Colonization and Christianity: A popular history of the treatment of the natives by the; Europeans in all their coloniesHowitt, William
History
Colonization and Christianity: A popular history of the treatment of the natives by the; Europeans in all their colonies
Howitt, William
Indians, Treatment of; Indigenous peoples
But the national cupidity that was proof to the caustic ridicule of
Churchill, has been proof to the still more powerful assault of public
execration, under the growth of Christian knowledge. The Bible is now
in almost every man’s hand; its burning and shining light blazes full
on the grand precept, “Do as thou would’st be done by;” and are the
tribes of India, or Africa, or America, or Oceanica, the better for it?
Are they not still our slaves and our Gibeonites, and driven before our
arms like the wild beasts of the desert? We need not therefore stay to
express our abhorrence of Spanish cruelty, or describe at great length
the deeds of own countrymen in any quarter of the globe,—it is enough
to say that English and American treatment of the aborigines of their
colonies is but Spanish cruelty repeated. With one or two beautiful
exceptions, which we shall have the greatest pleasure in pointing out,
no more regard has been paid to the rights or the feelings of the North
American Indians by the English and their descendants, than was paid to
the South Americans by the Spanish and Portuguese.
Every reader of history is aware of the melancholy and disastrous
commencement of most of our American colonies. The great cause was that
they were founded in injustice. Adventurers, with charters from the
English monarch in their pockets, as the Spaniards and Portuguese had
the Pope’s bull in theirs, landed on the coast of America and claimed
it for their own, reckoning the native inhabitants of no more account
than the bears and fallow-deer of the woods. They had got a grant of
the country from their own king; but whence had he got _his_ grant?
That is not quite so clear. The Pope’s claim is intelligible enough: he
was, in his own opinion, God’s viceroy and steward, and disposed of his
world in that character; but the Bible was the English monarch’s law,
and where did the Bible appoint Elizabeth or James God’s steward? Where
did it appoint either of them “a judge and a ruler over” the Indians?
Truly Elizabeth, with all her vaunting, had read her Bible to little
purpose, as we fear most monarchs and their ministers to the present
hour have done. We must say of the greater part of North America, as
Erskine said of India—“it is a country which God never gave us, and
acquired by means that he will never justify.”
Public-domain text, read in full here on John Shaqi.
Reviews
Reviews
No reviews yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this work.
Elsewhere in the archive
Join the Discussion
Join the discussion
Sign in to leave a comment or review.
Sign InorCreate an account