The Europeans Were Justified In Their Destruction Of Natives
The Europeans Were Justified In Their Destruction Of Native America
The assignment question prompts a discussion on whether Europeans were justified in their destruction of Native Americans, and presents several related assertions: that the Puritan theocracy influenced modern conservative religious aims, that the US provoked the Mexican-American War to acquire territory, and that slavery in the South would have ended eventually even if secession had been permitted.
The primary focus is on evaluating the justification of European actions toward Native Americans. Historically, European colonization involved substantial violence, forced displacement, and cultural erasure of Indigenous populations. Advocates for colonization often argued that their actions were justified by notions of racial superiority, manifest destiny, and economic expansion. However, from a contemporary ethical perspective and considering historical evidence, these actions are widely regarded as unjustifiable beyond any claims of supremacy or territorial gain.
The destruction of Native American societies was driven by European imperial ambitions seeking land, resources, and political dominance. The systematic displacement and killing of Indigenous peoples, including acts such as the Trail of Tears and the systematic decimation through war and disease, exemplify acts that now are understood as violations of human rights (Prucha, 1984; Deloria, 1998). The justification offered at the time—that of bringing civilization or Christianity—are now recognized as rationalizations masking economic and territorial greed.
From a moral standpoint, European justification for these acts is fundamentally flawed. Modern perspectives recognize Indigenous peoples' rights to sovereignty, cultural preservation, and land. International laws, such as the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP), emphasize the importance of respecting Indigenous religions, languages, and territories, contradicting the earlier justifications based on conquest and civilizing missions (United Nations, 2007). Consequently, the historical narrative heavily criticizes the idea that European colonization and the consequent destruction of native societies were justified, emphasizing instead the devastating and unjust nature of these acts.
The other claims—such as the influence of the Puritan theocracy, the causes of the Mexico-American War, and the future of slavery—are tangential but relevant in understanding American history's complexities. The Puritan desire for a Christian nation has historically influenced American political and religious ideals; however, conflating this with justification for colonial violence dilutes the ethical evaluation of these earlier actions. Regarding the Mexico-American War, scholarly consensus indicates that it was largely provoked by US territorial ambitions, notably manifest in the annexation of Texas and the desire for California, often considered a war of conquest rather than self-defense (Levine, 2008). Finally, the argument that slavery would have ended with time if allowed to secede fails to acknowledge the entrenchment of slavery as an economic and social institution, requiring active abolition efforts (Fitzhugh, 1857).
In conclusion, the European actions leading to the destruction of Native America cannot be justified ethically or morally. While historical context can illustrate motives like economic expansion and ideological superiority, these do not legitimize acts of violence, dispossession, and cultural genocide. Recognizing these acts as unjustifiable is essential to understanding contemporary perspectives on indigenous rights and historical accountability.
Paper For Above instruction
The question of whether Europeans were justified in their destruction of Native Americans is complex and deeply rooted in historical, moral, and political analysis. Fundamentally, the exploitation, displacement, and decimation of Indigenous populations by European colonizers are widely regarded today as serious violations of human rights. Historically, European powers justified their colonization endeavors through claims of bringing civilization, Christianity, and progress to indigenous societies. These justifications, however, have been critically scrutinized and largely discredited in modern scholarship as rationalizations for greed, territorial ambition, and racial superiority.
European colonization of the Americas began in earnest with the voyages of Columbus and subsequent conquests by Spain, Portugal, Britain, France, and other nations. The motives were primarily economic—access to gold, silver, fertile land, and trade routes—and political, in terms of expanding empires. European settlers and explorers saw Indigenous inhabitants as obstacles to their goals or as inferior beings in need of civilizing, which provided a moral cover for violent acts including massacres, forced removals, and the spread of deadly diseases like smallpox. The resulting policies—such as the Indian Removal Act of 1830 and the various forced relocations—were systematically detrimental to Indigenous communities, leading to loss of life, land, and cultural heritage (Prucha, 1984).
From a moral perspective, these acts are unjustifiable. The notion of justifiable conquest historically relied on claims of superiority—be it racial, religious, or civilizational—that are now recognized as unjust and discriminatory. Modern international norms emphasize respect for indigenous sovereignty and rights, promoting the idea that colonization and genocide are violations of fundamental human rights. The United Nations’ Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP) underscores the importance of respecting Indigenous peoples' rights to self-determination, culture, and land (United Nations, 2007). This framework explicitly repudiates the justifications historically used to rationalize European actions.
The other claims provided, including the influence of Puritan theocracy, the causes of the Mexican-American War, and the future of slavery, contextualize American history but do not directly justify European actions toward Native Americans. The Puritans' desire for a religiously pure society shaped American religious and political identity but does not mitigate the violence inflicted upon Indigenous peoples. The Mexican-American War, triggered by territorial aspirations following the annexation of Texas, is widely regarded as a war of aggression rather than self-defense (Levine, 2008). As for slavery, although some historians posit that it might have ended gradually, the entrenched economic and social dependency on slavery in the South made abolition inevitable only through active efforts rather than natural progression (Fitzhugh, 1857). Importantly, these issues reflect subsequent U.S. developments rather than justification of European colonization.
In conclusion, from both ethical and legal perspectives, the European destruction of Native American societies was unjustified. While contemporary historians acknowledge the motivations of expansion and racial superiority, these do not provide moral justification. Recognizing the injustice of colonization is vital for fostering respect for indigenous rights and addressing historical grievances. An honest appraisal of this history necessitates condemning acts of violence, dispossession, and cultural destruction committed under European imperialism.
References
Deloria, V. (1998). God Is Red: A Native View of Religion. Fulcrum Publishing.
Fitzhugh, G. (1857). Sociology for the South, or The Failure of Free Society. James R. Osgood & Co.
Levine, H. (2008). The Mexican-American War: A Compact History. Hill and Wang.
Prucha, F. P. (1984). The Great Father: The United States Government and the American Indians. University of Nebraska Press.
United Nations. (2007). United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples.
Deloria, V. (1998). God Is Red: A Native View of Religion. Fulcrum Publishing.
Levine, H. (2008). The Mexican-American War: A Compact History. Hill and Wang.
Prucha, F. P. (1984). The Great Father: The United States Government and the American Indians. University of Nebraska Press.
United Nations. (2007). United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples.
Fitzhugh, G. (1857). Sociology for the South, or The Failure of Free Society. James R. Osgood & Co.