Who Were the Sea Peoples?

This is a theme I am start to look at seriously, to see the development of these ideas. Here's round one: 'If Locke had said what he meant–that the feeling of oppression in an individual’s mind justifies resistance against authority–he would not have found support from classical sources. Socrates, most prominently, participated willingly in his own execution when it was ordered by a decision he believed to be unjust though lawfully rendered by the civil authorities. Plato insisted in The Republic that "faction is a wicked thing and members of neither side are lovers of their city. " 'Aquinas, too, suggests that the long term communal stability of a society is better defended by tolerating small or occasional bouts of tyranny: "it is more expedient to tolerate milder tyranny for a while than, by acting against the tyrant, to become involved in many perils more grievous than the tyranny itself."' -- Scott Robinson

Here : "But Locke failed to fully disclose the transformative nature of his conception of rebellion. Instead, he attempted to make his idea of rebellion appear to be consistent with traditional thought. This manipulative use of language in order to make a new idea appear traditional is Locke's way of concealing from his readers the novelty and ideological nature of his political writings." And from page 2 of the same article, here is a Voegelin quote on Locke I hadn't encountered: 'Voegelin was indeed quite critical of Locke on those occasions when he wrote about him, labeling Locke among "the most repugnant, dirty, morally corrupt appearances in the history of humanity" because Voegelin saw Locke as "an ideological constructor, who brutally destroys every philosophical problem in order to justify the political status quo."' I don't think Voegelin liked Locke very much * I mean my angry commentator, Hume, of course...

Think about it: At the very time the English gentry were grabbing the British peasantry's land through enclosures, and the Native Americans land through thrashing the crap out of them, along comes John Locke, and works out, purely philosophically -- nothing to do with his class interests involved at all, mind you! -- that the Indians and the peasants had never really owned that land in the first place! That they had been using it for hundreds or thousands of years meant nothing: they hadn't mixed their labour with it, you see, like the gentry did. (Or really, the labour of some hired hand, because you know the gentry sure as shinola weren't out there fencing those pastures themselves .) It just happened to work out so nicely that it was actually OK to take these people's land.