deep freedom 307eff ort to accelerate the dialectic of self- transformation and world trans-
formation. It is the thesis of the heretics that a form of life and of con-
sciousness marked by these features is as worthy of preservation as any
other, and that its disruption in the name of individual autonomy and
empowerment amounts to an impermissible assault against a version of
human life deserving permanent protection. Th e chief obligation of the
republic with respect to the Indians is, by the light of this doctrine, to
leave them alone.
It does not require the religion of the future to denounce this view of
the Indians, of their material and moral interests, and of the obliga-
tions of a free republic with regard to them. Th e rejection of this heresy
and of its practical consequences for the grant of rights is demanded by
every version— sacred and profane— of the struggle with the world. Th e
Indians should not be coerced, either as collectivities or as individuals,
to abandon the theology of immanence and the pragmatics of suffi -
ciency. Neither, however, should they be denied the means with which
to rebel against their cultures and to change them. If we insist on such
means for ourselves, we are not entitled to deny it to them.
No grown- up human being in possession of his faculties should be
treated as a child. No culture— including our own— has more than rel-
ative and ephemeral value. We become ourselves by turning the tables
on the institutional and cultural context that has shaped us. We need
the economic and educational instruments with which to do so.
It is the conviction of the adherent to the struggle with the world, or
to its successor in the form of the religion of the future, that, once expe-
rienced, the alternatives to the theology of immanence and to the prag-
matics of suffi ciency will prove irresistible. Moreover, in the real cir-
cumstances of the present, the Indians will come into contact with the
white man, whether we or they want to or not. Deprived of economic
and educational equipment, the Indians, as peoples and as individuals,
are defenseless.
Th e implication of these arguments for the collectivity is that two
distinct problems must be solved by diff erent means: the empowerment
of the collectivity and the empowerment of the individual. To the col-
lectivity, the government must ensure economic and educational oppor-
tunity in a manner adequate to the degree of isolation or assimilation of
the group. Th e more isolated a people, the greater the need for care in