The Real Story of Thanksgiving.

On August 1, 1620, the Mayflower set sail. It carried a total of 102 passengers, including forty Pilgrims led by William Bradford. On the journey, Bradford set up an agreement, a contract, that established just and equal laws for all members of the new community, irrespective of their religious beliefs. Where did the revolutionary ideas expressed in the Mayflower Compact come from? From the Bible. The Pilgrims were a people completely steeped in the lessons of the Old and New Testaments. They looked to the ancient Israelites for their example.
"And, because of the biblical precedents set forth in Scripture, they never doubted that their experiment would work. But this was no pleasure cruise, friends. The journey to the New World was a long and arduous one. And when the Pilgrims landed in New England in November, they found -- according to Bradford's detailed journal -- a cold, barren, desolate wilderness." There were no friends to greet them, he wrote." "There were no houses to shelter them. There were no inns where they could refresh themselves. And the sacrifice they had made for freedom was just beginning. During the first winter, half the Pilgrims -- including Bradford's own wife -- died of either starvation, sickness or exposure. When spring finally came, Indians taught the settlers how to plant corn, fish for cod and skin beavers for coats.
"Life improved for the Pilgrims, but they did not yet prosper! This is important to understand because this is where modern American history lessons often end. Thanksgiving is actually explained in some textbooks as a holiday for which the Pilgrims gave thanks to the Indians for saving their lives, rather than as a devout expression of gratitude grounded in the tradition of the Bible. Here is the part that has been omitted: The original contract the Pilgrims had entered into with their merchant-sponsors in London called for everything they produced to go into a common store, and each member of the community was entitled to one common share. All of the land they cleared and the houses they built belonged to the community as well." Everything belonged to everybody. "They were going to distribute it equally. All of the land they cleared and the houses they built belonged to the community as well.
"Nobody owned anything." "They just had a share in it," but nobody owned anything. The original pilgrim settlement was a commune. "Bradford, who had become the new governor of the colony, recognized that this form of collectivism was as costly and destructive to the Pilgrims as that first harsh winter, which had taken so many lives. He decided to take bold action. Bradford assigned a plot of land to each family to work and manage," as they saw fit, and, "thus turning loose the power of the marketplace. That's right. Long before Karl Marx was even born, the Pilgrims had discovered and experimented with what could only be described as socialism.

"And what happened? It didn't work!" They nearly starved! "It never has worked! What Bradford and his community found was that the most creative and industrious people had no incentive to work any harder than anyone else, unless they could utilize the power of personal motivation! But while most of the rest of the world has been experimenting with socialism for well over a hundred years -- trying to refine it, perfect it, and re-invent it -- the Pilgrims decided early on to scrap it permanently. What Bradford wrote about this social experiment should be in every schoolchild's history lesson. If it were, we might prevent much needless suffering in the future."
Bradford wrote. "'The experience that we had in this common course and condition tried sundry years...that by taking away property, and bringing community into a common wealth, would make them happy and flourishing -- as if they were wiser than God,' Bradford wrote." This was his way of saying, it didn't work, we thought we were smarter than everybody, everybody was gonna share equally, nobody was gonna have anything more than anything else, it was gonna be hunky-dory, kumbaya. Except it doesn't work. Because of half of them didn't work, maybe more. They depended on the others to do all the work. There was no incentive.

"'For this community [so far as it was] was found to breed much confusion and discontent, and retard much employment that would have been to their benefit and comfort. For young men that were most able and fit for labor and service did repine that they should spend their time and strength to work for other men's wives and children without any recompense,'" without being paid for it, "'that was thought injustice.'" They figured it out real quick. Half the community is not working -- living off the other half, that is. Resentment built. Why should you work for other people when you can't work for yourself? that's what he was saying. So the Pilgrims found that people could not be expected to do their best work without incentive. So what did Bradford's community try next? They unharnessed the power of good old free enterprise by invoking the under-girding capitalistic principle of private property.
"Every family was assigned its own plot of land to work and permitted to market its own crops and products. And what was the result? 'This had very good success,' wrote Bradford, 'for it made all hands industrious, so as much more corn was planted than otherwise would have been.' ... Is it possible that supply-side economics could have existed before the 1980s? Yes," it did. "Now, this is where it gets really good, folks, if you're laboring under the misconception that was taught in school. So they set up trading posts and exchanged goods with the Indians. After everybody had their own plot of land and were allowed to market it and develop it as they saw fit and got to keep what they produced, bounty, plenty resulted.
They set up trading posts. They exchanged goods with and sold the Indians things. Good old-fashioned commerce. They sold stuff. The profits allowed them to pay off their debts to the merchants in London." They paid off the merchant sponsors back in London with their profits, they were selling goods and services to the Indians. The success and prosperity of the Plymouth settlement attracted more Europeans," what was barren was now productive, "and began what came to be known as the 'Great Puritan Migration.'
But this story stops when the Indians taught the newly arrived suffering-in-socialism Pilgrims how to plant corn and fish for cod. That's where the original Thanksgiving story stops, and the story basically doesn't even begin there. The real story of Thanksgiving is William Bradford giving thanks to God," the pilgrims giving thanks to God, "for the guidance and the inspiration to set up a thriving colony," for surviving the trip, for surviving the experience and prospering in it. "The bounty was shared with the Indians, but it was not the Indians who saved the day. It was capitalism and Scripture which saved the day," as acknowledged by George Washington in his first Thanksgiving Proclamation in 1789.

 

Then we started really screwing Native Americans (Indians).

So they didn't "save us" but we destroyed them basically.

I'm not proud of that jth. Are you?

 

Destroyed them...hardly. The last time I visited the reservation (casino), I was the one that got screwed.

 

For me, Thanksgiving is a time for extended family to get together and eat some damn good food.

 

Sorry jth you are grasping at big straws here.

I'm truly thankful that you lost your butt at the casino. I sincerely hope it happens every time you go. You got screwed of your own volition.

You deserve it after all.

Native Americans were doing just fine before Pilgrims entered the picture. I don't think they had casinos.

Prove me wrong and demonstrate just how much their lives have gotten better.

 

Me too but stupidity irritates me.

 

No grasping there Clem, just injecting a little humor, lighten up. I have been to the casino only twice in my life, once in the mid nineties and again last month. I lost a whopping $60, sorry to disappoint but I won’t be mortgaging my house to pay gambling debts anytime soon.

No casinos? Oh yeah they were to busy killing each other…warmongers.

Now back to point. What say you about the Pilgrims failed socialist experiment?

 

What say I about the failed experiment?

First I have to ask where you came up with your OP. Seriously, is this something you typed yourself or is it undocmented plagiarism. If it's your own words I apologize if not I'd like that source please.

Oops. Just found it. None other than Rush Limbaugh. You should always give credit where credit is due jth. Even if it comes from a right wing whack job like Rush.
However, if by some chance, Rush Limbaugh plagiarized you I suggest you file a lawsuit. He's got a lot of money.

For anyone interested here's the link. Scroll down a bit to find the original text.

http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/daily/2012/11/21/the_real_story_of_thanksgiving

Now to the question you asked of me.

I could certainly see "socialism" failing in theory when you weigh in the fact that we're basically talking about 50 people here. In case you hadn't noticed things seem to have changed in the last 400 or so years.
50 people vs. 300 million for starters.

What Mr. Limbaugh fails to address is a simple fact IMHO. Had each of the original folks jumped off the ship and said "everyone for themselves" they would have probably had a MUCH HIGHER toll that first winter. Perhaps ALL of them.
They would have had to be involved in some sort of "socialism" to even survive let alone thrive.
In essence, one could argue that "socialism" got this nation it's start.

With 50 people that you spent a LOT of time with it would seem reasonable that you would know them all. It would also seem reasonable to surmise that you would help someone in need.to help the community to survive. Smacks of "socialism" to me.

Now we are roughly 300 million. We certainly don't know everyone else.
Still, as a country, do we want to see millions of our countrymen starve because "socialism" is bad? In theory that could happen. Would that benefit us as a nation?

Should we ask Rush?

Now to another point you made. If you can call it a point at all.

If you meant it as a joke it's a bad one. If you're serious it's even worse.

Were Native Americans killing one another? Yes.
How about those folks in Europe? Methinks yes. Why else would the "new World" be so appealing?

Let's take a quick peek at one Native American nation shall we? The Iriquois.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iroquois

Some very interesting reading here. I find this part interesting.

"Historians in the 20th century have suggested the Iroquois system of government influenced the development of the Articles of Confederation or United States Constitution. Consensus has not been reached on how influential the Iroquois model was to the development of the United States' documents.[42] The influence thesis has been discussed by historians such as Donald Grinde[43] and Bruce Johansen.[44] In 1988, the United States Congress passed a resolution to recognize the influence of the Iroquois League upon the Constitution and Bill of Rights.[45] In 1987, Cornell University held a conference on the link between the Iroquois' government and the U.S. Constitution.[46]"

Then of course you have this.
"Scholars, such as Jack N. Rakove and Elizabeth Tooker, challenge the thesis. Stanford University historian Rakove writes, "The voluminous records we have for the constitutional debates of the late 1780s contain no significant references to the Iroquois" and notes that there are ample European precedents to the democratic institutions of the United States.[47] Historian Francis Jennings noted that supporters of the thesis frequently cite the following statement by Benjamin Franklin: "It would be a very strange thing, if six Nations of ignorant savages should be capable of forming a Scheme for such a Union … and yet that a like union should be impracticable for ten or a Dozen English Colonies," but he disagrees that it establishes influence. Rather, he thinks Franklin was promoting union against the "ignorant savages" and called the idea "absurd".[48]

Still they have lasted for quite some time.

"The Iroquois League was established prior to major European contact. Most archaeologists and anthropologists believe that the League was formed sometime between about 1450 and 1600"

"According to legend, an evil Onondaga chieftain named Tadodaho was the last converted to the ways of peace by The Great Peacemaker and Hiawatha. He became the spiritual leader of the Haudenosaunee.[18] This is said to have occurred at Onondaga Lake near Syracuse, New York. The title Tadodaho is still used for the league's spiritual leader, the fiftieth chief, who sits with the Onondaga in council. He is the only one of the fifty to have been chosen by the entire Haudenosaunee people. The current Tadodaho is Sid Hill of the Onondaga Nation."

Respond as you wish jth but if Rush Limbaugh is your source of "truth" it explains a LOT to me.

 

"Rush Limbaugh"...

...is that American for "Bah, humbug!"?

Nah, just a douche.

Hell-of-a rebuttal, clembo. Very well done.

 

View attachment 859 Right wing butt-hurt...

 

Thank you for taking the time to give a response to Limbaugh's verbal diarrhea which was regurgitated here, clembo.

 

That is the most ridiculous statement ever written. Any mild student of history could not look back and say, hey, look how good casinos are doing therefore the genocide of the Native American people must have never been a problem.

Those lucky sons-of-a-bi*#+^s!

American Indians and Alaska Natives die at higher rates than other Americans from tuberculosis (500% higher), alcoholism (514% higher), diabetes (177% higher), unintentional injuries (140% higher), homicide (92% higher) and suicide (82% higher).

 

The irony is that, although I have a strong desire to help them (native Americans), I'm fully aware that they likely would not agree with me on most issues. They are typically Republican-leaning, and in the extreme. Not all, but in general. It's the culture.

 

That quite surprises me since the Federal Government pays for so much. I would think Native Americans would vote Democrat almost exclusively.

 

View attachment 869

 

Thank you.

You're welcome.

 

I could be wrong. I guess I should say it's the impression I get, from my readings of their history (in their own words) and chats with local members. I base some of it on the culture, which also includes the idea of a type of Socialism (community helping each other), but overall I'd say they lean Republican or conservative.

As for the Feds providing assistance, it's miniscule, IMO. Sure, there are some who would probably want it for the rest of their lives, but the impression I get is that the majority want the Feds to respect their culture more than anything.

That said, a lot of that is based on the past. In today's society, I could be wrong.

And I lumped them all together, which isn't in any way accurate. In my area, the local tribe fought bitterly over some issues. Some took over the community center and, after a year or so, the leaders of that were arrested, tried, and sentenced for the act. That has little to do with political leanings though, but I use it here just to point out that they are not united in any way and have their own personal beliefs that differ among other members.

But no, I wouldn't say that anyone was liberal just because they receive Federal assistance. Republicans receive it too, they just don't mention that fact...ever.

 

I can't find numbers like I would prefer. It seems they get lumped in with the 'Other' category. But the searching I did indicates that your impression is not correct:

Indians overwhelmingly vote Democratic.
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/...mpaign-in-history-You-can-help-make-it-happen

Native Americans traditionally and overwhelmingly vote Democratic
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0508/10676.html

The Democratic Party also has strong support among the Native American population, particularly in Arizona, New Mexico, Montana, North Dakota, South Dakota, Washington, Alaska, Idaho, Minnesota, Wisconsin, and North Carolina. Though now a small percentage of the population (virtually non-existent in some regions), most Native American precincts vote Democratic in margins exceeded only by African-Americans.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democratic_Party_(United_States)#Native_Americans

Which is what I would expect.

 

I stand corrected. Thanks for clearing that up. It goes to show how I occasionally talk out of my ass without actually knowing what I'm talking about lol. I try not to, but obviously not hard enough on this subject.

Now, to continue the ass-talking: If I were a staunch Republican, I'd never have admitted I was wrong, I'd just change the subject...did you hear that Body Odor did such and such and blah blah blah? (coughs)

 

Only those secure with themselves can admit that they are wrong. The crowd on the Right must be so damn insecure because as many times as they are flat out wrong, they never seem to ever admit it.