Thanksgiving: The rest of the story

[Little-Acorn]

Except that isn't true.

TRANSLATION: I still can't refute it, but I'll double down on lying about it in hopes someone believes me.

Liberal tactics never change. Especially when they lose the argument.

 

[TheOldSchool]

53 people are not enough to determine the success or failure of any political system

 

[Little-Acorn]

53 people are not enough to determine the success or failure of any political system

The Pilgrims did exactly that, in ways so plain and obvious that nobody could miss it except a blinders-on liberal.

 

[TheOldSchool]

53 people are not enough to determine the success or failure of any political system

The Pilgrims did exactly that, in ways so plain and obvious that nobody could miss it except a blinders-on liberal.

Yes like witch burning. Only liberals would dare suggest that they probably shouldn't haven't burned all those people.

 

[edthecynic]

Another year has yet passed, and this bullshit is repeated...Saints be praised...

....and poor little moonshine still can't refute any of it. But he still keeps wailing and complaining.

But the lie is so obvious, how could you have missed it?

 

[owebo]

53 people are not enough to determine the success or failure of any political system

The Pilgrims did exactly that, in ways so plain and obvious that nobody could miss it except a blinders-on liberal.

Yes like witch burning. Only liberals would dare suggest that they probably shouldn't haven't burned all those people.

Yet they did.....strange.....

 

[NYcarbineer]

5 Facts About Thanksgiving Your History Teacher Left Out

 

[NYcarbineer]

By the OP's logic, the Indians should have never helped the colonists, because helping the poor and needy just encourages them to stay poor and needy.

 

[NYcarbineer]

The Indians helped the Pilgrims, for which they gave thanks. That is true... but it's not the only thing that happened.

After a very bad start, the Pilgrims also helped themselves... by realizing that their form of government was destroying the colony. And they got rid of it, just in time.

We'll have the usual bevy of liberal socialists insisting that since what the Pilgrims did at first, didn't meet 100% of the dictionary definition of "socialism" (it only achieved 90% ), they don't want us to call it that.

But the fact is, what these liberals are pushing today, has never worked... including the first time it was tried on this continent in 1623. Then, as now, it caused only division, discontent, starvation, and death. Not until they got rid of it, did prosperity begin.

-------------------------------------------

http://www.post-journal.com/page/content.detail/id/545415.html?nav=5071

Thanksgiving: Deliverance From Socialism

November 21, 2009
By Daniel McLaughlin

In the fall of the year 1623, William Bradford and the pilgrims who resided in Plymouth Plantation sat down for a thanksgiving feast. It was a celebration of a plentiful harvest. It hadn't been so in the preceding couple of years.

They had arrived in the new world in 1620. After the death of John Carver, the first governor of the colony, in April of 1621, Mr. Bradford was chosen as the second governor. From the start of their journey from England, he had kept a diary of their activities. They had early on decided on communal living and agreed to work all together for a common store of provisions and share equally in its use. He wrote that this community was found to breed much confusion and discontent. It retarded employment that would have been to their benefit and comfort. "For the young men that were most able and fit for labour and service did repine that they should spend their time and strength to worke for other men's wives and children, with out any recompence." The strong and productive didn't get any more food or provisions than the unproductive, and that was thought injustice. The older and weaker thought it indignity and disrespect to them to have to do the same amount of work as the younger and stronger. He wrote, "for men's wives to be commanded to doe service for other men, as dresing their meate, washing their cloaths, etc., they deemed it a kind of slavery, neither could many husbands well brooke it."

In other words, people produced less and were discontented when they were forced to work for the benefit of others, at the expense of their own well-being. Plymouth Colony had a first hand taste of the effects of socialism on a community. As Bradford described it, few crops were planted or harvested. For a couple of years, the people languished in misery, and many died.

In 1923, they decided to try something different to get a better crop and raise themselves up. The solution was to give each family its own plot of land, and to hold them responsible for their own welfare. The idea was that, if each family was allowed to prosper according to its own efforts, each person would have the incentive to work harder to plant and harvest more. Again in the words of Governor Bradford: "This had very good success; for it made all hands very industrious, so as much more corne was planted than other ways would have been by any means the Governor or any other could use, and saved him a great deall of trouble, and gave far better content. The women now wente willingly into the field, and tooke their little-ones with them to set corne, which before would allege weakness, and inability; whom to have compelled would have been thought great tyranny and oppression."

William Bradford and the colonists had made a profound discovery. They had, in effect, conducted a controlled experiment in political organization. In everything other than property rights and personal responsibility, they continued as before. Under socialism, or communal living, or the Marxist philosophy of "From each according to his abilities, to each according to his need," the community languished. There was little incentive to produce more than the average. Thus the average declined and starvation and deprivation resulted.

Under conditions of private property, where families trusted in their own abilities, and "every man to his own particular," the people began to prosper. Bradford wrote in his journal several decades later that from that time on, they never suffered from deprivation, but rather the community improved and flourished.

That experiment has been conducted many times over the course of centuries, and indeed the whole of human history. The results are always ultimately the same. Where people are free to enjoy the benefits of their own labors and property, there is progress and plenty. Where property is subject to arbitrary confiscation, there is no incentive to produce. There is no incentive to try to accumulate wealth against unforeseen hardships of the future, and there is dependence, degradation and, ultimately, slavery.

This Thanksgiving season is a good time for reflection. Americans are traveling down a road toward the first Plymouth, the collectivism that leads to misery. As for me, I think we should be turning back toward the second Plymouth, toward personal responsibility and the resulting prosperity. Then we can join Governor Bradford in Thanksgiving for deliverance from the catastrophe called socialism.

Where's the starvation in America now?

 

[Rexx Taylor]

If Hillary was elected, she would of declared that all Turkeys are decendents of the white colonialists of the 18th Century, and that they all need to have their heads chopped off and put into a freezer for next years thanksgiving.

 

[guno]

The white christian savages and the Native Americans
From the Smithsonian , real history


"The Antichrist. The haunting figure presaging the Apocalypse from the Book of Revelation plays an important part in Bailyn’s explanation of the European settlers’ descent into unrestrained savagery. The key passage on this question comes late in his new book when Bailyn makes explicit a connection I had not seen before: between the physical savagery the radical dissenting Protestant settlers of America wreaked on the original inhabitants, and the intellectual savagery of their polemical attacks on the church and state authorities they fled from in Europe—and the savagery of vicious insult and vile denunciation they wreaked upon each other as well."




Read more: The Shocking Savagery of America’s Early History | History | Smithsonian
Give the gift of Smithsonian magazine for only $12! http://bit.ly/1cGUiGv
Follow us: @SmithsonianMag on Twitter

The Shocking Savagery of America’s Early History | History | Smithsonian

 

[owebo]

The Indians helped the Pilgrims, for which they gave thanks. That is true... but it's not the only thing that happened.

After a very bad start, the Pilgrims also helped themselves... by realizing that their form of government was destroying the colony. And they got rid of it, just in time.

We'll have the usual bevy of liberal socialists insisting that since what the Pilgrims did at first, didn't meet 100% of the dictionary definition of "socialism" (it only achieved 90% ), they don't want us to call it that.

But the fact is, what these liberals are pushing today, has never worked... including the first time it was tried on this continent in 1623. Then, as now, it caused only division, discontent, starvation, and death. Not until they got rid of it, did prosperity begin.

-------------------------------------------

http://www.post-journal.com/page/content.detail/id/545415.html?nav=5071

Thanksgiving: Deliverance From Socialism

November 21, 2009
By Daniel McLaughlin

In the fall of the year 1623, William Bradford and the pilgrims who resided in Plymouth Plantation sat down for a thanksgiving feast. It was a celebration of a plentiful harvest. It hadn't been so in the preceding couple of years.

They had arrived in the new world in 1620. After the death of John Carver, the first governor of the colony, in April of 1621, Mr. Bradford was chosen as the second governor. From the start of their journey from England, he had kept a diary of their activities. They had early on decided on communal living and agreed to work all together for a common store of provisions and share equally in its use. He wrote that this community was found to breed much confusion and discontent. It retarded employment that would have been to their benefit and comfort. "For the young men that were most able and fit for labour and service did repine that they should spend their time and strength to worke for other men's wives and children, with out any recompence." The strong and productive didn't get any more food or provisions than the unproductive, and that was thought injustice. The older and weaker thought it indignity and disrespect to them to have to do the same amount of work as the younger and stronger. He wrote, "for men's wives to be commanded to doe service for other men, as dresing their meate, washing their cloaths, etc., they deemed it a kind of slavery, neither could many husbands well brooke it."

In other words, people produced less and were discontented when they were forced to work for the benefit of others, at the expense of their own well-being. Plymouth Colony had a first hand taste of the effects of socialism on a community. As Bradford described it, few crops were planted or harvested. For a couple of years, the people languished in misery, and many died.

In 1923, they decided to try something different to get a better crop and raise themselves up. The solution was to give each family its own plot of land, and to hold them responsible for their own welfare. The idea was that, if each family was allowed to prosper according to its own efforts, each person would have the incentive to work harder to plant and harvest more. Again in the words of Governor Bradford: "This had very good success; for it made all hands very industrious, so as much more corne was planted than other ways would have been by any means the Governor or any other could use, and saved him a great deall of trouble, and gave far better content. The women now wente willingly into the field, and tooke their little-ones with them to set corne, which before would allege weakness, and inability; whom to have compelled would have been thought great tyranny and oppression."

William Bradford and the colonists had made a profound discovery. They had, in effect, conducted a controlled experiment in political organization. In everything other than property rights and personal responsibility, they continued as before. Under socialism, or communal living, or the Marxist philosophy of "From each according to his abilities, to each according to his need," the community languished. There was little incentive to produce more than the average. Thus the average declined and starvation and deprivation resulted.

Under conditions of private property, where families trusted in their own abilities, and "every man to his own particular," the people began to prosper. Bradford wrote in his journal several decades later that from that time on, they never suffered from deprivation, but rather the community improved and flourished.

That experiment has been conducted many times over the course of centuries, and indeed the whole of human history. The results are always ultimately the same. Where people are free to enjoy the benefits of their own labors and property, there is progress and plenty. Where property is subject to arbitrary confiscation, there is no incentive to produce. There is no incentive to try to accumulate wealth against unforeseen hardships of the future, and there is dependence, degradation and, ultimately, slavery.

This Thanksgiving season is a good time for reflection. Americans are traveling down a road toward the first Plymouth, the collectivism that leads to misery. As for me, I think we should be turning back toward the second Plymouth, toward personal responsibility and the resulting prosperity. Then we can join Governor Bradford in Thanksgiving for deliverance from the catastrophe called socialism.

Where's the starvation in America now?

Hint: look in blue areas.....

 

[Moonglow]

Another year has yet passed, and this bullshit is repeated...Saints be praised...

The only ingredient missing is the one jack ass that insists the Pilgrims came straight to this land to escape religious persecution.

It isn't Thanksgiving until someone say that.

They were fleeing political persecution, the way the Pilgrims ran the govt. after the execution of the king, they were tyrants...

 

[Moonglow]

Another year has yet passed, and this bullshit is repeated...Saints be praised...

i heard that in some schools, the kids in grades 1-6 are being taught that the white male pilgrims were all racist white crackers and once they settled into plymouth mass in 1620/21, they started making black people pick cotton and hunt down/capture turkeys.

I bet the kids wonder where their beer is, just like the Pilgrims kid's had to drink..

 

[Disir]

Except that isn't true.

TRANSLATION: I still can't refute it, but I'll double down on lying about it in hopes someone believes me.

Liberal tactics never change. Especially when they lose the argument.

But, I did refute it.

 

[Disir]

Another year has yet passed, and this bullshit is repeated...Saints be praised...

The only ingredient missing is the one jack ass that insists the Pilgrims came straight to this land to escape religious persecution.

It isn't Thanksgiving until someone say that.

They were fleeing political persecution, the way the Pilgrims ran the govt. after the execution of the king, they were tyrants...

They weren't fleeing anything.

 

[Moonglow]

Another year has yet passed, and this bullshit is repeated...Saints be praised...

The only ingredient missing is the one jack ass that insists the Pilgrims came straight to this land to escape religious persecution.

It isn't Thanksgiving until someone say that.

They were fleeing political persecution, the way the Pilgrims ran the govt. after the execution of the king, they were tyrants...

They weren't fleeing anything.

yet needed a charter to leave, so they must have been leaving for some reason...

 

[Iceweasel]

By the OP's logic, the Indians should have never helped the colonists, because helping the poor and needy just encourages them to stay poor and needy.

That's a bizarre interpretation, but common for you. The settlers shared their bounty with the natives after they got their act together. So all prospered!

 

[Anathema]

By the OP's logic, the Indians should have never helped the colonists, because helping the poor and needy just encourages them to stay poor and needy.

No they shouldn't have. I think the residents of every reservation in this country would attest to that.

 

[Disir]

Another year has yet passed, and this bullshit is repeated...Saints be praised...

The only ingredient missing is the one jack ass that insists the Pilgrims came straight to this land to escape religious persecution.

It isn't Thanksgiving until someone say that.

They were fleeing political persecution, the way the Pilgrims ran the govt. after the execution of the king, they were tyrants...

They weren't fleeing anything.

yet needed a charter to leave, so they must have been leaving for some reason...

They spent a decade in Holland before leaving. They left for opportunity. It was about cash.