Is one of the job requirements at Fox Snooze that the applicant have no understanding of human history? If so, that network must have been pleased to have hired John Gibson. He was visibly upset that Islamic jihadists in Great Britain were allowed to speak of advancing their cause “by the sword.” Does this man – on a conservative television channel yet – have no respect for American history, wherein the United States employed “the sword” to subdue and/or slaughter Indians in the name of “Manifest Destiny?” The Indians’ claims to their lands were denied precisely on the ground that they were non-Christians: how does this principle differ from the one apparently being advocated by the jihadists to which Gibson refers?
If Gibson would like a lengthy rationalization of how, in the political world, violence legitimizes claims, let him read the 1823 case of Johnson v. McIntosh, in which Chief Justice John Marshall explains why the United States need not recognize property claims derived from Indian tribes. “The right of discovery” by European states was sufficient to overcome any claims by Indians, who were “heathens” and “savages.” Johnson went on to legitimize the claims asserted by conquering powers: “Conquest gives a title which the courts of the conqueror cannot deny, . . . The title by conquest is acquired and maintained by force.” Marshall then spoke of the necessity of “enforcing those claims by the sword.”
Hegel’s statement that what we learn from history is that we do not learn from history has been stated so often as to become a cliche. His observation remains nonetheless true, particularly in the studios of Fox Snooze. Accomplishing one’s ends “by the sword” ought to be condemned no matter who practices such methods: Islamic jihadists or members of the American Cavalry – whether in 19th century America or 21st century Iraq!
7:35 pm on July 22, 2005
