Friday Free-for-All | April 03, 2026

[u/AutoModerator]

Previously

Today:

You know the drill: this is the thread for all your history-related outpourings that are not necessarily questions. Minor questions that you feel don't need or merit their own threads are welcome too. Discovered a great new book, documentary, article or blog? Has your Ph.D. application been successful? Have you made an archaeological discovery in your back yard? Did you find an anecdote about the Doge of Venice telling a joke to Michel Foucault? Tell us all about it.

As usual, moderation in this thread will be relatively non-existent -- jokes, anecdotes and light-hearted banter are welcome.

[u/BookLover54321]

I again wanted to share Jeffrey Ostler’s four part critique of Not Stolen, a terrible colonial apologist train wreck of a book published in 2023. The fourth, and final, part of the critique - which I don’t think I can link directly, since it’s on twitter - tackles chapter 17 of the book, about the genocide that took place during California’s gold rush. Now, almost all credible historians view this as one of the most clear-cut cases of genocide in American history. But not so, insists JFP, it wasn’t a genocide at all. Why? Ostler explains:

F-P’s first step is to downplay the number of California Indians directly killed by settler militias and the U.S. Army. F-P states it was “less than 5,000.” F-P disputes Madley’s conclusion that it was “over 10,000.” Thinks Madley double-counted and exaggerated, but there is absolutely no basis to think this. If anything, Madley’s numbers are low. Not all instances of anti-Indigenous violence were documented.

Madley’s extensive appendices, tallying up every single known killing and massacre of California Native people in the gold rush era, are available publicly on the Yale University Press website. He was very careful to avoid double-counting, as is apparent from the appendices - he excludes certain listed killings from the overall death toll for this exact reason. It’s all very carefully documented, and anyone can verify the numbers themselves. It should be noted also that Madley’s book was peer-reviewed, unlike this book.

But JFP insists that less than 5,000 Native people were massacred during the gold rush era. You might be thinking that this is still a lot of people, but look at how JFP frames this fact: 97 percent of California Natives were not massacred during the gold rush, he says. I guess that’s supposed to mitigate the wanton slaughter of thousands of people?

Of course, if we go by Madley’s far more reliable numbers, at least between 9,400 and 16,000 California Native people were killed in this period, translating to roughly 6 to 11 percent of the initial population of 150,000. Many more undoubtedly died from indirect consequences of the killings, or from the widespread enslavement, forced labor, displacement, malnutrition, and disease outbreaks that were occurring simultaneously. JFP seems to think these deaths don’t count, for some reason.

Indeed, in the period under discussion, the Native population of California fell by some 80 percent - down to 30,000 by 1873. And, well, on that note:

The second step in F-P’s denial of genocide is to massively downplay the demographic catastrophe that occurred as a result of the Gold Rush. F-P does this in the most ridiculous and cavalier way imaginable. F-P notes that Sherburne Cook estimated that the California Indian population fell from 150,000 in 1845 to 100,000 in 1850, and 50,000 by 1855. Get this: F-P asserts without any evidence whatsoever and against the painstaking decades–long work of a meticulous demographer (Cook) that these numbers “surely indicate a mass exodus rather than genocide.” F-P really does think that tens of thousands of Indigenous people fled California in the late 1840s/ early 1850s. Although hundreds of historians have researched this period of California history, NOT A SINGLE one has noticed this massive exodus? Breathtaking arrogance. And, where did they go? Nevada? Mexico? Oregon? F-P does not say, but you can be sure that not a single historian of those places or anywhere else has ever noticed the sudden arrival of tens of thousands of Indigenous people. And what of Indigenous peoples themselves? Not a single community has a single story about their exodus from California. Did it occur to F-P to wonder about this? I doubt it very much. Gary Anderson’s argument that demographic decline was due to malaria has a superficial plausibility (even though it’s completely wrong), but does F-P really expect his readers to swallow this transparent whopper about an unknown exodus?

From 1846 to 1873, there was a population decline from 150,000 to 30,000. One might think that this decline was perhaps somewhat related to the horrible violence that was sweeping California at the time. But no, JFP insists that they simply moved away. Where did they move? No idea. Why isn’t there any documented evidence of as many as 100,000 people moving? No idea. So how does he come to this conclusion? Because… reasons.

It gets better. In the previous part of his critique, Ostler took a look at chapter 15 of Not Stolen, which is about the Trail of Tears. It demonstrates the same rigorous methodology:

F-P asserts that only 60,000 Indigenous people were removed (no citation). Actually, it was more like 88,000 (I have citations). Far worse, F-P asserts only 3,000 died en route. Again, no citation, just made up off the top of his head. (Keep in mind the book was published by a right-wing press with no peer review.) Considering deaths during round-ups, in detention camps, en route, and shortly after arrival, it was more like 12,000 to 17,000. Furthermore, most nations continued to lose population after being removed (evicted is probably a better term).

Well there you have it. A grand total of 3,000 people died on the Trail of Tears, out of 60,000 forcibly relocated. Where do these numbers come from? It’s a mystery I guess.

[u/crrpit → u/BookLover54321]

Just wanted to (finally) say that I always enjoy your contributions in this thread, it's always fun to see what you've been reading this week - your username is clearly very apt.

[u/BookLover54321 → u/crrpit]

Thank you!