What the White Race May Learn from the IndianJames, George Wharton
Religion
What the White Race May Learn from the Indian
James, George Wharton
Indians of North America
Yet, when the Indian has dared to resent the cruel and abominable
treatment accorded to him in so many instances and in such fearful
variety, he has been called “treacherous, vindictive, fiendish,
murderous,” because, in his just and righteous indignation and wrath,
he has risen and determined to slay all he could find of the hated
white race. No doubt his warfare has not always been civilized. Why
should it be? How could it be? He is not civilized. He knows nothing of
“christian” principles in a war which “christian” people have forced
upon him as an act of self-defense. He is a savage, battling with
savage ferocity, savage determination, to keep his home, that of his
ancestors, for himself, his children, and their children. Oom Paul
Kruger told the British that if they forced a war upon the Boers for
the possession of the Transvaal, they would win it at a price that
would “stagger humanity.” Yet thousands of good Americans honored Oom
Paul for his “bravery,” his “patriotism,” his “god-like determination
to stand for the rights of his people.” But if our Indian does the same
thing in the defense of his home and slaughters a lot of soldiers sent
to drive him away, he is guilty of murderous treachery; his killings
are “massacres,” and he must be exterminated as speedily as possible.
Who ever hears any other than the term “massacre” applied to the death
of Custer and his soldiers? The “Custer massacre” is as “familiar
as household words.” Yet what is a massacre? Webster says: “1. The
killing of a considerable number of human beings under circumstances
of atrocity or cruelty, or contrary to the usages of civilized people.
2. Murder.” With such definitions in view, look at the facts of the
case. I would not have it understood in what I say that I am condemning
Custer. He was a general under orders, and as a dutiful servant he
was endeavoring to carry them out. (The debatable question as to
whether he was obeying or disregarding orders I leave for military men
themselves to settle.) It is not Custer, or any other one individual,
that I am condemning, but the public, national policy. Custer’s army
was ordered to proceed against these men, and forcibly remove them from
the place they had chosen as their home--and which had been theirs
for centuries before a white man ever trod this continent--and take
them to a reservation which they disliked, and in the choice of which
their wishes, desires, or comfort had in no way been consulted. The
white soldiers were armed, and it is well known that they intended to
use these arms. Could they have come upon the Indians by stealth, or
by some stratagem, they would have done so without any compunctions
of conscience, and no one would ever have thought of administering a
rebuke to them, even though in the fight that would undoubtedly have
ensued every Indian had been slain. It would have been heralded as a
glorious victory, and we should have thanked God for His goodness in
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.
Join the Discussion
Join the discussion
Sign in to leave a comment or review.
Sign InorCreate an account