This page has been archived and commenting is disabled.
The Real Non-PC Reason We Celebrate Thanksgiving
Submitted by Judy Thommesen via The Mises Institute,
[Every year at Thanksgiving-time I resurrect a column written by a fellow teacher, Kent Dillon, about the real reason we celebrate this holiday. It is a story no longer told in the textbooks because it is thoroughly unPC, and undermines the idea that government is the solver of all problems. We were teachers, as well as part of the crew, at The Flint School, a private, academic boarding school aboard two large sailing ships, and we used the world as a campus. Kent wrote this for the students’ parents 45 years ago, so they would know what their children were learning and experiencing.
Thanksgiving Day was a special day aboard the ships and we actively celebrated it as the birth of private property and the demise of collectivism. Our celebration wasn’t one of sleeping in or playing games with each other. We celebrated by working a specific task until completed, and then, when tired and hungry, we sat down to a huge feast of fresh cooked turkey, dressing, pumpkin pie, and shared camaraderie.
Even now in 2015, I can tell you that those Thanksgiving Day dinners of turkey, pies, and all the trimmings, after a day of meaningful labor, are still the tastiest I have ever eaten. ]
Thanksgiving Celebrated as the Birthday of Free Enterprise
By Kent Dillon
The celebration of Thanksgiving is a celebration of plenty and appreciation of the abundance that has characterized the free enterprise, individualistic, capitalistic systems of the US. This why America grew into the most productive, highest standard of living area in the world. The Pilgrims had arrived in what is now Provincetown, Mass., on November 11, 1620, but it was late in December before they finally settled in Plymouth. In the words of Gov. Bradford,
that which was most sad and lamentable was, that in 2 or 3 months time half of their company died, especially in January and February, being the depth of winter, and wanting houses and other comforts; being infected with the scurvy and other diseases, so as there died sometimes 2 or 3 of a day, in the aforesaid time; that of 100 and odd persons, scarce 50 remained.
They spent their first winter building houses so that they could move off the Mayflower and by March all settlers had left the ship.
Scurvy and fever had taken their toll, as by then 15 of 18 wives had died as well as 19 of 29 hired men and servants and half of the 30 sailors. When the Mayflower departed she left 23 children and 27 adults behind, but not one Pilgrim returned to England.
The Pilgrims had placed all their food and provisions in what they called the “common store” which was set up on the socialist principle of “From each according to his ability, to each according to his need.”
As spring came they began to farm and by October took in their first harvest which went to the common store. It was a time to be thankful for their very survival. They had spent 67 days on the Atlantic with 132 people aboard a ship that was 128 ft. long, and survived to establish themselves and reap a harvest.
In November of 1621 the ship Fortune arrived with more than 30 new settlers, mostly young men. They apparently brought “not so much as a bisket-cake” with them, thus providing another drain on the common store for the coming winter. The future looked bleak as food supplies ran out and the “planned socialist” community began to starve again. The common store was practiced for a second year. The harvest was poor in spite of the added manpower and the colonists starved in the ensuing winter dramatically demonstrating once again that collective ownership in a socialist economy was unworkable and could not keep them alive.
Richard Grant in The Incredible Bread Machine writes,
The experience of the first Plymouth colony provides eloquent testimony to the unworkability of collective ownership of property. In his history of the Plymouth colony Governor Bradford described how the Pilgrims farmed the land in common, with the produce going into a common storehouse. For two years the Pilgrims faithfully practiced communal ownership of the means of production. And for two years nearly starved to death, rationed at times to “but a quarter of a pound of bread a day to each person.” Governor Bradford wrote that “famine must still ensue the next year also if not some way prevented.” He described how the colonists finally decided to introduce the institution of private property:
“[The colonists] began to think how they might raise as much corn as they could, and obtain a better crop than they had done, that they might not still thus languish in misery. [In 1623] after much debate of things, the Gov. (with the advice of the chiefest amongst them) gave way that they should set down every man for his own … and to trust themselves ... so assigned to every family a parcel of land. This had very good success; for it made all hands very industrious, so as much more corn was planted than otherwise would have been by any means the Gov. or any other could use, … and gave far better content. The women now went willingly into the field, and took their little-ones with them to set corn, which before would allege weakness, and inability; whom to have compelled would have been thought great tyranny and oppression.”
Reflecting on the experience of the previous two years, Bradford goes on to describe the folly of communal ownership:
“The experience that was had in this common course and condition, tried sundry years, and that amongst godly and sober men, may well evince the vanity of that conceit of Platos and other ancients, applauded by some of later times; — that the taking away of property, and bringing in community into a common wealth would make them happy and flourishing; as if they were wiser than God. 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 the 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. The strong, or man of parts, had no more in division of victuals and cloths, than he that was weak and not able to do a quarter the other could; this was thought injustice…”
The Colonists learned about “the wave of the future” the hard way. However, once having discovered the principle of private property, the results were dramatic. Bradford continues:
“By this time harvest was come, and instead of famine, now God gave them plenty, and the face of things was changed, to the rejoicing of the hearts of many, for which they blessed God. And in the effect of their particular [private] planting was well seen, for all had, one way and other, pretty well to bring the year about, and some of the abler sort and more industrious had to spare, and sell to others.”
The Jamestown colony in Virginia had similar experiences as they started under the same rules:
- They were to own nothing.
- They were to receive only as much food and clothing as they needed.
- Everything that the men secured from trade or produced from the land had to go into the common storehouse.
Of the 104 men that started the Jamestown colony in 1607 only 38 survived the first year and even those had to be marched to the fields “to the beat of a drum” simply to grow food to keep them alive in the next year. Captain John Smith writes after the common store concept was abandoned:
When our people were fed out of the common store, and labored jointly together, glad was he could slip from his labor, or slumber over his task he cared not how, nay, the most honest among them would hardly take so much true pains in a week, as now for themselves they will do in a day. … We reaped not so much corn from the labors of thirty, as now three or four do provide for themselves.
The Thanksgiving we celebrate is for the success of the Pilgrims after establishing property rights and free enterprise as that event laid the foundation for the growth of America.
Were our Pilgrim and Jamestown colony forefathers to wake up from the dead and look at the graduated taxation (from each according to his ability) and welfare programs (to each according to his need) we have today they might offer us a lesson in history by simply quoting Goethe, “Those who do not learn from the lessons of history are doomed to relive them.”
No longer do the textbooks mention the effects of the common store and the continued starvation until the system of free enterprise and private property was established. Don’t you wonder why the idea of the Great American Experiment is a forgotten concept? And why the writings of de Tocqueville are a “forgotten analysis” in today’s education? As Americana moves into the “planned socialist economy,” those who have moved our country in that direction have made sure that the early lessons of the “police state” force needed to maintain Jamestown’s social plan (Captain John Smith’s guns) and of the starvation and death that resulted from the lack of motivation inspired by the “common storehouse” have been eliminated from our children’s instruction.
Thanksgiving isn’t just a break from work, a time to stuff ourselves with turkey, dressing, and pumpkin pie, it is a time to remember the true significance of the holiday, and pass on the lessons from our forefathers to our children who won’t learn these lessons in school, and thus must learn them elsewhere.
»
- 1851 reads
- Printer-friendly version
- Send to friend
- advertisements -
a little USURY and a rothschilds central bank would have gone a long way in the yr 1620............just sayin......
They did (under a different brand). Six years of indentured servitude and possible death for a third class boat ticket was the cost in the absence of more effective capital pooling and credit creation mechanisms.
Ya ya it's all bullshit, even Christmas was really just the Catholics trying to over-write the winter solstice, Easter is the over-write of the Pagan fertility celebration for Spring, blah, blah, blah. At some point people need to lighten the fuck up, and just realize that there's nothing wrong with people setting aside a few days per year to spend time with famliy, and try to be more kind to one another.
Usurious is correct. If the Pilgrims would have had the FED to print and subsidize gov debt, they could have maintained their 'communism' forever. At least that's what we are told. It is going to last forever, right?
Happy Thanksgiving, folks! Enjoy it as if it was the last.
Happy Turkey Auschwitz Day to all!
This article is a lot of crock. These people hadn't had Bibles (King James 1611 had just been published) and wereinfluenced by Acts 2:44(" and they held all things in common"). The New Testament doesn't advocate this. It merely comments that it occured in a special circumstance
They were starving because of collective ignorance not communist induced laziness. They would have had trouble feeding themselves in the English countryside much less bitterly cold Massachusetts,.
The colonists turned things around dramatically by suspending collective farming and reinforcing property rights. Your assertion that they couldn't feed themselves when they were allowed to do so freely is pure fantasy. Can you show any evidence that the Massachusetts colony died out from starvation?
Communism vs. Free Markets at Plymouth Rock
I just learned from an article entitled Our Forefather’s Failure (at LibertyUnbound.com) that the colonies at Plymouth Rock and Jamestown tried both free market and communist systems – long before Karl Marx was born.
The Pilgrims landed at Plymouth Rock in December 1620, and in spite of help from the Native Americans, half of them died the first year as a result of their initial system. During the second year, more of them died. They would quickly learn that their initial system was tragically incompatible with human nature. It was simply unnatural.
The colonists had the ideal conditions for their initial system because they all had a reputation as virtuous hard working people, they all were of the same race, religion, politics, and nationality; and of course, they all had agreed to this system voluntarily. They also knew that failure meant death.
Although the colonists supposedly had their first Thanksgiving after their first harvest, they simply weren’t producing and storing enough food, which lead to starvation, disease, and discontent. Their first solution was to institute beatings for those who did not work hard enough, but this had little effect on productivity, and it further increased discontent.
The colonists astutely observed that their system tended to retard productivity while breeding confusion and discontent. We know this because they wrote about it in their journals. Clearly, their initial system was incompatible with human nature.
By the spring of 1623 the Pilgrims feared they would not survive another winter, so in desperation, they adopted a radically different system, and it saved their lives. Productivity increased, and in 1623, they actually had their first real reason for Thanksgiving.
Which system failed the colonists initially, and which radically different system saved them? Which system was so incompatible with human nature, and which system was so compatible with human nature? Which system was so ugly, and which system was so beautiful?
According to their original governing document, the Mayflower Compact, they shared everything produced by any one of them – from each according to his ability – to each according to his need. The result was that only a small percentage of them worked hard, and the rest were freeloaders to varying degrees. They even left food rotting on the vine!
Then, in the spring of 1623, the surviving colonists decided to let each person keep the fruits of his labor, and the colony’s total output increased so much that they were never hungry again.
The governor wrote in his journal that under their initial (communist) system some of them claimed to be too sick to work, and they were so convincing that it would have been the height of tyranny to make them work. Then, after they learned they could keep the fruits of their labor, they sprang from their beds and began working the fields!
Communism was killing the colonists at Plymouth Rock, and by switching to a free market system, they became more productive and saved themselves – in a single growing season.
The transition from communism to free markets still lacked full property rights however. Whereas, each individual owned the fruits of his labor, he did not own the land he worked, and thus he did not own any improvements he made to that land.
In 1623, the colonists were still growing food on parcels of land that were reassigned by random lots each year, which they astutely observed was a disincentive for each farmer to make permanent improvements to his parcel of land because in the following year, someone else would inherit the fruits of any labor he devoted to improvements. Therefore, in 1624, they adopted full property rights where everyone owned the land he worked, and the result was another productivity boost. Whereas, the first step toward property rights and the free market increased productivity enough to feed everyone, the move to full property rights produced enough extra food to export and trade for furs and other goods.
The article goes on to explain the similar experience in Jamestown:
The article didn’t mention the Roanoke colony, which just disappeared, and many speculate that they were killed by the Native Americans, but it is far more likely that they were killed by communism.
Although both my first hand experience and observations as well as my research and analysis have long since led me to conclude that the free market and property rights are superior to communism, I would have believed that communism could have worked in the case of the first American colonies because they had every advantage one could give communism. They had already unanimously agreed to communism. They all shared the same race, nationality, religion, political views and economic views. Failure meant starvation, and slackers were beaten, but in spite of every advantage possible, communism was a catastrophic systemic failure in the first American colonies.
Consider that the colonists at Plymouth Rock had no historical precedent on which to evaluate communism vs. the free market, and yet when communism failed them, they invented and adopted a complete free market system with full property rights in just two years.
In just four years, the colonists proved that that communism was a very unnatural and ugly thing, and that free-market and property rights were a very natural and beautiful thing.
Our ancestors’ understanding of the superiority of the free market and property rights made us the dominant nation on earth; whereas, today we are rapidly losing that status. Could it be that Americans have forgotten the hard won knowledge of our ancestors?
Consider that the President of the United States has 400 years of additional historical precedent as well as a Harvard education, and yet he still doesn’t understand how the free market is superior to communism. He says that that when the government forcibly takes the fruits of your labor and gives it to others to “spread the wealth around”, then that’s “good for everybody”.
Those colonists at Plymouth Rock, who seem so much more in touch with reality than the President of the United States, remind me of small town Americans of my childhood. Of course, the President sees small town Americans as basically racists who have “antipathy toward those who are different” and who “cling to their guns and religion”.
Although, the President of the United States is a dilettante, whose image was manufactured by the media, progressives have told me that he is right because communism in early America was too soon. They claim that it is not human nature to be a freeloader and that the people themselves have learned and would no longer be freeloaders. However, the Danish proved that 90% still prefer to be freeloaders when they can – even when they can make more money working.
Thanksgiving is a VERY old holiday that predates both communism and the New World. It is meant to give thanks (Thanksgiving!) to God for a good harvest that would allow the family or community to make it through the winter without starvation.
i got an entitlement for ya liehunter...oh forget it, they just swirled down the can
Wise words one should live hearing daily.
A wise person told me if I were to walk with Death every day, I would live a meaningful life. It certainly has kept me mindful to what is important. So many today seem to lack such discernment. I wonder who will be the victim of the yearly human stampede for a cheap item which will only be found in a landfill someday. I wonder how many diabetic people we will get in the hospital who choose bingeing rather than facing the realities of their disease. I wonder...... Ok I've been handed my apron and am being pointed to the kitchen so waxing philosophical time is at an end.
Happy Thanksgiving to All.
Miffed;-)
Happy to see you back. Happy Thanksgiving!
And a hat tip and hearty handshake to you Pope. For you in your various forms have added edge to ZH like no other, a symphony where I am but one note. You honor me.
Now, shall the sheepdog and Wil e coyote punch the time clock and resume positions? Hmmmmm, not on this day. ;-)
Thanks for keeping me on my toes and never complacent!
Miffed;-)
Yo MIffed, Happy Thanksgiving, and hope the Mr. is doing well. Good to see ja again x2.
Seasons Eatings to all. :-)
And to you as well! He is recovering and his prednisone has been halved. We are hopeful. I have so much to be thankful.
Eat heartily my friend and enjoy the day. I must be back at work tomorrow and should show restraint so I may help others who have failed to do.
Miffed;-)
It will last until the time when no one wants to give you the fruits of their labor for some printed paper or 0s and 1s in a computer system.
"Rolfe combined the best of both cultures. He was not just a visionary, but a scientist. He succeeded in creating a unique flavour for Virginian tobacco, which quickly gave it precedence in the English market. Some of Rolfe's first tobacco crop, the 1613 vintage, was shipped to London where its fragrant odour singled it out for special attention amongst connoisseurs. In 1616, he took the delectable Pocahontas and the first commercial shipment of Virginian tobacco to London. Both products of the New World attracted public admiration, althought the Indian princess succumbed to disease, died, and was buried in Gravesend. Rolfe returned alone to America with money and goods in time to celebrate Virginia's first Thanksgiving festival, held to celebrate the safe harvest of the 1617 tobacco crop."
Tobacco, authored by I. Gately
I used to sell premium spirits and tobaccos, and this was always one of my personal favorites to smile about while others ate and drank. Although, the history of sugar and, therefore, rum still has a rather humorous run at being a real impetus towards our nations independence. Essentially, it was slavery on the historical markets of tobacco and sugar. Non-waged human labor viewed poitltically as savages/hethens accumulated in the southern colonies did a lot to spoil the landowners and, well, you know the rest...right?
This article is pure propaganda.
Astounding level of misinformation and distorted historic content.
Here’s an example, but there are many more cases:
Starving Settlers in Jamestown Colony Resorted to Cannibalism
http://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/starving-settlers-in-jamestown-colony-resorted-to-cannibalism-46000815/?no-ist
You just confirmed how bad things were at Jamestown until Smith rallied the colonists against the welfare mentality.
Exactly. That's what fucking socialism gets you eventually. Starvation. This moron above never ceases to piss me off with his stupidity. Always the same inane bullshit. At least this time he refrained from quoting that useless old fuck Noam Chomsky, so that's a plus, at least maybe that person is starting to think for himself a little bit.
I wish that people who advocate socialism for us all could be forced to live like that until they either achieve socialist utopia or wind up eating each other. I wonder which would happen first?
You let your biases “isms” and anger get the best of you.
Second, Zero Hedge is just a blog. Relax and try to learn.
Third, below is a comment by Helen that summarizes it pretty well
Helen •
Foolish people coming to an unknown area looking for gold. They didn't want to learn from the indigenous people on planting/harvesting. They relied on handouts of harvested corn from the local nations going from tribe to tribe (or house to house as one would call it)up the rivers until they over stayed their welcome. The native nations had their own families to feed as well.
http://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/starving-settlers-in-jamestown-colony-resorted-to-cannibalism-46000815/?no-ist#comment-1440148710
They didn't want to learn from the indigenous people on planting/harvesting.
Some people claim that the whites had a right to take over the land because the Indians were unproductive. You actually undermine one of the best arguments against this. The Indians developed various crops which remain popular to this day: corn, tomatoes, peppers, beans, potatoes, squash, etc. The whites did learn to produce these crops and extract the various resources exploited by the Indians (including gold). The fact that the very things which the whites used to make a profit in the New World were first developed by the Indians shows that the Indians were far from ignorant and unproductive.
i believe it was the 'Three sisters' that saved the pilgrims, given to them by the indians, saved their bacon too. they did learn, many things back then, something people of today cannot fathom
Yes, the three sisters: corn, squash and beans. Gave it a try last year but didn't included the beans because I was afraid that they'd pull down the cornstalks. Some folks told me that happened to them. But my corn grew taller than ever with an understory crop of squash and melons. The idea is that the large squash leaves lock in moisture and defeat competitive weeds while the beans fix nitrogen in the soil.
Speaking of bacon, one of the complaints the Indians had against the Pilgrims was that they would let their hogs run wild and these would destroy the Indians crops.
indeed Billy...you are a voice of truth around here, it is too bad so many folks here have been brainwashed by our halls of lower edumacation
Billy the Poet,
I would strongly recommend you that you check your mentality—biases and nonsense—instead of the colonists mentality.
Here’s why:There's a say that goes like this:
Before speaking... Think
Before writing... Research
Otherwise you sound really stupid.
I spend lots of time researching history both by text and in the field. Just last week I gave a presentation at the local library about the Indians who had inhabited the area. It included maps, written accounts (including accounts by the Indians themselves), artifacts and plants I foraged from the woods. The presentation was so popular that a third night was added to the schedule in order to accommodate the overflow. Everyone enjoyed it and found it to be instructive including a gentleman who is one quarter Cherokee.
And now you've learned something about making assumptions with no evidence and resorting to the ad hominem attack in lieu of any rational argument.
So, accept my sincere apology.
Obviously I did not read your comment carefully.
And I am glad you clarify your view beautifully.
Thanks.
What a pleasant surprise to discover that we might not have to shoot each other after all! Peace and long life.
... because you know everything? Uhm - someone needs to take his own advice
It's all about a mindset.
There was a collectivist community in the neighborhood that wasn't starving.
So, the story would have us believe that the colonists would rather lay in their beds and starve than work for the common good (including their own). What kind of mentality is that?
corsair: What kind of mentality is that?
The same as your mentality: Laziness.
In your case, by not putting effort to learn.
What kind of mentality is that? Laziness
That's just what socialism breeds. Laziness. If we all work towards the 'collective' I get pretty much the same thing regardless of if I work or not. Since others will go out into the field and work and I get to eat the produce anyway, why should I not just lay in bed? Eventually more people decide to do that then decide to work, and it leads to starvation, and according to your article, canibalism. We are fast approaching that point in the US. Less people working than ever before. Why bother, when the state will provide me with food, a house, and cable TV even if I do nothing. Why work when the same standard of living can be achieved by doing nothing. I don't often say things like this to people on here, but you are an idiot. You defend the indefensible.
Socialism: Bottom up. Worker’s self-management. Workers/craftsmen/artists own their production.
Capitalism: The owners of capital (elites) own the production.
US is the most successful nation on capitalism. Also, in propaganda. No other nation can compete with the US in either.
American unions spend a billion dollars per election cycle in order to promote union friendly politicians. Why don't the unions simply use that money to buy the means of production for themselves? Wouldn't that be the most direct path to freedom from their employers?
US has one of the worst labor rights record compared to other industrialized nations.
Not sure where you got your billions figure, but whatever amount Union members could muster, they don’t stand a chance against private power and its propaganda machine.
Also, Union force on the private sector is about 7% of the US work force. And the vast majority are on the service economy. These workers can barely survive.
America Union peaked in the 40’s. US business late 30’s came up with a brilliant plan to destroy its labor force. And they were tremendously successful.
America is a very class oriented society.
Now to your question: Why labor don’t acquire the means of production:
Well, your answer is below:
http://therealnews.com/t2/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=31&Itemid=74&jumival=12016
US has one of the worst labor rights record compared to other industrialized nations.
Not sure where you got your billions figure, but whatever amount Union members could muster, they don’t stand a chance against private power and its propaganda machine.
More great reasons that the workers should simply buy the means of production in order to create their collectivist Utopia. Maybe if Chomsky would stop telling them that they can't do it they would do it. It's easy. Take the money, spend it on facilities and capital equipment and get to work.
Why bother, when the state will provide me with food, a house, and cable TV even if I do nothing. Why work when the same standard of living can be achieved by doing nothing. I don't often say things like this to people on here, but you are an idiot. You defend the indefensible.
The assumption is that I want food , house, and cable TV and to do nothing. The assumption is wrong. That kind of thinking is not in our genes (human nature); it is in our culture...and the culture is something that is being thought.
Is it really so inconceivable that work itself can be the biggest reward?
Nice straw man, but the moral of this story is that people will do only enough to barely survive under communism. They don't take into account chance circumstances like illness. They do just enough to survive until they can individually benefit from their labor.
This reminds me of the saying by the people of the USSR, “They pretend to pay us, and we pretend to work.”
The straw man is your reference to "communism", a concept that didn't exist in 1620, but is handy to use as a boogieman because of its 20th century baggage. How about we stick to the term collectivism.
Also, I don't see how "the moral of this story is that people will do only enough to barely survive", when the story explicitly states that people were dying of starvation.
You're missing the point. Or are you?
J.H.F. Christ, what is it with some of you people?
Please, describe the fucking utopian society you pine for.
It is a society where everyone's needs are satisfied. Which means the government will have to force women to give men sex to satisfy their needs. Of course, it will voluntary, like Income Tax. Women will just have to be re-educated so they understand their 'social responsibility'.
Anyone watch that Amazon Prime [for free] movie "Equilibrium"? It's a watered down version of 1984 but I like Christian Bale. But it was not nearly as powerful as Fritz Lang's "Metropolis."
1927's Metropolis on Youtube:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q0NzALRJifI
Thought it was the RNC.
no it was the DNC, fixed it for ya libby
NoPension,
First, I am not missing the point. The article is total garbage, I am sorry to say.
Second, about utopian future, I will leave you with this quote, that I find very telling:
“The human brain remains a piece of stone-age machinery, however you look at it, and no amount of culture can make it otherwise. Genetically speaking we are a finished product, not a prototype. What you see is what you get—there will be no bright utopian future”— The Spirit in the Gene, page 247.
I hate know it alls. I prefer people who know nothing. You seem to think the world is black and white and your understanding of things is the end of the story.
Adorable face.
Would care to substantiate your post?
Exactly. Mankind will never overcome its reptile tendencies. We've had chance after chance and we always blow it. I mean how fucking difficult is it to teach your kids to treat other people like you want to be treated? And we still can't do it.
The Thanksgiving we celebrate is for the success of the Pilgrims after killing all of the indians and stealing their land as that event laid the foundation for the growth of America.
Fixed it for you.
'His story' is always written by the victors. Always.
Usually I like Mises, but why no mention of genocide or massacres?
It's definately not PC to talk about "Native Americans", obviously the terrists of that time period.
Without commenting on the fact pattern versus the conclusions, those pilgrims knew and were willing to continuously take massive risk in pursuit of their goals. They would look @ the average member of today's 'Free Shit Army' and wonder how their vision became so fucked up.
https://youtu.be/fYTXRDtYzYc
Christopher Columbus never set foot on the North American Continent. He ran aground in Cuba, where he did what all good Christians do, slaughter the natives.
Religion of peace brah, just ask them while ignoring that the Catholic church openly advocated the burning of people from Europe's original religious affiliations. They slaughtered anyone who was not willing to abandoned their European cultures.
We can see the same thing happening today with the Muslims, and look who is still behind all of it. The damn Jews. They brought their insanity into our nations.
All grassroots movements will be usurped, to support the power structure.
Except, of course, for the fact that the American Indians were mostly composed of savage, warlike tribes who welcomed the chance to slaughter white people for a while, instead of each other. They had the continent all to themselves for thousands of years, yet never made anything of it, preferring to fight amongst themselves. When whites showed up, it took us only a few hundred years to turn this continent into the greatest country on earth. Tecumseh attempted to unite the fractious tribes in the face of the invading white man, but it proved a hopeless task, despite his remarkable leadership skills.
Read Allen Eckert's meticulously researched historical novel, "The Frontiersmen" to get the correct, un-PC, history of what happened when the white man encountered the Indian.
I can't dispute any of that.
It could be the settlers are getting a bad rap because the same thing is happening today. Especially to the savages that would trade their spice for anything but civilzed dollahs.
true that buck...these proglodites cant handle the truth, their brains have been turned to mush by our communist educators of lower learning
While you're correct about the Natives warring against one another, why is it necessarily a bad thing that they "never made anything" out of the North American continent? Perhaps they preferred it the way it was, in its natural God given state. Trees, clean rivers, species that were bountiful until made extinct by Man's never ending expansion.
Were the Natives still around in their "former glory", I'm sure they'd love to know if you're enjoying your:
pill popping culture
nuclear waste
industrial pollution
GMO's
artificial hormones
artificial flavoring
rising cancer rates
rising autism rates
etc etc etc...
But nevermind that. It's easy to ignore all those things in the comfort of your modern home, chalk full of cheaply made goods you slaved for. Until you find out you have cancer, then you start wondering if it's worth it :)
How did you get an internet connection to your teepee? I wonder how many modern Native Indians choose to live like their ancestors did?
We haven't made much of it either.
Doesn't fit the painfully strained to celophane transparency, goal-sought narrative.
Also failed to mention a continent of resources to plunder and manifest destiny abroad.
Let's keep the time line in mind here. The article describes a nation's fetus while you are looking at the child.
They mentioned America's growth. I pointed out the facts. Ascribe whatever magical powers to capitalism you wish (pun intended), but don't ignore the reality on the ground.
Reality doesn't appear to be your strongpoint.
Too busy having emotional fits.
I was born and have spent part of my life behind the Iron Curtain. I have lived the Socialist Dream. From first hand experience I can tell you it sucks. It is a nightmare.
I have seen bare store shelves. I have ran to the start because someone said that a delivery of toilet paper has arrived.
I have seen barren meat hooks.
I have also experienced a bastardized and socialized version of capitalism. With all its warts and faults it is still light years beyond socialism.
Have you lived both? I seriously doubt it. You just spout some bullshit that was shoved into your head by another social theorist. Neither of you have a clue.
BarkingCat: I have lived the Socialist Dream. It is a nightmare.
I don’t want to minimize the horrors of living under the Soviet Empire as a colony. For what I read and heard, it was horrible.
However, Goggle Central America in 1980’s. Most of their resources and food stolen to the point that they couldn’t feed themselves.
You need to compare apple to apples, again, the best way you can.
Most of their resources stolen to the point they couldn't feed themselves....
Was there a government running things down there? Yes, I agree, governments do tend to create that kind of environment.
It’s not government. It’s human nature.
I don’t have kids, but, if you did, you probably had this experience of the bigger brother taking from the smaller brother. Then, when you asked him why he did it, he will say something like this: He didn’t need it.
Government is there, if I can paraphrase James Madison the Father of the US Constitution, “to protect the minority of the opulent against the majority.”
If only government limited themselves to that and few other functions.
Unfortunately what is needed is a political system where it is impossible to accumulate political power.
Human nature is overall nasty. We are basically animal that at times overcome their natural instinct.
Socialism and communism sound great in theory but fail because of built in instinct. The Soviet block failed
because it was Plymouth colony on a grand scale.
No one owned anything so no one cared for anything.I am referring to bigger industry. People actually did own a lot if small businesses. They cared because it was theirs.
Amazingly enough there was enough freedom of the press to read articles how a lot of pigs died in their stys
because no one cleaned them so they basically
drowned in their own feces and urine... They were probably also starving.
I heard stories of ruined harvests because the weather turned bad in the evening and it was past working hours, so no one was willing to stay late and work into the night to take care of things.... This is before combines were prevalent.. Wheat or rye was first cut and the stacked in the field...If weather got bad and it was left stacked in the field then it rotted.
No magical powers involved. Just people taking care of themselves and looking after their own needs rather than expecting someone else to. That's pretty much it. There is no magic involved in property rights either.
Unless you want to be a hypocrite you are required to include a list of every transgression you have made against other human beings with every post you make whether it has any relevance to the issue at hand or not. That's the standard you demand.
I don't owe you shit, Jack. If and when I write an article with "We" in the title, then you can chime in.
Some animals are more equal than others, eh, Snowball?
When a group of people fail to recognize the property rights of another, there is war. When one side has a long history of recognizing property rights, and has thus built up a powerful industrial base, the aggressing side will lose the resulting conflict catastrophically. The indians warred with each other CONTINUOUSLY because none of them recognized ANY of the rights of the others. They would come in and steal food, women, and children, while murdering the men. They did the same to white settlers, and the retribution was biblical.
By the end, the Indians learned to leave white people the fuck alone, but by that time, they were mostly gone and largely confined to reservations.
Sadly, Indians on reservation continue to fail to respect property rights, preferring to live as communists. The result is all of the bad things that you hear about--alcoholism, child abuse, poverty, crime, etc.
You sure they wern't Vikings?
What an idiot. The reason they did not respect property rights was because the whole idea was completely foriegn to them. An Indian thought the notion that you owned the earth was absurd. They viewed the earth as the Mother or a part of yourself, Something that your short life on earth could never own. Giving the Island of Manhatten seems silly to them and the just took the beads and laughed as they viewed the earth as as something you could not own.
Your assumtion that its over is wrong. I have 60 Buffalo in a special field and a good set of barb wire cutters that I may never use but my grandson might and if not him, then his grandson will. Indians are just laughing as we have a history of centuries and your short life and the whiteys time being here is but a blip in time. You have been here only 250 years. After the oil is gone and the resources are depleted we will still be here. THRIVING.
You own nothing white boy and the day your heart quits beating it will dawn on you. Your short time here is temporary.
Happy Thanksgiving PILGRIM.
"The reason they did not respect property rights was because the whole idea was completely foriegn to them."
Uhh, ok. All that hippy dippy bullshit didn't stop you morons from murdering each other over what little garbage you managed to collect and the women and children of rival tribes that you wanted for slaves.
And sorry, idiot, but you don't have ANY history--only what the white man has given you. You didn't have writing. Without writing, there is no history. If you did, you would tell your children about the wonders your ancestors, the Mississippians, built. The great mound at Cahokia. But you can't, because you let that knowledge slip away into barbarism. The Aztecs had history, as did many other southern civilizations, but your savage peoples never adopted it. You so disrespected yourselves by your rejection of property rights that there was simply no time to develop writing, or pass it on between the tribes. Everyone had to spend all their time gathering food or fighting.
"Indians are just laughing"
No, I don't think they are. They are crying. Sobbing. In pain from their poverty. A poverty that is enforced on them by communism. Only those who flee the reservations are able to thrive.
fuck you, Poor white trash. Go check the siding on your trailer house or something.Last I heard there were 45 million of your Tribe who can't even feed themselves and 51 percent of you living in poverty. Glad they taught you to write so you can record that. Communism indeed.
Happy Thanksgiving PILGRIM
Those in modern day "poverty" are 1000 times wealthier than your ancestor's greatest warlord could ever dream of. And the welfare you are talking about should be taken away. That is the point of the article. Not that you could possibly comprehend that with your inferior communist mind.
If you have a history, please name one great leader from any north American tribe that died more than 50 years before the arrival of whites.
Their names and deeds are all lost to the sands of time, because you refuse to recognize basic human rights.
My Nation is not the one that is broke Pilgrim. Sure glad whitey came and taught us about human rights. I don't know how we ever managed without you.
Happy Thanksgiving
There was an anthropologist that theorized a
few decades ago the agriculture did not advance
men's quality of life; it actually made his life more difficult. Before I can culture men lived a hunter gatherer but after agriculture they settle down and worked the fields. Is hunter gatherer the men will go out and hunt every week or two. They would spend couple of days to get their prey and then return today camp with the meat. At this point the women would take over and prepare the meat as well other other foods they had gathered. This anthropologist estimates that people work less than 3 hours a day. After agriculture was developed men and women toiled around the fields and the stables for most of the day. In balance the quality of life that was led by hunter-gatherers was superior to that of those that the belt agriculture. Of course with of developing agriculture we will never the dance technologically and we've been stuck in the Stone Age.
Frankly if I had the option to o back to the 1600s and close a life of a pilgrim or Indian, I would definitely pick Indian.
Massasoit, Chief of the Wampanog tribe, granted the Pilgrims in Plymouth some land in return for the colonists with their 'thundersticks' to assist his tribe in raids against the neighboring Narragansett tribe who were raiding the Wampanogs for food and slaves.
That's the way the world goes around, even when you go around the world. Persecuted Christian fundamentalists on one side of the Atlantic become Murder Inc. on the other.
These hippie 'peace and love' periods pop up from time to time but they never stop mankind on their mission to murder and pillage their neighbors.
I suppose there's a lesson in unrestricted immigration of unassimilative types in all of this, but you would have to ask the Wampanogs and Narragansetts about what it is.
If you could find any.
>Stopping raiders/slavers
>Murder Inc
There is something legitimately wrong with your thought process.
Yet another bs thanksgiving equals capitalism article. Get your head out of your ass. The first govt recognition of thanks giving is basically a war memorial.
Then beat your sword into a plowshare.
Then beat your meat, while someone with a sword cuts your head off.
Get your head out of your ass, and recognize how life works.
idealized revisionist claptrap
A much more accurate quote of Goethe: "Not all that is presented to us as history has really happened; and what really happened did not actually happen the way it is presented to us; moreover, what really happened is only a small part of all that happened. Everything in history remains uncertain, the largest events as well as the smallest occurrence."
A more representive translation of his thinking... certainly... but,
Wer nicht von dreitausend Jahren
Sich weiß Rechenschaft zu geben,
Bleib im Dunkeln unerfahren,
Mag von Tag zu Tage leben.
idealized revisionist claptrap.
Much like the stylized holiday itself.
A group of individuals will always be stronger than a collective of people.
No workee, no eatee...
Why does ZH publish this kind of crap? I guess the definition of "free enterprise" and "private property" is stealing other people's lands and property, and then imposing your foreign government on them. It was not "private property" and "free enterprise" that allowed American growth, it was stealing all of the land and all of its resources and then using slaves as free labour. By ignoring these basic facts, the article is racist. Why does ZH keep publishing this kind of absolute crap?
The Soviets stole and murdered too and look at how successful they were (or weren't). Perhaps there's more at play than your simplistic view of history? Maybe you're the one spouting crap while demanding that everyone else should remain as ignorant as you?
They come out of the woodwork, don't they Billy?
I'll bet a dollar to a donut, every one has a degree. Really edumacated well.
It's a waste of fucking time arguing, but it does boggle the brain.
They come out of the woodwork, don't they Billy?
Yes they do. But they don't like the word "work." They consider it to be a micro-aggresion which violates their safe space.
MAYNARD - MORE WORKhttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TgecgpCfAYo&index=1&list=PLhBqvFTJCaGRJ3...
Native Americans didn't recognize private property. Nothing was stolen from them, because they didn't own anything. Rather, they continuously attempted to steal from white settlers, in addition to raping their women, stealing their children, and killing the men. Exactly as they had done to each other for hundreds of years.
Like the barbaric Aztecs who slaughtered thousands to feed the fucking sun, they reaped what they sowed, no more, no less.
According to the The Indian Wars of Pennsylvania by C. Hale Sipe the only account of the rape of a white woman by an Indian was made by Swedish settlers in the early seventeenth century. Whether that account is true or not no other exists in the history of Pennsylvania through the Indians' defeat in 1795.
You think they reported it when their women were raped? Sorry, reall men report nothing, they find the fucker and butcher him.
Yes, recorded history should always take a backseat to what you have imagined history to be. That''s not crazy at all.
"Why does ZH keep publishing this kind of absolute crap?"
Something in the US Constitution about free speech.
If you don't like it don't read it.
Thanksgiving. Where we celebrate the Original English invasion and colonization of North America by eating a bird the Natiives gave us to eat in good faith friendship and now live on Resevations. Im going to celebrate Turkey Day by dropping a couple of hundred bucks at the Indian Casino. Im sure they will rob me blind. The Indians finally learned if you are going to steal money, you have to put on a business suit and make it legal.
Wear lots of bead necklaces and wink at the waitresses. They love that shit.
Your use of the English language is an act of cultural appropriation.
But "appropriation" is my culture. Viking ya know.
That ship sailed long ago. Your culture is now one of BBC worship. Not talking about the television network.
Just talking about your dad. Gotcha.
https://youtu.be/fYTXRDtYzYc
Oh yeah. The "Native" Indians were such great peoople!
They were no more native than the English. They became "native after slaughtering the "previous natives".
Their way of life was continous warfare and treating women "as well" as the Muslims do.
"Competition for resources" is what life in this planet has always been about.
I'm sick of all the whining, PC crap and the "wish for a shining star" liberals.
Wake the hell up or you will be exterminated just like so many other "natives".
so basically, they would rather starve and die than work together and once they worked for themselves, not only was it great, but God himself blessed their actions. And so begins the history of murica.
No loony. They would not rather starve. They would rather someone else provide. That's human nature. Take the easy way, when it's available.
Now, when you form your society, it helps to understand the inherent natural laws that govern living things. Buck them, and you are a fool.
People are naturally lazy and selfish, by design or whatever.
A man will always work harder for himself. In the process, he tends to be bountiful, and can spare. Or sell. No worky, no eaty. What in the hell is wrong with that?
Unless you believe in unicorns or Uncle Sugar.
That is not human nature!
That is contemporary (should I say western?) human nature that is centered on wealth and gadgets.
Oh my freakin' Lord..
You might read Aesop's "The Grasshopper and the Ant". It's about 2500 years old; not sure if that fits in your definition of "contemporary (Western)" human nature.
Contemporary doesn't mean that it fell from the sky two days ago.
Yes, Aesop is very much a part of contemporary (Western) culture.
The "real reason... we celebrate a holiday" implies an objective reality, coupled with a quote from Goethe on the timeless lesson of history. I hope I'm not the only one who sees the irony.
Perhaps the author should not have forgotten some of the other lessons of the Flint School, or any other serious secondary school.
Holy shit!!??
as of 0954 there are seven comments and each one blasting the article. Dumbasses.
The point is not that WE have alowed our govt to steal from us, but that we do know the best way to achieve prosperity. The first settlers learned it the hard way, I suppose we are doomed to learn it the hard way too. Again.......
Interesting that you didn't share that info about property rights with the natives until after you'd stolen from them.
These kinds of delusions are remarkably useful...when you want to explain why libertardians are nucking futs to others.
So when are you sending me some money?
I just mail the checks. You gotta cash em, Squanto!
Indian giver.
Also interesting to read about Miles Standish and the "Standish Raid". He heard about a threat from the Natives but when he went to their village there was no threat. So he launched a Pre-emptive strike and murdered 2 Native leaders with a surprise attack at a meal.
Not surprisingly, trade with the Natives ground to a halt and was an additional hardship (i.e. more people starved to death than expected).
Asshole.
https://youtu.be/fYTXRDtYzYc
As if your opinion matters to anyone. You're just a fucking cuckold, like the rest of your "Viking" people. You'd rather bow down before the savage who comes for your property and your family than fight to defend them, and you are angry that anyone who DID fight gets glorified for it.
Disappear from this Earth along with your weakness worshiping ideology.
Famine is by far the best form of government. It makes a man govern and motivate himself far better than most other forms of so called government.
This is bullshit. The Puritans were an authoritarian centralized theocracy that posted armed guards at homes, essentially their settlements were prison camps. For goodness sake, read spme fucking history.
Please present your evidence that the Pilgrims did not engage in unsuccessful collective farming which led them to abandon the practice and adopt a different strategy that was more productive.
Uhh, if you read the article, they talked about that. That is what they did, and they starved because of it. Once they stopped, they prospered.
That wasn't Goethe, it was George Santayana; one of my favorite quotes.
The author of the article is a fucking idiot for botching the cliché Santayana quote.
By all means, let us have our Goethe moment, though:
"You must either conquer and rule or serve and lose, suffer or triumph, be the anvil or the hammer."
I love people who write long cynical arguments without the slightest idea of what they are talking about.
Harvest celebrations go back to before written records.
The Pilgrim stuff was mostly made up and it's an amalgam of stories.
George Washington created the first national one as a day of thanks for winning the revolution and getting a Contitution.
Lincoln Stole the idea during the Civil War. FDR stole it later.
It used to include a National Proclamation and prayer.
But, you guys go on thinking all of your anti American bullshit. It certainly makes you feel better about your work in the markets.
I prefer Burroughs take:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sLSveRGmpIE
Harvest was perfect time to throw a huge dinner party. I imagine all the women also worked together to bake, cure, salt, store food for winter, however they accomplished that must have required group effort.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thanksgiving_%28United_States%29#History
The "Pilgrim stuff" was most certainly not "made up".
The actual text of Bradford's Journal is open to interpretation.
The problems seem to have arisen because a new group of Colonists arrived with limited food supplies. The original colonists shared their food with these people.
Nothing about the elimination of the "common store".
Link to Text:
http://mith.umd.edu/eada/html/display.php?docs=bradford_history.xml&acti...
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 nourishing; 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.217.
On the other hand the old planters were affraid that their corne, when it was ripe, should be imparted to the newcommers, whose provissions which they brought with them they feared would fall short before the year wente aboute (as indeed it did). They came to the Govr and besought him that as it was before agreed that they should set corne for their perticuler, and accordingly they had taken extraordinary pains ther aboute, that they might freely injoye the same, and they would not have a bitte of the victails now come, but watee till harvest for their owne, and let the new-commers injoye what they had brought; they would have none of it, excepte they could purchase any of it of them by bargaine or exchainge. Their requeste was granted them, for it gave both sides good contente; for the new-commers were as much afraid that the hungrie planters would have eat up the provissions brought, and they should have fallen into the like condition.244.
This ship was in a shorte time laden with clapbord, by the help of many hands. Also they sente in her all the beaver and other furrs they had, and Mr. Winslow was sent over with her, to informe of all things, and procure such things as were thought needfull for their presente condition. By this time harvest was come, and in stead of famine, now God gave them plentie, and the face of things was changed, to the rejoysing of the harts of many, for which they blessed God. And the effect of their particuler planting was well scene, for all had, one way and other, pretty well to bring the year aboute, and some of the abler sorte and more industrious had to spare, and sell to others, so as any generall wante or famine hath not been amongst them since to this day.245.
GOD says:
Your bible is joo storytelling at it's worst. Wake the fuck up!
https://youtu.be/fYTXRDtYzYc
Fact is, if it would not have been Columbus, it would have been another more powerful clan looking for land to claim. Unfortunate but it happened in many nations including Mexico. We have been on earth for a very long time.
https://slmc.uottawa.ca/?q=european_colonization
Colonial BattlesThe Amerindians played a key role in the colonial battles between Great Britain and France. France's main allies were the Huron, followed by the Abenaki, Micmac, and Malecite, as well as many Algonquin. Britain's primary allies were the Five Nations of the Iroquois. As we saw earlier, the French formed alliances with some 23 nations and the English with 7, while 14 others remained neutral.
The first Iroquois war lasted nearly a century and ended with the Great Peace of Montréal in 1701. This treaty put an end to both a sixteen-year war and the English-Iroquois coalition. The Iroquois declared at that time that they "would accept neither the English tomahawk nor the French axe." The second conflict was the Seven Years' War (often called the French and Indian War), which ended only with the final defeat of New France in 1760. The last colonial war was fought in 1812–1814 following the U.S. War of Independence (or American Revolution)."
http://www.geographia.com/mexico/mexicohistory.htm
the reason columbus was sailing was to find another way around the middle east to india, he was willing to sail off the end of the "FLAT" earth to do so...so you see the islam scourge was doing the same crap back then...they've been lopping off heads for thousands of years, learn your history before you make a complete fool of your self, oh wait, you've already done so...carry on
That had nothing to do with Islam. They wanted another trade route because the Silk Road was closed by the collapse of the Mongol Empire.
Honestly, in that time period, I'd rather live in any Islamic area than in Europe. Much less likely to get burned at the stake.
SPOILER ALERT: All Abrahamic religions are extraordinarily violent, and only become non-violent when you ignore huge swaths of their respective holy books. "Fundamentalist" Christians are no such thing, as there are many, many people around that they are commanded to murder by the Bible.
The Incredible Bread Machine
https://mises.org/library/incredible-bread-machine-film
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EZX5aRF4HZM
ZH publishes junk history like this because its main source of traffic comes from angry anarcho-capitalists. Massachusetts is still called a COMMONWEALTH. It is a deep blue state with the lowest divorce rate and highest per-capita education level in the US. Before Obamacare, there was Romneycare in Massachusetts, an almost identical system. Massachusetts has a deep-seated culture of intelligent management of the common welfare of the state. This is most obvious in its deep commitment to public education and support for institutions of higher learning. It is not a free-fire zone for capitalism, the dark, Dickensian society ZH ranters dream about.
ZH didnt write it, Mises did, so you can get off Tylers back. They offer many views here so don't get too upset when it doesn't resonate with your world view.
I am still trying to understand what you are defending in MA? Common welfare? Romneycare? Public education? Haha...that's a good one. Yeah, it's a real stronghold of freedom, liberty and rugged individualism. Sounds more like a socialist nightmare.
Defending 'freeshit' and 'white-guilt'
So it seems until it goes broke as welfare states always do.
Get a load of this shill.
spoken like a true marxist...fuck you kantbelieveyou