Choosing Between Two Sides When Reality is Fractal

History classes in primary and secondary education, and even in college, seek to present a clear concise narrative of cause and effect. If you zoom in on any era, though, especially when primary source materials are available, that simplistic story fades away almost immediately.

In real life, even the smartest, most "logical" person is rife with contradictions. Human beings are a composite animal. Our very brains are layered in construction. Our languages are limited in vocabulary, speed of expression and by the design of our mouth, we can only say things in a serial fashion, while the world of sensation streams into our minds all at once. There's really no such thing as cognitive dissonance. Our understanding of the world is not axiomatic or logical. It's perfectly normal for people two hold completely contradictory concepts in their head at the same time.

When you read about the relationships between the native tribespeople of the Americas and the European Settlers, you'll find every possible permutation of relationship. Some white Europeans admired the Indians and went to live with them and adopted their ways. Some Indians joined the communities of the Europeans.

The Gnadenhutten Massacre is a sort of set piece of this complexity. Settlers sought retribution against a group of people who had nothing to do with violence against their "side" in conflict. To their credit some settlers refused to partake in the injustice.

Stress--probably the physiological response to stress--tends to force people to simplify concepts. Complexity and alternatives to taking sides are often cast as crimes or traitorous. It seems the defining characteristic of the good, or of the good man is to refuse to abandon reality for the sake of politics and safety from his fellow men.