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.
Interesting answer - without confirming the facts I presented. Did they steal food from other humans? Did most of them die from starvation and disease? Did they send back for more supplies so a few could survive.
So...I guess capitalism is having a rich uncle somewhere else who can provide lots of free stuff to you so you don't die too soon.
It's not the facts it's the selective facts and the way you frame them. The Indians raided, stole and warred with the outnumbered settlers almost from the get go around 1610, not to mention the earlier lost colony probably genocided.
And to use your analogy, if your uncle is rich and generous then that says something about your kind. But that's not what really happened with the settlers as they paid back for their supplies and them some to the Virginia Company.
They decided to all work for communal good, pool food etc in one storehouse. This lasted one year and was quickly abandoned because there was a group who slacked off and lived off of others hard labor. Thus the start of the DNC and the socialists of today. Nothing has changed.
They should have paid attention to what the Native Americans there were doing and done likewise. The Indians already had it figured out and had been practicing common ownership for centuries.
BTW - had it not been for Squanto and the Wampanoag tribe, they all would have starved. The commie tribe fed them, taught them about fishing and farming in the New World, and helped them bring in their first harvest.
When the Pilgrims first landed in America, their governor William Bradford writes that they set up an economic system very similar to socialism, where everything they produced went into a common pools, and each person was allowed to take only what he needed to survive. Inevitably, some produced little, and even stole from others to get enough to eat. Other complained that they were being required to produce for the ones that didn't and their families. The result was that little was produced, and many starved.
After a few years of that, Gov. Bradford abolished their socialistic system. He gave each family their own land, and each was allowed to keep whatever they produced. And starvation quickly stopped, with far more produced that in past years.
Today we still have a number of people who are ignorant of the results of their desired socialistic systems, and who are determined to force all of us to repeat them.
Bradford wrote about the first system they used: "...all profits & benefits that are got by trade, traffic, trucking, working, fishing, or any other means" were to be placed in the common stock of the colony, and that, "all such persons as are of this colony, are to have their meat, drink, apparel, and all provisions out of the common stock." A person was to put into the common stock all he could, and take only what he needed.
Bradford writes that "young men that were most able and fit for labor and service" complained about being forced to "spend their time and strength to work for other men's wives and children." Also, "the strong, or man of parts, had no more in division of victuals and clothes, than he that was weak." So the young and strong refused to work and the total amount of food produced was never adequate.
To rectify this situation, in 1623 Bradford abolished socialism. He gave each household a parcel of land and told them they could keep what they produced, or trade it away as they saw fit. In other words, he replaced socialism with a free market, and that was the end of the famines.
Where did he get the land? Did he bring it with him, or steal it when he got here?
Interesting answer - without confirming the facts I presented. Did they steal food from other humans? Did most of them die from starvation and disease? Did they send back for more supplies so a few could survive.
So...I guess capitalism is having a rich uncle somewhere else who can provide lots of free stuff to you so you don't die too soon.
It's not the facts it's the selective facts and the way you frame them. The Indians raided, stole and warred with the outnumbered settlers almost from the get go around 1610, not to mention the earlier lost colony probably genocided.
And to use your analogy, if your uncle is rich and generous then that says something about your kind. But that's not what really happened with the settlers as they paid back for their supplies and them some to the Virginia Company.
The warring probably had something to do with the fact that the Pilgrims broke into their living room and made themselves at home. I would have fought them, too.
The warring probably had something to do with the fact that the Pilgrims broke into their living room and made themselves at home. I would have fought them, too.
You're ridiculous. That would be like the illegal aliens today who we are suppose to welcome.
The Indians first began attacking the settlers within 2 weeks after they arrived even though they were in a previously uninhabited area.
Despite the immediate area of Jamestown being uninhabited, the settlers were attacked less than two weeks after their arrival on May 14, by Paspahegh Indians who succeeded in killing one of the settlers and wounding eleven more
Indians raided, stole from and massacred other Indian tribes. That's how it really was.
Indians raided, stole from and massacred other Indian tribes. That's how it really was.
And that's why you're fighting them, right? Because they come here and you didn't invite them?
Your link says there is no article there. Even at that, they came here to settle, and considered the people already living here an inconvenience to be overcome, e.g., they intended to steal what they were not given.
There were no Pilgrims at Jamestown, BTW. The first thing they did when they arrived was build a fort, and I have no doubts but what they incited the Indians to war through their own actions.
And that's why you're fighting them, right? Because they come here and you didn't invite them?
Your link says there is no article there.Even at that, they came here to settle, and considered the people already living here an inconvenience to be overcome, e.g., they intended to steal what they were not given.
There were no Pilgrims at Jamestown, BTW. The first thing they did when they arrived was build a fort, and I have no doubts but what they incited the Indians to war through their own actions.
It's not perfectly analogous, because the Indians themselves and the British settlers were both operating under The Right of Conquest doctrine of the time. Conquest is not stealing...the colonist intent was to survive and produce wealth and pay back the Virginia Company. I'm not personally attacking illegals. I don't have an issue with the Indians attacking the settlers, I have an issue with portraying one side moral and the other immoral.
Well, no, the first settlers in the US were not communists.
They were colonizers from the British Empire, and were very an extension of that empire's mercantalist economy.
They also could not have been communists as the term did not exist at that point. The first settlers were religious nutjobs the British were fairly certain they could do away with.
Again, they would be classified as "mercantilists". Mercantilism is the natural progression of feudalism, where the old ruling class controls the means of production, the government utilizes its military in the service of commerce to create markets prior to demand, and then social stratification determines who is allowed to access which goods and services.
Communism doesn't exist until almost exactly a century after the United States gained independence. At that point, the old system of power was diminished enough that there existed technology to actually own, a la the means of production.
For what it's worth, it was only after World War 2 when the US government launched its campaign against communism to convince the waves of idiots populating this godforsaken country of fools that it was bad. In the aftermath of the war, only the US and Russia were left standing.
This is why communism is "bad": the blacklist, political witchhunts, severe violations of the US Constitution, and that special form of paranoia coupled with gross ineptidude one only finds in the US.
One of the great mysteries of our time will be why the USSR was considered a threat to anyone but sobriety. In truth, the Russian people are still deeply wounded by World War 2; it literally destroyed everything in that nation. Russia has still yet to recover from the death toll alone. Capitalism wouldn't have worked in the USSR any more than communism did. You simply cannot suffer losses of that magnitude and expect any one thing to be a magical panacea to all your woes.
It's not perfectly analogous, because the Indians themselves and the British settlers were both operating under The Right of Conquest doctrine of the time. Conquest is not stealing...the colonist intent was to survive and produce wealth and pay back the Virginia Company. I'm not personally attacking illegals. I don't have an issue with the Indians attacking the settlers, I have an issue with portraying one side moral and the other immoral.
I fixed the link.
I'm aware. My first ancestor to arrive here was a mate on a privateer and was accused of piracy in Charleston in 1692. They apparently attacked an English ship that was running under a false flag to avoid being taken by the Spanish and looted it. They were acquitted.
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.
