I am in the process of presenting a bill in the New Hampshire House of Representatives to remove the statue of Hannah Duston from its site in Boscawen. Considering the bill has yet to be written, I am impressed with the response this proposal has received. That is a good thing.
We promise “liberty and justice for all.” However, the statue violates this principle for our Native population by inspiring and condoning a policy of genocide against them. As proponents and signers of the 1948 Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide, we, as a people, claim that we do not condone genocide or ethnic cleansing. It is concerning that the United States government has not acknowledged its guilt in its treatment of our Indigenous population. Furthermore, it is even more disturbing the U.S. continues to sweep this behavior under the rug, and U.S. citizens are largely unaware this happened.
The process was shockingly effective as there was a 90% reduction of Indigenous populations in the Americas from 1492 to 1890. This has been referred to as one of the most extreme demographic disasters in human history. While most of us are aware of the Trail of Tears, this is just one example of a more pervasive process of genocide which we should be ashamed of.
What is most concerning is the inclusion of ten scalps in Hannah Duston’s hand, a tool of this genocide. From roughly 1650 until 1890, 120 scalp bounties were issued by first colonial, then U.S. government agencies. The practice decimated entire tribes in the march westward. And we proudly display a symbol of that human tragedy in our midst.
The consensus is that we must preserve history, good or bad, so we may learn the lessons provided and avoid mistakes in the future. I would agree to a point. However, history only has value if portrayed objectively and in proper context. The presentation of this memorial totally fails in that regard. Since it is maintained on state property, we have a responsibility to not promote symbols which promote hatred.
In these discussions, several concerns arose. First, the use of inaccurate Native stereotypes which date back to the time of the Puritans were used by many to justify the action of genocide and this memorial. This is concerning. British colonialists viewed Indigenous populations as un-civilized savages and found it honorable to forcibly assimilate these individuals. With the world as a witness, the British could not hide. There were similar, innumerable, hidden, barbaric acts in our country’s history raising the question of who is the un-civilized savage.
Second, very few of those I talked to understood the context in which the Duston episode occurred. History without context is prone to propaganda. In short, the event occurred during King William’s War, between French and British Colonists with Natives involved on both sides. Neutrality was not possible. This was a very bloody war. The people of Haverhill were active participants, and to propose their innocence is absurd. Their failure to observe treaties or tolerate French Catholicism, combined with their belief in the “doctrine of discovery” which made Indigenous people in discovered lands subject to the authority of the European discoverer, made conflict inevitable.
The Natives had every right to stand up to protect their land and their people. Native families, subject to scalp bounties and other forms of violence, were inspired to fight oppression and the outright hypocrisy of Puritans who came to the New World to seek economic and religious freedom, while denying those values to everyone else.
Third, the Dustin story, by itself, was not historically significant. The story is never mentioned in discussions of King William’s war. It only comes up with discussions of scalp bounties. However, she was revived as a deified poster child on a national level in 1815 by various authors to justify and glorify genocidal behavior against Natives as a means of solving the “Indian Problem,” supported by an 1823 Supreme Court decision in which the doctrine of discovery became a national policy. As General Philip Sherman coldly stated, “the only good Indian is a dead Indian.” These words still reverberate in the minds of Natives to this day, and we should be concerned about that.
Finally, the 1800s sanitized version of the story fails to point out that, of the ten Natives who were murdered and scalped, most were children. She did not act alone, but was joined by two accomplices. Many I have talked to were unaware of this, falsely attributing a “reverse-Rambo” glorification of her actions. This murder and desecration of sleeping children is the reason this memorial is divisive and has been since the day it was dedicated. Murdering children has never been considered heroic, nor should it.
I have been told that I should abandon this bill and “stick to politics.” I disagree. My role as a legislator is stand up for those who cannot stand up for themselves. In our treatment of our Indigenous people, they have learned they cannot trust “We the People” to meet their needs and support them. I have learned that through many years of working with Native groups. This is a real problem, and we need to listen and act and not continue to live in denial and make the same mistakes. In doing so, we need to acknowledge our hypocrisy as a problem. Unfortunately, the Duston memorial, as currently stands, is an affront to that ideal. It is my hope we can use this space as a means of acknowledging our sins and promoting healing to make these ideals real.
Rep. David Nagel, MD, represented Belknap District 6 in the New Hampshire State House. He lives in Gilmanton.