The long argument in verses 12–18 is constructed of smaller units. Zeniff introduces the Lamanites with a series of pejoratives (“wild… ferocious… blood-thirsty,” the same trio of descriptions in the same order as in Enos 1:20), to which he appends an apparently unrelated idea: “believing in the tradition of their fathers.” However, the rest of this passage explains those traditions, interpreting them as the cause of the Lamanites’ moral degeneracy. In verse 18, Zeniff comes to his point, which is that the entire history of Nephite-Lamanite dealings can be explained as a result of this long-held hatred.
He begins by summarizing the history of Nephi and his brothers, Laman and Lemuel, a history with which the modern reader is familiar from the small plates, but Zeniff does not assume that his reader is as familiar, since he must summarize that history. No doubt, Lamanite traditions preserved animosity toward the Nephites. Still, Zeniff’s analysis is somewhat problematic. First, he is naturally ill-disposed toward the Lamanites, given his description of the war they are currently engaged in. Still, he initially found much that was “good” among the Lamanites and resisted his first leader’s policy of exterminating them (Mosiah 9:1). What has changed his mind, and how is it related to the “tradition of their fathers?”
Second, the people of Shemlon probably include people from the city of Nephi who remained behind when Mosiah led his people away. Thus, the (political) “Lamanites” would include (genetic) “Nephites.” While the lineal descendents of Laman and Lemuel might hate Nephites because of this “tradition,” it seems less likely that Nephites-become-Lamanites would also hate the Zeniffites, who are arguably a new tradition.
Third, why does Zeniff call the Lamanites “bloodthirsty” and “wild”? True, the Lamanites slew some Zeniffites, but far more Lamanites died in retaliation and they have not counterattacked for nine years. Arguably, the Zeniffites were also “blood-thirsty”—perhaps even blood-thirstier—if we compare their respective deaths and also if, as I have hypothesized, they attacked hamlets of unarmed civilians rather than meeting armed warriors.
Zeniff is simply repeating cultural stereotypes to which we were first introduced in Enos 1:20. Lamanites are blood-thirsty and wild simply because they are Lamanites. Zeniff blames both their traditions of hating the Nephites and their “cunning”—a sort of ancestral conspiracy theory ascribing to them the intention from the beginning to destroy the Zeniffites. He overlooks at least twelve years during which the Lamanites’ more plausible purpose was to reap the economic benefits of levying tribute from the Zeniffites. Furthermore, he seems to accept without question his ability to read the Lamanite mind, even though there is no indication whatever that he has conferred with Laman3 or received any messages/ demands/threats from him. What we have are Zeniff’s suppositions, filtered through his antipathy, self-justification, and mistrust—not facts.