fpb | (no subject)

An 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.

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

Well put.

In fact, the problem was even worse than that, the European colonial governments (including, eventually, in North America the USA, Canada and Mexico) lacked the detailed and precise control over their own citizens which would have been necessary to prevent the settlers from encroaching on Indian lands. Settlers, almost always armed, sometimes really well armed, and often in large numbers, would travel into Indian territories and try to colonize. If the Indians didn't fight back, they would be swamped by the European population; if they did, and lost, they were killed; if they did, and won, they presented the colonial governments with an impossible choice: let their own people get slaughtered, or send in troops to put down the Indian "uprising." This happened, again and again and again, and the Indians were always the long-term losers in this process.

The whole point of the reservation system was that the reservation lands were Federal, so settlers couldn't squat there and create such incidents. Sadly, given the political realities, the reservation lands were often very marginal ones, and if they were better, were often taken away from the Indians by the very Federal Government which had defined them in the first place.

Yes. But that was a by-product of a more fundamental fact - that no Western colonist would regard an Indian land claim as valid, because they did not see crops in rows and orchards planted around (think of the significance of the legend of Johnny Appleseed, practically a justification of the Anglo advance into "empty" lands). Of course, soon the plundering mentality was so set that colonists regarded it as a positive violation of their rights if they were not allowed to enter "empty" Indian land; people don't much remark on it, but it was in fact one of the complaints against George III in the Declaration of Independence. But it begins with the idea that the land of hunter-gatherers is "empty". Colonists from different areas - as you mention, New England, New France, Mexico - may have hated each other's legal system or religion, but the one thing they always tended to respect was each other's land claims. The amount of violations of foreign land claims in the settlement of North America was comparatively minuscule, and most of it took place in the unsettled circumstances of the occupation of California.

Now, as I do not trust that answer to stay up where I posted it

What? I have never deleted anyone's comments on my LJ. I find that a remarkably unfair accusation.

In fact, I admit that the suspicion in question was ill-placed. It was (as I said) a suspicion, not an assumption, but in so far as it was offensive, I apologize. But don't assume that your principles are shared by anyone else on what might roughly be described as your side of the argument. Standard procedure is to publish violent attacks on my character and morality while banning me from commenting, so that to a third person it will look as though I did not have the nerve to answer back. This is why I always post such things on my LJ. And while I do not blame you, you must understand that I found the three persons I banned both dishonest and malevolent. One of them persons I quarrelled with had the unspeakable cheek of posting an apology-that-was-not-an-apology on my LJ for his insults to my religion, at the same time as he published an even more fortright insult in yours. That is the kind of baseness I regularly meet on the internet.

I don't agree with the "sidedness" of said behavior. I could post ample examples (from your own LJ and others on "your side of the argument"), but suffice it to say that being a jerk on the internet knows no ideology.

Let me put it this way, then: if I suspected that my comment might not survive, it is because I have come to expect that sort of thing. I form some opinions from experience. And there is one point I have not yet touched, but which is fundamental: the internet is a matter of permanent record. What is said about you in there remains there for future readers to take in - and believe. The first time I ever went online I found that an old, half-mad comics fandom enemy had posted some atrocious lies about me on a discussion board - three years earlier. For three years people who looked up my name would have found that I had been dismissed from a post for dishonesty. This was a lie from top to bottom; I had not committed the dishonest acts he charged me with, I had not been dismissed from the post (which was unpaid anyway, something which the rat carefully neglected to say), but had walked away to write History of Britain 407-597; he, on the other hand, had been sacked by the very person on whose behalf he claimed to speak. That lie stood unchallenged for three years Which is the main reason why I always, unless prevented, answer any post that attacks my character or morals, and why, if I am prevented, publish the answer on this LJ.