The Great Thanksgiving Hoax

Much "American History"/folklore is rewritten through rose-colored glasses.

We were required to take a variety of elective courses in school to "round out" our education -- without having them all prescribed for us.

Growing up in New England (big on american heritage), it was a requirement that6 we take two years of american history and two years of american literature before graduating high school. So, these seemed like "good (as in "easy?" :> ) choices" to repeat in college.

I.e., I already know all the "bedtime stories"...

The professor who taught the course was an economist, by profession. So, everything he recounted had that sort of spin/insight in its retelling.

Very sobering to see that all this supposedly idealistic/altruistic behavior was just greed/profit motive -- in a different form -- dressed up to make it seem more palatable/inspiring for gullible youngsters!

[Only naivite wold let you think this motivation *ended* with our own history]

On Nov 24, 2016, amdx wrote (in article ):

It does appear to be true. I read the account in the original records of the Plymouth colony. I don?t recall exactly where I got it, but there is a historical website will all their records.It was pretty clear. I?ll try to find the URL.

The problem wasn?t socialism, it was in fact a pure communism, and the solution was to convert to a pure capitalism. In the Soviet Union, the widowmaker cabinet post was Minister of Agriculture.

Joe Gwinn

Way back in high skool, a group of us researched the Thanksgiving story for a class report and with the dubious help of the instructor. The consensus was something like this:

Most of the original pilgrims came to the new world because they didn't quite fit in with establishment back in England. Some were probably given the choice of going to jail or the new world. These type of people do not exactly make the best colonists.

Thanksgiving is normally celebrated during November, which is a month before the beginning of winter. The ground would have been covered with snow. With a bad harvest, that's about when I would expect the colonists to run out of everything if they hadn't prepared properly. The alfresco outdoor picnic scene was more likely a starving group of colonists huddled around a fire.

At the time, the native Americans probably had enough experience with the colonists to realize that they were not exactly the nicest people. However, they were curious, liked the trinkets, and probably made good conversation for winter, when nothing much happens. More likely, it was the Indians that brought food, presents, goodies, and game animals to the colonists, not the other way around.

William Bradford started writing "Of Plymouth Plantation" in about

1630, about 10 years after the winter of 1621. He finished in 1651, but decided not to publish the book. The first printing was in 1658, one year after his death. Lacking any contemporary history of the colonies, it is difficult to tell if Bradford embellished the story, tweaked it for political correctness, or if others after his death did the same. I would suspect they did, but I have no proof.

I really don't want to slog through the entire manuscript: to see if the authors of the web page correctly interpreted the events of 1621 and 1631. While 1621 is mentioned (around Pg 138), it's all about summer, and then jumps to 1622, with very little mention of famine or hardships. There was some talk of trading with the Indians for corn on Pg 155.

--
Jeff Liebermann     jeffl@cruzio.com 
150 Felker St #D    http://www.LearnByDestroying.com 
Santa Cruz CA 95060 http://802.11junk.com 
Skype: JeffLiebermann     AE6KS    831-336-2558

Oh my God, you're seriously trotting out this tired old Cold War fable?

Except that it's not.

The problem with the story is primarily that the situation prior to 1623 was pretty much nothing like Communism or socialism (and it was the direct consequence of corporate policies, mind you, the Pilgrims weren't socialist subjects in a nation, but shareholders in a private corporation that answered to the Crown) and the system in place after

1623 was pretty much nothing like capitalism.

Calling the Mass Bay Colony or Jamestown "socialist states" is simply an absurd comparison.

Oh, and there were episodes of starvation after 1623, too.

In modern spelling: "They began now to gather in the small harvest they had, and to fit up their houses and dwellings against winter, being all well recovered in health and strength and had all things in good plenty. For as some were thus employed in affairs abroad, others were exercised in fishing, about cod and bass and other fish, of which they took good store, of which every family had their portion. All the summer there was no want; and now began to come in store of fowl, as winter approached, of which this place did abound when they came first (but afterward decreased by degrees). And besides waterfowl there was great store of wild turkeys, of which they took many, besides venison, etc. Besides, they had about a peck of meal a week to a person, or now since harvest, Indian corn to that proportion. Which made many afterwards write so largely of their plenty here to their friends in England, which were not feigned but true reports."

Sounds like quite a party.

The hilarious part is that there was an actual proto-Communist settlement in Massachusetts during the late 1620s called Merrymount, which co-operated with the Native Americans.

It was eventually raided in 1629 by the "capitalist" settlers of New Salem during one more of their chronic episodes of starvation, as Merrymount was known to be one of the most agriculturally prosperous and popular settlements in the colony.

LOL

No, nothing in the Massachusetts Bay Colony ever resembled "pure capitalism" or "pure communism" in any shape or form, ever.

What an idiot.

the

is a

ll try to

d the

It wasn't pure communism - which hadn't been though of back then. It was es sentially primitive Christianity. The Plymouth colony was not the only grou p that tried it, and it rarely seems to work (and never for very long when it does more or less work).

Modern socialism is happy to exploit the free market wherever it works. Lik e practical capitalism, it is aware that the free market isn't stable, and degenerates into cartels and monopoly if given half a chance (as Adam Smith was well aware). It's also aware that a properly competitive free market i s also unstable in tending to fall into cycles of boom and bust, and needs to be regulated (by fairly subtle tweaks of interests rates or money supply ) to keep the investment rate steady and adequate.

It took quite a while to evolve mechanisms that can be relied on to keep th is kind of free market running smoothly, and the Plymouth Colony was one in a long series of half-baked experiments. Communism is another.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

I think folks underestimate how much work it is to "live off the land". I recall one of those "let's transport modern day people back to ____" documentaries (there have been several with different themes).

From the one set in early america, I recall one of the "faux settlers" being advised to "chop wood any time you have 'spare time'" (i.e., when you aren't tending to the garden, animals, shelter, etc.).

At the end of the "experiment", the "experts" would come in and evaluate each homestead with an eye towards whether or not they would be able to "survive the coming winter" (enough foodstores on hand, enough wood to burn, etc.).

IIRC, most (all?) of them didn't have enough wood stockpiled to make it through the (hypothetical historical) winter. This despite all of the time you (as viewer) were shown the menfolk chopping and stacking wood.

Granted, two families could *share* a fire and thus benefit from the wood gathering skills of two men. But, there's a limit to how much this scales.

The winners (survivors) get to write the history. :>

I think that all of it is true. And those selfish forces have been on the rise, to wit: over 40 percent of the population are on some kind of welfare, and the percentage is growing.

There nothing selfish about losing your job because some venture capitalist can make more money having the work done overseas by people who will work for less.

Places that take social security seriously spend money on retraining people so that they can get new jobs in different industries.

Denmark is more serious about it than most, and it seems to work.

The population is small - 5.6 million - but they do have some world-leading companies, like the wind-turbine manufacturer Vestas.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

Yes! All those freeloading old geezers!!!

I watched most of the episodes when it was shown on TV. However, the set was in 1883 Montana, not 1620's Massachusetts. You're right. The best of the bunch managed to collect 9(?) cords of firewood, which the experts declared was insufficient. All the other families did worse. Montana would be mostly pine. 9 cords of green pine would weigh about

4,200 lbs/cord or a total of 37,800 lbs of green pine logs. That's plenty of exercise.

Incidentally, I burn firewood to heat my house. Photo of this years pile (about 1.5 cords): For November, I've been burning construction scrap, pallets, dead fall, and old logs that were trying to rot. Whatever works. However, no matter how much firewood I cut, buy, gather, salvage, or scrounge, I usually seem to run out in late winter.

The first thing that everyone does, who moves from the city into my area of the mountains, is buy a chain saw. They then proceed to drop, buck, split, and stack a tree, usually an oak. If they're really conscientious, the job is done by September. However, it's still green and probably won't really dry until after the following summer. It's burnable, but at half the efficiency, twice the smoke, and double the swearing. The next year, they buy their firewood and the chain saw sits rusting in the garage.

Yep. There was probably some of that. However, the families of the day were much larger than what was shown on the TV show, and the houses were much smaller. I don't think they could have crammed two families into a log cabin.

Also, they could have done better with the available firewood by insulating their log cabin homes. In 1883, I suspect they didn't understand the need for insulation.

--
Jeff Liebermann     jeffl@cruzio.com 
150 Felker St #D    http://www.LearnByDestroying.com 
Santa Cruz CA 95060 http://802.11junk.com 
Skype: JeffLiebermann     AE6KS    831-336-2558

You gave up just as Bradford was getting into the story. In the spirit of Thanksgiving, here it is:

On page [153] Bradford describes the harvest of 1622, their initial rejoicing, then, on taking stock, panic.

(I've modernized the spelling & style.)

[153] "Now the welcome time of harvest approached, in which all had their hungry bellies filled. But it arose but to a little, in comparison of a full year's supply; partly by reason they were not yet well acquainted with the manner of Indian corn, (and they had no other,) also their many other employments, but chiefly their weakness for want of food, to tend it as they should have done.

Also much was stolen both by night & day, before it became scarce eatable, & much more afterward. And though many were well whipped (when they were taken) for a few ears of corn, yet hunger made others (whom conscience did not restrain) to venture. So as it well appeared the famine must still ensue the next year also, if not some way prevented, or supply should fail, to which they durst not trust. Markets there was none to go to, but only the Indians, and they had no trading commodities."

Next Bradford tells of their desperate attempts to avoid the coming disaster: pleading for relief, and considering stealing from the Indians. And then he proceeds to discuss how they'd gotten themselves to this predicament in the first place...

[157] "It may be thought strange that these people should fall to these extremities in so short a time, being left competently provided when the ship left them..."

Starting at page [162], Bradford describes the solution they found to preve nt such want and suffering in the future:

[162] So they began to think how they might raise as much corn as they coul d, and obtain a better crop than they had done, that they might not still thu s languish in misery. At length, after much debate of things, the Govr (with the advice of the chiefest amongst them) gave way that they should set cor n every man for his own particular, and in that regard trust to themselves; in all other things to go on in the general way as before.

And so assigned to every family a parcel of land, according to the proport ion of their number for that end, only for present use (but made no division f or inheritance), and ranged all boys & youth under some family. This had very good success; for it made all hands very industrious, so as much more corn was planted then other ways would have been by any means the Govr or any other could use, and saved him a great deal of trouble, and gave far bette r content.

The women now went willingly into the field, and took their little-ones with them to set corn, who before would allege weakness, and inability; whom to have compelled would have been thought great tyranny and oppressio n.

[163] "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 & other ancients, applauded by some of later times;?that the taking away of property , and bringing in community into a common wealth, would make them happy and flourishing; as if they were wiser then God.

For this community (so far as it was) was found to breed much confusion & discontent, and retard much employment that would have been to their benefit and comfort. For the young men that were most able and fit for labour & service did repine that they should spend their time & strength to work for other men's wives and children, without any recompense. The strong, or man of parts, had no more in division of victuals & clothes, then he that was weak and not able to do a quarter the other could; this was thought injustice.

The aged and graver men to be ranked and equalised in labours, and victuals, clothes, etc., with the meaner & younger sort, thought it some indignity & disrespect unto them. And for men's wives to be commanded to do service for other men, as dressing their meat, washing their clothes, etc., they deemed it a kind of slavery, neither could many husbands well brook it. Upon the point all being to have alike, and all to do alike, they thought themselves in the like condition, and one as good as another; and so, if it did not cut of those relations that God hath set amongst men, yet it did at least much diminish and take of the mutual respects that should be preserved amongst them. And would have been worse if they had been men of another condition. Let none object this is men's corruption, and nothing to the course itself. I answer, seeing all men have this corruption in them, God in his wisdom saw another course fitter for them."

On page [164] Bradford describes how they scrounged their way through that winter.

Page [176] relates the arrival of newcomers, insufficiently supplied, the quandary that presented, and the colony's resolution under their new economic policy...

[176] "On the other hand the old planters were afraid that their corn, when it was ripe, should be imparted to the new-comers, whose provisions which they brought with them they feared would fall short before the year went about (as indeed it did).

They came to the Govr and besought him that as it was before agreed that they should set corn for their particular, and accordingly they had taken extraordinary pains there about, that they might freely enjoy the same, and they would not have a bite of the victuals now come, but wait till harvest for their own, and let ye new-com?rs enjoy what they had brought; they would have none of it, except they could purchase any of it of them by bargain or exchange. Their request was granted them, for it gave both sides good content; for ye new-comers were as much afraid that the hungry [177]planters would have eat up the provisions brought, and they should have fallen into the like condition."

On page [204], Bradford assesses the fruits of the new approach...

[204] "And before I come to other things I must speak a word of their planting this year; they having found the benefit of their last year's harvest, and setting corn for their particular, having thereby with a great deal of patience overcome hunger & famine.

Which makes me remember a saying of Senecas, Epis: 123. That a great part of liberty is a well governed belly, and to be patient in all wants.

They began now highly to prize corn as [201]more precious than silver, and those that had some to spare began to trade one with another for small things, by the quart, potle, & peck, etc.; for money they had none, and if any had, corn was preferred before it.

That they might therefore increase their tillage to better advantage, they made suit to the Govr to have some portion of land given them for continuance, and not by yearly lotte[ry?], for by that means, that which the more industrious had brought into good culture (by much pains) one year, came to leave it the next, and often another might enjoy it; so as the dressing of their lands were the more sleighted over, & to less profit.

Which being well considered, their request was granted. And to every person was given only one acre of land, to them & theirs, as near the town as might be, and they had no more 'til the 7 years were expired. The reason was, that they might be kept close together both for more safety and defense, and the better improvement of the general employments."

Happy Thanksgiving!

Cheers, James Arthur

and the

The 'Commonwealth of Massachusetts', like the 'Commonwealth of Virginia' wa s at one time a mutually supporting nonmonetary society (to prevent starvation a nd extinction of the colony). Socialism was the rule of the day. As for 'p ure communism' and 'pure capitalism', I doubt those phrases are well defined.

, and the

was

ion

for

Since neither the word "communism" nor the word "captalism" had been coined at that stage (nor "socialism" either) "well defined" perhaps an understat ement.

The arrangement might be described as "communalism" which, as a word, only goes back to 1875 but goes back a lot further as a form of community organi sation.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney