Activists Speak With Forked Tongue

The AQA-approved book asked students to balance “criticisms of treatment of Native Americans” with “defence” of their treatment in the late 1800s.

Sigh. The whole point of study is to seek the answers to difficult questions, but it seems even posing the question or thinking about it is wrong.

For the record, it isn’t.

While the native Americans were massacred – along with the buffalo, they relied upon – let’s not forget the history shall we? Prior to the arrival of the European settlers in the north, the plains were dominated by the Comanche. This tribe was successful due to their mastery of the horse taken one way or another from the conquistadors. They used this advantage to sweep north from Mexico and subdue pre-existing tribes. Their conquest was brutal and merciless. In other words, what subsequently happened to them, was precisely what they dished out to those who went before them. The white settlers had the advantage of weapons and firepower and used it accordingly, just as the Comanche had done before them with the horse.

That’s a simple observation of human history (not a tu quoque fallacy). The Comanche are now looked upon as the noble savage harshly mistreated by the evil white man, yet the reality is rather more muddy. The Comanche and the white man were one and the same when it came to conquest and colonisation. Arguably, the white man was less cruel with prisoners but ultimately more successful due to more modern and effective weaponry and weight of numbers.

But, but, but, it seems even discussing these matters in an objective manner is now verboten. The question when asked may have the answer of “no.” The act of asking the question is valid, however, otherwise what you have is mere religious belief that cannot be challenged. A friend of mine once observed that what happened was a stain on the Americas and she might have a point, but it doesn’t change matters and it doesn’t make one side all good and the other all bad. After all, all lands have been subject to colonisation at some point. Some would make the observation that ours is at this very moment.

Hannah Wilkinson, who offers history mentoring sessions at Durham Sixth Form Centre, said the exercise was “quite problematic”.

This is the trigger phrase that tells me that you are a jerk with nothing valid to say and have no desire to encourage enquiring minds, merely indoctrination with approved propaganda and repeating the approved catechism, so I stop listening. There is nothing problematic here at all. It’s a question, nothing more. A question that encourages exploration of the facts.

“The period we’re looking at is a period of American policy where Native Americans were treated terribly,” she said.

Hmmm. Tell that to the settlers who were tortured to death… As I say, it’s not clear cut. Remember, those white settlers were doing nothing that their native enemies hadn’t already done to those who existed before. No, it doesn’t justify it to modern eyes, but people thought differently then, so you have to judge them by the standards of their time, not ours. That said, even by those standards, some of the betrayals and massacres were appalling and understanding that and asking questions of it is what people learning about history should be doing.

Asking the question therefore, is perfectly valid.