Thread: The story of thanks giving!

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 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 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.

Originally Posted by AFDavis11

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.

Sure there are translations of English. Bradford's early modern English has been modified for publications just as has Shakespeare's works and the King James version of the Bible have been for modern readership. Does moving a couple of letters around so that you can find the word in a current dictionary really screw up the content of what Bradford was saying?

I won't comment on the analysis around the quotes though, besides that apparently Bradford's community failed at using some sort of commonwealth idea -

PS I didn't know Bradford was a bad speller. I guess that is typically something that gets corrected in translation, unfortunately...