The people acting as government are responsible for the treatment of the Natives, how can the government be trusted to help them? Why should they settle for "a bit of freedom" and why should their confidence in the government be restored, shouldn't the question be of "how do you hold the government accountable?" instead of saying that government has a chance of providing justice?
It's not sane to believe that abusers of power and of the people can be relegated to the initial charm of protector without any problem. If someone claims to be a protector but demonstrates to be an abuser then you cannot expect them to protect. it simply doesn't make sense to trust them once they have demonstrated that they are abusers. Now if they say "mistake" or anything it certainly wouldn't sing them praises of what a good Protector they are, it will only demonstrate that they acknowledge their mistake, in reality they might only be pretending that they recognize why and how it was a mistake and simply seek to use that forgiveness or reconciliation as a chance to abuse once again. In the end one wouldn't nonchalantly argue that they are Protectors if they are shown to be Abusers, regardless of their capacity for good because if one argues that they might as well give the chickens directly to the fox and promise the fox seconds.
I respect your opinion. But what I opined was that instead of aggressive approach they should solve the matter diplomatically. When you are weak then you must do something extraordinary to live rather to face "fox".