Jamestown Historical revisionism

This is enough to make you lose your Friday afternoon beer. Consider that fair warning, especially among those who might have a background in history. Or a genuine interest. Or be Indian. Or care about what happened to Native peoples. You are warned.

First, Bootleg Blogger, perhaps just to annoy me (:)), sent me this probably because he knows how much I admire the historical knowledge of Pat Robertson:

"Starting in 1607, a missionary thread seems to weave in and out of our nation's history. Do you know what the founding principle of the Virginia Company was back in 1607? Do you know the real reason the English settlers first came here in 1607? Was it to find gold? Discover a passage to the spice islands? Establish plantations? Pursue religious liberty?

As incredible as it sounds, it was missions!"

Hmm. Let's take this slowly. Do you know the real reason the English settlers first came here in 1607?

Yes

Was it to find gold?

Hell yes.

Discover a passage to the spice islands?

No. You are stupid.

Establish plantations?

Nope. That certainly wasn't their intention, though John Smith once expressed his desire to rule the Natives like the Spanish did. He meant to kill them until they submitted. You know, just like Jesus would do. Plantations came later and slowly when purchasing human beings became more cost effective than paying for indentured servants who died easily. Oh, and it took a few years before they discovered the Biblical principles of growing tobacco. I think that passage is somewhere toward the back and they were slow readers, what with the "thou" and such.

Persuing religious liberty and establishing missions? Are these people drunk? If only. That would give them an excuse. But it gets worse, and Pat Robertson (besides giving us the legal geniuses from Regent University) is only one of the historical revisionists out there.

Carlos from Jesus Politics alerted me to this horrible screed from WorldNet Daily. I should not be surprised, but this is horrible. Evidently, Doug Philips thinks that our old explanations for explaining the historical past should be the standard. You know, the stuff that exalts the Christian influence. This, btw, is about Jamestown which included some of the worst elements of European settlement on this continent. These people took pleasure in killing Indians, burning their crops, and considered themslelves superior in every way. They are a curious bunch of people to raise up as founders--Christian or other. But let me allow genius Doug Phillips to speak for himself:

And the reason for the historical amnesia of many Americans is clear. First, we have set aside the biblical commands, like those found in the 78th Psalm, for fathers to teach their children the mighty deeds of God in history. Second, we have surrendered our history – without so much as a whimper of a fight – to philosophically motivated revisionists.

As opposed to people like Dougey. I am sure he has no agenda, right? And do the "mighty deeds of God in History" include rampant killing?

Let me guess. I suspect Doug likes the Smiting God. So many do.

Consider also the recent propaganda presented to the children of America care of the friendly evolutionists at National Geographic.

Their May 2007 cover story that just hit the stands is entitled: "Jamestown: The Real Story: How settlers destroyed a native Empire and changed the landscape from the ground up."

National Geographic assures us that: "Much of what we learned in grade school about the New World encountered by the colonists at Jamestown is wrong. Four hundred years later, historians are piecing together the real story."

Away with the undisputed histories we have heard and celebrated for close to 400 years! Away with the historical academic record! It's time for a new history for a better tomorrow.

This is the part that makes me want to scream. Perhaps Dougey prefers the explanation for disease from 400 years ago too? Let's go get those leaches the next time he experiences an infection. History, as the Dougster sees it, was set in stone when it explained history favorable to him.

So just what is the "real story" of Jamestown? Answer: environmental injustice.

Here is what kids can learn from the new history: Christian settlers were "environmental imperialists." They not only brought a host of nasty destructive bugs to the near utopian ecological world of the Native Americans, but they "unsettl[ed] the landscape" and "unleashed what would become a multi-level ecological assault on North America."

What is the proof of these assertions?

I think that is a reasonable question given the fact that such comments are becoming ubiquitous in much of the literature and events associated with the official Jamestown commemoration, as well as articles like this month's National Geographic piece.

The proof? Not much.

The readers of WorldNet Daily might be a few bricks shy of a load, but the rest of us actually might be interested to know that the evidence for that environmental destruction is pretty substantial. Not iron clad in every sense, but certainly more than Dougey here suggests. We know that colonists brought disease and unintended consequences of new plants and animals to the "New" World. No one says they did most of that on purpose. But you wouldn't know that from Dougey.

True, there are many novel, highly speculative theories presented by academics seeking to distinguish themselves with a new concept. Also true, there appears to be a fair amount of reliance on the modern, so-called "oral tradition" of small groups of sometimes embittered and politically motivated individuals. But that is pretty much it.

Dude. Someone who obviously comes from a literal Biblical tradition doesn't get to mock the "oral tradition" since there are no surviving original texts for the Bible either. You are an idiot.

Ah, but the Dougster has an explanation for Jamestown:

Is there an environmental message of Jamestown? Actually, yes.

Prior to the arrival of Christian culture in North America, approximately 1 million people, none of whom were united under a single banner, were sparsely distributed on a vast land mass that was in excess of 3 million square miles. These cultures constantly warred against each other, had no written language, worshipped demons and animal spirits, practiced cannibalism and child sacrifice, had no biblical concept of property ownership, and because of insufficient cultivation of the land, sometimes starved, despite access to vast resources.

For all of their shortcomings and errors, it was the Jamestown settlers who first planted the distinctively Christian vision for dominion over the land through careful stewardship of land resources. This vision was a distinctive of Christian culture and found its origins in the express commands of Scripture.

Read that again. This is a rearticulation of the old idea that Indians weren't really people, they were savages who didn't know shit. Nevermind that Europeans sometimes suffered from starvation and other ills, warred incessantly, and killed people accused of witchcraft. Nevermind that some native cultures were ahead on things like the number zero and had better sanitation and urban infrastructure. Nevermind any of that. In Dougey's mind, they are backward savages and no pesky amount of evidence will dissuade his genius mind.

Yeah, those settlers were Bible-readers, like when the settlers quoted the story of the Amelekites to justify killing Indian children. And, Doug, you might want to look a little closer at the actual beliefs of these settlers before you mock those who worship "demons and animal spirits." And the rest of that sentence suggests that you have no earthly idea where capitalism ends and Christianity begins, nor do you really understand Indian cultures. Nor, evidently, do you care.

And I love the "dominion over the land through careful stewardship of land resources." What the hell is he smoking? Some good old Virgina Gold or is he dipping into the Chronic? These Jamestown settlers were neither "careful" nor "stewards." Let me remind us all that John Smith (when he wasn't advocating killing Indians) had to force these "careful stewards" to work to raise the food to keep them from starving (though many did anyway, by the way Doug--even with such ample resources and taking food from Indians).

Doug's historical knowledge is damn near nonexistant, and his theology, well, sucks. What saddens me is how many kids are given this crap and how many adults read it and endorse it. I respectfully think he should re-read his own post and then punch himself in the mouth for uttering such nonsense. And then repeat.