language, which is written in the matter of fact style of a history book rather than he more equivocal style of an encyclopedia entry. TheCormac (talk) 15:39, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

David de Vries

The link to the author who at the time wrote about Kieft's War went to an Australian director which is false. His real name was David Pieterszoon de Vries and he was Dutch like Peter Stuyvesant was.

Genocide

InternetHero made the following edit on the opening paragraph:

"One of the earliest genocides of Native Americans by Europeans, the war led to retardation of the growth of the colony and Kieft's replacement by Peter Stuyvesant."

He changed this to:

"Being one of the earliest conflicts between native Americans and European settlers, the war led to Kieft's replacement by Peter Stuyvesant and an overall growth reduction for the colony."

This is the note he left:

"(Minor Edit: Deleted the argument of a genocide such a particular article. My PoV is lost in what the editor was writing. This led to an Esopus war, which was a major set back in the colonization.)"

I'd like an explaination for the preceeding edit, particularly what 1) his POV is and 2) why he feels that "a war of extirmination", by all accounts, is a "conflict" and not part of the Genocide of the Native American population. This coud be addressed in a different paragraph instead of the opening, but why call it a conflict and not part of the Genocide? Based on what facts have you made this edit?Ebanony (talk) 02:14, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

I, too question the edit, and the avoidance of the word genocide, (and what this acutally has to do with the Esopus Wars). The word genocide (massacre, slaughter) is appropriate in the first paragragh. The intial attack and the hiring of Underhill to apply a policy of removal via annihilation would seem irresponsible not to refer to in the lead. It indeed was conflict: but more a complete clash of two cultures, and the beginning of the end for the indigenous population along the Hudson. Militarily, a series of raids and reprisals, that actually ended in truce between the parties Djflem (talk) 20:39, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

One war mostly directed by one man does not constitute genocide. Let's not overstate this. In relation to the sorry history of European treatment of Native Americans, the indigenous populations suffered many more deaths due to disease than to warfare - the unplanned introduction by contact of Eurasian diseases to which they had no immunity. The Europeans had suffered epidemics when these diseases first arrived in their region from Asia (remember the effects of the plague?), but over centuries many people had developed some acquired immunity as the diseases became endemic.Parkwells (talk) 22:58, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Parkwells, the issue is not whether one act constitutes Genocide. These massacres were not single, unrelated events; they were part of the systematic "Indian Removal", as Pres Jackson termed it, and went on for hundreds of years, beginning with the earlier settlers like Keift. Those things together were Genocide; the point is it was a part of the Genocide of the indigenous peoples.

What Keift and others did was not a result of disease, for those millions had already died after intital contact years before; that's a separate issue. We're discussing Dutch troops/militia going into indigenous areas and murdering the populations after first contact. Further, Keift's men used weapons, not disease.

It's not a comparison of disease vs massacres to see which killed more to say it's genocide. Of those the diseases didn't kill, the Europeans/Americans killed the majority of that remained. There were still many, many people in N America. Those were not empty lands with just a few trees when Keift was there. If disease had killed everyone, people like Keift would not have had anyone to remove. I can't see how disease numbers vs massacre killing numbers in any way makes what the European/American killing any less a crime of Genocide. How many do you think they killed? Just a few hundred in a few in isolated incidents? Can you explain that one?

Djflem is correct when he/she says Keift killing began the end of those people in NY area. Where are those tribes today? Not walking in Manhattan, another indigenous name devoid of indigenous people. They're gone. That's Genocide by definition. Ebanony (talk) 01:18, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

If the mass slaughter of Native men, women and children in Pavonia ordered by Kieft is not considered Genocide then I guess you can say the same thing about Hitler. One more thing i find strange. Why do you not consider it genocide when Kieft offered a bounty for Native American heads and Lord Amherst admitting to passing out deseased blankets to the Natives?

(talk) 15:06, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

I think it is better to refrain from using the word genocide specifically for Kieft's War or the Pavonia Massacre as it is too imprecise. Kieft's intention was to subdue and/or disperse the Native American tribes clustering around New Amsterdam, not to annihilate them. Neither he nor the colonists nor the Dutch WIC had a scheme or a vision of killing every member of any particular tribe or nation. Indeed, the entire (brutal, misguided) point of massacring the refugees at Pavonia was to send a warning to the other tribes that they should either submit or go - not as the first step of a plan to kill them all or even to force them all to abandon their culture. Nor was Kieft's criminal decision part of any "policy of Indian removal" discussed above. Policy towards the Native American's differed both through the generations and between the Dutch, French, English, Spanish, Russian, and Swedish colonies in North America. (A much stronger argument could be made, for instance, that New England's contemporaneous Mystic Massacre was for such purposes and in support of such a defacto policy.) Certainly an argument can be made (and debated) about European settlement seen from a larger and longer historical perspective as being a kind of genocide. But to refer to this particular massacre as "genocide" is hyperbole. The incident is shameful and horrific enough in its bare facts without overselling it. TheCormac (talk) 18:04, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Point 1: I didn't say this one act constituted genocide; I said it was part of the Genocide of the indigenous peoples, which began with Columbus, a man who himself engaged in genocide.

Point 2: You say "point of massacring the refugees at Pavonia was to send a warning to the other tribes that they should either "submit or go". You later say: it wasn't "part of any 'policy of Indian removal'". However, Indian Removal policy was "go" or just plain massacare them - Keift, Jackson, Washington. Submitting was not an option, hence the expulsion & massacares. Honest historians discuss the ethnic cleansing in these areas, and

"The elimination of an unwanted group from a society, as by genocide or forced migration." -UN

They did eliminate those people. So regardless of Keift's intent to destroy a whole group, which is needed for genocide only under the UN's defition, these acts were part of a Holocaust that included acts of genocide & ethnic cleansing, resulting in the deaths of millions. Hiter didn't come up with the idea; he copied it from the Europeans & Americans Genocide of these people over the years.

Point 3: "Certainly an argument can be made (and debated) about European settlement seen from a larger and longer historical perspective as being a kind of genocide." The "debate"? You mean apologeticss. Even the Germans don't stoop that low, and serious historians outright call it "Genocide", including respected American ones. Ebanony (talk) 03:25, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Serious historians do. And some don't. You seem to have an inflamed view on this topic; perhaps it would be better to contribute to an article on a topic about which you can be more dispassionate? Whether we agree or don't agree with any particular scholars isn't the point. I offer no quarrel with your view of European colonization in toto. I merely expressed the view that it is not the best description of the Pavonia Massacre. (Which was not even intended as a direct argument with you.) If you wish to add a link to a larger entry on European colonization of the Americas and the destruction of Native American cultures, feel free. Further, if you want to provide a section or a paragraph putting the war in context of the long revolting history of European-Native American relations, what is stopping you?

One other thing that I think you may have misunderstood from my comment or about the event's of Kieft's War. Neither the Dutch West India Company or the State General of the United Provinces ever had a policy of eradication or even dispossession of Native Americans from their lands. Quite the contrary, they had a very clear policy of honest trading and requiring the purchase of land. The record of the New Netherland colony is full of examples of the seriousness with which the authorities regarded the injunction that the wilden not be cheated or swindled in anyway. (That is not to say that there were not serious cultural misunderstandings about the concept of land ownership. There were.) Further, Kieft himself cannot be said to have a "policy" in this vein. The people at Pavonia were refugees clustering about the Dutch and demanding that the Dutch uphold their treaty promises to help in their defense against a Native American enemy. To disperse refugees at your doorstep because they frighten you is cruel (and in this case a faithless betrayal) but it not the same as a systematic, deliberate policy of extermination and/or dispossession. Hyperbole serves neither truth nor justice. TheCormac (talk) 01:25, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

So you don't think the thought of killing women, slashing children and throwing them in the river, drowning women when they attempted to save their children constitutes genocide? They even went as far as killing any survivors the next day! How about Kieft's capture some of our people, bringing them to Manhattan, decapitating and kicking their severed heads in the street? Does this sound like someone trying to disperse the tribes? Despite Kieft's plans we survived and you say his plan wasn't genocide? Your opinion is just as insulting as saying Hitler wasn't guilty of genocide against the Jewish.

"Kieft's reaction to the growing hostilities was to outlaw the Raritans and eliminate them through genocide. He placed a bounty of "10 fathomes of wampum" on the head of each Raritan who was killed. It was not an effective policy, economically or strategically. A group of Metoac brought Kieft just one head whose owner was never identified. " http://www.militaryhistoryonline.com/indianwars/articles/kieftswar.aspx

"..the settlers launched an all-out genocide against the remaining Native people. The Massachusetts government offered 20 shillings bounty for every Indian scalp, and 40 shillings for every prisoner who could be sold into slavery. Soldiers were allowed to enslave any Indian woman or child under 14 they could capture. The "Praying Indians" who had converted to Christianity and fought on the side of the European troops were accused of shooting into the treetops during battles with "hostiles." They were enslaved or killed. Other "peaceful" Indians of Dartmouth and Dover were invited to negotiate or seek refuge at trading posts--and were sold onto slave ships. "

http://rwor.org/a/firstvol/883/thank.htm

Ramapoughnative (talk) 03:27, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

TheCormac's comment:"You seem to have an inflamed view on this topic; perhaps it would be better to contribute to an article on a topic about which you can be more dispassionate?"

Wikipedia says: "When there is a more serious dispute over an edit...Editors open a section on the article's talk page and try to work out the dispute through discussion." This is a discussion. Now let's compare your statements: the "point of massacring the refugees at Pavonia was to send a warning to the other tribes that they should either submit or go". Now you tell me to leave this page & not edit here. So I should "submit or go" as well. Ramapoughnative added some "passionate" statements too. Should he go "elsewhere" too? If so, then indigenous peoples can't have the land & now they can't use the internet! Wikipedia says "discuss" it; you say go away. "Indian removal" continues. Seriously, please avoid personal attacks and "to persuade others, using reasons based in policy, sources, and common sense." [[1]]

"Serious historians do. And some don't." Not quite. There were small acts of genocide as part of a mass genocide across the hemisphere. Pequots, King Philip's War etc. Millions of people gone. When you say "an argument can be made (and debated)", you're insulting people & descriminating. Do you go to the Jewish Holocaust pages & say it can "be debated"? You do it here to indigenous peoples. That's outreagous & hardly fair.

You say the Dutch had "honest trading and requiring the purchase of land". As in forcing people to sell land & killing those in the way; that's "honest". The Pavonia massacare occured pretty close to Manhattan. How did the Dutch get Manhattan? Through "honest trading"? What "serious" historian says that? These "misguided" massacares, as you call them, were actually deliberate, criminal acts; they were not mistakes & they intended to kill them all, (ie those doing it). Some Governor decided to massacare a village across the water. When the locals retalliated, the wonderful Dutch used their African slaves to build "Wall St." Now please explain how the kind Dutch got those African slaves in the first place. Let me guess, "honest trading" in Africa. Then you can also explain why the Dutch enslaved some of the local indigenous peoples right in the Manhattan area. How did they get those slaves? Maybe that was "honest trading" too. What were the "Dutch West Indies"? Not a vacation resport I can assure you. Maybe the wars the in Europe & the slave trade in Africa was all "honest trading" instead of fights over power & profit. How can you be suprised people react the way they do when they see your arguments?Ebanony (talk) 11:56, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

As a Dutchman I'd like to say a few things too. I think genocide is the right word but it is the result of many things together. The Spanish made a disaster conquering the America's and they also fought a bloody war in the Low Countries (now Belgium and the Netherlands). The Dutch won that war, and so became Europe's newest independent state and for a time the wealthiest. Like the Spanish they also had no respect for the worlds indigious people like the Native Americans, Africans or Asians. Don't forget that common people were very much looked down on in the Netherlands too: they almost had no rights and were punished serverely if necessary. The rich had only respect for their fellow rich. They also invented modern capitalism with the creation of large shareholded companies like the East and West Indies Companies and just like for the shareholders of today it was only the profit that counted. If killing others was necessary they had no problem doing so. How that was combined with Christian faith is a miracle to me. We Dutch make a big problem of the occupation of East Europe by the Russians but refuse to see our own colonial behaviour in the same way. That's typical European racism I guess. But I must say the United States later realy tried to get rid of the Native Americans at a scale far bigger than the Dutch. One more thing I would like to know how Americans pronounce the word Kieft in Dutch it is pronounced as Keeft. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.160.139.195 (talk) 13:15, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

I'm American and without thinking about it naturally pronounce it "Keeft". This book, [2], concurs. There may be other unrelated surnames spelled the same but pronounced differently, of course. Pfly (talk) 04:14, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

Merge

Suggest merging Willem Kieft into the Main article about the war that he started, as it seems to be that for which he is most known. The three short paragraphs would provide an intro to the subsequent conflict. Manannan67 (talk) 01:12, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose Kieft's War and Willem Kieft are separate subjects, the later biography containing information not appropriate for the former.Djflem (talk) 11:21, 3 November 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose - They are about distiant but related topics.– BrandonXLF (talk) 23:39, 17 December 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose: That would be equivalent to merging the article about King Philip with the article about King Philip's War. This article about Kieft himself might be short, but there is always hope that it will be expanded in the future. —Dilidor (talk) 17:07, 18 December 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose Kieft's War and Willem Kieft are separate subjects, with other involved.Telecine Guy (talk) 03:08, 29 February 2020 (UTC)