Jay has offered up a summary of our first effort. I think he is correct that there is an irreducible difference of opinion and to my understanding, the core of the difference of opinion was ably stated in Jay's final paragraphs:
For those on the left, this discussion (about historical transgression, not current policy choices) was long ago had, and its conclusions clearly reached. For the left, the nearly five hundred year history of colonialism, running through the 1960s, is well established history – there is no more firmly established history – as is the extended history of abuses, deceits, and, indeed, barbarisms committed almost always, perversely, in the name of highly articulated principles and values. Within this history falls the conquest of the Americas by Europe – not the discovery, but the conquest – and as part of that the atrocious record of not occasional, but constant brutality (however much returned) toward American Indians, and the unremitting record of broken vows, treaties, and dishonorable conduct. Even, for instance, the Southern tribes that became known as the Five Civilized Tribes – the Choctaw, Chickasaw, Cherokee, Seminole, and Creek (Muscogee) – who chose to, and made profound efforts and progress toward, assimilating as long as two hundred years ago, in agriculture, commerce, dress, education, and political organization and participation, were nonetheless consistently abused and betrayed over a hundred-year-long period that nearly destroyed, in fact, at one point, legally disenfranchised their communities.
All of this is the starting point for those on the left, no more arguable than the Holocaust, which is, and should be, beyond argument. When I made the single brief reference I did to Native America in my announcement of The Open Mind, this is the ground on which I stood. What followed followed.
None of this history determines without discussion the understanding of conditions and circumstances today or what policy choices might be made in consequence of understanding those conditions and circumstances. But that history is for the left, for me, the starting point.
If we have made no progress in reaching agreement during this debate – and who can know – I believe we have clearly progressed in delineating the differences.
It seems to me that we must continue this process with an understanding that there is a near religious difference between Liberals and Conservatives. For the Liberal, our Nation was tainted by an "original sin" while for the Conservative our forefathers fought and struggled to arrive at a moral and ethical balance that has bequeathed us a unique Nation, a "shining city on the hill." Conservatives do not deny that the arrival of the European white man, was a catastrophe for the Native Americans, but not only sees this in a historical context but also understand it as a step in the evolutionary development of mankind.
I believe that it is more than possible to work together, find common understandings, and agree to disagree on our religious beliefs. A thick skin will be most useful for all as we forge ahead.
To be continued...
Recent Comments