[Peace-discuss] Insurgents yet again

[John W.]

At 02:11 PM 9/14/2007, Bob Illyes wrote:

>John Wason wrote "the American Indians WERE considered 'insurgents' by the 
>white settlers."
>
>This is what I was responding too. I claim that white folks who settled on 
>land that was Indian by treaty knew very well that they were taking what 
>was not legally theirs.

Au contraire.  It was CLEARLY legally theirs - by their own law, of course, 
the white man's law.  First by virtue of grants from the King of England, 
later by virtue of U.S. Supreme Court decision.  The very case that decided 
the issue is the one that I wrote about for the public i.

In addition, the white folks were probably dimly aware of the Native 
American notion that land can't be owned.  So they figured they weren't 
infringing on any rights that the Native Americans claimed to have.

Finally, it was thought that North America was virtually infinite in size, 
so what was the harm in "sharing" the land with the sparsely-populated 
indigenous people who were already here?

The "theft" of North America by white folks happened gradually and 
incrementally, not all at once.  And as I said before, it is indeed the law 
of the jungle.  Might makes right.  Everyone competes for resources.  You 
and I are doing it as I type this very sentence, Bob...and you're 
winning.  We're just going about it in a slightly more "civilized" manner.



>I wouldn't say that the settlers considered the Indians insurgents, but 
>rather that they considered them inferior, and even worse thought it 
>acceptable to take advantage of someone considered inferior. Welcome to 
>Social Darwinism 101.

Agreed, though "insurgents" is just a word.  The settlers considered the 
Indians "savages".  That's essentially what Chief Justice John Marshall in 
Johnson v. M'Intosh concluded.  The "Indians" could USE the land as long as 
no white man wished to buy or sell it.


>I think the PBS program's use of the word "insurgent" regarding the Indian 
>was an abnormal use of English, and is a part of the ongoing effort to 
>militarize all ethics and politics.

Perhaps.  It's certainly a semantic means of controlling or coloring the 
dialogue.  In my opinion that's what our government does, not necessarily 
what the producer of the PBS program was doing.  But perhaps I didn't watch 
the show closely enough.


>The consistent use of "insurgent" and "sectarian violence" in describing 
>what is going on in Iraq papers over all important distinctions regarding 
>the violence and explains nothing. They are a part of the verbal fog used 
>to hide the real issues.

Sure.


>Bob