Was all this bloodshed and deceit-from Columbus to Cortes, Pizarro, to the Puritans a necessity for the human race to progress from savagery to civilization? Was what was gained necessarily better, or more important, than what was lost? It is obvious that there is no easy answer to either of these questions. Both sides have many strong points, but in my opinion everything that was accomplished through blood shed could have been done in a way that had very little violence. I once heard the saying that if a good agreement is reached then both sides leave unhappy and I believe this to be true. I'm not sure if there was a way that things could have been done where everyone could have been happy, but I am certain that there is a way where many less people would have died.

One example of something that was done using violence but that could have been done in a much more civilized manor is the way that the Pilgrims came to America and the way that they treated the Native Americans. The Pilgrims pretended to befriend the Native Americans, but when they were allowed into their villages they slaughtered them for their land. If the Pilgrims could have decided much earlier than they had to make a treaty with the Native Americans then they could have learned many more things from each other and many lives on both sides could have been spared. In the treaty they could have included land agreements and decided on them in a peaceful way. After all Pilgrims were new to America and the Native Americans had already been the for thousands of years so they had they right to the land. The Pilgrims should have just taken what they were given and let that be the end of it.

You could argue that if not for all the war and bloodshed this country would not be where it is today and I admit that it would certainly be much different, but who is to say that it would not be equally as successful as it is today and possibly even more so. It is impossible to prove either way but there is no reason why this country and the entire world could not be doing better now if all that killing hadn't happened in the past.

You could also argue that it is a proven fact that when two different cultures are at war they adopt some of each others beliefs and once again I would have to agree with you. But is it not also true that if two cultures learn form each other and intermingle in the way that I have mentioned then they will blend and yet each will stay prominent enough that neither will be forgotten.

I am sure then many people would find ways to say that without all of the bloodshed in the history of this country and the entire world then we would not be where we are today. I will have to agree to disagree with these people. How could we be worst off than were are now if so many less people had been killed? That is the question that I asked myself while writing this piece and I hope that you are asking yourself that question while reading it.