![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
(no subject)
Jul. 17th, 2010 04:56 pmAn individual in someone else's blog charged me with saying that the wars between native Americans and European settlers were justified. That was what led to my outburst a few weeks about putting words in my mouth; and it rankled so much that I went back and delivered an answer, although the sensible path would have been to just let the so-and-so stew in his prejudices. Now, as I do not trust that answer to stay up where I posted it, I reproduce it here, except for a few sentences that refer to local facts that have little bearing on the whole.
NO. I did not say that war with the Indians was justified. I said that it was inevitable. If you cannot see the difference, that means that you are not willing to accept that there are situations that will inevitably, without a miracle, degenerate, merely by the tendency of the facts and forces that make them up. [....]some of the most severe Indian wars (King Philip's War was, in percentage terms, the bloodiest war ever fought in North America, and one of the bloodiest in history) had already taken place [...] the general hostilities of whites and natives... were inevitable for three reasons: first, that while both groups may have had their own ideas as to binding treaties and political agreements, those ideas were so culturally distant that it was inevitable that each group should strike the other as faithless and deceptive; second, that as most natives were hunter-gatherers, the very notion of ownership of the land will not have been clear to European farmers, to whom bringing fertile land under the plough was the very business of life, and who would never understand any claim to land that did not involve settling and cultivating it;; therefore European encroachment was absolutely inevitable unless prevented by force; and third, that there was no cohesive "Indian" power with whom to have a credible peace, but an infinity of separate and independent cultures, each used to war with all the others, and each ready to go to war alone or in small alliances against the European power - and be singly destroyed.
In these circumstances, it is obvious to anyone (except, of course, someone who is deliberately refusing to understand) that only a sustained miracle, a miracle lasting over centuries, could have prevented continuous wars. And whether or not miracles do happen, they do not happen like that. God does not relieve us of our collective moral responsibility or of the crimes we would commit without him. War between whites and natives was inevitable. It was neither justified nor right, and both sides behaved atrociously over a matter of centuries. If you read this to say that I regard any of this as justified, it is only because you consciously or unconsciously want to stick me with a charge of immorality. And incidentally place in my mouth something that I not only would never say, but would be revolted to hear.
NO. I did not say that war with the Indians was justified. I said that it was inevitable. If you cannot see the difference, that means that you are not willing to accept that there are situations that will inevitably, without a miracle, degenerate, merely by the tendency of the facts and forces that make them up. [....]some of the most severe Indian wars (King Philip's War was, in percentage terms, the bloodiest war ever fought in North America, and one of the bloodiest in history) had already taken place [...] the general hostilities of whites and natives... were inevitable for three reasons: first, that while both groups may have had their own ideas as to binding treaties and political agreements, those ideas were so culturally distant that it was inevitable that each group should strike the other as faithless and deceptive; second, that as most natives were hunter-gatherers, the very notion of ownership of the land will not have been clear to European farmers, to whom bringing fertile land under the plough was the very business of life, and who would never understand any claim to land that did not involve settling and cultivating it;; therefore European encroachment was absolutely inevitable unless prevented by force; and third, that there was no cohesive "Indian" power with whom to have a credible peace, but an infinity of separate and independent cultures, each used to war with all the others, and each ready to go to war alone or in small alliances against the European power - and be singly destroyed.
In these circumstances, it is obvious to anyone (except, of course, someone who is deliberately refusing to understand) that only a sustained miracle, a miracle lasting over centuries, could have prevented continuous wars. And whether or not miracles do happen, they do not happen like that. God does not relieve us of our collective moral responsibility or of the crimes we would commit without him. War between whites and natives was inevitable. It was neither justified nor right, and both sides behaved atrociously over a matter of centuries. If you read this to say that I regard any of this as justified, it is only because you consciously or unconsciously want to stick me with a charge of immorality. And incidentally place in my mouth something that I not only would never say, but would be revolted to hear.
