OT: The Great Thanksgiving Hoax

The Great Thanksgiving Hoax By Richard Maybury

Each year at this time school children all over America are taught the official Thanksgiving story, and newspapers, radio, TV, and magazines devote vast amounts of time and space to it. It is all very colorful and fascinating.

It is also very deceiving. This official story is nothing like what really happened. It is a fairy tale, a whitewashed and sanitized collection of half-truths which divert attention away from Thanksgiving's real meaning.

The official story has the pilgrims boarding the Mayflower, coming to America and establishing the Plymouth colony in the winter of 1620-21. This first winter is hard, and half the colonists die. But the survivors are hardworking and tenacious, and they learn new farming techniques from the Indians. The harvest of 1621 is bountiful. The Pilgrims hold a celebration, and give thanks to God. They are grateful for the wonderful new abundant land He has given them.

The official story then has the Pilgrims living more or less happily ever after, each year repeating the first Thanksgiving. Other early colonies also have hard times at first, but they soon prosper and adopt the annual tradition of giving thanks for this prosperous new land called America.

The problem with this official story is that the harvest of 1621 was not bountiful, nor were the colonists hardworking or tenacious. 1621 was a famine year and many of the colonists were lazy thieves.

In his History of Plymouth Plantation, the governor of the colony, William Bradford, reported that the colonists went hungry for years, because they refused to work in the fields. They preferred instead to steal food. He says the colony was riddled with "corruption," and with "confusion and discontent." The crops were small because "much was stolen both by night and day, before it became scarce eatable."

In the harvest feasts of 1621 and 1622, "all had their hungry bellies filled," but only briefly. The prevailing condition during those years was not the abundance the official story claims, it was famine and death. The first "Thanksgiving" was not so much a celebration as it was the last meal of condemned men.

But in subsequent years something changes. The harvest of 1623 was different. Suddenly, "instead of famine now God gave them plenty," Bradford wrote, "and the face of things was changed, to the rejoicing of the hearts of many, for which they blessed God." Thereafter, he wrote, "any general want or famine hath not been amongst them since to this day." In fact, in 1624, so much food was produced that the colonists were able to begin exporting corn.

What happened?

After the poor harvest of 1622, writes Bradford, "they began to think how they might raise as much corn as they could, and obtain a better crop." They began to question their form of economic organization.

This had required that "all profits & benefits that are got by trade, 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 out only what he needed.

This "from each according to his ability, to each according to his need" was an early form of socialism, and it is why the Pilgrims were starving. Bradford writes that "young men that are 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 famines.

Many early groups of colonists set up socialist states, all with the same terrible results. At Jamestown, established in 1607, out of every shipload of settlers that arrived, less than half would survive their first twelve months in America. Most of the work was being done by only one-fifth of the men, the other four-fifths choosing to be parasites. In the winter of 1609-10, called "The Starving Time," the population fell from five-hundred to sixty.

Then the Jamestown colony was converted to a free market, and the results were every bit as dramatic as those at Plymouth. In 1614, Colony Secretary Ralph Hamor wrote that after the switch there was "plenty of food, which every man by his own industry may easily and doth procure." He said that when the socialist system had prevailed, "we reaped not so much corn from the labors of thirty men as three men have done for themselves now."

Before these free markets were established, the colonists had nothing for which to be thankful. They were in the same situation as Ethiopians are today, and for the same reasons. But after free markets were established, the resulting abundance was so dramatic that the annual Thanksgiving celebrations became common throughout the colonies, and in

1863, Thanksgiving became a national holiday.

Thus the real reason for Thanksgiving, deleted from the official story, is: Socialism does not work; the one and only source of abundance is free markets, and we thank God we live in a country where we can have them.

Reply to
Robert Baer
Loading thread data ...

[snip]

I guess everyone but you already knew that... besides, it was a web news item at least a month ago. You're always behind the times >:-} ...Jim Thompson

--
| James E.Thompson                                 |    mens     | 
| Analog Innovations                               |     et      | 
| Analog/Mixed-Signal ASIC's and Discrete Systems  |    manus    | 
| San Tan Valley, AZ 85142     Skype: skypeanalog  |             | 
| Voice:(480)460-2350  Fax: Available upon request |  Brass Rat  | 
| E-mail Icon at http://www.analog-innovations.com |    1962     | 
              
I love to cook with wine.     Sometimes I even put it in the food.
Reply to
Jim Thompson

Snip

I married into an immigrant family, with poor English but a strong work ethic, ingrained I believe by their father. I watched while the parents worked buying and selling seafood while living very frugal. They had a used couch and mattresses on the floor. The kids used banana boxes to keep their clothes in. The parents made sure the kids worked hard in school while they toiled away making a living. The parents rented a building and bought and sold more seafood, then they expanded in that building. Then the bought land and built a building, which they worked for 20? years. They sold the building for $900,000. All the children went to college and graduated. I was also very lucky, my wife is a very hard worker, tenacious in her desire to do well. We have never done as well as when we have been self employed. Self employment is not my nature, it is hers, I would not do it if not for her pushing and pulling, I am thankful for free markets and people like my wife that make them work. I'm unhappy with the amount of government rules that get in the way of the free market operating. I think that is one reason why immigrants do well, they are oblivious to all the rules we have grown up with.

Thanks, for the story. Mikek

Reply to
amdx

And who exactly is Richard Maybury? The answer in short, he is a nobody. He has no academic or experiential credentials in law, economics or history, topics about which he writes. He claims to be a high school economics teach er somewhere. He's nothing but a button-pushing swine who writes childish m aterial for childish undeveloped minds. No wonder Amdx is suckered into thi s fiction. His little short story, without any annotation whatsoever becaus e there are none, is pure hogwash. We can only hope they get that euthanasi a coaster working or the idiot and his pathetic and gullible readers....

Reply to
bloggs.fredbloggs.fred

Fred's search skills seem to have deserted him

formatting link

Admittedly, Fred's description is precisely accurate, except that he leaves out the word "libertarian" - which I prefer to write as "right-wing nitwit".

Categorising the Pilgrim father's social organisation as "socialism" is taking a considerable liberty - they certainly wouldn't have used the word which was first used in it's modern sense in the 1820's, some 200 years later.

They saw themselves as free-thinking Protestant christians, and would have seen caring for their poorer neighbours as a religious duty rather than a way of organising distribution.

American right-wingers do like to confuse "socialism" with "communism". The "commune" in this case would be the congregation, but it serves the purpose.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney
Reply to
Bill Sloman

He has no academic or experiential credentials in law, economics or history , topics about which he writes. He claims to be a high school economics tea cher somewhere. He's nothing but a button-pushing swine who writes childish material for childish undeveloped minds. No wonder Amdx is suckered into t his fiction. His little short story, without any annotation whatsoever beca use there are none, is pure hogwash. We can only hope they get that euthana sia coaster working or the idiot and his pathetic and gullible readers....

You could Alinsky the poor man and attack his credentials, or you could just as easily read the original text "Of Plimoth Plantation," and see he's dead right.

(pertinent part starts pg 162)

formatting link

I only noted earlier today that socialism is counter to human nature, as it requires a man labor for other people or families in preference to his own.

Also, socialism's 'fairness' is inherently unfair, in a way recognized by man and beast[1]--that idlers reap without toil, discouraging those who wor k.

T'was odd to find both thoughts stated so clearly in this text, and proved by trial more than four centuries before I ever was, yet here we are still debating it.

[1] Even dogs and monkeys resent another getting a better reward for an equal or lesser labor than they themselves needed to earn it.

Cheers, James Arthur

Reply to
dagmargoodboat

On Saturday, November 29, 2014 11:55:33 PM UTC-5, snipped-for-privacy@yahoo.com wrot e:

. He has no academic or experiential credentials in law, economics or histo ry, topics about which he writes. He claims to be a high school economics t eacher somewhere. He's nothing but a button-pushing swine who writes childi sh material for childish undeveloped minds. No wonder Amdx is suckered into this fiction. His little short story, without any annotation whatsoever be cause there are none, is pure hogwash. We can only hope they get that eutha nasia coaster working or the idiot and his pathetic and gullible readers... .

it

n.

ork.

d
l

Um, make that "three centuries..."

Grins, James Arthur

Reply to
dagmargoodboat

You describe capitalism.

Capitalism.

formatting link

Reply to
Gyrfalcon

. He has no academic or experiential credentials in law, economics or histo ry, topics about which he writes. He claims to be a high school economics t eacher somewhere. He's nothing but a button-pushing swine who writes childi sh material for childish undeveloped minds. No wonder Amdx is suckered into this fiction. His little short story, without any annotation whatsoever be cause there are none, is pure hogwash. We can only hope they get that eutha nasia coaster working or the idiot and his pathetic and gullible readers... .

I doubt if Alinsky is quite so discursive. But there's enough there to make it clear that whatever was going on in Plymouth was not "socialism" - sinc e the word was used in it's modern sense before 1820 - and had more to do w ith joint stock ownership and share-cropping.

Maybury has concocted a fairy tale, and hopes that nobody will be silly eno ugh to read any of the original records.

it

n.

Not "in preference to" but "as well as". A subtle distinction, but rather c loser to the socialist intention (as opposed to the communist perversion of the basic idea).

ork.

Only in right-wing cloud-cuckoo land. Freeloaders don't do well in any real society - look at Sweden and Germany.

d
l

Nothing odd about finding them started clearly in the modern text - the clo wn who wrote it was writing a fairy-tale for a modern audience, not going t o the trouble of explaining what the Pilgrim Fathers actually did, and what they thought that they were doing. Best of luck text-chopping your way to a chunk of authentic text that could be used to add spurious versimilitude to this chunk of right-wing political propaganda.

Socialism is all about more or less equal rewards for more or less equal ef fort. No modern socialist is worried about different rates of pay for jobs requiring different levels of skill and expertise. They do start worrying w hen the top 20% of the population has an income that's nine times higher th an the poorest 20% - four times as big and everything works more or less ok ay, but nine times a big - as in the US and Singapore - and the wheels star t falling off.

Nobody believes - at gut level - that that level of difference in reward is fair, and looking into how that degree of difference appears and is sustai ned does suggest that Kahneman's "fast thinking" can be confirmed by slow t hinking.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney
Reply to
Bill Sloman

On Saturday, November 29, 2014 11:55:33 PM UTC-5, snipped-for-privacy@yahoo.com wrot e:

. He has no academic or experiential credentials in law, economics or histo ry, topics about which he writes. He claims to be a high school economics t eacher somewhere. He's nothing but a button-pushing swine who writes childi sh material for childish undeveloped minds. No wonder Amdx is suckered into this fiction. His little short story, without any annotation whatsoever be cause there are none, is pure hogwash. We can only hope they get that eutha nasia coaster working or the idiot and his pathetic and gullible readers... .

it

n.

ork.

d
l

"At length after much debate, the Governor, with the advice of the chief am ong them, allowed each man to plant corn for his own household, and to trust to themselves for that; in all other things to go on in the genera l way as before." "So every family was assigned a parcel of land, according to the proportion of their number with that in view..."

Sounds very communal to me. There was no provision for private land ownersh ip here, that came much later, and it was availed only to "freemen" of the colony, a status accorded only to people with the right religious convictio ns. The new order was to make each family responsible for raising their own crops. The chief source of income for the colony was the fur trade. From t his they obtained the resources to procure necessities from England and the Indians. The procurement of local food was not working out too well for th em, so they did the land "assignment" thing to make themselves less reliant on the Indians for food. All their other major survival activities remaine d communal, things like fur trapping and fishing. Bradford's diatribe about Plato's idealization of a commonwealth system is just that, a diatribe, th e Plymouth colony remained a commonwealth.

And your Gutenberg link is just more of your sleazy obfuscation. Only a spe cialist can comprehend the meaning and context of the olde English text. Th e modern English version, written by a learned historian, can be found in p laces likes this:

formatting link
You conveniently ignore that because it exposes your misrepresentations of the real history.

Reply to
bloggs.fredbloggs.fred

1623 + 300=1923 making you 2014-1923= 91 years old, now I can understand why you're so confused.
Reply to
bloggs.fredbloggs.fred

In a country where you *once had* a fee market, you mean. Your current president doesn't approve of them. Nor do many so-called Republicans.

How many times must people end up starving to death before these morons finally learn that socialism doesn't work.

Reply to
cd

Exactly. That is the core reason for why it always fails eventually - and often disastrously.

Reply to
cd

Socialism takes your money and gives it to people you've never even met.

The alternative isn't capitalism, it's freedom, including the right to keep the product of your own labor.

Some dusty old genius guys explained it all circa 1775.

Cheers, James Arthur

Reply to
dagmargoodboat

On Sunday, November 30, 2014 6:44:34 AM UTC-5, snipped-for-privacy@gmail.com wro te:

ote:

om wrote:

dy. He has no academic or experiential credentials in law, economics or his tory, topics about which he writes. He claims to be a high school economics teacher somewhere. He's nothing but a button-pushing swine who writes chil dish material for childish undeveloped minds. No wonder Amdx is suckered in to this fiction. His little short story, without any annotation whatsoever because there are none, is pure hogwash. We can only hope they get that eut hanasia coaster working or the idiot and his pathetic and gullible readers. ...

s it

own.

by

work.

ved

ill

among them, allowed each man to plant corn for his own household, and

ral way as before."

on

ship here, that came much later, and it was availed only to "freemen" of th e colony, a status accorded only to people with the right religious convict ions. The new order was to make each family responsible for raising their o wn crops. The chief source of income for the colony was the fur trade. From this they obtained the resources to procure necessities from England and t he Indians. The procurement of local food was not working out too well for them, so they did the land "assignment" thing to make themselves less relia nt on the Indians for food. All their other major survival activities remai ned communal, things like fur trapping and fishing. Bradford's diatribe abo ut Plato's idealization of a commonwealth system is just that, a diatribe, the Plymouth colony remained a commonwealth.

Whatever one's interpretation, or view on the rest of their arrangements, t he fact remains that people take better care of things they own, produce more, benefiting society as a whole.

Taking things from people who earned them discourages work, divides them against each other in a mutual competition of need rather then production, and produces less. It's worse for everyone.

Taking up where you left off,

==[quote]== "This had very good success; for it made all hands very industrious, so as much more corne was planted then other waise would have bene by any means y e Govr or any other could use, and saved him a great deall of trouble, and gave farr better contente. The women now wente willingly into ye feild, and tooke their litle-ons with them to set corne, which before would aledg wea knes, and inabilitie; whom to have compelled would have bene thought great tiranie and oppression.

[163]

The experience that was had in this com?one course and condition, trie d sundrie years, and that amongst godly and sober men, may well evince the vanitie of that conceite of Platos & other ancients, applauded by some of l ater times;?that ye taking away of propertie, and bringing in com ?unitie into a comone wealth, would make them happy and florishing; as if they were wiser then God. For this comunitie (so farr as it was) was fo und to breed much confusion & discontent, and retard much imploym?t th at would have been to their benefite and comforte. For ye yong-men that wer e most able and fitte for labour & service did repine that they should spen d their time & streingth to worke for other mens wives and children, with o ut any recompence. The strong, or man of parts, had no more in devission of victails & cloaths, then he that was weake and not able to doe a quarter y e other could; this was thought injuestice. The aged and graver men to be r anked and [97] equalised in labours, and victails, cloaths, &c., with ye me aner & yonger sorte, thought it some indignite & disrespect unto them. And for mens wives to be commanded to doe servise for other men, as dresing the ir meate, washing their cloaths, &c., they deemd it a kind of slaverie, nei ther could many husbands well brooke it. Upon ye poynte all being to have a like, and all to doe alike, they thought them selves in ye like condition, and one as good as another; and so, if it did not cut of those

[164]

relations that God hath set amongest men, yet it did at least much diminish and take of ye mutuall respects that should be preserved amongst them. And would have bene worse if they had been men of another condition. [==End Quote==]

Providing a link to the ORIGINAL, HISTORICAL, first-hand SOURCE is obfuscat ion?

ish text.

Naturally, only the gilded self-anointed super-progs can interpret (preferably from an ivory tower with tenure and a government pension. Common people are just too ... commone to possibly understand stuff like starving vs. plenty, pride in ownership, the benefits of keeping what they earn, etc., much less be fit to rule themselves. Gruber rules.

Cheers, James Arthur

Reply to
dagmargoodboat

Some Europeons, particularly AIOE posters, are so brainwashed that they have no real clue what freedom and capitalism are all about.

That's why I blanket killfile AIOE (after the whitelist). ...Jim Thompson

--
| James E.Thompson                                 |    mens     | 
| Analog Innovations                               |     et      | 
| Analog/Mixed-Signal ASIC's and Discrete Systems  |    manus    | 
| San Tan Valley, AZ 85142     Skype: skypeanalog  |             | 
| Voice:(480)460-2350  Fax: Available upon request |  Brass Rat  | 
| E-mail Icon at http://www.analog-innovations.com |    1962     | 
              
I love to cook with wine.     Sometimes I even put it in the food.
Reply to
Jim Thompson

The US was never really a Capitalist society, in the Marx sense of capitalism. Ideas and energy have always been more successful than merely wielding piles of money. That's why Apple is worth more than Exxon.

--

John Larkin         Highland Technology, Inc 
picosecond timing   laser drivers and controllers 

jlarkin att highlandtechnology dott com 
http://www.highlandtechnology.com
Reply to
John Larkin

It's a matter of people following differential incentives, gradients. It's like water flowing downhill. Communism would work if it included such gradients, but it generally doesn't.

--

John Larkin         Highland Technology, Inc 
picosecond timing   laser drivers and controllers 

jlarkin att highlandtechnology dott com 
http://www.highlandtechnology.com
Reply to
John Larkin

Price != value. ... it's an extension of "never reason from a price change." I'd see a lot of things Apple brings in, but ideas are not among them. There is the idea that somehow Apple products meet some fashion criteria but there's precious little actual value there. The first Apple Mac I saw did Paint and that was about it unless you spent even more for the development tools suite

If Exxon disappeared tomorrow without being replaced, there'd be a suite of very real problems.

Apple? Not so much. I am sure whoever made transistor radios in the late

50s/early '60s seemed a juggernaut, too. With all due respect, they're selling people's inability to grasp solutions back to them.

As soon as somebody starts talking "value" or "values", mark the time - you are being sold to.

--
Les Cargill
Reply to
Les Cargill

I'm reading Eric Hoffer. Writing in 1959, he looks at Europe and the USSR and believes their scientists, their elites are every bit as good as America's, but the societies' productivity is drastically different. He suggests where those societies is that they can't motivate the ordinary people to do things. Great plans, zero execution.

Regarding the fear then we were being outpaced by Russia, "...we need not worry about Russia catching up with us so long as the common people are kept under the thumbs of commissars." --Eric Hoffer

By "commissars" I'm quite sure he'd cite Gruber, overseeing health care regs.

Cheers, James Arthur

Reply to
dagmargoodboat

ElectronDepot website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.