I am a descendent of Rhode Island settlers (including Roger Williams), who survived King Philip's War in 1675-8. Proud that Rev. Williams et al were "fair" to Native Americans, yet all of us bear some responsibility. I have read extensively about several native American "rebellions" including the Pequots, King Philip, Tecumseh (Shawnee), Sioux, Captain Jack (Modoc) etc. It seems there is a thread of inevitability and human-nature involved (and as Jarod Diamond says "Guns, Germs, and Steel"): 1) As soon as the European's foot was in the door (around 1600) there began a series of alliances and counter alliances (many to exploit the Native American's own rivalries) which did not favor Native Americans in the long-haul 2) Often, Native American land was "sold" without the knowledge or consent of those living on said land (sometimes N.A.s swindling N.A.s) 3) Even though the Europeans were far from a united front, their religion (and technology) gave them a unity advantage (Tecumseh tried to form a similar native-American "nation" but failed) 4) The American notion of "freedom" and "property rights" might be described as westward expansion at the expense of Native Americans. Andrew Jackson is infamous as a N.A. swindler, but Washington and Jefferson were also complicit in N.A. displacement (as part of deals between Americans/French/British of which N.A.s were not included).
Were the N.A.'s "savage"? Sometimes, as the massacre of the Anne Hutchinson family or atrocities of King Philip's War would indicate. Were they also humane? Absolutely, as in the case of the captors of Mary Rowlandson or in the early largesse of the New England Wampanoags and Narragansetts. In short, they were prone to human nature, yet most of what was advertised was the dark side, with no N.A. advertising agent or political constituency to protect them. Rick Santorum's recent comments are appalling, as early American accounts show that the Europeans were ABSOLUTELY dependent upon N.A.s, and basically copied their lifestyle for survival, with N.A.s getting no subsequent credit.
What could have been done differently? It is interesting to note that areas colonized by the Spaniards had a much higher rate of N.A. survival and integration (though far from a just system). The expansion of Europeans into North America may have been inevitable, but much larger (and better) tracts of land should have been set aside for N.A.s, with land transactions paid for at market value and watched over by an honest court system (sad that the Cherokees received a favorable Supreme Court decision and were STILL displaced by Jackson). I believe also there were folks during all this sympathetic to N.A.s, and also many of mixed-blood with an interest in fairness. I suppose they were shoved aside by greedy frontiersmen and their political backers, who saw fit to unfairly demonize the N.A.s (or as you said, "play victim")
To me, the "reparations" due N.A.s are almost unfathomable, given their prior land rights under British land law. These reparations would far exceed those due the ancestors of slaves, I believe, if decided by the courts. Of course there is not much left of these original tribes due to all the conflict and subsequent stripping of lands and livelihoods. A tragedy of immense proportions with perhaps no equal.
