- The Romans would have killed many Indians, enslaved more and kidnapped others as hostages and then forced the remainder to pay taxes to the Empire.
- The Nazis and Soviets would have shot many and shipped the rest to forced labor camps.
- The Apache and Sioux would have shoved them off their land, whereupon the survivors might well have died in the desert to the east.
- The Aztecs would have captured them and slain them in a religious ritual.
- African tribes of the time would have enslaved them and sold them to Arabs.
How is it, then, that Father Serra is fair game for criticism? It seems to me that the critics are picking up Christian morality like it was a club and beating Father Serra with it. Why not apply Soviet morality instead? In that case, Father Serra would be criticized for allowing any of them to live and for allowing any of them to retain any of the fruits of their labors.
Applying Khmer Rouge morality, Father Serra is weak and a tool of the capitalists for not killing them all. To the Aztecs, he's a fool for letting them keep their internal organs internal. The Africans would have been amazed at all the profit he left on the table by not selling them to other tribes.
The criticism is based on the very culture that Father Serra sought to give to the Indians.
|Here, Father Serra is ordering the Indians out of their homes and force-marching them into the wilderness where they will be shot.|