Joined Jul 2012
182 Posts | 0+
South of the Hyde Park Gunfight
I would say that in addition to "land grabbing" it was also about "Power".
Also, I would definately agree that the assinine action of the colonists did drive the Narragansett to Join the Metacomet.
A good study of the event is Jull Lepore's The Name of War: King Philip's War and the Origins of American Identity. ( Vintage Books. 1999). It is how she made her "bones". It was a Bancroft Prize winner.
Also, I would also suggest Patrick M. Malone's The Skulking Way of War: Technology and Tactics among the New England Indians. (Madison Books. 2000.) as a further examination of the relations between the Colonists and the Native tribes.
Joined Jul 2012
182 Posts | 0+
South of the Hyde Park Gunfight
NP tj
I notice from your profile you are in Texas. If you don't mind another suggestion of a good book that is regionally relevent to you, I would suggest Pekka Hamalinen's book The Commanche Empire (Yale University Press. 2008) It was another Bancroft Prize winner.
Even thought the author is Finnish, the research and the book are excellent.
I notice from your profile you are in Texas. If you don't mind another suggestion of a good book that is regionally relevent to you, I would suggest Pekka Hamalinen's book The Commanche Empire (Yale University Press. 2008) It was another Bancroft Prize winner.
Even thought the author is Finnish, the research and the book are excellent.
Joined Mar 2009
25,361 Posts | 13+
Texas
NP tj
I notice from your profile you are in Texas. If you don't mind another suggestion of a good book that is regionally relevent to you, I would suggest Pekka Hamalinen's book The Commanche Empire (Yale University Press. 2008) It was another Bancroft Prize winner.
Even thought the author is Finnish, the research and the book are excellent.
Already have it; good suggestion though. I also have
[ame="http://www.amazon.com/Comanches-History-T-R-Fehrenbach/dp/0099520559"]Amazon.com: Comanches: The History of a People (9780099520559): T. R. Fehrenbach: Books@@AMEPARAM@@http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/51bqZM4kCcL.@@AMEPARAM@@51bqZM4kCcL[/ame]
It's a little dated, but still fine work.
[ame="http://www.amazon.com/Igniting-King-Philips-War-Sassamon/dp/0700610936/ref=sr_1_4?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1343017258&sr=1-4&keywords=king+philip"]Amazon.com: Igniting King Philip's War: The John Sassamon Murder Trial (9780700610938): Yasuhide Kawashima: Books@@AMEPARAM@@http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/51j8qcPVocL.@@AMEPARAM@@51j8qcPVocL[/ame]
Joined Mar 2009
25,361 Posts | 13+
Texas
Joined Apr 2010
362 Posts | 1+
New York
There were several attempts by colonists to cool the tempers of those in Plymouth in order to defuse the coming war and there was considerable evidence to suggest that the accusations against Metacom's men in the death of John Sassamon were false.
I would say that there was considerable tension between the Natives and Puritans, especially in terms of praying towns and praying Indians. Many Natives saw the praying Indian as a betrayal to the Native culture and many colonists saw Christian converts as dormant savages who were waiting to attack. When war broke out, these converted Natives were torn between both sides and those who chose to remain loyal to their tribe added ammunition to the argument that a Native could never be changed.
The war seemed to have deep roots in religious cause, so much so that Puritan ministers preached that the savage and brutal attacks against colonial settlements was God's punishment for a society which was becoming increasingly lax on Puritan practices. Others preached that the Natives were sent by Satan and that the war was to be a worldly battle of good and evil; God vs. the Devil.
I would say that there was considerable tension between the Natives and Puritans, especially in terms of praying towns and praying Indians. Many Natives saw the praying Indian as a betrayal to the Native culture and many colonists saw Christian converts as dormant savages who were waiting to attack. When war broke out, these converted Natives were torn between both sides and those who chose to remain loyal to their tribe added ammunition to the argument that a Native could never be changed.
The war seemed to have deep roots in religious cause, so much so that Puritan ministers preached that the savage and brutal attacks against colonial settlements was God's punishment for a society which was becoming increasingly lax on Puritan practices. Others preached that the Natives were sent by Satan and that the war was to be a worldly battle of good and evil; God vs. the Devil.
Joined Mar 2009
25,361 Posts | 13+
Texas
In my readings, I haven't come across anything that would indicate
the colonists wanted peace: they wanted Wampanoag land.
There was always an uneasy peace, but with the "Great Migration" pushing
the natives to sell more of their land for more colonial settlements,
was too much for the Amerindians to stomach.
The trumped up excuse to hang three Wampanoag men for the
alleged killing of "Praying Indian" John Sassmon, was the last
straw for Metacom and his allies to stand.
The English attack at Mt. Hope and the Indian attacks on Swansea
and other settlement, sure led to a very bloody and high body
count of Indians and colonist.
Joined Jul 2012
5,182 Posts | 494+
Right Here
JoeGlidden is right, some of the colonists did try to cool of the others. And the religion / praying town things was a factor, although that doesn't rule out the land issue. Most conflicts have multiple dimensions.
I picked up Jill Lepore's book yesterday. I'll she how she frames it and report back.
I picked up Jill Lepore's book yesterday. I'll she how she frames it and report back.
Joined Jul 2012
5,182 Posts | 494+
Right Here
I read the first few chapters of Lepore's In the Name of War this morning. She is saying the war was about "conflicts over land" and "cultural anxieties." What she means by the second is that both the settlers and Indians were afraid of losing their cultural identity. Many Indians were angered that some of the other Indians had become Christians, thus losing some of their Indian identity.
The settlers were concerned that many of them were losing their English-ness. This English-ness had a history of being defined as being "civilized" versus other cultures; the "wild" and "barbaric" Irish and the "cruel" Spanish (of the Black (Spanish) legends) where English had pointed to the cruelty of the Spanish towards the Indians in Mexico and the Caribbean.
A main point for Lepore is how the the English wrote about King Philip's War, downplaying their own cruelty to maintain their English identity as civilized. But she does not downplay the immense violence on either side.
So far, i really like her book. I'll see by the end of the book how her thesis holds up. But I would warn that this is not a straight narrative of the war (event a caused event B...) but a more analytic look at the writings about the war. If you're looking for just the lowdown on the course of the war, this may not be the kind of book you're looking for.
The settlers were concerned that many of them were losing their English-ness. This English-ness had a history of being defined as being "civilized" versus other cultures; the "wild" and "barbaric" Irish and the "cruel" Spanish (of the Black (Spanish) legends) where English had pointed to the cruelty of the Spanish towards the Indians in Mexico and the Caribbean.
A main point for Lepore is how the the English wrote about King Philip's War, downplaying their own cruelty to maintain their English identity as civilized. But she does not downplay the immense violence on either side.
So far, i really like her book. I'll see by the end of the book how her thesis holds up. But I would warn that this is not a straight narrative of the war (event a caused event B...) but a more analytic look at the writings about the war. If you're looking for just the lowdown on the course of the war, this may not be the kind of book you're looking for.
Joined Dec 2011
4,045 Posts | 55+
Texas
I remember being disappointed because I purchased it without having first read a more chronological tell the story kind of book.
Joined Jul 2012
5,182 Posts | 494+
Right Here
yes, that's probably the most famous colonial captive narrative. Another is the minister (name???) who was taken captive in the 1704 Deerfield, Ma French & Indian raid. His 8 year old daughter was also taken captive, and wasn't released. She came back to visit Deerfield in later life after she had married an Indian and converted to Catholicism like some of the Canadian Indians had.
Joined Jul 2012
5,182 Posts | 494+
Right Here
Joined Apr 2010
362 Posts | 1+
New York
Colonial ministers were fond of the captive narratives as a way to play up the violence and brutality of the Natives. I believe there was a case, and I cannot recall the name of the woman, where Cotton Mather assisted a woman in writing her narrative while exaggerating the facts and contents of the story. Captive women told stories of their babies being beaten within an inch of their lives, drowned and bashed against trees.
Lepore's writings on the English portrayal of violence towards Natives as being acceptable in comparison to brutal and savage violence against the English is right on par. Naturally, the colonists believed to have God on their side and used this to justify violence against Native tribes. Natives were depicted as animal-like through words and images. Early paintings and engravings showed Natives as brutal and savage with animal-like faces and features.
The land aspect is clearly an important factor. I'm not sure if any historians have weighed the causes for the conflict's outbreak. I think that defining King Philip's War as a land grab is an over-simplified explanation, just as saying the Civil War was caused by slavery. Afterall, Jill Lempore did write that King Philip's War was the most fatal and most merciless war in American history.
Joined Mar 2009
25,361 Posts | 13+
Texas
The land aspect is the HUGe aspect is how I read it, even
as far back as the Pequot War of 1636.
Between 1640-1660, the Great Migration brought in 20-30 thousand new
colonists and those new settlers to Mass. Bay Colony and those new arrivals
were having young families that forced small villages to reach
out and obtain Amerindian land any way.
The Wampanoag and other tribes were always having to sell their
land to the English and through the decades, had endured being
squeezed out of their land. The colonist made sure the Indian's
were as dependent upon European goods and in debt to them as possible.
The local tribes also resented the attempts at Christianize them and
having to answer to English law. By the time of Metacom, the uneasy
and fragile peace was ready to be broken and with the unproven
charges and the subsequent hanging of three Wampanoag men, the
tribes had had enough. I don't see how there can be any other way
to gingerly slice it: the English wanted land and control of the trade
at the expense of the Amerindians.
Joined Dec 2011
4,045 Posts | 55+
Texas
Stories of baby bashing against trees and drowning persist for several generations in captive situations. when placed in paragraph with the Cotton Mather anectdote, it seems as if a suggestion is being made that all the stories are false. At least with respect to King Philip's War captives. Is that a correct understanding of your thoughts?
Joined Feb 2011
3,554 Posts | 72+
Amelia, Virginia, USA
There is nothing unusual about such stories. They are told about Plains Indians, Apache, Huron... about Old World "barbarians", about the Romans, the Nazis...
I suspect that some are true and some are not. <shrug>
Joined Jul 2012
5,182 Posts | 494+
Right Here
Where are you getting all of this from? Is it the Steele book or are you reading something else, too? I've only read a couple full books on the subject, but I doubt any historian won't see land as a major factor (Lepore does, too.) But doesn't Steele have any insights other than that?
I wouldn't be sure there isn't "any other way to slice it" until you've read a few. Historians write books when their research shows new ways to slice it that readers wouldn't see it on their own. Lepore has an intriguing thesis going that is more sophisticated than "land is the only issue."
More History Discussions
Trending History Discussions
-
The Great Captains of History - How Many Battles? - Version 7- Started by DiocletianIsBetterThanYou
- Replies: 861
-
-
The Great Captains of History - How Many Battles? - Version 5
- Started by DiocletianIsBetterThanYou
- Replies: 3K
-
The Diversity Of Early African Architecture/Ruins Thread- Started by Kilwa Sultanate
- Replies: 2K
-