> In two of these cases, what is meant is that they were peaceful
> compared to the Spanish and American intruders who came later.
> While we may disagree on definitions, we must all certainly agree
> that the experiences of non-conquest-oriented inter-tribal conflict
> left the Natives of the California Cultural Area totally unprepared
> for the ruthless conquer-and-remove-or-destroy type of wars brought
> to the area by white people.
While it is true that most pre-historic native groups were capable of
waging 'war', very few had any concept of 'war' in the European sense
of the term. And I do not mean the contrast between flintlock and
steel sword vs Bow and tomahawk.
What I mean is the Spanish, French and English *claims* to the whole
bloody continent which occured simultaneously with the first landfall
of Europeans.
I don't think any native person, until modern times, really grasped
the significance and substance of the Europeans' *intentions* for the
continent - which was to occupy it totally by whatever means possible.
The culture of conquest, more than the culture of war, is the point of
divergence between native and European thinking I suspect. I mean, did
any native leader ever suggest building a navy and raising an army and
invading Europe with the idea of taking it over and spreading
'civilization'? Of course not. Rather native leaders tried to work out
a modus vivendi with the Europeans, and repeatedly succeeded for short
periods of time, but were always unsuccessful in the long run because
they simply did not grasp the basic underlying motivations and purpose
behind European settlement/invasion/colonization and the the fact that
the Europeans would never settle for less than total, complete,
occupation and control.
Nor did the natives, I think, fully understand the fact that the
Europeans really didn't consider them quite fully human, until modern
times. As such treaties and bargains and agreements made by the
Europeans with natives had a different status and stature than deals
made between Europeans - or deals made between natives.
Also, the natives did not fully appreciate the fact that the white men
they were dealing (and treating) with in fact had very little
authority, and were accountable to higher authorities in the courts of
Paris and London and Madrid. Thus they failed to realistically
appraise the risk that although Lord John might be a credible and
sincere character, if his boss in Whitehall didn't agree, the
agreement was only so much paper, and would not in fact be honoured in
the long term.
In addition, there is the problem of the idea of history, and concepts
of time. The European linear concept of time and continuity was not
shared by most native cultures who had more of a circular and cyclical
idea of time. Those different ideas strongly influence how one
understands the meaning of war, and conquest and the long term future.
It is my belief that neither culture really understood the other and a
great deal of unpleasantness resulted from the regular 'rude
surprises' which resulted from that lack of mutual understanding. The
two sides might 'deal' but the understanding of the long range meaning
of the deal would often be very different.
It seems to me fairly obvious that if the natives had correctly
understood the European intent to take over the continent, completely,
they certainly had the military resources to have made that enterprise
extremely difficult and expensive for the Europeans.
But the native use of war was of a qualitatively different nature than
the European use of war, such that one ends up comparing apples and
oranges. The natives used war in (usually) minor territorial
adjustments and personality conflicts. The Europeans could embark on a
500 year project of continental conquest - and win hands down.
So actually I am questioning the relevance of the concepts of 'peace'
and 'war' given that the respective cultures understood war so
radically differently.
Indeed the European invasion and occupation of the Americas occurred
without war, almost entirely. Sure, there were isolated indidents of
local resistance, but there was no general organized attempt -
anywhere - to drive the invaders out and restore the status quo.
Think of the German invasion of France in 1941. The 'war' lasted for a
few weeks, after which organized large-scale resistance was crushed.
That was the end of the war. There were isolated incidents of
resistance after that, but nothing that could be called 'war' until
British/Canadian/American naval, air and ground forces were able to
muster the resources to begin a determined effort to drive the Germans
out of France. There was an 'air war' for a time and then there was an
'invasion' and a 'war of liberation' which finally drove German forces
out of France.
Now think about North America. Where was there 'war' as opposed to
isolated incidents of resistance from an essentially occupied people?
Was Oka 'war'?
I would argue that, on this analysis, Oka was not an act of war, but
an isolated instance of resistance from an occupied people.
To be war it would have had to have had, as a motivating factor, the
idea of permanent expulsion of the invader, permanent conquest or
liberation of territory or people. I don't think there was any
motivation of that sort there. Rather what one saw was an angry
backlash against abuse, not an organized attempt to permanently
liberate a piece of ground or a group of people from the authority of
the Canadian state. It was a 'raid', or an act of resistance, not an
act of war in the classic European understanding of war.
=Doug
-- ---------------------------------------------------------------------- UUCP: isishq!testsys!doug DNS: doug@isishq.fidonet.org Voice: 613-722-4724 Fido: Doug Thompson on 1:163/162 POST: P.0. Box 3041, Stn C., Ottawa, K1Y 4J3, CANADA ----------------------------------------------------------------------