Sounds like a perfect example of the 'shoot first ask questions later' mentality you're always ranting about.
But I think the Englishmen's first attempts to colonize America were an exception. Violence was a reasonable response to these attempts. Let me explain why.
Consider: If unknown armed foreigners tried to enter the US, we'd order them to stay out and shoot them if they didn't. The situation in Virginia was roughly analogous to that.
Similarly, the Iraqis were justified in shooting the US soldiers who came to "liberate" them in 2003 without discussing it first. This was an unprovoked and unwarranted invasion and the natives had every right to repel it.
What the Indians knew
From what they'd heard, Powhatan's Indians knew that the Europeans were coming to occupy their territory. That they had superior firepower to make up for their small numbers. That they spoke in an incomprehensible tongue.
Faced with this, what were the Indians supposed to say? "Go ahead and build an impregnable fort on our land while we try to figure out what you want. If we haven't reached an agreement with you in six months, you'll leave voluntarily and without violence. Deal?"
Heck, the Indians may have realized that the Europeans brought death (i.e., disease) with them wherever they went. Perhaps they intuitively understood the need to keep the white men away from them (i.e., quarantined). This would've required an immediate response, not an interminable set of negotiations. Again, "Go home...you're not wanted here...no strangers possessed by evil spirits allowed."
Where's the evidence that any Europeans would do the bidding of heathens and "savages"? That they'd give up their dreams of wealth if asked to? When exactly did white men make a promise to Indians and keep it?
The white man's syndrome
The Europeans were already making their mark throughout the Caribbean region. I suspect Powhatan's Indians were trying to avoid a repeat of the deadly "white man's syndrome." I can just imagine what they were thinking:
First Indian: "The last 20 times the white men landed on our shores, a malevolent force killed most of our people. The white men easily subdued the remainder. Now our people are nothing but vassals and slaves."
Second Indian: "Yes, but maybe the 21st time will be different. Maybe these white men won't turn out to be devils."
First Indian: "Have you been smoking something besides tobacco leaves? Don't be a naive idiot."
Any questions? For more on the subject, see Those Evil European Invaders.
"Similarly, the Iraqis were justified in shooting the US soldiers who came to "liberate" them in 2003 without discussing it first"
ReplyDeleteThis had been discussed for a decade, actually. Saddam's terrorists had as much justifiction for further aggression as bank robbers holding hostages do for shooting the police who are trying to break the standoff. Or for the Germans and Japanese in 1947 to keep attacking the allies after the surrender.
Your responses whenever I mention Iraq are almost as predictable as Russell Bates's responses whenever I mention the Pequots, John Herrington, or Star Trek. ;-)
ReplyDeleteFor starters, soldiers employed by a national government generally aren't called "terrorists." Terrorists usually work for nongovernmental organizations and usually don't attack military forces such as the US's.
If you've swallowed the Bush administration's claims that Iraq was a hotbed of Islamic terrorism before we invaded it, that's just plain silly. Numerous authorities have shown these claims to be fabrications.
The hundreds of thousands of Iraqi civilians killed during our invasion weren't party to any discussions about their fate. They, not the few Al Qaeda members who entered Iraq after the onslaught, have carried out most of the attacks on US troops.
Even if these civilians worked for Sunni or Shiite militias, they were independent agents, not Saddam's stooges. So your "Saddam's terrorists" comment totally misses the mark. Oops.
Finally, the decade of discussions led to United Nations Security Council Resolution 1441, which the UN passed in 2002. Bush violated the clear intent of this resolution when he invaded Iraq. That made his invasion illegitimate and any defense of Iraq, even by Saddam's troops, legitimate.