APP - As promised - The real story of Thanksgiving - Not the liberal myth

Teflon Don

Teflon Don

I'm back baby
I promised everyone yesterday that I would post the REAL story of Thanksgiving. And here it is.

First I will share with you the liberal mythology that has been spread over these last 100 years


Liberal Myth

The Mayflower pilgrims landed in New England in the early 17th century, and they almost died but for the generosity of the indians who taught them how to hunt, plant corn etc. The Pilgrims had a feast to thank the indians for sharing their way of life. Then of course the Pilgrims raped and pillaged and killed the indians, conquering their land and taking their earthly goods.

The Real Story of Thanksgiving

The Church of England under King James I was persecuting anyone and everyone who did not recognize its absolute civil and spiritual authority. Those who believed in freedom of religion were hunted down, imprisoned and in come cases they were executed for exercising those beliefs. Those who did not want to live under the tyranny of King James I chose to go to Holland and after many years decided to go to the New World in order to live and worship God as they saw fit.

On August 1, 1620, the Mayflower set sail with 102 passengers, including forty Pilgrims led by William Bradford. On the journey, Bradford set up an agreement, a contract, that established just and equal laws for all members of the new community, irrespective of their religious beliefs. The Pilgrims were devoutly religious, and they came here to establish freedom of religion; they fled across an entire ocean to escape religious persecution.

When the Pilgrims landed in New England in November, according to Bradford's detailed journal they found a cold, barren, desolate wilderness. During the first winter, half the Pilgrims -- including Bradford's own wife -- died of either starvation, sickness or exposure. Many of them lived on the Mayflower while houses and shelter were being built. When spring finally came, Indians taught the settlers how to plant corn, fish for cod and skin beavers for coats. Life improved for the Pilgrims, but they were not yet prospering.

You will notice that this is in keeping with the modern version of liberal mythology, the problem is that liberal mythology stops here and doesn't tell the rest of the story.

The original Thanksgiving was a thanks to God. It was not a thanks to the Indians. The Pilgrims thanked God.

But there is even more to the story and this is one of the biggest parts that leftists omit.

In order to fund their journey, the Pilgrims had entered into a contract with merchant-sponsors which obviously put them in the merchant sponsors debt. They entered into contracts with these merchant sponsors that called for everything they produced to go into a common store and each member of the community was entitled to one common share.

All of the land they cleared and the houses they built belong to the community as well. They were going to distribute it equally. Everybody was going to get an equal share of what everybody combined produced. Nobody owned anything. If you are saying to yourself that this sounds like socialism you would be correct, although they didn't call it socialism, they called it "community".

Bradford, who had become the new governor of the colony, saw that this collectivism was as costly and destructive to the Pilgrims as that first harsh winter, which had taken so many lives. From his own journal, Bradford wrote 'The experience that we had in this common course and condition, tried sundry years...that by taking away property, and bringing community into a common wealth, would make them happy and flourishing -- as if they were wiser than God,' 'For this community [so far as it was] was found to breed much confusion and discontent, and retard much employment that would have been to their benefit and comfort. For young men that were most able and fit for labor and service did repine that they should spend their time and strength to work for other men's wives and children without any recompense, that was thought injustice.' For those of you who don't understand English, he is saying the opposite of Marx' "From each according to his ability to each according to his need". So Bradford decided to assign a plot of land to each family to work and manage. Whatever they produced was theirs. Anything in excess they could sell or share or do whatever they wanted with.

And what was the result of leaving people to their own devices and labor? Well Bradford writes about that as well

'This had very good success,' wrote Bradford [in his journal], 'for it made all hands industrious, so as much more corn was planted than otherwise would have been.'

In fact they became so prosperous, that in no time they were setting up trading posts with the indians. They paid off their debts to the merchants in London. And word spread of their success and prosperity such that more and more Europeans were attracted to this new land

So you see Ladies and Gentleman. The original Pilgrims experimented with socialism and it was a dismal failure. Fortunately, they learned their lesson and unleashed the power of the free market and all prospered.

So the liberal mythology is only partially correct and leaves out some major important points that completely change the narrative

1) Thanksgiving was a day to thank God for their blessings. Not the indians
2) The Pilgrims experimented with socialism and failed. They tried the free market and prospered
3) The Pilgrims did not pillage the indians. The Pilgrims became trading partners with the indians.
 
Teflon Don said:
I promised everyone yesterday that I would post the REAL story of Thanksgiving. And here it is.

First I will share with you the liberal mythology that has been spread over these last 100 years


Liberal Myth

The Mayflower pilgrims landed in New England in the early 17th century, and they almost died but for the generosity of the indians who taught them how to hunt, plant corn etc. The Pilgrims had a feast to thank the indians for sharing their way of life. Then of course the Pilgrims raped and pillaged and killed the indians, conquering their land and taking their earthly goods.

The Real Story of Thanksgiving

The Church of England under King James I was persecuting anyone and everyone who did not recognize its absolute civil and spiritual authority. Those who believed in freedom of religion were hunted down, imprisoned and in come cases they were executed for exercising those beliefs. Those who did not want to live under the tyranny of King James I chose to go to Holland and after many years decided to go to the New World in order to live and worship God as they saw fit.

On August 1, 1620, the Mayflower set sail with 102 passengers, including forty Pilgrims led by William Bradford. On the journey, Bradford set up an agreement, a contract, that established just and equal laws for all members of the new community, irrespective of their religious beliefs. The Pilgrims were devoutly religious, and they came here to establish freedom of religion; they fled across an entire ocean to escape religious persecution.

When the Pilgrims landed in New England in November, according to Bradford's detailed journal they found a cold, barren, desolate wilderness. During the first winter, half the Pilgrims -- including Bradford's own wife -- died of either starvation, sickness or exposure. Many of them lived on the Mayflower while houses and shelter were being built. When spring finally came, Indians taught the settlers how to plant corn, fish for cod and skin beavers for coats. Life improved for the Pilgrims, but they were not yet prospering.

You will notice that this is in keeping with the modern version of liberal mythology, the problem is that liberal mythology stops here and doesn't tell the rest of the story.

The original Thanksgiving was a thanks to God. It was not a thanks to the Indians. The Pilgrims thanked God.

But there is even more to the story and this is one of the biggest parts that leftists omit.

In order to fund their journey, the Pilgrims had entered into a contract with merchant-sponsors which obviously put them in the merchant sponsors debt. They entered into contracts with these merchant sponsors that called for everything they produced to go into a common store and each member of the community was entitled to one common share.

All of the land they cleared and the houses they built belong to the community as well. They were going to distribute it equally. Everybody was going to get an equal share of what everybody combined produced. Nobody owned anything. If you are saying to yourself that this sounds like socialism you would be correct, although they didn't call it socialism, they called it "community".

Bradford, who had become the new governor of the colony, saw that this collectivism was as costly and destructive to the Pilgrims as that first harsh winter, which had taken so many lives. From his own journal, Bradford wrote 'The experience that we had in this common course and condition, tried sundry years...that by taking away property, and bringing community into a common wealth, would make them happy and flourishing -- as if they were wiser than God,' 'For this community [so far as it was] was found to breed much confusion and discontent, and retard much employment that would have been to their benefit and comfort. For young men that were most able and fit for labor and service did repine that they should spend their time and strength to work for other men's wives and children without any recompense, that was thought injustice.' For those of you who don't understand English, he is saying the opposite of Marx' "From each according to his ability to each according to his need". So Bradford decided to assign a plot of land to each family to work and manage. Whatever they produced was theirs. Anything in excess they could sell or share or do whatever they wanted with.

And what was the result of leaving people to their own devices and labor? Well Bradford writes about that as well

'This had very good success,' wrote Bradford [in his journal], 'for it made all hands industrious, so as much more corn was planted than otherwise would have been.'

In fact they became so prosperous, that in no time they were setting up trading posts with the indians. They paid off their debts to the merchants in London. And word spread of their success and prosperity such that more and more Europeans were attracted to this new land

So you see Ladies and Gentleman. The original Pilgrims experimented with socialism and it was a dismal failure. Fortunately, they learned their lesson and unleashed the power of the free market and all prospered.

So the liberal mythology is only partially correct and leaves out some major important points that completely change the narrative

1) Thanksgiving was a day to thank God for their blessings. Not the indians
2) The Pilgrims experimented with socialism and failed. They tried the free market and prospered
3) The Pilgrims did not pillage the indians. The Pilgrims became trading partners with the indians.
Click to expand...
Oh Lord. Someone trots out this Rush Limpball hack piece every Thankgiving, usually someone who has never actually bothered to read the real history. There's one problem with Limpballs little propaganda piece. It's completely devoid of fact.

#1. The Pilgrims didn't come here as refuges fleeing religious persecution. They came over on a company charter.
#2. Though it is true that the Pilgrims owned collective property called "The Common Course" that was due to company orders from the Charter they were indebted too. That is, the Charter owned the property, i.e. A corporation. Thus the Common Course wasn't socialism as we know it and was in fact Capitalism.
#3. The Pilgrims did not starve under "The Common Course" and in fact they prospered and continued to use "The Common Course" systems for long after they had the famous Thanksgiving dinner with the local Pequad Indians. The common course was abandoned not because it didn't work. It worked fine and the Pilgrims prospered under it. It was abandoned because it was unpopular. All the profits went to the Company Charter that owned "The Common Course" and not the Pilgrims. The "Common Course" was abandoned simply because it was unpopular with the Pilgrims.
#4. The Pilgrims didn't prosper because they adopted "Capitalism". They were a Capitalist venture to begin with. They starved because they were incompetent farmers trying to raise crops in an unfamiliar geography and climate. They starved until friendly Pequad Indians showed them how to use more affective farming methods. It was learning these new agricultural methods that was responsible for the Pilgrims prosperity.
#5. The Pilgrims repaid the friendly Pequad Indian later by murdering their entire village and confiscating their property. The Pilgrims did not establish trade with the Pequads. They were farmers not traders. They murdered the Pequads and took their land.

There are no facts in Limpballs propaganda piece other than the Pilgrims use of the "Common Course" system and even that is mislabeled as "socialism". Everything else in this piece is a figment of Limpballs imagination. It never happened.
 
Last edited:
Mott the Hoople said:
Oh Lord. Someone trots out this Rush Limpball hack piece every Thankgiving, usually someone who has never actually bothered to read the real history. There's one problem with Limpballs little propaganda piece. It's completely devoid of fact.

#1. The Pilgrims didn't come here as refuges fleeing religious persecution. They came over on a company charter.
#2. Though it is true that the Pilgrims owned collective property called "The Common Course" that was due to company orders from the Charter they were indebted too. That is, the Charter owned the property, i.e. A corporation. Thus the Common Course wasn't socialism as we know it and was in fact Capitalism.
#3. The Pilgrims did not starve under "The Common Course" and in fact they prospered and continued to use "The Common Course" systems for long after they had the famous Thanksgiving dinner with the local Pequad Indians. The common course was abandoned not because it didn't work. It worked fine and the Pilgrims prospered under it. It was abandoned because it was unpopular. All the profits went to the Company Charter that owned "The Common Course" and not the Pilgrims. The "Common Course" was abandoned simply because it was unpopular with the Pilgrims.
#4. The Pilgrims didn't prosper because they adopted "Capitalism". They were a Capitalist venture to begin with. They starved because they were incompetent farmers trying to raise crops in an unfamiliar geography and climate. They starved until friendly Pequad Indians showed them how to use more affective farming methods. It was learning these new agricultural methods that was responsible for the Pilgrims prosperity.
#5. The Pilgrims repaid the friendly Pequad Indian later by murdering their entire village and confiscating their property. The Pilgrims did not establish trade with the Pequads. They were farmers not traders. They murdered the Pequads and took their land.

There are no facts in Limpballs propaganda piece other than the Pilgrims use of the "Common Course" system and even that is mislabeled as "socialism". Everything else in this piece is a figment of Limpballs imagination. It never happened.
Click to expand...

Apparently you didn't read what I wrote. I specifically said that they were funded by others, but they were fleeing religious persecution. I also said that the merchants forced the common store. It was still a tenant of socialism in that the INDIVIDUAL could keep that which they produced.

It is all documented in Bradfords diaries. But I know that you have been conditioned to think ill of the Pilgrims. I had no intention of changing your mind.
 
I Love America said:
Apparently you didn't read what I wrote. I specifically said that they were funded by others, but they were fleeing religious persecution. I also said that the merchants forced the common store. It was still a tenant of socialism in that the INDIVIDUAL could keep that which they produced.

It is all documented in Bradfords diaries. But I know that you have been conditioned to think ill of the Pilgrims. I had no intention of changing your mind.
Click to expand...
Nonsense on your part. I have no axe to grind with the Pilgrims. I just simply debunked Limpballs article for what it was. Propaganda devoid of fact. Why don't you try reading the original source materials on the Pilgrim Colonist then come back and we can have an informed discussion.
 
Mott the Hoople said:
Nonsense on your part. I have no axe to grind with the Pilgrims. I just simply debunked Limpballs article for what it was. Propaganda devoid of fact. Why don't you try reading the original source materials on the Pilgrim Colonist then come back and we can have an informed discussion.
Click to expand...

You didn't read what I wrote.

I specifically pointed out that it was the merchant sponsors that forced this upon them, yet you seemed to think that I didn't.

So you are arguing with me while agreeing with me.

I would just rather accept your concession
 
Mott the Hoople said:
Oh Lord. Someone trots out this Rush Limpball hack piece every Thankgiving, usually someone who has never actually bothered to read the real history. There's one problem with Limpballs little propaganda piece. It's completely devoid of fact.

#1. The Pilgrims didn't come here as refuges fleeing religious persecution. They came over on a company charter.
Click to expand...
The story notes that they had signed contracts with a company that forced them into this form of government. So... Yeah. The reality is people who were persecuted in the country they came from left, then in hope they could find a new land where they could worship as they chose they signed a contract with a company.
#2. Though it is true that the Pilgrims owned collective property called "The Common Course" that was due to company orders from the Charter they were indebted too. That is, the Charter owned the property, i.e. A corporation. Thus the Common Course wasn't socialism as we know it and was in fact Capitalism.
Click to expand...
Which the story stated. However, whether it was due to contractual obligations the fact was that the people were treated to life as it was supposed to be in the USSR...

#3. The Pilgrims did not starve under "The Common Course" and in fact they prospered and continued to use "The Common Course" systems for long after they had the famous Thanksgiving dinner with the local Pequad Indians. The common course was abandoned not because it didn't work. It worked fine and the Pilgrims prospered under it. It was abandoned because it was unpopular. All the profits went to the Company Charter that owned "The Common Course" and not the Pilgrims. The "Common Course" was abandoned simply because it was unpopular with the Pilgrims.
Click to expand...

Who believed that others prospering from their work was unjust. As the story stated. The reality was the governor kept his journal and informs us that they didn't have a chance at prospering until he pushed the limits of the contract and the people were allowed to keep some of the fruits of their own labor.
#4. The Pilgrims didn't prosper because they adopted "Capitalism". They were a Capitalist venture to begin with. They starved because they were incompetent farmers trying to raise crops in an unfamiliar geography and climate. They starved until friendly Pequad Indians showed them how to use more affective farming methods. It was learning these new agricultural methods that was responsible for the Pilgrims prosperity.
Click to expand...
Except they weren't. The government of the land pushed on them by the company allowed them no ownership. They were treated to a socialist experiment. The story did note that the Indians helped them, so the portion of your apologia is a wash.

#5. The Pilgrims repaid the friendly Pequad Indian later by murdering their entire village and confiscating their property. The Pilgrims did not establish trade with the Pequads. They were farmers not traders. They murdered the Pequads and took their land.
Click to expand...
They signed a peace treaty with them, later immigrants were the cause of slaughter not these ones.

There are no facts in Limpballs propaganda piece other than the Pilgrims use of the "Common Course" system and even that is mislabeled as "socialism". Everything else in this piece is a figment of Limpballs imagination. It never happened.
Click to expand...

None of the facts you listed were not included in the story from Rush other than your last "fact" which wasn't a fact.
 
There is nothing factual in Limpballs propaganda bit Damo. It is a 21st century right wing anachronism and it grossly distorts reality, fact and it doesn't even get the sequence of events as they actually occurred correct. Your also wrong about the Pilgrims murdering the village of Pequads who saved their butts. It was not done by later immogrants.
 
Mott the Hoople said:
There is nothing factual in Limpballs propaganda bit Damo. It is a 21st century right wing anachronism and it grossly distorts reality, fact and it doesn't even get the sequence of events as they actually occurred correct. Your also wrong about the Pilgrims murdering the village of Pequads who saved their butts. It was not done by later immogrants.
Click to expand...

With the exception of the part about the Pilgrims killing the Indians, you pretty much to.d the same story I did.

I know it is hard for you to admit

Also don't forget. The Pilgrims were thanking God, not the Indians.
 
And no, I wasn't wrong about later immigrants. Even the websites with the entirely fabricated story speak of a native "slave" they brought with them that negotiated the treaty.

The reality is, every bit of your story was the same as the OP, except the part that wasn't factual.
 
The first generation of Puritan settlers in New England were not much interested in contact with outside peoples. Because they were inward looking, they didn't have a calling to try and convert or interfere with the Natives. It was the subsequent generations whose outlook changed which ultimately did the damage, as Damo pointed out.
 
Damocles said:
And no, I wasn't wrong about later immigrants. Even the websites with the entirely fabricated story speak of a native "slave" they brought with them that negotiated the treaty.

The reality is, every bit of your story was the same as the OP, except the part that wasn't factual.
Click to expand...
oh I see so John Winthrops (founder of Massachussets Bay Colony) massacre of the Narranganset Indians of Brock Island never happened and the exterpation of entire Pequot villages by John Mason, as documented by the same William Bradford, were just a figment of Bradfords imagination?

You guys don't know what your talking about and need to go read the actual source materials. Limpballs little mythology is a devoid of fact anachronism. It only takes a minor effort to debunk his little propaganda piece entirely.

So yeah, you're wrong. Go check the source materials instead of rationalizing the party line.
 
Last edited:
Mott the Hoople said:
oh I see so John Winthrops (founder of Massachussets Bay Colony) massacre of the Narranganset Indians of Brock Island never happened and the exterpation of entire Pequot villages by John Mason, as documented by the same William Bradford, were just a figment of Bradfords imagination?

You guys don't know what your talking about and need to go read the actual source materials. Limpballs little mythology is a devoid of fact anachronism. It only takes a minor effort to debunk his little propaganda piece entirely.

So yeah, you're wrong. Go check the source materials instead of rationalizing the party line.
Click to expand...

Why don't you post these source materials

PS

You are skirting the decorum rules of APP.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top