The Truth About Thanksgiving

[US Conservative]

The Pilgrims form of socialism saw 4 of every 5 men not working, and no food was produced (why work harder for no additional benefit-incentives are powerful things). And it wasn't just the Plymouth colony similar stories happened throughout the eastern seaboard. Something to consider this thanksgiving when discussing the disappointments of the Obama administration!

After the poor harvest of 1622, writes Bradford, "they began to think how they might raise as much corn as they could, and obtain a better crop." They began to question their form of economic organization. This had required that "all profits & benefits that are got by trade, working, fishing, or any other means" were to be placed in the common stock of the colony, and that, "all such persons as are of this colony, are to have their meat, drink, apparel, and all provisions out of the common stock." A person was to put into the common stock all he could, and take out only what he needed.

This "from each according to his ability, to each according to his need" was an early form of socialism, and it is why the Pilgrims were starving. Bradford writes that "young men that are most able and fit for labor and service" complained about being forced to "spend their time and strength to work for other men's wives and children." Also, "the strong, or man of parts, had no more in division of victuals and clothes, than he that was weak." So the young and strong refused to work and the total amount of food produced was never adequate. To rectify this situation, in 1623 Bradford abolished socialism. He gave each household a parcel of land and told them they could keep what they produced, or trade it away as they saw fit. In other words, he replaced socialism with a free market, and that was the end of famines. Mises Daily | Mises Institute

The Truth About Thanksgiving




And more...
Thanksgiving (United States) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Lessons From A Capitalist Thanksgiving - Forbes
Occupy Plymouth Colony: How A Failed Commune Led To Thanksgiving - Forbes

 

[Jango]

I roll my eyes whenever I hear something like this, "Look, I've got the REAL lowdown on a historical event that happened hundreds of years ago." There's just so much that we do not know so when people decide to believe that they do indeed know the real lowdown, they're making those absolute declarations upon a weak foundation.

 

[US Conservative]

I roll my eyes whenever I hear something like this, "Look, I've got the REAL lowdown on a historical event that happened hundreds of years ago." There's just so much that we do not know so when people decide to believe that they do indeed know the real lowdown, they're making those absolute declarations upon a weak foundation.

Important messages sometimes fade over time, and people need to relearn the lesson. Surely you dont consider public education dogma to be comprehensive.

 

[APACHERAT]

The message being, Obama has "failed spectacularly" and the indigenous Americans killed more white men by turning the pilgrims on to tobacco.

 

[Jango]

Important messages sometimes fade over time, and people need to relearn the lesson. Surely you dont consider public education dogma to be comprehensive.

Of course not, man. I'm just not going to be lead to believe that, "Yes, we absolutely know everything about _____ that happened hundreds of years ago," when we don't have the ability to know everything that happened yesterday or is happening right now. History is an incomplete puzzle, it always has been.

 

[US Conservative]

Of course not, man. I'm just not going to be lead to believe that, "Yes, we absolutely know everything about _____ that happened hundreds of years ago," when we don't have the ability to know everything that happened yesterday or is happening right now. History is an incomplete puzzle, it always has been.

Its may not be complete, but theres at least enough of a picture there to see. Abrupt changes in financial systems leading to other abrupt changes isn't particularly hard to view from my vantage.

 

[Jango]

Its may not be complete, but theres at least enough of a picture there to see. Abrupt changes in financial systems leading to other abrupt changes isn't particularly hard to view from my vantage.

A picture that can spin on its head with the introduction of new material that had been previously unheard of, hence, why History is an incomplete puzzle.

 

[US Conservative]

A picture that can spin on its head with the introduction of new material that had been previously unheard of, hence, why History is an incomplete puzzle.

It may be previously unheard of TO YOU, but its not previously unknown. Its become concealed behind the watered down story of the first thanksgiving.

 

[CaptainCourtesy]

Standard extreme right wing revisonism... and about as incorrect as can be. During the fist winter, many of the men of the colony did not work due to ill health like scurvy, and a reaction to conditions. The economic structure of the time had nothing to do with it. In fact, it was the socialist nature that allowed people to work together and survive as they did. The OP is about as erroneous as erroneous can be... not surprisingly.

 

[CaptainCourtesy]

Also, a major problem for the colonists was the disruption of the fur trade due to Standish's raid. This and the colonist's being fairly inept at significant fishing, along with the colonist's health issues were the major reasons for economic hardship in Plymouth. Once cattle arrived and the colonists learned agricultural techniques from the Native Americans, the colony began to thrive. More colonists arrived in 1621, 1623, 1627, and 1629. This too, added to the stability of Plymouth, and once the cattle arrived in 1627, what with the colony finally beginning to thrive, it was no longer necessary for everyone to work together for survival and private land ownership began to occur.

So, as I said, the OP is nothing but extreme right wing fallacy and propaganda. A socialistic society was necessary in the first years, as building a colony with no resources and assistance from Great Britain would have been impossible with each individual working for the good of themselves only. The colony would have died out. It didn't BECAUSE of the unity and because of the population working together. Once the colony's survival was no longer in question, socialism was no longer necessary and would have been a detriment to progress. This is standard for socialism. In extreme situations with rather small groups, it is most effective. In all other situations, it's a failure.

 

[matchlight]

Colonial socialism! An image flashed through my mind of a Miles Standish Obama, in a Pilgrim hat and buckled shoes, telling lots of sincere-sounding lies to the "folks" in the colony about his hopes for change, while delivering nothing.

 

[US Conservative]

Standard extreme right wing revisonism... and about as incorrect as can be. During the fist winter, many of the men of the colony did not work due to ill health like scurvy, and a reaction to conditions. The economic structure of the time had nothing to do with it. In fact, it was the socialist nature that allowed people to work together and survive as they did. The OP is about as erroneous as erroneous can be... not surprisingly.

You appear ignorant to both history and as a matter of course context. This wasn't unique to the Plymouth plantation, similar booms were seen elsewhere, and without the factors you suggest to be causative. Some colonies were more established, others less so-but they flourished (for the time) after discovering the fundamental fact of human nature that appears to escape you-people work hardest for themselves.

And though unlikely intentional, your comment on nutritional deficiency suggests you are aware of a manifestations of a naive socialist paradise, but not aware of the causes of such malnutrition-that said vitamin deficiency would likely not have occurred simply from the 2 month ocean voyage, especially after they were able to obtain better sources of nutrition as the records show were available. Other manifestations of nutritional insufficiency would have included immunocompromise, and that would manifest as increased disease.

 

[US Conservative]

Also, a major problem for the colonists was the disruption of the fur trade due to Standish's raid. This and the colonist's being fairly inept at significant fishing, along with the colonist's health issues were the major reasons for economic hardship in Plymouth. Once cattle arrived and the colonists learned agricultural techniques from the Native Americans, the colony began to thrive. More colonists arrived in 1621, 1623, 1627, and 1629. This too, added to the stability of Plymouth, and once the cattle arrived in 1627, what with the colony finally beginning to thrive, it was no longer necessary for everyone to work together for survival and private land ownership began to occur.

So, as I said, the OP is nothing but extreme right wing fallacy and propaganda. A socialistic society was necessary in the first years, as building a colony with no resources and assistance from Great Britain would have been impossible with each individual working for the good of themselves only. The colony would have died out. It didn't BECAUSE of the unity and because of the population working together. Once the colony's survival was no longer in question, socialism was no longer necessary and would have been a detriment to progress. This is standard for socialism. In extreme situations with rather small groups, it is most effective. In all other situations, it's a failure.

The "unity" you are referring to is the discredited socialist notion noted in the Mayflower compact-and it wasn't ended in Plymouth or elsewhere because it worked. You appear to have the disney channel version of events in mind.

Also, note that Great Britain did not exist at this time and would not for several decades. I'd recommend reading up on your history, though I can understand your lack of comprehension regarding scientific or medical subjects. Reading there would also help.

 

[US Conservative]

Colonial socialism! An image flashed through my mind of a Miles Standish Obama, in a Pilgrim hat and buckled shoes, telling lots of sincere-sounding lies to the "folks" in the colony about his hopes for change, while delivering nothing.

Then, as now it promises the moon but delivers nothing. People are slow learners, especially with a scam that preys upon human nature.

Still its funny to think of Pilgrim Obama, eating another colonists crops while stating he didn't grow that. :lol:

 

[CaptainCourtesy]

You appear ignorant to both history and as a matter of course context. This wasn't unique to the Plymouth plantation, similar booms were seen elsewhere, and without the factors you suggest to be causative. Some colonies were more established, others less so-but they flourished (for the time) after discovering the fundamental fact of human nature that appears to escape you-people work hardest for themselves.

And though unlikely intentional, your comment on nutritional deficiency suggests you are aware of a manifestations of a naive socialist paradise, but not aware of the causes of such malnutrition-that said vitamin deficiency would likely not have occurred simply from the 2 month ocean voyage, especially after they were able to obtain better sources of nutrition as the records show were available. Other manifestations of nutritional insufficiency would have included immunocompromise, and that would manifest as increased disease.

No, the ignorance is obviously yours... accentuated by right wing revisionism. These kinds of situations did occur elsewhere, but other colonies has far more Brittish support, so in those cases, the affects were diminished. When first established, these colonies survived by the populiation working together... a fact that you folks have no ability to comprehend.

And the nutritional problems had nothing to do with socialism. They certainly had to something to do with the 2 month voyage, but more importantly, they had to do with the colonists struggling with managing the agricultural situation in general. It wasn't until the assistance of the Native Americans... with crop rotation and proper fertilization techniques that the colonists began to understand and succeed agriculturally... making a significant positive change in their nutrition.

You started with a false premise and blamed problems on something that you couldn't prove... all for a political agenda. And you got it shoved right back in your face. Next time, do your homework and try to examine the facts from a historical and scientific standpoint rather than a blind partisan one and perhaps you will present some accuracy.

 

[US Conservative]

No, the ignorance is obviously yours... accentuated by right wing revisionism. These kinds of situations did occur elsewhere, but other colonies has far more Brittish support, so in those cases, the affects were diminished. When first established, these colonies survived by the populiation working together... a fact that you folks have no ability to comprehend.

And the nutritional problems had nothing to do with socialism. They certainly had to something to do with the 2 month voyage, but more importantly, they had to do with the colonists struggling with managing the agricultural situation in general. It wasn't until the assistance of the Native Americans... with crop rotation and proper fertilization techniques that the colonists began to understand and succeed agriculturally... making a significant positive change in their nutrition.

You started with a false premise and blamed problems on something that you couldn't prove... all for a political agenda. And you got it shoved right back in your face. Next time, do your homework and try to examine the facts from a historical and scientific standpoint rather than a blind partisan one and perhaps you will present some accuracy.

You appear to believe that Plymouth plantation and other changed a fundamental tenet of their constitutions for no reason at all, and that the improvements that came immediately afterwords were entirely associated. I'd posit that you may be a leftist. Good luck with that.

 

[CaptainCourtesy]

The "unity" you are referring to is the discredited socialist notion noted in the Mayflower compact-and it wasn't ended in Plymouth or elsewhere because it worked. You appear to have the disney channel version of events in mind.

More right wing revisionism. The unity worked as evidenced by the survival of the colony. Individuals not working for the survival of the colony would have doomed the colony to failure what with the little resources available. The compact worked for the time that it was needed. You appear to be listening to the delusional right wing kool aid version of events.

Also, note that Great Britain did not exist at this time and would not for several decades. I'd recommend reading up on your history, though I can understand your lack of comprehension regarding scientific or medical subjects. Reading there would also help.

Great Britain was the term I used. I am aware that it was England at the time, as parts of the current Great Britain were separate.. I figured I'd dumb things down for you since you got so much wrong in your OP. I figured that between that and your history of being wrong nearly all the time, I'd make things simple for you. It's good to know that you have a basic understanding of history of nations. Considering that you got pretty much everything else wrong, this is a plus.

 

[CaptainCourtesy]

You appear to believe that Plymouth plantation and other changed a fundamental tenet of their constitutions for no reason at all, and that the improvements that came immediately afterwords were entirely associated. I'd posit that you may be a leftist. Good luck with that.

You appear to not understand how things worked in the colony, how survival occurred and why things changed. You appear to be a right wing hack. Good luck with that.

 

[US Conservative]

You appear to not understand how things worked in the colony, how survival occurred and why things changed. You appear to be a right wing hack. Good luck with that.

Cue the empty boasts.

 

[US Conservative]

The unity worked as evidenced by the survival of the colony.

So they dropped the naive socialist fail and that is evidence it was successful?

That makes sense.

 

[CaptainCourtesy]

So they dropped the naive socialist fail and that is evidence it was successful?

That makes sense.

They dropped the successful socialism when it was no longer needed. If you actually understood economic theory, you'd have figured this out... but since you don't, you didn't. Of course that's pretty standard for blind partisans such as yourself.

 

[CaptainCourtesy]

Cue the empty boasts.

Don't like me pointing out how wrong you are, educate yourself and try to be right. I know that's a stretch...

 

[shrubnose]

Important messages sometimes fade over time,

and people need to relearn the lesson. Surely you dont consider public education dogma to be comprehensive.

And some people are happy to modify and broadcast them to suit their partisan agenda, eh?

Happy Thanksgiving.

 

[shrubnose]

Colonial socialism!

An image flashed through my mind of a Miles Standish Obama, in a Pilgrim hat and buckled shoes, telling lots of sincere-sounding lies to the "folks" in the colony about his hopes for change, while delivering nothing.

One thing that's wrong with this post is that the colony didn't fail, it survived and eventually celebrated Thanks giving Day, or so the story goes. :roll:

 

[US Conservative]

They dropped the successful socialism when it was no longer needed. If you actually understood economic theory, you'd have figured this out... but since you don't, you didn't. Of course that's pretty standard for blind partisans such as yourself.

If its so wonderful, why drop it at all? Why was there a sudden improvement in production at the same time?

Think before you say such silliness.