I'll admit that as a person with some knowledge of history
there are still some things I simply can't wrap my head around. Let's call what
follows case studies for want of a better word.
Case study#1. In
1492, After the thrones of Aragon and Castile were united, Ferdinand and Isabella,
fresh from the Pope's blessing decided to support an Inquisition to drive out, or kill, any who didn't believe
as they (the Catholic Spanish) did
and to fund a voyage of exploration. There
was some dispute between the two (at the time) principal Atlantic maritime
nations, Spain and Portugal, regarding
who "owned" what in these unexplored lands. The Treaty of Tordesillas
was an edict by the Pope, Alexander VI, the infallible Christian source who spoke ex
cathedra with the voice of their
supernatural, all powerful protector (God.) It gave almost all of the western
hemisphere to Spain, on the condition that they were really just channeling the
real power of the Church. By order of the Spanish throne, all conquistadores
were to read a statement to indigenous peoples: ("El Requerimiento") was a declaration by the Spanish monarchy of
its divinely ordained right to take possession of the territories of the New
World and to subjugate, exploit and, when necessary, to kill the native
inhabitants. The Requirement was read in Spanish to Native Americans to inform
them of Spain’s rights to conquest. Those who subsequently resisted conquest
were considered to harbor evil intentions. The Spaniards thus considered those who
resisted as defying God’s plan, and so used Catholic theology to justify their
conquest.
What ensued became known to much of
Europe as "The Black Legend" because of the extreme brutality and
genocide which resulted from this belief in divine approval and mandate. Oddly
enough, it was a Spanish bishop, a man named Bartolomé de Las Casas, formerly
Bishop of Chiapas, who was the first whistle blower. No matter how, it remains
that the result was entire Indian groups extinction , gold and silver plundered,
forced conversions and even one Mayan Inquisition, all in the belief that God
ordained it and granted this "privilege" to Spain.
Many today, bemoan and condemn Spain's
actions as brutal, unjustified and ungodly.
Case study #2. Beginning in 1607 with Jamestown and again in
1620 with Plimoth Plantation, English settlers came to North America for
various reasons. In the north, the primary motive was to escape religious
persecution. The search for religious freedom was based on each group's belief that their
invisible, supernatural being (God) had ordained and blessed their endeavors. In
some respect, MA., CT, MD, RI., and PA. are all manifestations of groups who
were absolutely convinced of the rectitude of their actions and firm in the
belief that God ordained them. The other commonality, was that in each case (less
so with the Quakers in PA.) native religions, land holdings and traditions were
ignored and in many cases those Indians who refused to convert were killed or
driven out.
As Indians retreated and English
presence increased, independence from England, sold to American colonists as a
righteous search for "liberty", now left the "Indian
Problem" in the hands of the new United States government. By the third
President, Thomas Jefferson, there was consensus that something had to be done
because, even though many Indians had converted to Christianity, they still
were inferiors who couldn't be trusted with all the good farmland in Alabama,
Missisppi, or the gold in Georgia. In the 1830s, with faith in God as his
guide, Andrew Jackson ordered the "Five Civilized Tribes" to join all
the rest of the Indians formerly east of the Mississippi, in Indian Territory.
In other words, based on the assumption of divine approval, they had to go, Christian
or not.
Following an internal bloodletting
know as the US Civil War, all pretense of fairness was shattered, as the
doctrine of Manifest Destiny became US internal policy for relations with
indigenous peoples. The concept should
sound familiar, since it echoes case study one in many ways. Americans,
became convinced that their invisible, supernatural all powerful protector wished them
to possess what had formerly been Indian land and the Indians were to be
content with being relegated to small
areas of land, frequently poor land, and be happy and consider it God's will.
Most people of conscience, with the
exception of some far right bigots, consider this to be second only to slavery as
a national shame. many historians condemn today that behavior what was just fine and in accordance
with divine will only 150 years earlier.
Case study #3 The
middle east. The town of Jericho dates to 11,000 BCE as a site occupied by humans. By no earlier than 8500 BCE, the Neolithic
revolution had begun and Jericho was permanently inhabited by farming peoples. Around
April, 1400 BCE, Jericho was a town in
Canaan with a stable population. From
the south came a group of wanderers whose invisible, all powerful supernatural
being (God) had told (one of) them that regardless of the fact that Jericho was
inhabited, it was to be theirs. If this is sounding familiar, it should. Once
again invaders, invoking some supernatural favor steamroll an indigenous
population and in the case of Jericho, after some nonsense involving blowing
horns and a friendly prostitute, the entire city wall collapses and the
inhabitants are slaughtered. Note that I did not say "given a chance to
convert, or given a chance to move out" I said "Slaughtered."
Men, women and children. Of course this same group had butchered either 3,000
or 23,000 of their own in a dispute over a golden calf. 'Thus saith the LORD, the
God of Israel: Put ye every man his sword upon his thigh, and go to and fro
from gate to gate throughout the camp, and slay every man his brother, and
every man his companion, and every man his neighbour.' And the sons of Levi did
according to the word of Moses; and there fell of the people that day about
three thousand men." (but the Knox translation says 23,000!) And this God loves you!
So here are three stories, as
factually true as available information allows. Why do we bemoan and feel
remorse for the first two and delight in the third? Same cosmic approbation.
Same sense of "God is on our side."
Actually, there is a reason and it's buried in the psyche of most
Christians. If the Spanish King and the Pope said it, and they did, in writing,
they could be wrong, no biggie because it's past. If earlier Americans said it
and supported it, that was them, and we
can disavow it. But Moses or Abraham? There is far less reason to believe
either of them really said or did anything except spread folklore. As diligently
as Israeli archeologists have tried and
are trying, there is absolutely no indication of a 40 year trek anywhere in Sinai,
which troubles many, who desperately need it to be true. As rigorously as the
Egyptians kept records, there is zero record of a Hebrew escape, led by Moses, Steve
McQueen or anyone else.
But, if
we as a nation are to continually support the existence of the state of Israel,
regardless of their totally self serving policies, even when they marginalize
persons who have lived in the region for centuries, even when they bulldoze
homes of poor Palestinians and let their people build on the site, we need a justification. That of course, means
it's time once again to play the God card. It's not enough, apparently that Israel has
built a thriving nation state in the desert, which we admire. It's not enough that massive world guilt post
Holocaust sanctioned a massive wave of forcible displacement of Arabs by others, which had been incepted by
Zionists pre WWI. We must also, evidently sanction the evictions of indigenous
persons, forced out by political coercion,
in all fairness by numerous bad guys, some of who were Israeli, more of
whom were not. To swallow this we need to believe that the supernatural, all
knowing, all powerful sky creature also thinks it's a good idea. There are
those in America who support Israel blindly because in their fractured
theology, things must get so bad in that specific region that the all powerful,
supernatural sky creature sends his kid back to kick ass.
If Stan Lee had written it, we'd call
it a comic and suspend our disbelief, but to bemoan the treatment of
Indians by the Spanish and United States
while supporting the same kind of oppression
in the Middle East, because of our blind
adherence to ancient Hebrew legends??
Bless your hearts.
No comments:
Post a Comment