Deep in the heart of Texas: different understandings of peace

On a recent visit to Texas, I was reminded that there are at least two very different understandings of peace. A quick comparison of Comanche and U.S. settler attitudes in the nineteenth century reveals some contrasts.

In 1835, U.S. settlers in Tejas (a territory of Mexico, now Texas) increasingly came into conflict with the Mexican government. Among other things, one of the main issues revolved around the distrust Mexicans had of Americans because these immigrant settlers wouldn't accept the customs or learn the language of Mexico (sound familiar?). As the number of American settlers increased, they revolted against the Mexican government and formed voluntary armies. Eventually, the settlers drove the Mexicans out of San Antonio and took control of the Alamo, a Spanish mission abandoned by its missionaries during the fighting. The army, made of U.S. citizens, converted the religious outpost into a military garrison.

Several months later, Mexican General Santa Anna returned to reclaim the mission, precipitating a bloody siege and the eventual fall of the Alamo. (I was surprised to learn that the Alamo was originally taken from the Mexicans by Americans; the story of the Alamo is usually told as an indictment of the Mexicans for taking it from us.) The perceived brutality of Santa Anna provoked the settlers to take up arms, and, with the help of the U.S. Army, defeat and expel all Mexicans from the area in1836. Soon after, the Republic of Texas was officially formed.

The issue of slavery was another reason for the conflict. Mexico’s government abolished slavery in phases during the 1820s, and one of the last areas to implement this policy was Tejas, the Mexican territory in which many American settlers lived. The settlers, desperately afraid of losing their slaves, were defiant. Thus, Mexico’s abolition of slavery—40 years prior to the U.S.—was a significant factor leading to American revolt in the area. U.S. Texan settlers were fighting at the Alamo, in part, for the right to keep slaves.

In the Senate Chambers of the Texas State Capital hang two enormous paintings depicting scenes from the revolution. The Dawn at the Alamo, portrays the defeat that has earned mythical status. The name plate under the painting describes the battle as "The Moral Victory."

Dawn at the Alamo

 

"The Moral Victory"

Equally powerful is the Battle of San Jacinto, which depicts the final confrontation with and defeat of Santa Anna. Here the name plate proclaims, "Retributive Justice." The pair of paintings symbolize the beginning and end of the conflict, as well as call into question the meaning of “victory” and “justice.”

The Battle of San Jacinto

 

"Retributive Justice"

The Bullock Texas State History Museum also has some impressive exhibits. While there I wandered through displays of Texas as a Mexican territory, the move to a Republic and the ultimate annexation by the United States. The exhibits were filled with language and sentiments that reflect the Texan penchant for self-aggrandizement and proud independence. At one point, a prerecorded voice, playing the part of Tejan settler, confessed, "War was needed for peace."

At the Bullock Museum, I was struck by a contrasting definition of peace when I watched a video about the Comanche, a Plains Indian tribe who lived alongside U.S. settlers and also called the Tejas area home. The Comanche were a proud and fierce culture, often attacking other tribes and raiding settlers, but also suffering greatly at the hands of Americans from disease (primarily measles and smallpox), needless and intentional slaughter of their once bountiful buffalo and forced relocation to reservations.

During the video, the narrator, a Comanche descendant, spoke of the disruption that settlers caused as they encroached upon Indian territories. “Comanches believe in a balance. You have good and bad. You have joy and sorrow. You have sadness and happiness. And when we let that work, then the result is balance, harmony and justice. And all of that results in peace, and peace is basically a right relation.”

And all of that results in peace, and peace is basically a right relation

That’s an amazing definition of peace. In fact, it’s quite close to the biblical definition of shalom. In the Old Testament, peace, justice and righteousness are all inextricably linked in the concept of shalom. The people of God were continually instructed to seek an active presence of the kingdom. And in God’s kingdom, justice and peace do not come through retribution, or payback, but through the establishment of balance, primarily through the acknowledgement of God as creator, provider and redeemer. As God’s people live in harmonious relationship with him, they will work to bring justice and righteousness (essentially equal concepts in Hebrew) to the world.

The recounting of American history, and especially Texan independance, is usually filled with stories of “retributive justice”—settling a score and punishing others for past aggressions—but without acknowledgement of our own offenses. The contrast between this view of peace and that of the Bible cannot be understated. As Christians, we are to seek and participate in an active peace that rights the wrongs, admits faults and failures and restores balance and relationship between God, humanity and the creation.