Talk:California genocide

The death toll currently presented in the infobox may be seen as somewhat misleading or incomplete. The figures cited from Madley, Cook, Anderson, and the California secretary of state refer specifically to violent deaths, rather than the total demographic impact. For example the sources in the infobox state the following:

• Anderson: "Anderson tells me that, by his estimate, no more than 2,000 Native Americans were killed in California."
• Cook: "according to demographer sherburne cook, only about 4300 indians were actually slain in military engagements."
• California secretary of State: "It is estimated that some 4500 Indians suffered violent deaths between 1849 and 1870"
• Madley: "Primary and secondary sources indicate that from 1846 to 1873 individuals, vigilantes, California state militiamen, and US soldiers killed at least 9,492 to 16,094 California Indians, and probably many more."

All of these figures refer specifically to killings, however when discussing genocides, indirect deaths are often also considered, such as famine, disease and forced labour. For example, the Circassian genocide article includes both direct and indirect deaths in the infobox, while noting a population decline in percentage and number. The Selknam genocide article rather than mentioning a specific death toll highlights the population collapse. Similarly, the East Timor genocide, Libyan genocide, Pontic Greek genocide, Herero and Nama genocide, Dzungar genocide, and Cambodian genocide articles include deaths from indirect causes associated with the broader genocide. Several academics including Madley, Lindsay and Kroeber agree that from 1846 to 1873 that the indigenous population of California fell from 150k to 30k(80%), due to genocide related actions including murder, forced labour and destruction of food(Madley 2016 notes this in page 346 for instance). Given this consensus it is worth considering altering the infobox to better fit the effects of the genocide. WinterDyna (talk) 22:57, 6 March 2026 (UTC)

Can a historical description be regarded as "generally accepted" when it is based on two books by assistant professors and contradicted by at least four publications by equally well-qualified historians? Does it matter if the theory was endorsed by a modern-day state governor and (supposedly) by his 19th-century predecessor?

William J Bauer Jr. critique removed https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=California_genocide&diff=1309251475&oldid=1308836516

Dubois and Woodward, Roger McGrath and John Mack Faragher references removed https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=California_genocide&diff=prev&oldid=1343735445

See also Talk:California genocide#Restoring section on criticism of the Genocide Theory Julian in LA (talk) 03:43, 17 March 2026 (UTC)

Was summoned by an RFC bot - as far as I can see, I do believe that what you are suggesting should be included, though I do also agree with @Cristiano Tomás on that you should make an effort to find disagreeing opinions from other historians.

For the purposes of the RFC, however, the question does not seem to be phrased in a manner which I feel directly addresses the question at hand and is phrased in a non-neutral or loaded way. For that reason, I will be recommending a Procedural Close. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 13:35, 17 March 2026 (UTC)

This is not really a Request for Comment in the sense of people weighing in on a proposed change to the article. Instead, this appears to be a response to the pushback against recent changes shifting the blame to the victim. We would need an extraordinarily massive consensus in the literature in order to change this page into Victim blaming mode. Binksternet (talk) 14:27, 17 March 2026 (UTC)

this is a discussion that ought to be had but we're not at an RfC stage right now. i concur with a procedural close. ... sawyer * any/all * talk 14:59, 17 March 2026 (UTC)

Where should the discussion be had? Julian in LA (talk) 16:16, 17 March 2026 (UTC)

here, just not as an RfC. ... sawyer * any/all * talk 17:49, 17 March 2026 (UTC)

The edits contain a significant amount of improper sourcing/synthesis and are placed in the incorrect headings.

Of the five academics/authors listed, the portrayal of William J Bauer Jr as opposing the classification of these events as genocide is incorrect, Bauer has written one of the most extensive works on the forced labour system in Round Valley during this period. He has also explicitly given support to Madley, stating that Madley's work has settled the debate regarding whether the California Genocide constituted a genocide. This is found within the article itself:

William Bauer Jr. argues that Benjamin Madley "has settled the issue on whether or not genocide occurred in California".[284] He writes also that "federal and state governments, those bodies that could or should have protected California Indians from the devastating violence, condoned and perpetrated genocides" and that "civilian leaders in California passed legislation that enabled genocide".[284]

Regarding the source from Roger Mcgrath, his work repeatedly states the settlers as the cause for famine amongst Paiutes in the Sierra. He described how settlers had brought Paiutes into submission via destroying their food sources leading to starvation.(pages 20-21), (24), (29), (53), (258) However since mentions of Indigenous people in this book primarily concerns the Owens Valley War, it would more appropriately be placed in the Owens Valley War subheading of the history heading.

What you've cited from John Mack Faragher's work is from the 1830s and falls outside the scope of the specific american genocide of Californian Indigenous people, as such it should be within the Background heading. While John Mack does ocassionally address the poor conditions Native Americans in California were subject to during the Spanish period, he provides very limited information about indigenous people in sections pertaining to California following the post American Conquest, aside from brief mentions of individuals such as Juan Antonio, and Antonio Garra.

Although Madley and Lindsay are among the most well known authors regarding the topic, the academic consensus recognising the genocide is widespread. In addition to Bauer, Jean Pfaelzer, Frank Baumgardner and Jack Norton support this interpretation. Robert Heizer also emphasized the violent nature of what he described as the destruction of the California natives. Even scholars Jeffrey Ostler who offer some critique still ultimately classify the events as genocide.

Overall the prevailing consensus amongst academics strongly supports that these events constituted genocide. WinterDyna (talk) 16:59, 17 March 2026 (UTC)

Faragher's description of the Indian community in Los Angeles says that it persisted into the 1860s, when it was destroyed by a smallpox epidemic. Non-Indians died in that epidemic, also. Julian in LA (talk) 17:56, 17 March 2026 (UTC)

This article concerns the California genocide, as a whole, meaning it should address the entirety of California rather than just focusing on Los Angeles or Southern California. Southern California has already been given its own heading to reflect its unique somewhat distinct historical circumstances.

In Los Angeles rather than the large scale massacres more commonly documented in other parts of the state, it saw widespread enslavement and forced labour. Indigenous girls were often taken and turned into concubines by settlers.(California a slave state by Jean Pfaelzer addresses this in pages 339, 175, and 294) Heizer also notes that mission indians, over the course of the period had all their land stolen and taken over by settlers.(Robert Heizer Federal Concern about Conditions of California Indians 1853 to 1913: Eight Documents. 65-67) Additionally Lindsay and Madley both describe about the deplorable conditions in Los Angeles, including the existence of slave marts. WinterDyna (talk) 19:08, 17 March 2026 (UTC)

The reference to slave markets is a shocker. Do you have page numbers? Since the Indians would have been subject to indentures, the indentures would have to be legally transferred. Do either of these historians cite the transfer documents? Julian in LA (talk) 19:57, 17 March 2026 (UTC)

Lindsay (pages 152-154) and Madley (page 161) both cite the contemporary account of lawyer and Los Angeles Rangers volunteer Horace Bell who personally witnessed what he described as slave marts in Los Angeles. According to the account the police including the marshall would arrest Natives for consuming alcohol and then sell them as indentured laborers to vineyards and other employers for prices ranging between 1 to 3 dollars. Although these indentures would legally only last a week, the system was perpetual as employers would would pay the laborers in alcohol inspite of laws prohibiting Indigenous consumption of alcohol. This would lead to their rearrest subsequent indenture for another week. Bell noted that this cycle was indefinite and that indentured workers would die within 2 to 3 years of being indentured due to the harsh and inhumane conditions. Other accounts also cited in these pages also describe whipping and other forms of torture dealt upon these forced laborers. WinterDyna (talk) 21:05, 17 March 2026 (UTC)

This is what Bell says. Do you accept it at face value? Did the Angelenos plot to exterminate their best customers?

At the time there were three great grog-shops at the mission; all kept by Americans; all doing a smashing business, especially on Sundays, when from early dawn till late at night these devil's workshops would be surrounded by a mass of drunken, howling Indians. About sundown the smashing business would begin in good earnest; that is to say, these gentle aboriginal Christians would commence to smashing each other's skulls. (Page 84)

Julian in LA (talk) 21:28, 17 March 2026 (UTC)

Julian in LA, I don't understand what you're getting at but it is not helpful. WinterDyna has done fantastic work on this article and has been more than generous with their time in answering your questions. Cerulean Depths (talk) 21:38, 17 March 2026 (UTC)

as it was illegal for Indigenous Californians to consume alcohol, and arrests for such offenses would often led to indentured servitude, there is no contradiction in a statement saying that alcohol was widely distributed to native Americans. In fact, it was deliberately used to entrap them. Once indentured, Native Americans suffered high mortality rates. Superintendent of Indian Affairs Edward Beale, in his 1853 report to the Secretary of the Interior, noted that indentured workers in Napa County were frequently being kidnapped from the mountains and brought to work on farms. He reported that they were subject to inhumane treatment, which was a primary cause of their high mortality. WinterDyna (talk) 01:20, 18 March 2026 (UTC)

This accusation from Beale is a very serious matter. Which historian quoted it? Is it accepted as reliable? More importantly, what kept the Indians from running away? Black people ran away. Julian in LA (talk) 16:37, 18 March 2026 (UTC)

Jean Pfaelzer, in California a Slave State, and Lindsay, in Murder State among others, cite the reports of Edward Beale, in his reports he describes Los Angeles as a cattle market for the state, and suggested Native Americans needed to be neglected for the betterment of "civilization." Beale wrote numerous official reports, many of which can be found free on government websites, detailing the grim and deplorable conditions faced by California natives. As Superintendent of Indian Affairs, it was his responsibility to document and report on these conditions. Given his official position, he had no incentive to lie or exaggerate the abuses as acknowledging widespread terror on Indigenous communities in the state could reflect poorly on him and his job. For this reason his statements regarding the conditions of California Native populations could be accepted as very reliable. WinterDyna (talk) 17:13, 18 March 2026 (UTC)

this is becoming disruptive; WinterDyna has already provided you with numerous sources that verify these claims. and "black people ran away?" what do you mean by that? ... sawyer * any/all * talk 17:25, 18 March 2026 (UTC)

The page numbers for the Pfaelzer book reference the wrong pathetic victims. Page 175 shows a picture from a London magazine (always an accurate source) depicting black people. Page 294 also references Blacks. Page 339 refers to Chinese.

This book is a racist screed whose references are mostly other racist screeds. Where she attempts to do real research, the result is often "Mishandling and misrepresentation of primary sources." {https://online.ucpress.edu/phr/article/94/1/103/204221/Review-California-A-Slave-State-by-Jean-Pfaelzer}

One of her few quotes from primary sources comes from a rancher whose location is not disclosed. The quote is included either for its shock value or because it is an accurate description of Madley's pathetic victims (page 191):

An "immense number of wild, naked, brute Indians… grazing together like so many cattle [were a] race of infants [who] submit to flagellation with more humility than the Negroes."

Julian in LA (talk) 23:34, 8 April 2026 (UTC)

page 175 of Jean Pfaelzers book "California, a Slave State" has no pictures or mention of African Americans, page 294 is largely on Native Californians with a brief mention of African Americans, and page 339 is about indentures of native American children and does not mention Chinese people. Page 191 of Pfaelzers book does not have the quote you have put.

Whether a single book reviewer has a negative view of the book due to what was written regarding the enslavement of African Americans in California that would not change the validity or acclaim of this book, many reviewers have written positively of it. WinterDyna (talk) 01:48, 9 April 2026 (UTC)

I Agree. Julian is not showing a good faith, I see little value in continuing to rebut his pedantic questions/responses, when he clearly shows no interest in hearing sources that contradict his own view.Cristiano Tomás (talk) 17:48, 18 March 2026 (UTC)

The page number references to McGrath are not honest. His statements on these pages are consistent with the rest of the book: he writes about Indians as human beings, not helpless cartoon characters.

Page 22: In describing an incident in which four Indians were killed, he says "what happened next is debated", something Madley denies in every one of his "massacres." McGrath goes on to say, "although the whites had suffered only one casualty, this fight would prove very costly for them in the long run."

Page 24: In describing the Battle of the Ditch, he says of the Paiute, "at least a hundred of them had guns", with the rest armed with bows and arrows. Three whites died. "Indian casualties were estimated at anywhere from 5 to 15 dead."

Page 28: He describes the Indians' success in clearing their range by force. "The Owens Valley – in fact most of the southern trans-Sierra – belonged to the Indians in late April, May and June 1862."

Page 29: For McGrath, white people have names. He describes a starvation campaign by Colonel Evans, who had been sent from Los Angeles to reclaim the Owens Valley. He does not attribute the starvation policy to the white settlers. He doesn't mention, and Madley certainly does not, that the Army used a similar tactic in the Second Seminole war in Florida and against white people, during the same time period, in the Shenandoah Valley of Virginia.

Page 53: McGrath uses Madley's favorite word, "outgunned", but also describes ammunition issues, the need to supply warriors with food, and an inability to maintain their guns. Neither author mentions victories by outgunned groups in the past, beginning with the American Revolution.

Page 258: He describes the reasons for the Paiutes' eventual defeat: they "had no unity of command, logistical support, or sense of strategy." Julian in LA (talk) 21:26, 7 April 2026 (UTC)

Madley too mentions extensively the actions of Indigenous tribes during the Indian wars including that of the Owens Valley Paiute. None of what McGrath stated contradicts what's in the article, it simply narrates events during the Owens Valley war, through a settler perspective. The second Seminole war was part of (and due to) the trail of tears which is widely acknowledged as a genocide of Indigenous people. I have no issue with information from McGraths book being put in the article but it isn't contradictory to the California Genocide, McGrath blamed the starvation of Paiutes on settlers repeatedly. WinterDyna (talk) 23:43, 7 April 2026 (UTC)

I removed the RfC tag as I don't think this is a properly formed RfC that will generate meaningful responsesKatzrockso (talk) 14:36, 19 March 2026 (UTC)

Do we need Gavin Newsom propaganda in the third paragraph? I came here to learn about the genocide, not the modern day liberal apologia of said event. Why is it important to have the view of a politician from 2019 at the top of the article; particularly one to make this politician look like a saint? Does it need to be mentioned that this is the same Gavin Newsom who wholeheartedly supports Israel and its genocide in Palestine? I am not indigenous to California, but if I were, I certainly wouldn't give this "apology" any worth, and I don't see how it could possibly be worth including in this article. ~2026-19060-94 (talk) 05:06, 27 March 2026 (UTC)

A governor of a state recognising a genocide which occurred within the state is worth mentioning in the article, irrespective of their other political positions. WinterDyna (talk) 12:26, 30 March 2026 (UTC)

I agree that the statements by Newsom and his predecessor, Peter Burnett, are irrelevant. They were both elected to manage state government, not to decide historical questions. The local news reports of Newsom's statement indicate that he was simply repeating statements from Madley to an audience he was pandering to. Burnett is cited for one sentence in a 9,000 word address to the legislature in 1850, not for any action he ever took during his abbreviated term as governor. Julian in LA (talk) 22:19, 2 April 2026 (UTC)

Symbolic, yes. Irrelevant? Hardly. Sparafucil (talk) 01:07, 4 April 2026 (UTC)

Whether or not the statements are based off information taken from a book (in this case Madley), Newsom's statement was intended to show the California government recognises the genocide, as he's the current governor of California, keeping this statement in the article makes sense as it shows the current California Government position regarding the genocide.

Peter Burnetts statement on the war of extermination, as he termed it, is extremely famous and used in every work on the California genocide. If you wish that more is highlighted on his actual actions during the genocide (such as his supression of the quechan people) that is a fair concern and i believe more information should be added in general regarding the genocide and it's perpetrators. WinterDyna (talk) 13:41, 3 April 2026 (UTC)

If Burnett was involved in the Quechan War, why isn't it shown in the section on that topic? His famous address to the legislature includes a justification for his refusal to call out the militia. Julian in LA (talk) 19:16, 3 April 2026 (UTC)

That is a good question, his involvement in the Quechan war and other things should be added to the article. WinterDyna (talk) 19:37, 3 April 2026 (UTC)

Please add it. I have never seen such a thing. Julian in LA (talk) 20:28, 3 April 2026 (UTC)

@~2026-19060-94:@WinterDyna:@Sparafucil:Do we have consensus that, if Newsom's statement is to be shown, its full context should be included? Julian in LA (talk) 02:35, 4 April 2026 (UTC)

Just stop with your non-neutral efforts here. Find another topic. Binksternet (talk) 04:40, 4 April 2026 (UTC)

Concensus? I think whatever is proposed for "full context" needs clarification first. Sparafucil (talk) 05:35, 4 April 2026 (UTC)

Full context is full context. If you want to determine the context, tell us about it here. If you want to present Newsom's bare words with Lindsay's interpretation, at least explain that it's Lindsay's interpretation. Julian in LA (talk) 18:54, 4 April 2026 (UTC)

im not sure what you exactly expect to bring from the article? I understand your suggestions and such but we've already gone over the opinionatedness of your suggestions, especially regarding the actual genocide itself which you deny occurred despite academic consensus. WinterDyna (talk) 18:57, 4 April 2026 (UTC)

It's not me. It's ~2026-19060-94 Julian in LA (talk) 19:04, 4 April 2026 (UTC)

Should this article quote the current governor of California? There is uncertainty over whether this is a generally accepted description of a historical event, or a fringe theory endorsed by a liberal state governor who has endorsed other controversial theories. If the former, endorsements by politicians are irrelevant and should not be mentioned. If the latter, its status as a controversial theory should be described in the introduction and the full context of the governor's endorsement should be included.

See #Propaganda. Julian in LA (talk) 03:08, 5 April 2026 (UTC)

(summoned by bot) This fails WP:RFCNEUTRAL. Please read the link and either remove the RFC tag or re-write this in the form of a neutrally asked question. TarnishedPath^talk 06:05, 5 April 2026 (UTC)

(summoned by bot) Emphatically seconding this request. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 06:18, 5 April 2026 (UTC)

An introductory sentence has been added. Julian in LA (talk) 17:58, 5 April 2026 (UTC)

@Julian in LA, that's better. Can you please remove the rest of that paragraph. TarnishedPath^talk 00:07, 6 April 2026 (UTC)

there is no uncertainty, this is a misuse of a RfC, if you have any academic literature which considers the topic controversial I'd like to hear it. WinterDyna (talk) 14:27, 5 April 2026 (UTC)

• Faulty RfC, non-neutral. Julian is asking us to choose between his two narrow views while ignoring every other possibility. Binksternet (talk) 01:46, 6 April 2026 (UTC)

  Please describe the other possibilities. It would be helpful. Julian in LA (talk) 04:32, 6 April 2026 (UTC)

You established yourself as a tendentious editor with your very first post on this talk page, calling the topic a "sacred cow". Everything you have posted since then indicates that you are not adapting your viewpoint in the face of contrary evidence. Which brings me to the sad conclusion that arguing a point with you is not a good use of my time. Binksternet (talk) 05:06, 6 April 2026 (UTC)

• (summoned by bot) The non-neutral and problematic prompt remains, but at this juncture I think it is doing more damage to the editorial credibility of the OP's position than anything else, so I'm going to proceed with my input. Though I would also not view removal of the RfC tag as inappropriate, all factors considered.
  Anyhow, reaching to the substance of the issues: the OP presents a clear false dichotomy, since it is entirely possible for the 'California genocide' to be both a label with significant weight among the work of historians and other relevant subject matter experts, and at the same time also a concept boosted by politicians for any combination of legitimate fidelity with their views and/or political value. Indeed, based on the available sourcing utilized in the article and the broader academic consensus, that seems to be the most accurate description. In short, I do not think there exists substantial "uncertainty over whether this is a generally accepted description of a historical event, or a fringe theory endorsed by a liberal state governor who has endorsed other controversial theories", either as pertains to the general academic consensus or the perspectives of the large majority of contributors to this article or the recent discussions above. Further, to the extent there is some disagreement among sources about the label, we have a robust section which describes differing perspectives, which is precisely what policy recommend in these circumstances.
  Now, there is one small caveat that I will grant with respect to the OP's drive here: probably Newsom's perspectives don't need a full paragraph worth of summary in the lead. Their perspective that this article must omit any and all detail of recognition of the genocide by state leaders is peculiar and not supported by any relevant policy as far as I can see, but as a matter of WP:PROPORTION, I don't see how the stances of one gubernatorial administration, even the current one, should take up roughly 40% of the lead, when that same subtopic constitutes less than 5% of the article. Now, applying WP:LEAD is not a strictly 1:1 process in that respect, but obviously this article is, in the majority, more concerned with historical fact and academic research than with positions of an official or political nature. So maybe some small adjustments are due there. But aside from that narrow aspect of coverage, I do not find the OP's positions, as expressed in the previous discussions, to accord strongly with sources in a manner that demands major changes with how this article presents its central subject matter. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 09:25, 6 April 2026 (UTC)

Per WP:PROPORTION, the Newsom material in the lead is overweighted: roughly 40% of the lead vs. under 5% of the body, as SnowRise and CSGinger14 noted. State recognition belongs in the lead; a paragraph doesn't. Suggest trimming to one sentence ("In 2019, Governor Gavin Newsom formally apologized on behalf of California and described the events as a genocide") and moving the executive order, Truth and Healing Council, and quoted language to the recognition section. Sparks19923 (talk) 21:40, 3 May 2026 (UTC)

The reference to "state recognition" is interesting. An earlier version of the article said that the genocide had been recognized "by the State of California", but that has been removed. The reference is to a New York Times article saying that he issued an apology "on behalf of the state" and that "scholars and others" said that this was a "broad-based state apology." There was no assertion that this or any governor has authority to say anything on behalf of their state. At the same time, the state legislature and Congress were arguing over resolutions recognizing the Armenian Genocide and the Korean view of comfort girls. Are they the ones who have authority to issue an official interpretation of a historical event?

There is still no response to the second part of the question: should the full context of the governor's statement be presented? Julian in LA (talk) 18:56, 4 May 2026 (UTC)

Wikipedia reports what reliable sources say about historical events. The article already has a section covering differing perspectives. If there is peer-reviewed historical literature disputing the genocide framing, it belongs there. The political circumstances of a governor's endorsement are not a substitute for that literature and do not belong as interpretive framing in the lead. Sparks19923 (talk) 19:37, 4 May 2026 (UTC)

Can I post the diffs showing references to peer-reviewed historical literature that has been reverted? I'm asking first only because you don't sound like you're particularly interested in it. Julian in LA (talk) 21:38, 4 May 2026 (UTC)

All your edits have been via personal opinions and improper synthesis, page numbers weren't added, and and content itself was not placed in the right headings. WinterDyna (talk) 22:32, 4 May 2026 (UTC)

There is uncertainty over whether this is a generally accepted description of a historical event, or a fringe theory endorsed by a liberal state governor who has endorsed other controversial theories

Does it need to be mentioned that this is the same Gavin Newsom who wholeheartedly supports Israel and its genocide in Palestine? I am not indigenous to California, but if I were, I certainly wouldn't give this "apology" any worth

I don't see how name-calling Gavin Newsom and bringing up an unrelated topic does anything but diminish the credibility of your argument. Not to mention as others have pointed out it definitely violates WP:RFCNEUTRAL.

That being said, Newsom's statements are relevant in the same context as the formal American apology for Japanese internment. The lead could maybe use his statements trimmed down a bit, but having the leader of a state apologize for a genocide that happened within said state in the past is rather notable. If the state government outside the governor's office made any official statements (such as a state assembly resolution), I think those would be fine substitutes if Newsom is somehow an issue. Retr0r0cket (talk) 06:09, 5 May 2026 (UTC)

Your reference is to the Civil Liberties Act of 1988, which was passed by Congress and signed by the President. That is quite a bit different from a state governor giving a five minute talk pandering to Native American activists and mentioning Madley's book.

Newsom's talk is presented here as proof of the California Genocide theory. It is not. Julian in LA (talk) 17:06, 5 May 2026 (UTC)

I’m aware of what I’m referencing and I don’t need somebody pointing it out for me. The article does not state that Newsom’s statements prove anything. It just says that he said them. That’s about as it should be. Like of course it’s not the same thing as sign legislation, but having the governor of a state say that he believes a genocide did happen is pretty damn notable. Retr0r0cket (talk) 18:27, 5 May 2026 (UTC)

@LikkerdySplit:@Squeakachu:@Ooogaboogmrolliesmd:

I agree with @Snow Rise that the only real evidence of WP:POV pushing is the undue amount of weight that's been placed on Newsom's perspective in this matter. More than anything else it just feels like free and unnecessary publicity, given the fact that numerous scholars have already described the conquest of the Americas and US expansionism into native lands as genocide to begin with. I'm confident this has already been discussed in the context of California state politics many times before, principally and presumably by the descendants of those natives themselves, who should ultimately be the larger focal perspective in this discussion.

To respond to @Julian in LA while avoiding WP:POLITE issues, all I will say is that the evidence overwhelmingly points to you being wrong. This isn't a fringe theory, it was an extremely well documented act of displacement, erasure, and killing which irreparably damaged Native American populations and cultures in the Western United States, notwithstanding the millions who died in the earlier days of colonialism and the ensuing race to conquer the Americas by European powers. Genocide is necessarily a political term because it allows for killing at that scale to be justified if one can find reasons to suggest that such actions don't match a particular, selective set of intentionally open-ended criteria. The same line of reasoning you're using here has been used to deny and derail investigation into countless atrocities across recent history. Even if we were to accept your line of reasoning, this quote from the California Native American Heritage Foundation should nonetheless suffice:

Numerous vigilante type paramilitary troops were established whose principal occupation seems to have been to kill Indians and kidnap their children. Groups such as the Humboldt Home Guard, the Eel River Minutemen and the Placer Blades among others terrorized local Indians and caused the premier 19th century historian Hubert Howe Bancroft to describe them as follows.

“The California valley cannot grace her annals with a single Indian war bordering on respectability. It can, however, boast a hundred or two of as brutal butchering, on the part of our honest miners and brave pioneers, as any area of equal extent in our republic……”

• The handiwork of these well-armed death squads combined with the widespread random killing of Indians by individual miners resulted in the death of 100,000 Indians in the first two years of the gold rush...

Self-defense is only a valid argument, though, if you hadn't previously enslaved, brutalized, starved out, then expelled from their homeland members of the group you're supposedly defending yourself against.

CSGinger14 (talk) 19:09, 23 April 2026 (UTC)

If I understand all of this, you believe that the references to Newsom should be removed. Julian in LA (talk) 19:42, 23 April 2026 (UTC)

That would be a rather reductive analysis of what I said, but ultimately, yes

CSGinger14 (talk) 20:42, 23 April 2026 (UTC)

Of the California Genocide academics, Lindsay, in Murder State: California's Native American Genocide, 1846–1873, places the Indians below Whites and above Blacks in his racial scale. Jean Pfaelzer, in California a Slave State, asserts that they were more like cattle than human beings.

Pfaelzer's claim is on page 191 of the browser-based version of her book, where she quotes from an 1846 letter sent by John Marsh, a rancher in what is now Contra Costa County, to Lewis Cass, a former senator from Michigan, presidential candidate and moderate on the slavery question. She quotes the letter as the reliable statement of an eyewitness. Contemporaries indeed regarded it this way. Senator Cass passed it on to a newspaper, which published it. It was republished 20 years later by the Martinez News-Gazette under the heading, "A Scrap of California history" and published again by the California Historical Society Quarterly in 1943. The quote appearing in her book is stitched together, garbled and misleading. Here is what Dr. Pfaelzer's eyewitness actually said. Page numbers refer to the version in the California Historical Society Quarterly:

The general expression of countenance of the wild Indian has nothing of the proud & lofty bearing or of the haughtiness or ferocity so often seen east of the mountains. It is more commonly indicative of timidity & stupidity. The men & children are absolutely and entirely naked & the dress of the women is the least possible or conceivable removed from absolute nudity. Their food varies with the season. In February & March they live on grass & herbage [leaves and stems]. Clover & wild pea vine are among the best of their pasturage. I have often seen hundreds of them grazing together in a meadow like so many cattle. (320)

They are easily domesticated, not averse to labor, have a natural aptitude to learn mechanical trades and I believe universally a fondness for music & a facility in learning it. The Mission of Saint Joseph when in its prosperity had 100 ploughmen & I have seen them all work together in one field with each his plow. It had also 50 weavers, 20 tanners, 30 shoemakers, 40 Masons 20 carpenters 10 blacksmiths & various other mechaniks, all Indians (320-21)

The children, when caught young, are most easily domesticated, and manifest a great aptitude to learn whatever is taught them; when taken into Spanish families and treated with kindness, in a few months they learn the language and habits of their masters. When they come to maturity they show no disposition to return to the savage state. The mind of the wild Indian, of whatever age, appears to be a tabula rasa on which no impressions, except those of mere animal nature, have been made, and ready to receive any impress whatever. I remember a remark of yours some years ago, that "Indians were only grown-up children." Here we have a real race of infants. In many recent instances when a family of white people have taken a farm in the vicinity of an Indian village, in a short time they would have the whole tribe for willing serfs. (page 321)

[brackets inserted by the journal's editor have been omitted]

Julian in LA (talk) 02:49, 14 April 2026 (UTC)

This describes genocide - were you planning to add it to the article? Cerulean Depths (talk) 04:56, 14 April 2026 (UTC)

What part of this is genocide? It isn't genocide to allow buffalo to graze like cattle; are Indians different? Julian in LA (talk) 15:15, 14 April 2026 (UTC)

The view that you are suggesting with that comment is not compatible with what is expected of editors here. Cerulean Depths (talk) 18:10, 14 April 2026 (UTC)

Quoting a 19th century racist is not the same as defining indigenous natives as cattle. The fact of genocide is not budged by this, not even a little. Binksternet (talk) 18:08, 14 April 2026 (UTC)

I searched for what was stated in the book by Miss pfaelzer regarding this letter by John Marsh to Lewis Cass, this is what was written by Jean Pfaelzer:

dreaming of a white state, rancher John Marsh wrote a "booster" or immigrant recruitment letter, that was published in newspapers across the country. Marsh depicted a settler utopia in California where an "immense number of wild, naked, brute indians... grazing together like so many cattle" would never "stand in the way". Indians were a "race of infants" and if caught young, were not "averse to labour." Child captives, he claimed, did not want to return to a "savage state" and "willingly" became "serfs [who] submit to flagellation with more humility than the negroes." All that was needed for their "complete subjugation" was "kindness in the beginning, and a little well timed severity when manifestly deserved." He reassured the more squeamish settlers that they could "order an indian to inflict the punishment, which is received without the least sign of resentment." Marsh conceded that without Indian child conscripts in California "the business of the country could hardly be carried on."

Above this text is a image with a description that states it's a depiction of captive California natives at the ranch of John Marsh. As can be seen, the book clearly presents John Marsh as a slaver who was looking to take Californian Indigenous children for himself and other settlers, something which is seen from his direct letters as well. WinterDyna (talk) 19:27, 16 April 2026 (UTC)

Did the Indians graze in pastures, or didn't they? This 19th-century racist was quoted as a reliable source by a 21st century academic. If Pfaelzer is a racist, or the Genocide Theory is racist, please be specific. Julian in LA (talk) 19:16, 14 April 2026 (UTC)

can you cite where Pfaelzer writes favourably about John Marsh, or calls him a "reliable source." The few mentions of him within the book are in a negative manner, including mentioning him being murdered by his slaves. WinterDyna (talk) 19:31, 16 April 2026 (UTC)

The quote appears on page 179 of the print edition, in Chapter 7, "Indian Slavery." It is presented as an eyewitness description of the slavery that Pfaelzer asserts in that chapter. If Marsh is not a reliable source, please explain why you think the quote was included. Perhaps she included it solely to inspire revulsion in the reader, a technique common in racist screeds. Do you agree?

There is nothing negative about an eyewitness being murdered by his slaves. It was not unique in that era. The claim that Marsh was murdered appears in the caption to a picture on page 165, without any attribution. It says that he was murdered "when he refused to give them wages." That leaves a lot of questions. Who told these slaves that they were entitled to wages? Nobody back at the indian village ever got paid for working. None of the Black slaves in the Southeast ever asserted such a thing. Julian in LA (talk) 00:08, 18 April 2026 (UTC)

Till now you stated this was page 191, multiple times in these various talk page discussions. Now you've acknowledged that this actually comes from page 179, why were you claiming it's page 191? If you read the quote from Pfaelzer itself (which I've quoted on this page,) you'll see the reason Pfaelzer quoted Marsh was evident, to show how white masters treated captive indigenous people in California and how vital they were to the structure of early California. Books on genocides generally use contemporary sources to prove the genocide occurred. WinterDyna (talk) 01:04, 18 April 2026 (UTC)

It's page 191 in the ebook browser edition. I did read the quote from Pfaelzer itself, and presented part of it above. I used her footnote to find the original.

New question: is it genocide to force Indian children to cut their hair and bathe? Which is worse? If you've read Pfaelzer, you'll know this is not a frivolous question. Julian in LA (talk) 17:41, 18 April 2026 (UTC)

yes, the Indian Boarding schools in California were indeed genocide, but aren't part of the California genocide as they occurred after the events of the California genocide. WinterDyna (talk) 17:51, 18 April 2026 (UTC)

Nothing in the article says when the genocide ended. Please add it, with an explanation of why and how it ended.

Neither Lindsay nor Madley gives an ending date; Since the Evil Whites are still in California, I got the impression that it is ongoing. Julian in LA (talk) 18:16, 18 April 2026 (UTC)

the article states, within the infobox, that the date of the genocide was between 1846-1873. Madley introduces the genocide as being between this period on pages 8, 10, 11, 12, 13 and 15. Madley throughout his book also documents the massacres that occurred between 1846 and ending in 1873, characterising the genocide with the Indentured servitude and massacres which were widespread between those years. Lindsay in page 16 of his book also corroborates the date of 1846-1873. WinterDyna (talk) 18:50, 18 April 2026 (UTC)

The following statements appear in the article. Can they be removed?

Spanish and Mexican rule were devastating for the American Indian populations, and "As the missions grew, California's Native population of Indians began a catastrophic decline."[28] Gregory Orfalea estimates that pre-contact population was reduced by 33% during the Spanish and Mexican regimes.

1769: Spanish colonizers extended the Mexican Catholic mission system into the mission system in California, which led to the forced conversion and enslavement of California area Native Americans.

1821–1823: Mexico gained independence from Spain and took control of California, continuing the Spanish government's policies of forced labor and conversion of Indigenous peoples.

Late 1800s–early 1900s: Indigenous children were forcibly removed from their families by the California government and placed in boarding schools, where they were subjected to abuse and forced assimilation.[47][48][49]

1909: The California state government established the California Eugenics Record Office, which promoted the forced sterilization of people declared by the government to be "unfit", including "Black, Latino and Indigenous women who were incarcerated or in state institutions for disabilities"

Julian in LA (talk) 19:40, 18 April 2026 (UTC)

You've quoted paragraphs from the background heading, these can't be removed as they explicitly serve to show events which contributed to or lead upto the genocide, this is the standard practice for genocide and ethnic cleansing articles. For the timeline subheading this is clearly stated:

The following is a rough timeline of some of the key events and policies that contributed to the genocide. It is by no means comprehensive.

WinterDyna (talk) 22:16, 18 April 2026 (UTC)

Only genocide and ethnic cleansing articles? Do other types of articles have different standards? Julian in LA (talk) 22:40, 18 April 2026 (UTC)

no this also applies to most types of historical and political articles and even other topics. But we are currently discussing a genocide. Can I ask what exactly do you wish to change from this article? WinterDyna (talk) 22:48, 18 April 2026 (UTC)

I plan to add sections on compulsory bathing of Indians and discriminatory denial of alcohol to Indians. Both are supported by numerous reliable sources, referring to periods long before 1876. We are still discussing whether grazing by Indians should be included in the background for enslavement. Julian in LA (talk) 23:12, 18 April 2026 (UTC)

"We" is rather a broad assertion. You keep harping on the "grazing" thing, and that comes off as weirdly obsessive. Ravenswing 09:40, 5 May 2026 (UTC)

I asked a question that no one is prepared to answer. Do you have an answer? Julian in LA (talk) 16:54, 5 May 2026 (UTC)

I answered all your questions. WinterDyna (talk) 17:29, 5 May 2026 (UTC)

Jean Pfaelzer, in California a Slave State, describes numerous discriminatory laws passed by the legislature. Her descriptions are invariably followed, sometimes in the next paragraph, by claims that ranchers ignored state law to enslave Indians. The laws that she says were violated are never described, and there is no description of why and how they were enacted. Whites did not become a master race by doing stupid things. Why did they pass protective laws that they had no intention of enforcing, and why did they pass discriminatory laws when the ranchers were already doing what they pleased? Julian in LA (talk) 21:58, 26 April 2026 (UTC)

"Whites did not become a master race by doing stupid things" has to be the most damning thing you have said on this forum. You should recuse yourself from this article, your bias is overwhelming. Cristiano Tomás (talk)

@Cristiano Tomás:your objection seems to be to the phrase "master race." How else can you describe a group that maintained internal cohesion for two centuries while both exterminating and enslaving three other races and suffered no consequences other than the possibility of being denounced by a panel of academics in the 21st century? Even the Aryans can't match that. Julian in LA (talk) 21:09, 3 May 2026 (UTC)