Island Indians numbered perhaps 1,200 to 1,500 in 1662,and by 1774 were reduced to fifty-one. Behind the English invasion of North America.behind their massacre of Indians their deception,their brutality,was that special powerful drive born in civilizations based on private property.It was a morally ambiguous drive;the need for space,for land,was a real human need.But in conditions of scarcity,in a barbarous epoch of history ruled by competition,this human need was transformed into the murder of whole peoples.Roger Williams said it was a depraved appetite after the great vanities,dreams and shadows of this vanishing life great portions of land,land in this wilderness,as if men were in as great necessity and danger for want of great portions of land,as poor,hungry,thirsty seamen have,after a sick and stormy,a long and starving passage.This is one of the gods of New England, which the living and most high Eternal will destroy and famish. Was all this bloodshed and deceit-from Columbus to Cortes,Pizarro,the Puritans-a necessity for the human race to progress from savagery to civilization?Was Morison right in burying the story of genocide inside a more important story of human progress? Perhaps a persuasive argument can be made-as it was made by Stalin when he killed peasants for industrial progress in the Soviet Union,as it aae by Churchill explaining the bombings of Dresden and Hamburg,and Truman explaining Hiroshima. But how can the judgment be made if the benefits and losses cannot be balanced because the losses are either unmentioned or mentioned quick That quick disposal might be acceptable("Unfortunate,yes,but it had to be done")to the middle and upper classes of the conquering and"advanced"countries.But is it acceptable to the poor of Asia,Africa,Latin America,or to the prisoners in Soviet labor camps,or the blacks in urban ghettos,dr the thdians on reservations-to the victims of that progress which benefits a privileged ainoyity in the world?Was it acceptable(or just inescapable?)to the miners and raikreaders of America,the factory hands,the men and women who died by the hundreds of thousands from accidents or sickness,where they worked or where they lived casualties of progress?And even the privileged minority- must it not reconsider.with that practicality which even privilege cannot abolish.the value of its privileges,when they become threatened by the anger of the sacrificed, whether in organizedt bellion,unorganized riot,or simply those brutal individual acts of desperation labeled crimes by law and the state? If there are necessary sacrifices to be made for human progress,is it not essential to hold to the principle that those to be sacrificed must make the decision themselves?We can all decide to give up something of ours,but do we have the right to throw into the pyre the children of others,or even our own children,for a progress which is not nearly as clear or present as sickness or health,life or death? What did people in Spain get out of all that death and brutality visited on the Indians of the Americas?For a brief period in history,there was the glory of a Spanish Empire in the Western Hemisphere.As Hans Koning sums it up in his book Columbus:His Enterprise: For all the gold and silver stolen and shipped to Spain did not make the Spanish people richer.It gave their kings an edge in the balance of power for a time,a chance to hire more mercenary soldiers for their wars.They ended up losing those wars anyway,and allIsland Indians numbered perhaps 1,200 to 1,500 in 1662, and by 1774 were reduced to fifty-one. Behind the English invasion of North America, behind their massacre of Indians, their deception, their brutality, was that special powerful drive born in civilizations based on private property. It was a morally ambiguous drive; the need for space, for land, was a real human need. But in conditions of scarcity, in a barbarous epoch of history ruled by competition, this human need was transformed into the murder of whole peoples. Roger Williams said it was a depraved appetite after the great vanities, dreams and shadows of this vanishing life, great portions of land, land in this wilderness, as if men were in as great necessity and danger for want of great portions of land, as poor, hungry, thirsty seamen have, after a sick and stormy, a long and starving passage. This is one of the gods of New England, which the living and most high Eternal will destroy and famish. Was all this bloodshed and deceit-from Columbus to Cortes, Pizarro, the Puritans-a necessity for the human race to progress from savagery to civilization? Was Morison right in burying the story of genocide inside a more important story of human progress? Perhaps a persuasive argument can be made-as it was made by Stalin when he killed peasants for industrial progress in the Soviet Union, as it was made by Churchill explaining the bombings of Dresden and Hamburg, and Truman explaining Hiroshima. But how can the judgment be made if the benefits and losses cannot be balanced because the losses are either unmentioned or mentioned quickly? That quick disposal might be acceptable ("Unfortunate, yes, but it had to be done") to the middle and upper classes of the conquering and "advanced" countries. But is it acceptable to the poor of Asia, Africa, Latin America, or to the prisoners in Soviet labor camps, or the blacks in urban ghettos, or the Indians on reservations-to the victims of that progress which benefits a privileged minority in the world? Was it acceptable (or just inescapable?) to the miners and railroaders of America, the factory hands, the men and women who died by the hundreds of thousands from accidents or sickness, where they worked or where they lived-casualties of progress? And even the privileged minority￾must it not reconsider, with that practicality which even privilege cannot abolish, the value of its privileges, when they become threatened by the anger of the sacrificed, whether in organized rebellion, unorganized riot, or simply those brutal individual acts of desperation labeled crimes by law and the state? If there are necessary sacrifices to be made for human progress, is it not essential to hold to the principle that those to be sacrificed must make the decision themselves? We can all decide to give up something of ours, but do we have the right to throw into the pyre the children of others, or even our own children, for a progress which is not nearly as clear or present as sickness or health, life or death? What did people in Spain get out of all that death and brutality visited on the Indians of the Americas? For a brief period in history, there was the glory of a Spanish Empire in the Western Hemisphere. As Hans Koning sums it up in his book Columbus: His Enterprise: For all the gold and silver stolen and shipped to Spain did not make the Spanish people richer. It gave their kings an edge in the balance of power for a time, a chance to hire more mercenary soldiers for their wars. They ended up losing those wars anyway, and all No Profit Use Only