One of the most enduring stereotypes, or images, of the American Indian in the minds of the Europeans is “Injun revenge.” The native inhabitants were regarded as relentless pursuants of the evil motive of revenge.

Cadwallader Colden wrote about it in the early 18th century, in his book, The History of the Five Indian Nations Depending on the Province of New-York in America. It was published in two parts, the first in 1727, the second in 1747. Today, it is published by Cornell University Press, after an 1866 printing. The text is basically a report of Colden to William Burnet, Captian General, Governor in Chief, Vice Admiral, Esquire, etc., of the Provinces of New-York, New-Jersey, and surrounding territories. It is all about the Indians. Colden was considered one of the most erudite individuals in America at the time. His observations are telling–not only about Indians, but about the European-American mind-set. Particularly British mind-set.

Cadwallader Colden, Gov. of New York in the 1760’s.

His introduction of Iroquois people, the Mohawk, Oneida, Onondaga, Cayuga, and Seneca, to Burnet, contains these testimonies:

The Five Nations are a poor Barbarous People, under the darkest Ignorarnce, and yet a bright and noble Genius shines through those black clouds. None of the greatest Roman Hero’s have discovered a greater Love to their Country, or a greater Contempt of Death than these Barbarians have done, when Life and Liberty came in Competition.

It is as if Colden’s esteem for the Romans is the criterion of human achievement in civilization. That’s the first presupposition. He clearly says the Iroquois were in no way inferior. Incredible? But then Colden continues:

[The Indians] have become worse than they were before they knew us. Indstead of Virtues we have only taught them Vices, that they were entirely free of before that time.

This was in the early 18th century, mind you. We’re not talking about 21st century reservations health problems.

If care were taken to plant in them, and cultivate that general Benevolence to Mankind, which is the true Principle of Vertue, it would effectually eradicate those horrid Vices occasioned by their Unbounded Revenge.

Here the inevitable hypocrisy of circumstances reveals itself. The invader condemns the invaded–after having praised him for his natural heroism! But note that special phrase, “Unbounded Revenge.” Suddenly, when applied to the invader, the Indians’ sense of love of country is not heroism, but “revenge.” But Colden means something deeper. He sites interpersonal and inter-tribal relationships, and, of the remarkable nature of the stories he says no one who knows the Indians would be surprised, knowing

how extremely revengeful the Indians naturally are. That they everyday undertake the greatest Fatigues, the longest Journeys, and the greatest Dangers, to gratify that Devouring Passion, which seems to gnaw their Souls, and gives them no ease until it is satisfied.

Then in utter irony and self-blindness, Colden adds,

All Barbarous Nations have been observed to be Revengeful and Cruel, the certain Consequences of an unbounded Revenge, as the Curbing of these Passions is the happy Effect of being Civilized.

LuAnn, a full-blood Seneca, and delightful acquaintance.
(I bought her a blanket once, in Mexico.) Note that lustful
revenge in her smile! Eat your heart out, Colden!

Again, the nobility and heroism of the “Barbarian,” when acted out against the invader, the enemy, suddenly is labeled “revenge.” It is cruel, unbounded passion. It is vice. (Is this the kind of “Vice” Colden was talking about earlier, which made the Indians worse than before he encountered the European invader?)

Western civilizations had early developed something called “court.” The profession of “law.” It became a capitalist venture whereby two disputing parties invoke an impartial third party, and entrust their fate thereunto. It was big business, of course, since apparently “civilized” folk have not curbed their basic passions, but simply agreed to express them in a less violent manner.

But that image of the American Indian of being revengeful, that stereotype of “Injun revenge,” is undying. It’s been aggrandized in movies. Nevada Smith (1966) makes a big play on it, for example. The term “Injun revenge” is used more than once. Indeed, it is the impetus of the whole story.

So why isn’t it “justice?” Why is it “revenge?” Is this some racial prejudice on the part of whites against Indians? The whites were the offenders. Indians are expected to call whites “brave” and “heroic” for invading, and fighting Indians? Okay. So why can’t the whites call the Indians pursuants of justice, rather than indulgers of revenge? Seems a fair swap to me.

Alas, Colden seems to have hit on something, early on, that is in fact a characteristic of Indians, which does remain active to this day. Only today we call it envy, jealousy, fighting for the lust of it. Among most Indian tribes, the in-fighting is obvious and notorious. Fish bowls, the tribes are. Everthing is visible, observable, documentable, and layed out in statistics. In a way, one could still call it an unusual sensitivity to justice. Even when Indians go at each other, over government cheese or casino fortunes, it could still be considered a kind of “justice” pursuit, and not revenge.

I know this: Solomon said “a man’s pride shall bring him low.” (Proverbs 29:23). He also said, “Only by pride cometh contention.” (Prov. 13:10). These are scary thoughts.

I say Indians should forget about the inconsistencies and hypocrisies of the white man, and concentrate on our own problems. We have the right to maintain and preserve who we are, at all costs. But, this kind of “justice” doesn’t mean we are innoocent of unnecessary “vice” when it comes to “revenge.” We’re highly competitive. We’re a warring race, basically. But we waste our skills when we attack each other. Our people are not the enemy. It is wrong thinking, wrong ideas, wrong values, wrong habits–these are the enemy. Let’s attack them.