When sections of the American public were forced to admit that it was American soldiers that committed the horrific massacre at My Lai in 1968, some attempted to justify their actions on account of their brutalisation. In other words, the sheer brutality and normalised violence that characterized their setting dehumanized the soldiers and thus, their culpability was at least in part lessened. They too became victims as it were and instead of being punished and answering to justice they were to be pitied and forgiven.
It's a convenient argument and convenient is the operative term because without trying too hard one can think of countless other examples in which the argument is deemed invalid. When Vietnamese massacred collaborators or tortured American pilots, such a justification would be met with scorn – even though millions of their people had been killed. When American Indians lashed out at White settlers or militia, their dehumanised brutality was decried as savagery and no pity was to be found. And indeed at this very moment, one possibly faces criminal sanction in some jurisdictions if a similar argument is made with regard to the Palestinians and the 7 October 2023 attack on Southern Israel. The decades of sadistic violence that they have endured cannot be appealed to in an attempt to understand why they lashed out with such violence.
While in Gnadenhutten, Ohio earlier this year I picked up Anatomy of a Massacre by Eric Sterner (©2020 Westholme Publishing, Yardley PA) in which he addresses the famous 1782 slaughter of Moravian Indians at the hands of an American militia during the end phase of the Revolutionary War.
As appalled as I was to read this work, his trajectory did not surprise me. The incident is highly problematic to the American sense of self and as a good many American Christians embrace Right-wing politics, and given that American Christians are most likely to be drawn to the historical site – the ugly reality of it creates a dilemma for them. The villains in the story are American soldiers. Is was inevitable (at least to me) that someone would come along and attempt to spin the story – enter Eric Sterner.
The arguments he employs are essentially the same as the apologists for My Lai – which incidentally was not a one-time incident. Rather it was the one time such an incident was exposed and covered by mainstream media. There were in fact numerous such massacres – more than the world will ever know.
Sterner suggests that the frontier wars were brutal and while contemporary historians will focus more on Indian suffering he wants to look at the suffering of White settlers many of whom lost wives and children during Indian raids. The endless guerilla warfare drove some to the brink – once again the same arguments used to excuse American atrocities in Vietnam.
Sterner however goes much further and blames the Moravians for trying to play a double game. As explained in previous writings regarding this incident, Zeisberger did not support either side and as a New Testament Christian opposed all war – indeed it was the repeated nemesis to his life of missionary efforts. And yet, he knew that the Moravians would have to live with and alongside the Americans regardless of whether or not they succeeded in their rebellion against George III of Great Britain. And so on a few occasions he sent warnings to American forts in order to spare lives.
But then Sterner also argues that since Indians would come and go from the Moravian settlements it's not hard to see why American militia might be confused as to actual identities and allegiance. Further he argues that some Moravian Indians did abandon the missions and fight alongside their pagan compatriots against the Americans. That this number is miniscule doesn't seem to matter.
So given the fact that American militia was traumatized and brutalized, coupled with perceived double-dealing on the part of the Moravians, and the reality that a handful of Moravian Indians took up arms – the American soldiers cannot be viewed as the monstrous war criminals they are. Their extreme violence while not justifiable is understandable. He cannot deny the atrocity but instead explains it away and in good revisionist fashion shifts the victim-narrative on to the Americans – at least on equal terms with the old men, women, and children they slaughtered.
He also accuses Moravian missionaries David Zeisberger and John Heckewelder of lying and insists they painted their converts in too innocent a light – and maybe even exaggerated the nature of the massacre.
I'm sure Sterner would reject the argument that he makes in defense of American mass murderers if it were applied to Hamas.
Actually I wonder if he's aware that his 'victims of their times' argument is very much akin to the defense offered by many Nazis in the aftermath of World War II? I do not say that lightly.
With regard to the Israel-Hamas conflict, we can safely proclaim a plague on both their houses as both parties are monstrous and given to great violence. But in the case of Hamas, it did not arise from nothing. Hamas was born of years of violence, subjugation, and betrayal. This doesn't excuse Hamas but there's a back-story. Broken societies breed extremism and produce monsters. We've seen it over and over again just in the past few decades.
But what about Gnadenhutten? Doesn't the American back-story have to be taken into account? One can express a modicum of pity for the suffering of American settlers – indeed my own family history is connected to numerous such events such as the famous Deerfield Massacre of 1704. Such histories are complicated to be sure.
But the Moravians in this case were not the Indians that had oppressed these settlers or contested their expansion. It must be noted that Sterner doesn't seem interested in the question of whether or not the raiding Indians possessed a legitimate grievance. It was they after all who had been pushed from their land, repeatedly lied to, slaughtered by both war and disease – and worst of all subject to endless manipulation that undoubtedly drove some of them into a rage.
But these weren't the Moravians. His arguments to this end utterly fail. They were a third party trying to stay out of it. In a manner reminiscent of the American posture toward the Non-Aligned countries during the Cold War, Sterner seems most irritated by this – the idea that someone or some party would simply refuse to back a side or take a stand in the war. It's clear he doesn't like the Moravians nor respect them.
In reality the greatest source of brutalisation was due to American expansion. The Indians had a more of a case to 'lash out' if one wants to weigh and evaluate such immoral claims and actions. The same is true of the Palestinians vis-à-vis Israel. And students of the New Testament will also reject the Judaized Dispensational theology that is erroneously appealed to in order ethically justify the actions of the Zionist state and to validate its claims.
And yet the Moravians had specifically eschewed all of this. Upon conversion, these Indians effectively set aside the historical grievances of their people and embraced a new life and identity – a rather difficult one it might be added as they were largely rejected by contemptuous and racist White Christians and at least in part by their native cousins and former tribe members.
If a few defected or apostatized that does not justify the slaughter or lessen the scope of its evil. The bottom line is (as I have previously stated) the Americans did not acknowledge the Christianity of these Moravian Indians and thus viewed their non-violence as inconsequential.
And they were motivated by rage, hatred, contempt, and undoubtedly a type of coward's revenge. Remember, they slaughtered women and children who died singing hymns. Once again, Sterner does all he can (which isn't much) to try and dispel the narrative and cast seeds of doubt because even he knows the whole episode was beyond obscene.
Sterner's narrative will please the kind of Right-wing military-connected people he affiliates with. He's connected to the Neo-Conservative movement and reading the book felt like I was being subjected to FOX channel revisionism – for that's what the book is in the end, an exercise in revisionist history. It reminds me of other hack attempts to re-write the Crusades and similar terrible and unflattering periods of history that offend the glory-narratives of contemporary Christian propagandists and their attempts to launder such filth.
Historically his argument fails, and in terms of ethics it is offensive. His assumptions and pre-commitments shape his reading and interpretation of these events – as undoubtedly do mine.
One need not despise American soldiers to find their actions at Gnadenhutten detestable. And yet as a Christian I feel the need to point out that like all nationalists and patriots Sterner is an enemy of Christ and hates His Kingdom – and therefore he is quick to resort to lies and spin in order to make the warriors of his holy kingdom (America) appear righteous and vindicated while the ultimate blame is placed on the a-political non-resistant otherworldly posture of the members Christ's Kingdom, something Sterner clearly holds in contempt.
He may hate Christ and the testimony of His servants and the fact that they reject all Babels – even those like America which claim to be righteous and true. Christians know better.
On all fronts, historically, ethically, and in terms of Christianity – Sterner's thesis fails and must be rejected.
And yet I do not doubt that his ear tickling volume will become the esteemed go-to book on the subject, the authoritative volume that American patriots will appeal to and revere. For as already stated all patriots hate Christ – all of them. Would that more Christians understood this but then what would become of the largely apostate churches that dot this land? Would they empty out? I doubt it, for most American Christians love to have it so.
See also:
https://proto-protestantism.blogspot.com/2023/08/the-gnadenhutten-massacre.html