Thanksgiving: The rest of the story

[Iceweasel]

The Indians that saved the Pilgrims lived in a communal society.

Yeah....now they live on reservations, drunk and in poverty and their kids have no hope.....

How did that communal society work out for them.....?

It doesn't matter how many lives were destroyed. It's the good intentions that matter. It warms the heart of the do gooder liberal so let's keep our priorities straight.

 

[2aguy]

The Indians that saved the Pilgrims lived in a communal society.

Yeah....now they live on reservations, drunk and in poverty and their kids have no hope.....

How did that communal society work out for them.....?

It doesn't matter how many lives were destroyed. It's the good intentions that matter. It warms the heart of the do gooder liberal so let's keep our priorities straight.

Everytime a life is ruined with good intentions...a liberal gets his wings....

 

[edthecynic]

The settlers shared their bounty with the natives after they got their act together. So all prospered!

Again that is the obvious lie, and you missed it again.

An obvious lie because some idiot on the net doesn't like the truth that rubs his religion the wrong way?

No, an obvious lie because someone knows the dates of historical events and you obviously don't.

The Racist Right can't have a non white non Christian do anything good and helpful to white Christians, so your MessiahRushie fabricated a way to attack Socialism and praise "biblical" Capitalism by claiming the Pilgrims were thanking God for the bounty of Capitalism.
Now in order for your Limbaugh lie to work you need time for Socialism to have failed harvests before the bountiful Capitalistic harvest. Thus in your OP the actual 1621 First Thanksgiving was moved in your revisionist history lie to 1623.

 

[Disir]

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.

And the US was a rich nation..

Nobody said they were brilliant.

Was they under the guidance of the Lord?

Either that or 'shrooms.

 

[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.

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!

The conservative belief, well established, is that help for the poor does more harm than good - it makes them lazy and dependent.

Eh?

Teach a man to fish, and they will never vote democrat again.....

Jesus was a socialist, moron.

 

[owebo]

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!

The conservative belief, well established, is that help for the poor does more harm than good - it makes them lazy and dependent.

Eh?

Teach a man to fish, and they will never vote democrat again.....

Jesus was a socialist, moron.

If you say so....

 

[2aguy]

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!

The conservative belief, well established, is that help for the poor does more harm than good - it makes them lazy and dependent.

Eh?

Teach a man to fish, and they will never vote democrat again.....

Jesus was a socialist, moron.

No...he wasn't.....he did not demand that the government come in and control everything.......and he did not demand that the government take from some to give to others....he preached private good works.....done of free will.....not government coercion you mope....

 

[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.

The Indians that saved the Pilgrims lived in a communal society.

Yeah....now they live on reservations, drunk and in poverty and their kids have no hope.....

How did that communal society work out for them.....?

Had the Europeans left them alone, they would have been fine.

 

[2aguy]

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.

The Indians that saved the Pilgrims lived in a communal society.

Yeah....now they live on reservations, drunk and in poverty and their kids have no hope.....

How did that communal society work out for them.....?

Had the Europeans left them alone, they would have been fine.

Yes....they would still be living in a stone age society....like some of those tribes in South America...living to the ripe old age of 20....and having 75% of their kids die before the age of 5......

if Indians in this country stopped relying on the government...they would be as successful as other communities around the country...they are the stark example of what complete, government dependence does to a human being....

 

[Moonglow]

Look at Heaven in the Bible....The only one that possesses anything is God..

 

[2aguy]

Look at Heaven in the Bible....The only one that possesses anything is God..

Ummmm...he kind of made everything...

Typical left winger...you even want to take God's stuff....

 

[Moonglow]

Look at Heaven in the Bible....The only one that possesses anything is God..

Ummmm...he kind of made everything...

Typical left winger...you even want to take God's stuff....

Typical right winger, thinking that an entity created everything..

 

[Alex.]

Look at Heaven in the Bible....The only one that possesses anything is God..

Ummmm...he kind of made everything...

Typical left winger...you even want to take God's stuff....

Just remember you did not build it, someone else made it happen.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Every year you tell the exact same lies.

Not a lie. It's all recorded in Bradford's journal.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Every year you tell the exact same lies.

Wrong. The colonist tried socialism and when that failed they went with capitalism.....and the rest is history.

Except that isn't true.

Prove it.

 

[Disir]

Look at Heaven in the Bible....The only one that possesses anything is God..

Ummmm...he kind of made everything...

Typical left winger...you even want to take God's stuff....

Just remember you did not build it, someone else made it happen.

Lol. And there it is. I was waiting for it.

 

[Iceweasel]

The settlers shared their bounty with the natives after they got their act together. So all prospered!

Again that is the obvious lie, and you missed it again.

An obvious lie because some idiot on the net doesn't like the truth that rubs his religion the wrong way?

No, an obvious lie because someone knows the dates of historical events and you obviously don't.

The Racist Right can't have a non white non Christian do anything good and helpful to white Christians, so your MessiahRushie fabricated a way to attack Socialism and praise "biblical" Capitalism by claiming the Pilgrims were thanking God for the bounty of Capitalism.
Now in order for your Limbaugh lie to work you need time for Socialism to have failed harvests before the bountiful Capitalistic harvest. Thus in your OP the actual 1621 First Thanksgiving was moved in your revisionist history lie to 1623.

You puked all over yourself. Again.


Pilgrim Hall Museum - About the Pilgrims - The "First Thanksgiving" at Plymouth
The Pilgrims did not call this harvest festival a "Thanksgiving," although they did give thanks to God. To them, a Day of Thanksgiving was purely religious. The first recorded religious Day of Thanksgiving was held in 1623 in response to a providential rainfall.

 

[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!

The conservative belief, well established, is that help for the poor does more harm than good - it makes them lazy and dependent.

Eh?

Teach a man to fish, and they will never vote democrat again.....

Jesus was a socialist, moron.

Jesus was a socialism moron? Nope, not even a socialist. According the the text anyway. Last thing he wanted was for government to replace God. Moron.

 

[DOTR]

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.

The Pilgrims didnt burn any witches. I dont think they brought any over.

 

[DOTR]

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!

The conservative belief, well established, is that help for the poor does more harm than good - it makes them lazy and dependent.

Eh?

Wrong. *government* help for the poor does far far more harm than good.