Thread: The story of thanks giving!

Originally Posted by AFDavis11

That is unfortunate because I loved your reply. By the way, nothing about the story is true. First of all William Bradford didn't write like that, here is his actual written comment on the subject

"Thus all were to be cast into single shares according to the order abovesaid; and so every one was to pay his part according to his proportion towards ye purchass, & all other debts, what ye profite of ye trade would not reach too; viz. a single man for a single share, a maister of a famalie for so many as he had. This gave all good contente." [sic]

The actual document also describes how the Pilgrims began to part way from the collective because of over-population of the settlement.

From the Bradford Journal - Dispersion

Any story that includes the Pilgrims having religious tolerance is obviously false because the Pilgrims were a faction of the Puritans. They did not have religious tolerance, they were zealots.

Five minutes of research can diffuse a lot of internet babble.

Originally Posted by sicboater

I really like respectable source notations where appropriate.

-Rob

(filler text)

Originally Posted by AFDavis11

That is unfortunate because I loved your reply. By the way, nothing about the story is true. First of all William Bradford didn't write like that, here is his actual written comment on the subject

"Thus all were to be cast into single shares according to the order abovesaid; and so every one was to pay his part according to his proportion towards ye purchass, & all other debts, what ye profite of ye trade would not reach too; viz. a single man for a single share, a maister of a famalie for so many as he had. This gave all good contente." [sic]

The actual document also describes how the Pilgrims began to part way from the collective because of over-population of the settlement.

From the Bradford Journal - Dispersion

Any story that includes the Pilgrims having religious tolerance is obviously false because the Pilgrims were a faction of the Puritans. They did not have religious tolerance, they were zealots.

Five minutes of research can diffuse a lot of internet babble.

Very well. I will resurect it. I thought noone would be interested.

Originally Posted by Bruno

I thought noone would be interested.

I thought it was because you were tired of getting into political discussions?

Anyway, I look forward to reading your opinion

Originally Posted by hoglahoo

I thought it was because you were tired of getting into political discussions?

Anyway, I look forward to reading your opinion

Hah

I can do both at the same time, you know. It's one of my superpowers.
I can resurrect my post AND end it at that.

I had already written it, but figured that people would not be interested in a single post if I didn't follow up with replies to the replies to my post...
So I deleted it in the assumption that people would prefer that outcome.

Since there is at least 1 person who thought my post was worth reading, I restored it.
But I am not going to continue with any political discussion in this thread, because I am getting tired of all topics devolving into a political discussion.

Originally Posted by Bruno

Since there is at least 1 person who thought my post was worth reading, I restored it. But I am not going to continue with any political discussion in this thread, because I am getting tired of all topics devolving into a political discussion.

Make that two who thought the post was worth reading. I too usually avoid posting political discussions and other controversial topics. Thanks for nipping the partisan politics in the bud and changing the subject to Happy Thanksgiving !

Originally Posted by AFDavis11

That is unfortunate because I loved your reply. By the way, nothing about the story is true. First of all William Bradford didn't write like that...

Five minutes of research can diffuse a lot of internet babble.

And half an hour of research uncovered Bradford's quote (as JMS posted) on page 135 of William Bradford's "Of Plymouth Plantation"

I guess Bradford did write like that, but Mark had simply quoted a newer translation It appears that at least that part about the story is true as you can see below

At length, after much debate of things, the Govr (with the advise of the cheefest amongest them) gave way that they should set corve every man for his owne perticuler, and in that regard trust to them selves; in all other things to goe on in the generall way as before. And so assigned to every family a parcell of land, according to the proportion of their number for that end, only for present use (but made no devission for inheritance), and ranged all boys and youth under some familie. This had very good success; for it made all hands very industrious, so as much more torne was planted then other waise would have bene by any means the Govr or any other could use, and saved him a great deall of trouble, and gave farr better contente. The women now wente willingly into the feild, and tooke their litle-ons with them to set torne, which before would aledg weaknes, and inabilitie; whom to have compelled would have bene thought great tiranie and oppression.

The experience that was had in this commone course and condition, tried sundrie years, and that amongst godly and sober men, may well evince the vanitie of that conceite of Platos and other.ancients, applauded by some of aater times; -that the taking away of propertie, and bringing in communitie into a comone wealth, would make them happy and florishing; as if they were wiser then God. For this comunitie (so farr as it was) was found to breed much confusion and discontent, and retard much imployment that would have been to their benefite and comforte. For the yong-men that were most able and fitte for labour and servise did repine that they should spend their time and streingth to worke for other mens wives and children, with out any recompence. The strong, or man of parts, had no more in devission of victails and cloaths, then he that was weake and not able to doe a quarter the other could; this was thought injuestice. The aged and graver men to be ranked and equalised in labours, and victails, cloaths, etc., with the meaner and yonger sorte, thought it some indignite and disrespect unto them. And for mens wives to be commanded to doe servise for other men, as dresing their meate, washing their cloaths, etc., they deemd it a kind of slaverie, neither could many husbands well brooke it. Upon the poynte all being to have alike, and all to doe alike, they thought them selves in the like condition, and ove as good as another; and so, if it did not cut of those relations that God hath set amongest men, yet it did at least much diminish and take of the mutuall respects that should be preserved amongst them. And would have bene worse if they had been men of another condition. Let pone objecte this is mens corruption, and nothing to the course it selfe. I answer, seeing all men have this corruption in them, God in his wisdome saw another course fiter for them.

And that is from the "actual document" as is the text Alan linked to in his post. It appears at least to me that when the community outgrew itself that people simply had to divide what they had previously shared. He doesn't mention here though that their community had reverted back to a forced commonwealth society

The other part of the story left untold is that the Pilrims started leaving Plymouth Plantation because, as anyone who has driven in and around Boston knows, the Souteast Expressway (affectionately known here as the "Distressway) is a beatch!

Originally Posted by Bruno

There is a whole lot more in the bible that talks about how to deal with worshipers of false Gods and other things. They just picked the things that made sense to them, and they supposedly picked the right ones. But their laws don't follow from the bible automatically. Escpecially if they also looked at the OT
Scripture also brought forth the dark ages and religious genocide.

The outcome depends on the pick.

And if your faith is based in the New Testament it tells you exactly how to understand the things of the old.

The things you mention were brought about not by men of God but by men warping gods words into their own.

Originally Posted by Bruno

That would be communism, not socialism.

Toma'to, Tomaato, call it what you will its ruined The European spirit and its working on ours. Pardon the few for resisting.

Originally Posted by Bruno

Pure socialism is just as bad as pure capitalism. People left unchecked will ruin the game for everybody.
Making bipolar statements about socialism is as much uncalled for as making bipolar statements about any other political structure.

A good working system makes compromises and ends up somewhere in the middle.
There are god principles in socialism and there are good principles in capitalism.

And to believe this is a case in point, see above.

Originally Posted by Bruno

But they also became greedy, used capitalism to cheat the natives, then took over the country and committed mass murder on those natives that didn't agree.
So before you hold that model of society up as a beacon for all to come to, you have to realize that in the end, that one didn't work out either. Well, it did for some, but not for all.

I'm not sure how you "use capitalism to cheat" anybody. There was thriving trade with the Indians, considered good by both sides, until past the civil war. Really the Indians didn't think they had been cheated (conquered, yes, slaughtered sometimes, yes but not cheated) until the government set up its first welfare system, The Bureau of Indian Affairs and told them they had been cheated.

They did commit mass murder, if that's what you call war, but they did the same as the natives were doing to each other. They were just better at it, and frankly won. Much the same as the Romans did in classical times, then the French, etc. through all of human history.

As for holding up a beacon.........

Here at our sea-washed, sunset gates shall stand
A mighty woman with a torch, whose flame
Is the imprisoned lightning, and her name
Mother of Exiles. From her beacon-hand
Glows world-wide welcome; her mild eyes command
The air-bridged harbor that twin cities frame.
"Keep ancient lands, your storied pomp!" cries she
With silent lips. "Give me your tired, your poor,
Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,
The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.
Send these, the homeless, tempest-tost to me,
I lift my lamp beside the golden door!"

Originally Posted by Bruno

Who or what is squanto?

Don't you remember the classic television series about Squanto and the family he lived with? Here, read the lyrics of the show's theme song. I'm sure that will ring a bell:

They call him Squanto, Squanto, faster than lightning,
No-one you see, is smarter than he,
And we know Squanto, lives in a world full of wonder,
Flying there-under, under the sea!

Everyone loves the king of the sea,
Ever so kind and gentle is he,
Tricks he will do when children appear,
And how they laugh when he's near!

They call him Squanto, Squanto, faster than lightning,
No-one you see, is smarter than he,
And we know Squanto, lives in a world full of wonder,
Flying there-under, under the sea!

Originally Posted by hoglahoo

And half an hour of research uncovered Bradford's quote (as JMS posted) on page 135 of William Bradford's "Of Plymouth Plantation"

I guess Bradford did write like that, but Mark had simply quoted a newer translation It appears that at least that part about the story is true as you can see below

No, as qouted Bradford didn't write like that. There are no "translations" of English. Bradford was a bad speller. That is how I know he is using a modern version, which has been screwed up.

Almost as bad as tweeking the quote around to support a poor thesis.

The only thing dumber is the analysis that goes with it.