Is Hindsight Really 20/20?

In both the primary source reading and both secondary readings, we see examples of people coming to the new world for religious reasons.  In our primary source reading, we see a call for the English people to act on behalf of Native Americans in their situation against the Spanish crown (acting with consent from the Vatican).  Citing not only Las Casas's passionate plea on behalf of the Native Americans in their cause against the Spanish, but also Biblical characters such as David, Joshua, and Jehu, one sees a religious plea to come to their aid by intervening against the Spanish.

In the Gutierrez reading, we see another example of terrible treatment of the Pueblo Indians by the Spanish authorities.  Interestingly, Gutierrez states that, "The survivors of the Pueblo Revolt were genuinely confused about what happened.  They thought themselves blameless and selfrighteously pinned the entire disaster on the Indians." (Gutierrez, 427)

However, in our third reading, Juster -- while acknowledging atrocities against Indians and Africans -- tries to convey that that "Colonial Americans seemed (in good Protestant fashion) particularly adept at vicarious forms of violence.  Words and objects, not people, were their main targets." (Juster, 3)

Given that the American colonists had the luxury of historical hindsight in their dealings with the native Americans, did they learn from the mistakes of the Spanish?  Even the latter Spaniards in 1680, according to the Gutierrez article, did not appear to buy into Las Casas's earlier argument and were "confused about what happened" with the Pueblo Indians.  What were the differences – if any --  between how the Spanish (Catholic) government treated the American Indians versus how the American colonists on the east coast (mostly Protestant) treated Native Americans?  Is Juster correct when stating that "Colonial Americans seemed (in good Protestant fashion) particularly adept at vicarious forms of violence.  Words and objects, not people, were their main targets”? (Juster, 3)  Do you agree with Juster's argument that "the structural weaknesses of the colonial governments meant that the religious disaffected had neither the resources nor the institutional backing to mount a serious assault on the objects of their rage"? (Juster,4)