Comments on: More on David Barton and King Philip's War

By: Warren

Warren — Wed, 30 May 2018 19:12:44 +0000

In reply to Patrocles. Patrocles - Whose civilization are you talking about? And who is to judge what furthers it? I would say the principle is wrong.

By: Patrocles

Patrocles — Wed, 30 May 2018 17:53:22 +0000

Barton seems to rely on the widespread “neocon” principle that a war is justified if it serves the progress of human civilization.
It would be interesting what exactly you want to contest:
1. The principle is wrong.
2. The principle is right but can’t be applied to the facts, i.e. the victory of the white settlers didn’t serve the progress of human civilization.

By: Bill Fortenberry

Bill Fortenberry — Wed, 30 May 2018 17:53:22 +0000

That’s very interesting. How do you know that Barton believes that the settlers had a God given right to the land?
It’s also interesting that you say the entire conflict was ultimately the result of the English claiming land that they had no right to claim. How do you know that they did not have such a right? If I’m not mistaken, Easton noted in his account that the land had been purchased. Are you claiming that those purchases were somehow illegitimate or perhaps that they never occurred at all? In either case, I am very curious about the original source documentation that you are relying on. Would be so kind as to share a link?

By: Tom Van Dyke

Tom Van Dyke — Wed, 30 May 2018 17:53:22 +0000

This is inadequate as an explanation. In addition to any concerns about culture, there was the more important matter of English encroachment on Indian lands.
Getting there. The English didn’t quite get the concept of ownership of land that one doesn’t permanently settle or farm. See Locke’s Labor Theory of Value. And yes, they also felt entitled to the land as a gift from God, just as the Native Americans felt entitled to the land for, well frankly, I don’t know what reason but I bet it wasn’t our modern concept of property rights.
It’s often tough to tell what Barton’s talking about, especially extemporaneously, especially from fragments gathered by his enemies. A charitable reading would be that he’s speaking as a…gulp…public intellectual, and invokes King Philip’s War more as an analogy than an object history lesson in itself. The closer parallel might be Dresden or Hiroshima.
One may have theological and ethical reservations with firebombing or nuking civilian populations, but that discussion is a long way from painting Barton as a bland endorser of genocide.
Headline:
David Barton Justifies Civilizing Indians By Destroying Them
Actually, his point was that decisive force ended the massacres, and indeed the entire war. It’s true his God is more the Mighty Jehovah than Barney the Christ, but that theological thicket is above my pay grade.

By: Warren

Warren — Fri, 29 Mar 2013 16:11:11 +0000

In reply to Patrocles. Patrocles - Whose civilization are you talking about? And who is to judge what furthers it? I would say the principle is wrong.