Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
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.
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.
Last edited by CaseyB; 11-27-2013 at 04:07 AM..
Reason: copyright violation, too long
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.
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.
After a very bad start....really. And then there was complete genocide of the american indians after that. Or they tried to.
You fail to show where the pilgrims robbed Indian graves, survived on food buried with the dead, and living in an abandoned Indian village the first winter.
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.
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.
Oh, Lord. This was after a devastating drought, and the harvest of 1623 was plentiful. It wasn't socialism that starved people, it was a drought.
It is also interesting to note that it was the first Thanksgiving that wasn't ordered by the church.
William Bradford wrote:
And afterwards the Lord sent them such seasonable showers, with interchange of fair warm weather as, through His blessing, caused a fruitful and liberal harvest, to their no small comfort and rejoicing. For which mercy, in time convenient, they also set apart a day of thanksgiving…
By this time harvest was come, and instead of famine now God gave them plenty … for which they blessed God. And the effect of their particular planting was well seen, for all had … pretty well … so as any general want or famine had not been amongst them since to this day.[20]
--William Bradford, Of Plymouth Plantation
Why don't you people stop with the liberal bashing and actually observe Thanksgiving without the baggage you seem to want to haul into every holiday.
Last edited by carterstamp; 11-27-2013 at 07:20 AM..
I am sure somehow their revisionist history will eventually have it as Samuel Francis Bush was responsible for the hardships of the first winter for the Pilgrims. But after electing a new Governor by the named of Bartholomew Soetero, they were able to turn the economy around and there was Thanksgiving for EVERYONE!!
I am sure somehow their revisionist history will eventually have it as Samuel Francis Bush was responsible for the hardships of the first winter for the Pilgrims. But after electing a new Governor by the named of Bartholomew Soetero, they were able to turn the economy around and there was Thanksgiving for EVERYONE!!
No, the strong southern winds blew them to far north, and they had run out of beer.
Seriously, they ran out of beer. It's why they were put off where they were.
After a very bad start....really. And then there was complete genocide of the american indians after that. Or they tried to.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Memphis1979
Ugh, do we have to post this every thanksgiving.
You fail to show where the pilgrims robbed Indian graves, survived on food buried with the dead, and living in an abandoned Indian village the first winter.
I love it when people try to show the Europeans as some sort of invading monster while attempting to show the American Indians as a peaceful, agrarian society. In reality, the American Indians were just as violent for the most part as the Europeans were. The difference was that the Europeans had better technology and were a more cohesive society. Had the technology been the same and/or the Indians more willing to band together in order to repel the invaders, America would have a vastly different society today.
Of course, that's how revisionist history works.
Don't misunderstand me, there were certain things that white Americans did during the Indian wars which were a bit over the top, but at the time of the pilgrims the only crime they were guilty of was trying to survive in a a hostile climate while being surrounded by native peoples whose motivations were not only unknown but in actuality unknowable to a society which had no basis for comparison.
I am sure somehow their revisionist history will eventually have it as Samuel Francis Bush was responsible for the hardships of the first winter for the Pilgrims. But after electing a new Governor by the named of Bartholomew Soetero, they were able to turn the economy around and there was Thanksgiving for EVERYONE!!
I guess the catch phrase of the day is "revisionist history".
So...there wasn't a drought?
Or, did the socialists somehow cause the drought?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
