So Republicans claim the Pilgrims motivation 'was to flee European socialism'

[Titanic Explorer]

Have you heard some of the revisionist history coming from rabid right wing Republicans like Rush Limbaugh and Glenn Beck and their dimwitted right wing followers? They really seem to think that the objective of the Pilgrims was 'escape European socialism'. Is it any wonder the Bible thumping Republican Party is imploding.

[Chaos]

I am heroically resisting the urge to launch into yet another rant about how right-wingers in general and US right-wingers in particular have no ******* clue what "socialism" is.

[Titanic Explorer]

I am heroically resisting the urge to launch into yet another rant about how right-wingers in general and US right-wingers in particular have no ******* clue what "socialism" is.



It is interesting when the right wingers call Pres Obama a 'Marxist, Communist ,Socialist, fascist;, as if these terms mean the same thing..I highly doubt the likes of Glenn Beck could define Marxism, much less have any clue who Karl Marx was- odds are they think Marxism refers to Groucho Marx..

I asked a few right wingers to define in detail the meaning of socialism. Their answer was 'it's fascism'. Okay, how do you define fascism'? I asked. 'It's Marxism' was the response. 'Please define Marxism' I ask.
'It's communism' is the answer.'And you would you define Communism' I ask? 'That's Socialism' is the answer.
And around, around we go, with them making an endless circular argument...


Never are right wingers able to break down and define these economic ideologies, much less cite the history and advocates of those ideologies.

I am just amazed when uneducated hillbillies toss around the term Marxism. Do you think Sarah Palin knows anything about Karl Marx?

[I Ratant]

...
I am just amazed when uneducated hillbillies toss around the term Marxism. Do you think Sarah Palin knows anything about Karl Marx?
.
He was the guy with the duck and the magic word, right?

[rwguinn]

someday, when librulz grow up, they will find that there is a difference between "Rush Limbaugh says..." and "Republicans claim...".
Maybe after they move out of momma's basement.

[brenn]

Have you heard some of the revisionist history coming from rabid right wing Republicans like Rush Limbaugh and Glenn Beck and their dimwitted right wing followers? They really seem to think that the objective of the Pilgrims was 'escape European socialism'. Is it any wonder the Bible thumping Republican Party is imploding.

The Republican party is imploding? Were you here for the last election? Stay tuned for the next presidential election, if that didn't convince you.

[Towlie]

The Republican party is imploding? Were you here for the last election? Stay tuned for the next presidential election, if that didn't convince you.I don't think you understand. To say that the Republican party is imploding does not mean that it's losing power, it means that it's losing sanity.

http://thinkprogress.org/2010/11/27/danforth-lugar-overboard

[Gord_in_Toronto]

someday, when librulz grow up, they will find that there is a difference between "Rush Limbaugh says..." and "Republicans claim...".
Maybe after they move out of momma's basement.

Then let's hear a prominent member of the Republican Party say that Limbaugh views are not those of the Party. Give me a quote or two.

:boxedin:

[Scott Haley]

I like Garrison Keillor's observation that the Pilgrims came here from liberal Holland to find a place with less religious freedom.

From Wikipedia:

For its first two-and-a-half years, the economy of Plymouth Plantation took the form of a communal system. There was neither private property nor division of labor. Food was grown for the town and distributed equally. According to William Bradford in Of Plymouth Plantation:

“ The experience that was had in this common course and condition, tried sundry years and that amongst godly and sober men, may well evince the vanity of that conceit of Plato's and other ancients applauded by some of later times; that the taking away of property and bringing in community into a commonwealth 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.[148].

They practiced socialism! They allowed private property later, to make men more productive. Instead of saying that the pilgrims fled from socialism, they should point out that they tried it and dumped it because it didn't work.

I also read in Wikipedia that the Colonists had a legal permit from Europe to start a colony in a certain area. They had trouble getting to where they were allowed to go, so they settled where they had no permission from European governments to be. Years later, they were formally allowed to stay there. So, the Pilgrims were undocumented aliens who got amnesty.

[ServiceSoon]

The Declaration of Independence clearly states the reason(s). If anybody would like to discuss certain exerts from this document I'm sure there would be a few here who would love to so just that. If you'd rather like to continue to beat your chest and bash the opposite political spectrum of your own, as this board is so found of, that could be fun too.

[Drachasor]

The Republican party is imploding? Were you here for the last election? Stay tuned for the next presidential election, if that didn't convince you.

To be clear on the last election, exit polls clearly showed that the majority don't like the Republicans or necessarily trust them. They also aren't happy with the Democrats. Also note the victory was smaller than similar turn-arounds such as with Clinton, when things weren't bad on this level. I think the overall conclusion to draw is that voters are pretty unhappy with both parties, but leaned to voting the one in power out.

As for the next Presidential Election...I really don't see who the Republicans can run who could win.

[fuelair]

I don't think you understand. To say that the Republican party is imploding does not mean that it's losing power, it means that it's losing sanity.

http://thinkprogress.org/2010/11/27/danforth-lugar-overboard

And, it has been imploding since the 80's when the republickers of the time realized the only group with enough numbers to get it elected was the fundies so they went after them and got them building. When the fundies realized the republickers were just using them (leaders, not the average fundie) they started using their numbers for crap like the tea party. It's a sad slide downhill for the real republicans to what their party has become.

Only real problem with Democrats is not getting out the vote hardcore and every single election. If we could get more of us voting even when not happy with every little detail, the republicker problem would be over fast.

[Drachasor]

Only real problem with Democrats is not getting out the vote hardcore and every single election. If we could get more of us voting even when not happy with every little detail, the republicker problem would be over fast.

The Democrats are not doing a great job at governance either. The Stimulus Bill left a lot to be desired and was filled with non-Stimulus things. The Healthcare Bill, while better than nothing, was not at all great. They haven't done a good job of demonstrating they can govern well. (I freely grant the Republicans have done worse, mind you).

[Gregoire]

Wow, Americans don't know anything about 19th and 20th century intellectual history. That's a shock.:eye-poppi

In the true spirit of skepticism, I would suggest you add American moderates and American liberals to your discussion.

Doesn't anyone recall Bush being called a "fascist"? Did that make any sense? I hope someone here on the left objected to it.

http://desertpeace.wordpress.com/2008/05/22/george-bush-is-a-fascist-you-wanted-proof-here-it-is/


As far as my own story, I realized that I too had inherent biases when I wanted to understand what "communism" was. So I decided to talk to people who were actual communists. I even attended different meetings of different communist organizations. (Do I have to make it clear that communism is not monolithic?) And then I proceeded to read books they recommended. Note I wasn't there to argue, but rather to understand. When I did ask questions, I asked them in a kind way from their own world view. Arguments would have gotten me nowhere.

Funny after my experience, people with absolutely no reflection about these issues (from ALL political persuasions) attacked my analysis despite having nothing to base it on except their own ideology. I found people to be uniformly uninterested unless I had something to say that they actually agreed with a priori.

But tell me, how many others on this board have done this? It seems to me that people even here seem so wedded to their political ideology on this supposedly skeptical board. I have noted how those here seem quick to see the errors in thinking of their opponents, but are apparently blind to their own assumptions.

(And come on, isn't Rush just an easy target?)

But maybe I am just misinterpreting……….

As far as fascism goes, I have read their actual writings as well. (There was no way I was going to go to any of those meetings.)

But tell me, has anyone else here done this? I have only met a few people who have read Hitler's writings, but my understanding is that scholars don't even consider this a representative work in the foundations of fascism. Instead they recommend work by say Giovanni Gentile or Robert Michels.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Giovanni_Gentile

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Michels

[brenn]

I don't think you understand. To say that the Republican party is imploding does not mean that it's losing power, it means that it's losing sanity.

http://thinkprogress.org/2010/11/27/danforth-lugar-overboard

If a large number of people agree with it, the simplest answer may be that it is those who think it is insane who are wrong. Being liberal does not = being intelligent, sane or right, although spreading that belief seems to be the fundamental purpose of the far left.

[brenn]

Then let's hear a prominent member of the Republican Party say that Limbaugh views are not those of the Party. Give me a quote or two.

:boxedin:

I'm not prominent, but I'd guess that I agree with the large majority of what Rush says and have ne reason to claim otherwise. As Gregoire said, Rush is, personally, an easy target. However, I'm not sure why hippies just assume that a Republican would want to disagree with his views (as actually expressed/intended, not as repeated by said hippies).

Whis of Rush's views, as he actually stated them, should I reject?

[Thunder]

well, considering intolerance of other religions is typically a right-wing thing, I would argue the Pilgrims were fleeing Conservatism.

[MikeMangum]

Have you heard some of the revisionist history coming from rabid right wing Republicans like Rush Limbaugh and Glenn Beck and their dimwitted right wing followers? They really seem to think that the objective of the Pilgrims was 'escape European socialism'. Is it any wonder the Bible thumping Republican Party is imploding.

Not knowing what they actually said, I can only say that IF they claimed that the Pilgrims came to America to flee socialism, they have it exactly backwards. The first 2 years that the Pilgrims were here, they instituted a system whereby all property was communal and all the products of labor were communal. After they almost all starved to death, they re-instituted private property and flourished.

[MikeMangum]

well, considering intolerance of other religions is typically a right-wing thing, I would argue the Pilgrims were fleeing Conservatism.

And yet the Pilgrims were also extremely intolerant of religious freedom. Surprisingly enough, it is difficult to categorize people of centuries ago according to our modern political axes.

[Twiler]

I think that this sort of thing arises from moral absolutism; They assume that anything that they consider to be wrong must equate to anything else that they consider wrong.

I also suspect that they tend to venerate the past because it's easier to misconstrue than the present.

[Spindrift]

The Declaration of Independence clearly states the reason(s). If anybody would like to discuss certain exerts from this document I'm sure there would be a few here who would love to so just that. If you'd rather like to continue to beat your chest and bash the opposite political spectrum of your own, as this board is so found of, that could be fun too.

The Declaration of Independence clearly states the reasons the Pilgrims left England? They left because of what King George III was going to do 150 years later?

[SumDood]

I'm not prominent, but I'd guess that I agree with the large majority of what Rush says and have ne reason to claim otherwise. As Gregoire said, Rush is, personally, an easy target. However, I'm not sure why hippies just assume that a Republican would want to disagree with his views (as actually expressed/intended, not as repeated by said hippies).

Whis of Rush's views, as he actually stated them, should I reject?

"Too many whites are getting away with drug use...Too many whites are getting away with drug sales...The answer is to go out and find the ones who are getting away with it, convict them, and send them up the river, too." --Rush Limbaugh, in 1995

"Feminism was established so as to allow unattractive women easier access to the mainstream of society." --Rush Limbaugh

"Obama's got a health care logo that's right out of Adolf Hitler's playbook ... Adolf Hitler, like Barack Obama, also ruled by dictate." --Rush Limbaugh, Aug. 6, 2009

"Look, let me put it to you this way: the NFL all too often looks like a game between the Bloods and the Crips without any weapons. There, I said it." --Rush Limbaugh, Jan. 19, 2007

"The only way to reduce the number of nuclear weapons is to use them."

"Have you ever noticed how all composite pictures of wanted criminals resemble Jesse Jackson?"

source:http://politicalhumor.about.com/od/rushlimbaugh/a/limbaughquotes.

[MikeMangum]

"Too many whites are getting away with drug use...Too many whites are getting away with drug sales...The answer is to go out and find the ones who are getting away with it, convict them, and send them up the river, too." --Rush Limbaugh, in 1995

Well, if you are someone who believes that drugs should be illegal, and also believe that blacks are more likely to be tried and convicted for the exact same drug offense relative to whites, and also believe that laws should be applied equally to all members of society, there is nothing wrong or inconsistent with arguing that those who are prosecuted less for committing a specific crime should in fact be prosecuted at the same rates.

I'm of the opinion that drugs should legal and thus no one should be convicted of drug related crimes, but as long as they are illegal, those laws should be applied equally. That is only fair.

"Feminism was established so as to allow unattractive women easier access to the mainstream of society." --Rush Limbaugh

Well, at least it's funny. And it's funny because there is at least some small element of truth to it.

"Obama's got a health care logo that's right out of Adolf Hitler's playbook ... Adolf Hitler, like Barack Obama, also ruled by dictate." --Rush Limbaugh, Aug. 6, 2009

Not even funny. Just stupid.

"Look, let me put it to you this way: the NFL all too often looks like a game between the Bloods and the Crips without any weapons. There, I said it." --Rush Limbaugh, Jan. 19, 2007

If I remember correctly, this was Limbaugh complaining about the large number of players who were being convicted of crimes.

"The only way to reduce the number of nuclear weapons is to use them."

Meh, mildly funny. If you squint. I'd say it almost deserves a golf clap.

"Have you ever noticed how all composite pictures of wanted criminals resemble Jesse Jackson?"


Friggin hilarious.

[Thunder]

And yet the Pilgrims were also extremely intolerant of religious freedom.

this is true.

[Drachasor]

this is true.

Many were fleeing intolerance to their intolerance.

[zerospeaks]

Intolerance will not be tolerated!

Sorry couldn't resist after reading posts 24 and 25

[HansMustermann]

If a large number of people agree with it, the simplest answer may be that it is those who think it is insane who are wrong. Being liberal does not = being intelligent, sane or right, although spreading that belief seems to be the fundamental purpose of the far left.

Umm, dude, so way back when most people thought the Earth was flat, did it make it actually flat? Did it make the minority in Samos circa 6BC wrong for thinking that that belief of the majority makes no sense?

There's a reason why the argumentum ad populum is a fallacy, you know?

And really, nobody says it's insane because it's not liberal, so that would make it a strawman too. It's insane because such a claim (like many others from the right wing BS propaganda machine) isn't just false, but makes no fracking sense.

[Walrus32]

Have you heard some of the revisionist history coming from rabid right wing Republicans like Rush Limbaugh and Glenn Beck and their dimwitted right wing followers? They really seem to think that the objective of the Pilgrims was 'escape European socialism'. Is it any wonder the Bible thumping Republican Party is imploding.

Actually, that was not what Rush said. He said the Pilgrims came here to start a socialist colony, which failed.

Here's the transcript, on the remote possibility that anyone would actually bother to read it.

http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/daily/site_112509/content/01125113.guest.html

[Pacal]

If a large number of people agree with it, the simplest answer may be that it is those who think it is insane who are wrong. Being liberal does not = being intelligent, sane or right, although spreading that belief seems to be the fundamental purpose of the far left.

Thank you for an excellent example of framing the issue to exclude certain thoughts. I guess your not bothered by the batsh** crazy crap issuing from far to many Tea baggers and others.

Of course you forget the very successful effort by "Conservatives" to equate "Liberal" with Socialist, evil, hatred of religion, atheist, etc. In many parts of the USA calling someone a Liberal is a swearing at them.

I note that you seem to equate Liberal with being on the far left. You do realize that actual far leftests are NOT Liberals and frequently despise Liberals and Liberalism. But then Chracterizing Liberals as far leftests as been another "Conservative" meme for quite sometime.

And since when is the fact that a large number of people agree with something proof that a crazy idea isn't crazy. All it is proof of is that an idea is popular.

[Soapy Sam]

I am heroically resisting the urge to launch into yet another rant about how right-wingers in general and US right-wingers in particular have no ******* clue what "socialism" is.

To be fair, it's a label used of hugely different policies and programs.
Weimar era "National Socialism," and the "Scottish Socialist Party" have little in common , except involving ...people in... something or other.

Of course, I never figured out what elephants and asses have to do with American politics.

[Pacal]

"Have you ever noticed how all composite pictures of wanted criminals resemble Jesse Jackson?"

Friggin hilarious.

Have you noticed how Rush Limbaugh looks like a fat child molester?

[Weak Kitten]

I thought the Pilgrims came to America seeking to escape the frightening amount of religious freedom in the Netherlands. They were worried that their children would go shopping for friendlier religion.

Personally, I like to think of this country as descended from the Quakers. They're really rockin' people, sometimes literally.

[MikeMangum]

Actually, that was not what Rush said. He said the Pilgrims came here to start a socialist colony, which failed.

Here's the transcript, on the remote possibility that anyone would actually bother to read it.

http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/daily/site_112509/content/01125113.guest.html

Afeter reading (part of) the transcript, it turns out that Rush was exactly right.

[MikeMangum]

Have you noticed how Rush Limbaugh looks like a fat child molester?

He certainly looks like a fat something, but I'm not sure what a child molestor looks like.

[Pacal]

He certainly looks like a fat something, but I'm not sure what a child molestor looks like.

A fat child molester looks like Rush Limbaugh in the same way Jesse Jackson looks like a composite photo of a criminal.

All puffy and sweating and perpetually leering. Of course I could mention here Limbaugh's repeat vacations in the Dominican Republic.

[boooeee]

Have you heard some of the revisionist history coming from rabid right wing Republicans like Rush Limbaugh and Glenn Beck and their dimwitted right wing followers? They really seem to think that the objective of the Pilgrims was 'escape European socialism'. Is it any wonder the Bible thumping Republican Party is imploding.


Links?

[MikeMangum]

Links?

The link to the transcript (in post #28) shows that the OP is exactly backwards.

[Drachasor]

Afeter reading (part of) the transcript, it turns out that Rush was exactly right.

Really seems like the actual history is more of an indictment against not having any division of labor more than anything else. Well, perhaps anti-anarchist too, I suppose.

The government continued to own the land, tell people what land to work, didn't let anyone buy more land, etc. So there remained an immense amount of government control over things.

[Walrus32]

Really seems like the actual history is more of an indictment against not having any division of labor more than anything else. Well, perhaps anti-anarchist too, I suppose.

The government continued to own the land, tell people what land to work, didn't let anyone buy more land, etc. So there remained an immense amount of government control over things.

To which, over the course of time, the settlers/colonists rebelled and declared independence.

It seems that this thread is going nowhere without a definition of "socialism"
upon which everyone can agree. (Fat chance.)

[Graybeard6]

I thought the Pilgrims came to America seeking to escape the frightening amount of religious freedom in the Netherlands. They were worried that their children would go shopping for friendlier religion.

Personally, I like to think of this country as descended from the Quakers. They're really rockin' people, sometimes literally.
Exactly right! They wanted religious freedom only for themselves, and tolerated no dissent. Witness the expulsion of Roger Williams and the execution of Quakers.

[ServiceSoon]

I believe that the Pilgrims came to the New World to escape the overreaching tentacles of government. Specifically they wanted freedom of religion, and it goes to show that government doesn't always know best. The signing of the Declaration of Independence further exemplifies this thought process.
....The government continued to own the land, tell people what land to work, didn't let anyone buy more land, etc. So there remained an immense amount of government control over things.
The transcript says The original contract the Pilgrims had entered into with their merchant-sponsors in London called for everything they produced to go into a common store, and each member of the community was entitled to one common share. does merchant sponsors = government?

[Spindrift]

I believe that the Pilgrims came to the New World to escape the overreaching tentacles of government. Specifically they wanted freedom of religion, and it goes to show that government doesn't always know best. The signing of the Declaration of Independence further exemplifies this thought process.

The transcript says does merchant sponsors = government?

They wanted freedom of THEIR religion. They definitely did not want freedom of religion as we understand it.

I still don't understand why you keep trying to tie the Declaration of Independence into the Pilgrims. The Pilgrims would not have been in favor of the DofI.

[Slimething]

Only real problem with Democrats is not getting out the vote hardcore and every single election. If we could get more of us voting even when not happy with every little detail, the republicker problem would be over fast.

A favorite quote from Will Rogers:

"I am not a member of an organized political party. I am a Democrat."

[Drachasor]

The transcript says does merchant sponsors = government?

In this context, it is close enough.

Of course, the idea it was a socialism is ridiculous.

[Damien Evans]

The Declaration of Independence clearly states the reason(s). If anybody would like to discuss certain exerts from this document I'm sure there would be a few here who would love to so just that. If you'd rather like to continue to beat your chest and bash the opposite political spectrum of your own, as this board is so found of, that could be fun too.

I may be Australian, but even I know that the pilgrims didn't write the declaration of independence.

[Drachasor]

I may be Australian, but even I know that the pilgrims didn't write the declaration of independence.


I think that was in 1776.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PTcVNuNX8yY

(FYI, I would totally go see that movie).

[Random]

Read the transcript. Aside from the obvious glossing over of the pilgrims motivations for leaving Holland and the whole chopping ears off of Quakers bit, he once again butchers Genesis 41. The whole point of Genesis 41 is the wisdom of instituting taxes. Pharaoh didn't reduce the tax rate to 20%, he raised it.

Of course, Genesis 41 is a pretty clear indication that God approves of counter-cyclical financial policy, so conservatives like to mangle that one whenever they get a chance.

[Gawdzilla]

.
He was the guy with the duck and the magic word, right?

When he wore a dress he preferred "Karla Marx."

[zerospeaks]

Never heard the genesis 41 thing before.

Socialism:Socialism refers to the various theories of economic organization which advocate either public or direct worker ownership and administration of the means of production and allocation of resources

Can we agree on that?

[Towlie]

Socialism:Socialism refers to the various theories of economic organization which advocate either public or direct worker ownership and administration of the means of production and allocation of resources

Can we agree on that?I doubt it. How would you reconcile that with the concept of "socialized medicine"?

[zerospeaks]

I doubt it. How would you reconcile that with the concept of "socialized medicine"?

A service provided by labor is considered a resource to the nation.

[JonathanQuick]

Have you heard some of the revisionist history coming from rabid right wing Republicans like Rush Limbaugh and Glenn Beck and their dimwitted right wing followers? They really seem to think that the objective of the Pilgrims was 'escape European socialism'. Is it any wonder the Bible thumping Republican Party is imploding.

chaos: I am heroically resisting the urge to launch into yet another rant about how right-wingers in general and US right-wingers in particular have no ******* clue what "socialism" is.

"rabid"
"right wing"
"dimwitted"
"Bible thumping"
"heroically resisting"
"no clue"

I cannot resist the urge to quote some of the enlightenment from the (may I return the favor?) "godless left.

"I've been to like 57 states - two more to go." - Barack Obama, ever the intellectual leftist

"I don't speak Austrian." - Barack "The One" Obama

"Cinco de quatro" - Barack Obama, meaning to say "Cinco de Mayo"

Never to be forgotten, these:

"I took the initiative in inventing the internet." - Al "The Whale" Gore


"Who ARE these guys?" - Al Gore, asking about the busts of Founding Fathers at Monticello

"It depends on what the meaning of 'is' is." - Bill "loathing the military" Clinton

"Think of a thumb." - Monica Lewinski, describing Bill Clinton under oath


You can't blame kids like Titanic Explorer and Chaos, however. It all starts at the schools.

"In large states, public education will always be mediocre, for the same reason that in large kitchens the cooking is usually bad." - Friedrich Nietzsche

"Public education is a socialist monopoly." - Milton Friedman

11 Most Expensive Catastrophes in History

http://11mostexpensivecatastrophes.blogspot.com/

[ponderingturtle]

Have you heard some of the revisionist history coming from rabid right wing Republicans like Rush Limbaugh and Glenn Beck and their dimwitted right wing followers? They really seem to think that the objective of the Pilgrims was 'escape European socialism'. Is it any wonder the Bible thumping Republican Party is imploding.

Nonsense it was to flee that horrible tradition of Christmas. Remember who started the war and Christmas in this country, and why all Christians should be for it.

[boooeee]

The link to the transcript (in post #28) shows that the OP is exactly backwards.


I figured I'd give him a chance to redeem himself with a quote that actually backs up his OP.

[rwguinn]

And yet the Pilgrims were also extremely intolerant of religious freedom. Surprisingly enough, it is difficult to categorize people of centuries ago according to our modern political axes.
From my readings and understanding of history and religions, I have formed the opinion that the Pilgrims came here not so much to escape religious persecution, but to escape the fact that they weren't allowed to persecute back...

[I Ratant]

"rabid"
"right wing"
"dimwitted"
"Bible thumping"
"heroically resisting"
"no clue"

I cannot resist the urge to quote some of the enlightenment from the (may I return the favor?) "godless left.

"I've been to like 57 states - two more to go." - Barack Obama, ever the intellectual leftist
...
.
Truncated for brevity.
I always pity the guys at The Daily Show that have to go through the miles of tapes of idiots politicians talking out of both sides of their mouths and frequently out their asses to show the amusing clips they come up with, sparing no one.
We all know, or should know, that the primary indication that a politician is lying is that his/her lips are moving.
Collecting mis-speakings has to be a 24/7 job. :)

[I Ratant]

From my readings and understanding of history and religions, I have formed the opinion that the Pilgrims came here not so much to escape religious persecution, but to escape the fact that they weren't allowed to persecute back...
.
I got that same idea.
They'd kinda be the 17th Century Taliban, with the number of people they killed for religious differences alone.

[TragicMonkey]

.
I got that same idea.
They'd kinda be the 17th Century Taliban, with the number of people they killed for religious differences alone.

To be fair to them, they weren't particularly worse than anybody else at the time. Europe wasn't a friendly place to religious tolerance, and the oppression tended to take rather more extreme forms than failing to mention "Christmas" specifically in year-end sales events!

[I Ratant]

To be fair to them, they weren't particularly worse than anybody else at the time. Europe wasn't a friendly place to religious tolerance, and the oppression tended to take rather more extreme forms than failing to mention "Christmas" specifically in year-end sales events!
.
Their intolerance was a bit more than the usual of the time, though. :)
That's why they got tossed out of Europe, including tolerant Holland.

[MikeMangum]

From my readings and understanding of history and religions, I have formed the opinion that the Pilgrims came here not so much to escape religious persecution, but to escape the fact that they weren't allowed to persecute back...

Yeah, pretty close. It wasn't so much that they wanted to be able to impose their beliefs on the rest of society (although they might very well have been willing to do that), but that they weren't able to impose their beliefs on their own grown children. 'The chilluns is leavin the fold! Let's move to America.'

[oggiesnr]

A bit of both, and also as because the were "Speraratists" (as opposed to recusants) they were finded for non-observance and were barred from many trades.

In fact their journey to North America was financed by merchants expecting a return on their investment so really it was the product of capitalism!

Steve

[ServiceSoon]

They wanted freedom of THEIR religion. They definitely did not want freedom of religion as we understand it.
I don't understand why that distinction is relevant. They didn't want to be told what to do. That's all I need to know.

I still don't understand why you keep trying to tie the Declaration of Independence into the Pilgrims. The Pilgrims would not have been in favor of the DofI.I see the DofI as an extension of what the pilgrims were after. How else would you explain the origin of the first amendment in the Bill of Rights? I see the the pilgrims, DofI & BOR as the culmination of many events. While separate, they're all interconnected in my crazy head. Why do you say the pilgrims would not have been in favor of the DofI?

In this context, it is close enough....
I have to disagree. Tyranny is the worst kind of oppression.

I may be Australian, but even I know that the pilgrims didn't write the declaration of independence.
Are you sure? Those two events (pilgrims & DofI) were only 100-200 years apart! The bible says people lived to be 1,000 years old. Surly people lived to be 200 years old during this time period.

[rwguinn]

I don't understand why that distinction is relevant. They didn't want to be told what to do. That's all I need to know.

I see the DofI as an extension of what the pilgrims were after. How else would you explain the origin of the first amendment in the Bill of Rights? I see the the pilgrims, DofI & BOR as the culmination of many events. While separate, they're all interconnected in my crazy head. Why do you say the pilgrims would not have been in favor of the DofI?


I have to disagree. Tyranny is the worst kind of oppression.


Are you sure? Those two events (pilgrims & DofI) were only 100-200 years apart! The bible says people lived to be 1,000 years old. Surly people lived to be 200 years old during this time period.
Wow. US History is offered in Schools all over the country, and even in college.
And the library has Books. You should read some of them...

[Spindrift]

I don't understand why that distinction is relevant. They didn't want to be told what to do. That's all I need to know.

It doesn't seem a bit hypocritical to you?


I see the DofI as an extension of what the pilgrims were after. How else would you explain the origin of the first amendment in the Bill of Rights?
The Bill of Rights? You do know the Bill of Rights is part of the US Constitution, not the Declaration of Independence?


I see the the pilgrims, DofI & BOR as the culmination of many events. While separate, they're all interconnected in my crazy head.

Bolding mine, words yours.


Why do you say the pilgrims would not have been in favor of the DofI?

Do you know what the DofI actually says? It's a statement of rebellion. A large part of it is a laundry list of grevances against King George III. (Maybe that was the first Festivus. ;) ) The pilgrims were Englishmen, the concept of rebelling against the crown would not have gone down well with them.

[RossFW]

Surly people lived to be 200 years old during this time period.

Nope. You are talking about a period of history where births and deaths were actually recorded, so actual proof of how long people live is available-

Average life expectency in the 1600s?- 35!!

(to be fair, this is due to the high infant mortality rate- still, someone who reached adulthodd had an average death age of 62. there are NO recored cases of people living to over 100).

[I Ratant]

I don't understand why that distinction is relevant. They didn't want to be told what to do. That's all I need to know.
...

.
But they took pains, to the point of death for those they despised, to tell everyone else what to do!
That was in the recent past of the Founding Fathers, who took pains to see that murderous intolerance wouldn't get established here.
History is more than what you get from reading bumper stickers.

[TragicMonkey]

.
Their intolerance was a bit more than the usual of the time, though. :)
That's why they got tossed out of Europe, including tolerant Holland.

I disagree. They weren't welcome because they were the wrong brand of religion, not because that brand wasn't intolerant. Had they been intolerant but mainstream they wouldn't have had any problems remaining.

[dudalb]

So King James and Archibship Laud were Socialists????????

[I Ratant]

I disagree. They weren't welcome because they were the wrong brand of religion, not because that brand wasn't intolerant. Had they been intolerant but mainstream they wouldn't have had any problems remaining.
.
The Pilgrims killed Quakers!
I do believe that was extreme back them.

[Towlie]

Surly people lived to be 200 years old during this time period.... and I'll bet they got even more surly as they aged.

[I Ratant]

... and I'll bet they got even more surly as they aged.
.
"Methuselah lived 900 years
Methuselah lived 900 years
Who calls that livin'
When no gal will give in
To no man what's 900 years"

[ServiceSoon]

Wow. US History is offered in Schools all over the country, and even in college.
And the library has Books. You should read some of them...
Am I only to repeat what I was taught in school or read in books, ie let other do my thinking for me, or is it acceptable from time to time to veer off the beaten path to do some thinking of my own?

It doesn't seem a bit hypocritical to you?
No, but even if it was I fail to see your point.

The Bill of Rights? You do know the Bill of Rights is part of the US Constitution, not the Declaration of Independence?
I'm not even going to acknowledge this with a coherent response. You might say that's the case for all my writings :D

Bolding mine, words yours.
You took the bait. I'm disappointed in you.

Do you know what the DofI actually says? It's a statement of rebellion. A large part of it is a laundry list of grevances against King George III. (Maybe that was the first Festivus. ;) ) The pilgrims were Englishmen, the concept of rebelling against the crown would not have gone down well with them.
The DofI grievances were based on common English rights of that time period because they were Englishmen. They were Englishmen up until the point that they declared their independence. You're so silly.

One of the reasons the pilgrims came to the New World was to live a life with more freedom and less authority. A couple hundred hears later, after the British Empire continued to trample those rights, they declared their independence. Why is that such a fringe idea? I realize that it was not the actual passengers on the Mayflower that had a direct part in the creation of these historical documents, but rather their descendants. Descendants that were taught by their parents. I can hear it now...

Son, "Daddy, how did we end up living here?"
Father, "Well son, we came to the New World seeking an adventure, greener pastures, a different better way to do things and to escape the tyranny of the British Empire."
Son, "What's tyranny Daddy?"

Nope. You are talking about a period of history where births and deaths were actually recorded, so actual proof of how long people live is available-

Average life expectency in the 1600s?- 35!!

(to be fair, this is due to the high infant mortality rate- still, someone who reached adulthodd had an average death age of 62. there are NO recored cases of people living to over 100).
This was sarcasm. Although I'd like to add that only a couple hundred years later people were living to be 80 to 90 years old.

[I Ratant]

...
One of the reasons the pilgrims came to the New World was to live a life with more freedom and less authority.
...
.
THE reason the Pilgrims came to the New World was their pernicious version of the common religion pissed off everyone around them.
In a world of intolerance, they raised the bar beyond acceptance in Europe.
Once established in the New World, they persecuted, exiled, and killed anyone who would not accept their version of their religion.
The English Parliament passed many resolutions on the Puritan excesses in the colony, to the extent of making other colonies free from the Puritan excesses.
What you learned in school ain't necessarily so!
Rhode Island:
Roger Williams had the unacceptable (to the Massachusetts Bay Puritans) ideas that a civil government could not enforce religious laws, religion being only a matter of individual conscience and perception. He refused an order to change these views, and was expelled from the Colony in 1635.
He purchased land from the Indians at Narragansett Bay, and founded Providence, the first settlement in what became Rhode Island.
In 1644 he obtained a patent from Parliament for a colony, and established the first representational government, which he defended against Puritan objections while in England, and received a royal charter for the colony in 1663.
Maryland was a colony of Catholics, another religion that was a death warrant in Massachusetts Bay, and Pennsylvania as a refuge for Quakers, creating the first version of a Bill of Rights... no deprivation of life, liberty, property except by a trial with 12 jurors.

[ponderingturtle]

I believe that the Pilgrims came to the New World to escape the overreaching tentacles of government. Specifically they wanted freedom of religion, and it goes to show that government doesn't always know best. The signing of the Declaration of Independence further exemplifies this thought process.

Then you know nothing of history, they came to the US to escape freedom of religion to establish a theocratic state. To get back to their ideals we should start by outlawing Christmas.

[I Ratant]

Then you know nothing of history, they came to the US to escape freedom of religion to establish a theocratic state. To get back to their ideals we should start by outlawing Christmas.
.
One of the witches they hanged was a known offender... arrested and punished for gathering firewood on the Sabbath in an earlier crime spree.
Talk about evil!
It's been in my lifetime that the Blue Laws were tossed out.
No store was supposed to be open for business on Sunday, but practicality and the always-at-risk separation worked those into oblivion.
Praise the Lord! :rolleyes:

[TragicMonkey]

.
The Pilgrims killed Quakers!
I do believe that was extreme back them.

Ask a English Protestant during the reign of Mary, or an English Catholic during the reign of Elizabeth.

[oggiesnr]

Ask a English Protestant during the reign of Mary, or an English Catholic during the reign of Elizabeth.

Yes but Mary didn't kill Papists or Elizabeth kill Prods (or at least on grounds of religion, treason yes, religion no). What we have here is a hangover from the European religious "wars" where Baptists killed AnaBabptists etc.

Steve

[I Ratant]

Ask a English Protestant during the reign of Mary, or an English Catholic during the reign of Elizabeth.
.
And the Catholics (Spanish) killed English (Protestant) here in the New World.
And vice versa.
One of the tests for religion was the Lord's Prayer.
Adding "for Thine is the kingdom and the power and the glory forever and ever" was a death sentence in Catholic countries, and not saying it a death sentence in Protestant countries.
And yet 40 years ago, that phrase was -added- to the Catholic version!
Kinda makes all of those deaths from that phrase pointless.
Quakers were not Popish by any means, just a different version of Protestantism and yet persecuted by Protestants.
Pilgrims of course hated everyone in the OT manner, finding reasons to kill anyone out of step.

[Spindrift]

Am I only to repeat what I was taught in school or read in books, ie let other do my thinking for me, or is it acceptable from time to time to veer off the beaten path to do some thinking of my own?

You haven't veered off the path, you've left the plant.


No, but even if it was I fail to see your point.


I'm not even going to acknowledge this with a coherent response. You might say that's the case for all my writings :D

Silly me, why would I expect a coherent response when you have given one yet.


You took the bait. I'm disappointed in you.

The bait that you're self-admittedly crazy?


The DofI grievances were based on common English rights of that time period because they were Englishmen. They were Englishmen up until the point that they declared their independence. You're so silly.

That time period? You mean 150 years after the pilgrims came to America?


One of the reasons the pilgrims came to the New World was to live a life with more freedom and less authority. A couple hundred hears later, after the British Empire continued to trample those rights, they declared their independence. Why is that such a fringe idea? I realize that it was not the actual passengers on the Mayflower that had a direct part in the creation of these historical documents, but rather their descendants. Descendants that were taught by their parents. I can hear it now...

Son, "Daddy, how did we end up living here?"
Father, "Well son, we came to the New World seeking an adventure, greener pastures, a different better way to do things and to escape the tyranny of the British Empire."
Son, "What's tyranny Daddy?"


This was sarcasm. Although I'd like to add that only a couple hundred years later people were living to be 80 to 90 years old.

More incoherence.

[headscratcher4]

I'm not sure that I understand the anti-socialist message here. The bottom line is that communal organization as practiced by the Plymouth colonists didn't work particularly well, especially under the agricultural and weather conditions they encountered. However, there was a relatively large population of native Americans who lived very communally and reasonably well, if "privmatively" by European analysis, off the land prior to the Plymouth Colony's estqblishment -- and prior to it being devestated by disease likely imported earlier to the continent by Europeans.

There is, it seems to me, some useful and interesting historical messages in understanding how the Plymouth Colony survived, how it initally interacted with local populations, adopeted local farming and hunting techniques while introducing European practices. I'm just not sure that their experience tells us very much that is terribly useful to today's political environment. Why, for instance, is the Plymouth Colony more important to our understanding of the origins of American society than the much larger settlement founded just a few years later in Boston? Or those in Virgnia? Or the Dutch colony on Manhattan?

Most of colonial society in New England, in fact, flowed out from Boston and other colonial enterprises that were essentially far more successful than the Plymouth Colony. Further, our founders, to my understanding, didn't hark back to the Plymouth Colony in any particular fashion, nor did the Constitution they enacted or the laws that flowed out from under that Constitution.

It is a nice sort of mythic tradtion, our Thanksgiving, but it really has very little relevance to the American experience, the origens of capitolism or commerce in North America, our past or current governing methodology or ideal. It is a blip on the historical radar screen rather than a political, religeous or ideologically telling event.