Bridge Gulch massacre

The Bridge Gulch massacre, also known as the Hayfork massacre or Natural Bridge massacre, occurred on April 23, 1852, when more than 150 Wintu people were killed by about 70 American men led by William H. Dixon, the sheriff of Trinity County in northern California.

History

The massacre was in response to the killing of Colonel John Anderson by the Wintu. The Americans tracked the Wintu to a part of the Hayfork Valley known as Bridge Gulch, where they had made camp.[1] They waited until early morning before attacking, to ensure that nobody could escape. When daylight broke they attacked the Wintu, who were just beginning to awaken. More than 150 Wintu people were killed, with only about five scattered children surviving the attack.[2]

Those Wintu killed in the massacre were not responsible for the death of John Anderson, who was killed by Wintu from a different band.[3]

Native Americans in California experienced several decades of genocide since the white settlers started to arrive from the east and the Midwest. Miners, ranchers and other settlers flooded into the region to squat on lands that were occupied by Native Americans. Initially, the Native Americans were peaceful. However, as more and more white settlers arrived, they started to force the Native Americans off their homelands and conflicts erupted. The Native Americans were nearly exterminated because of death squads organized by local citizens. The local police force and army units sometimes participated in the killings and did nothing to stop it; Legal loopholes also prevented the white killers being brought to justice. Tall tales and rumors circulated by words of mouth or by the press also contributed to mass participation in the killings and galvanized people’s tacit consent to those killings.

California during the mid-19th century was a place where the killing of Native Americans was tolerated by the legal system. While the law does not approve explicitly the killing of Native Americans; it also prevented any non-white witnesses providing evidence against white defendants. As a result, any violence perpetuated by a white man against Native men or women cannot be persecuted in a court because no Native men or women’s testimony was valid. In many cases, the Native American population cannot subsist on the land they reside anymore because the livestock the settlers brought in permanently changed the ecosystem. This made hunting and gathering more difficult for them so they had to kill the cattle and horses of the settlers in order just to not starve. According to Californian state law, the punishment for stealing livestock was 25 lashes and a 200 dollar fine (Lindsay, 202). Many White settlers apparently found such a measure too lenient and not enough to deter the Indians from “stealing” their livestock. They often raided Indian villages and executed the men and women on the spot. More gruesome still, they often put down the children and infants as well. This is clearly a violation of state law and outright murder. Unfortunately, because of the legal loopholes and widespread support for those killings, these men were never persecuted by law. Instead, they were applauded as heroes.

The white settlers often find it convenient to portray Indians as subhuman and inferior to white people. In this way, it becomes justifiable in their conscience to kill their fellow human beings of “the other” race. Indians were perceived as “savages” and seen as living in “misery” (Lindsay, 194). As a result, killing Indians is another way to “stop their misery”. Absurd is it seems, these notions explain the indiscriminate killing of Native men and women in California after disputes in land settlements erupted. The white settlers see themselves as a superior race; as a result, they see themselves as having a “manifest destiny” to hold all the land to the Pacific Ocean. They sincerely believed that they can make better use of the land for farming. These land would be “wasted” if left in the hands of the Indians. Accounts and rumors describing Indians as “bloodthirsty killers” also help demonize the Indians in the minds of the white people. According to the Bible, God promised the land to the Israelites so all those people living in the holy land has to be exterminated. The white settlers see themselves fulfilling a religious duty to rid Indians from California. As a result, they see their killings of Indians as a “crusade” rather than a genocide. These are the notions that makes the white settlers immune to their own violence towards Indians.

Despite popular conception that democracy brings freedom to the people; the democratic system in California only reinforced the genocide patterns in California. Because most white settlers in California want the Indians removed, the most cost-effective way to do so is to simply kill them. The people elected their governors and state representatives. If those elected politicians are willing to give support and fund the killing of Indians, they can stay in office. If not, the public would vote for other politicians more willing to support them. Unfortunately, the Native Americans do not have any representation in California by the mid-19th century so they can in no way influence policies that affect their lives. Although the Federal program having laws that “protect Indians”; because of the great distance separating California from Washington D.C. and lack of good ways of instantaneous ways of communication, California has a lot of autonomy to deal with their “Indian problem.” This often means that the violation of basic laws protecting Indians cannot be fully intervened by the Federal government. Local politicians also legislated laws that are in direct violation to the Federal laws protecting the rights of Indians. The white citizens often went beyond their own claim at “self-defense” and just hunted down Indians out of hate. There are other incentives to kill Indians. In Northern California, some counties formed citizen militia funded by local businesses to hunt down Indians. In other cases, some business owners set up prizes for Indian heads or scalps. This is clearly a genocidal attempt at exterminating the Indians or to exact enough violence so they can be forced to the reservations. Indian men were usually killed; women prisoners were raped and sold as sex slaves. The Indian children were also sold into slavery. Many Indians retaliated to the white people’s mass killings by killing their horses and cattle. In other mining places, where the miners are more concentrated, the Indian people are in a much weaker position to exact revenge. The casualty on the side of the white people is minimal or nearly non-existent. However, just in Round Valley region alone, 283 Indians were killed by Captain Jarboe and his team (Lindsay, 208). Just within a decade, California’s Indian population was forced off their land onto reservations. They suffered a more miserable fate on the reservations since they no longer have the freedom to roam the fields and carry on their traditional way of living. The killings of Indians continued even after they moved onto their reservations.

In conclusion, the American Indians faced genocide and many efforts from the white settlers, ranchers and miners to exterminate them. Many people were complicit in the action because they did little to stop the carnage even if they think it is wrong. The public decided democratically to exterminate Indians and formed citizen militia when local army units disapproved the killing of Indians. At other times, the army units helped those operations. Despite all these efforts, the Indian people have survived this great carnage and continue to exist in the modern era.[4]

Site

The natural bridge is 150 feet (46 m) long and about 30 feet (9.1 m) high,[1] on Dobbins Gulch Road. Trails are administered by the U.S. Forest Service at the Natural Bridge Picnic Area off of Wildwood Road (County Road 302) in Trinity County.[5]

See also

Coordinates: 40°29′31.28″N 123°6′14.36″W / 40.4920222°N 123.1039889°W / 40.4920222; -123.1039889

References

  1. 1 2 Hoover, Mildred Brooke and Douglas E. Kyle, Historic Spots in California: Fourth Edition, Stanford University Press, 1990 - 617 pages, 19512813, accessdate January 3, 2013
  2. ↑ Norton, Jack (1979). Genocide in Northwestern California: When Our Worlds Cried. San Francisco: Indian Historian Press. pp. 51–54.
  3. ↑ "Natural Bridge of the Shasta-Trinity National Forest". Retrieved January 3, 2013.
  4. ↑ Lindsay, Brendan C. Murder State: California's Native American Genocide, 1846-1873. Lincoln : University Of Nebraska Press, 2012. Print.
  5. ↑ Natural Bridge Interpretive Trail, accessdate January 3, 2013


This article is issued from Wikipedia - version of the Saturday, March 26, 2016. The text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution/Share Alike but additional terms may apply for the media files.