Jumpstarter 1 of 10

Direct Answer Based on David Bercot’s teaching, the inconsistency exposes a double standard: the colonists treated violence as justified when their own interests (like taxes and expansion) were threatened, but treated Indian resistance for survival as illegitimate.

Support from Transcript:

• He calls it a “sad inconsistency” that colonists fought “over the mere issue of taxes,” yet did not think Indians had the right to fight “for their very existence.”
• He says the “white man had taken the Indians’ land” and deprived many of them “of the right to live as free people,” meaning Indian conflict was tied to survival.
• He notes Indians fought for “independence…for centuries,” “for their land itself,” and “for their survival as a people,” but colonists did not recognize that.
• He describes colonial actions as what “nowadays…would be called a war crime and ethnic cleansing,” implying the colonists’ moral reasoning allowed extreme measures against “their” enemies.
• He concludes the Indians were “betrayed at the hands of professing Christians who did not trust in God and his methods,” implying the colonists’ moral limits shifted when “we” wanted something.