# Real thanksgiving



## billc (Nov 24, 2010)

Well today on Rush's show, and tonight or tomorrow night John Stossle on Fox business channel is going to cover it, The Truth About the First Thanksgiving.  I have just started wondering why noone ever questioned the story about thanksgiving before.  How did a stone age, primarily hunter gathering group like the early native americans help a more advanced, agriculturally more sophisticated, group of people learn about farming?  Well, if you listen to Rush each year at thanksgiving and watch Stossel tonight, you will find out that what we have all been taught about that event may not be accurate.  The first example of socialisms defeat is finally getting a hearing.  Happy Thanksgiving.


----------



## billc (Nov 24, 2010)

John Stossel has also written a column at his website about the truth about Thanksgiving if you can't wait to see the episode tomorrow night before you launch at me.


----------



## CanuckMA (Nov 24, 2010)

Well, possibly because the native were not stone age hunter gatherers, but more sedentary, crop planting. And likely because the Pilgrims were not sophisticated farmers. 

And have you ever been to Cape Cod? Not the best planting land if you don't know what you're doing. And even if you have some clue, the sseds brought from England would have a real hard time growing in that soil.


----------



## WC_lun (Nov 25, 2010)

CanuckMA said:


> Well, possibly because the native were not stone age hunter gatherers, but more sedentary, crop planting. And likely because the Pilgrims were not sophisticated farmers.
> 
> And have you ever been to Cape Cod? Not the best planting land if you don't know what you're doing. And even if you have some clue, the sseds brought from England would have a real hard time growing in that soil.


 
To add to this, the pilgrims were not used to the weather or know what the conditions would be.

The original Thanksgiving was pretty simple though.  It was a celebration between the pilgrims and thier ally Indian tribe for a successful raid on another Indian tribe.


----------



## crushing (Nov 25, 2010)

...and they had beer!


----------



## Tez3 (Nov 25, 2010)

I think few of the Pilgrims were used to manual labour never mind farming, a good many of them were what we'd call these days intellectuals. I imagine the Native Indians were far more sophisciated in the ways of living in the country than the settlers were.

I don't understand the OPs coment on 'socialism's first defeat'

There's also an overtone of almost indignation that 'primitives' should be credited with helping the 'all knowing white man' anything! Interesting!


----------



## billc (Nov 25, 2010)

If you look at the account by the govenor, at the start of their new life here the pilgrims lived a communal lifestyle according to an equal share to everyone regardless of their individual effort.  By doing this they starved for the first two years they were here.  Once they were cut loose to develop their own parcels of land they started thriving.  The point about the Indians is not to point out one group being superior to the other but to debunk that attitude.  For too many people, the early native americans represent all that was good in this country and the colonizing Europeans everything that was bad.  It is not that simple.  The native americans were constantly fighting each other, I just read an article about the three tribes in the region, the Mohawks from the west and the other two tribes, and how they had just finished a pretty devestating conflict.  Too many people today have a mythical image of early peoples and go on to condemn the Europeans.  I just like seeing things as they are.  The fact that the Europeans prospered after they were allowed their own land sort of diminishes the myth that they weren't farmers.  If you look at the accounts of early Native American agriculture, it wasn't as sophisticated as the european methods.


----------



## Tez3 (Nov 25, 2010)

billcihak said:


> If you look at the account by the govenor, at the start of their new life here the pilgrims lived a communal lifestyle according to an equal share to everyone regardless of their individual effort. By doing this they starved for the first two years they were here. Once they were cut loose to develop their own parcels of land they started thriving. The point about the Indians is not to point out one group being superior to the other but to debunk that attitude. For too many people, the early native americans represent all that was good in this country and the colonizing Europeans everything that was bad. It is not that simple. The native americans were constantly fighting each other, I just read an article about the three tribes in the region, the Mohawks from the west and the other two tribes, and how they had just finished a pretty devestating conflict. Too many people today have a mythical image of early peoples and go on to condemn the Europeans. I just like seeing things as they are. The fact that the Europeans prospered after they were allowed their own land sort of diminishes the myth that they weren't farmers. If you look at the accounts of early Native American agriculture, it wasn't as sophisticated as the european methods.


 

So they didn't have servants and labourers then?
 They would have been as far from socialist as it's possible to get, there would have been quite a strict social structure with everyoine knowing their place. Living communally doesn't make them socialist. 
The idea of Europeans didn't exist then, the first settlers if you don't count the Vikings, were English and they managed to fight with all their neighbours too so condemning the Indians for also doing that is a bit hypocritical.
I imagine the 'Europeans' prospered on 'their own land' because by then they had indentured servants and slaves to do all the hard work for them.

What is sophisicated farming methods? I think that the Indians knew the best ways to farm the land they lived on which makes them as sophisticated as the 'Europeans' who knew how to grow stuff back in their own countries. One is not better than the other. 

You are in fact saying the settlers were superior to the Indians whether you realise it or not.


----------



## billc (Nov 25, 2010)

The european settlers had better technology and techniques than the indians.  It is that simple.  At a basic level, the settlers had ships that kept bringing more of them to the new world.  The stone age early native americans didn't have the wheel, written language or their own navy to turn back the pilgrims.  Reverse the situation.  Had the early native americans sailed to england there would not have been the colonization that you saw the other way around.  Both groups were on the planet the same length of time, the early native americans came from a resource rich country and they were technologically behind the settlers.  It is not a they are better than them, it is a difference in technological development that eventually won the day for the settlers from europe.  People are people.  They all act the same, have the same motivations and will engage in the same activities.  The mythical nature of early peoples is the problem.  Treat them like people, not saints.  They did not treat the environment better than the europeans, they were also extremely wasteful.  Check out "War before civilization" and "Constant Battles."  Early people were constantly using up their resources and suffering for it or taking them from other early peoples.


----------



## billc (Nov 25, 2010)

Remember as well that the early people also had slaves, and captured members of other tribes, and ate their enemies and engaged in torture and human sacrifice.  They were not Disney characters, they were primitive peoples living in a harsh environment with inadequate technology and medical care.  The Europeans were ahead of them just enough to give them the advantage.  I'm not saying THe europeans were saints either.  They killed each other and tortured and stole and all the other evils that people are capable of.  My point is that the early native americans were the same.  Not worse, not better, but just people in a primitive time.


----------



## Tez3 (Nov 25, 2010)

billcihak said:


> The european settlers had better technology and techniques than the indians. It is that simple. At a basic level, the settlers had ships that kept bringing more of them to the new world. The stone age early native americans didn't have the wheel, written language or their own navy to turn back the pilgrims. Reverse the situation. Had the early native americans sailed to england there would not have been the colonization that you saw the other way around. Both groups were on the planet the same length of time, the early native americans came from a resource rich country and they were technologically behind the settlers. It is not a they are better than them, it is a difference in technological development that eventually won the day for the settlers from europe. People are people. They all act the same, have the same motivations and will engage in the same activities. The mythical nature of early peoples is the problem. Treat them like people, not saints. They did not treat the environment better than the europeans, they were also extremely wasteful. Check out "War before civilization" and "Constant Battles." Early people were constantly using up their resources and suffering for it or taking them from other early peoples.


 

Ah, so the fact they were different makes them backwards and primitive?

The fact is whatever the Native Indians were or weren't isn't the point, they were still invaded by the settlers, you can't get round that. Whether they were wasteful, primitive or whatever they were still there first. You are using the fact that you think that 'European' farming methods were supposed to be superior as justification for the invasion of these peoples lands. I'm not treating them as saints or sinners merely as the original inhabitants of your country who have since been treated badly, something I think you can't disagree with unless you think that being primitive is a crime that the Europeans have rectified.


----------



## billc (Nov 25, 2010)

No, I'm saying that better technology allowed your people to squeeze out the early natives.  It doesn't justify anything it is the way things were back then.  When the various tribes that were here killed and enslaved other tribes over hunting, fishing and farm land,  they weren't justified either, it was just a fact of surviving in a brutal period of human history, before people developed enough both technologically, intellectually and spirituallly to start treating each other better.  It was an ugly unpleasent time to be alive for everyone.


----------



## Tez3 (Nov 25, 2010)

billcihak said:


> No, I'm saying that better technology allowed your people to squeeze out the early natives. It doesn't justify anything it is the way things were back then. When the various tribes that were here killed and enslaved other tribes over hunting, fishing and farm land, they weren't justified either, it was just a fact of surviving in a brutal period of human history, before people developed enough both technologically, intellectually and spirituallly to start treating each other better. It was an ugly unpleasent time to be alive for everyone.


 
Not my people lol, the Pilgrim Fathers were resolutely Protestant, I can't imagine they'd pop a Rabbi on board do you?

Why do you resent the fact that some Indians helped some settlers?


----------



## billc (Nov 25, 2010)

I don't mind that the indians helped the settlers but it went both ways.  What annoys me is that people see the early native americans as disney characters and the settlers as little more than monsters.  Just think of the Aztec alters covered in blood and the high priests taking juicy bites out of the newly carved hearts.  You won't see that ride at Disney land.


----------



## Tez3 (Nov 25, 2010)

I don't know anyone who thinks of it all as something from Disney. It certainly isn't taught that way in our schools.


----------



## billc (Nov 25, 2010)

What made them primitive is that they lacked certain technological advances common at the time in europe.  The wheel, written language, firearms, metal working skills that would produce swords and armor, ships and the ability to cross the Atlantic ocean,  animal husbandry and so on.


----------



## WC_lun (Nov 25, 2010)

Not all of the settler's farming techniques were supurior to the indians.  For example, crop rotation was shown to the settlers by the indians. 

The deciding factors of European take over of Indian lands were firearms, numbers, and disease.  the social structures or farming technology had little, if anything to do with it.


----------



## billc (Nov 25, 2010)

W.C., I just checked wikipedia, the romans had crop rotation and by the time of Charlemegne they were moving into three field crop rotation.  You have to feed the people with the guns and eating regularly helps keep your population numbers up.


----------



## Tez3 (Nov 25, 2010)

billcihak said:


> What made them primitive is that they lacked certain technological advances common at the time in europe. The wheel, written language, firearms, metal working skills that would produce swords and armor, ships and the ability to cross the Atlantic ocean, animal husbandry and so on.


 

You are judging them by standards I doubt they judged themselves by, perhaps they thought the invaders were primitive for not being able to survive in their 'new' country! We need to be careful about judging people, many think the Australian Aborigines are primitive but they are extremely sophisicated at living in their own country which the settlers were not for all their so called advancements.


----------



## billc (Nov 25, 2010)

Guys, keep in mind, the romans had literature and historical records, metal weapons and conquered most of their known world.  The early native americans still didn't have any of these things when the British arrived.


----------



## billc (Nov 25, 2010)

Yeah, they had trouble surviving those first few years because their technology was limited as well, but once they were established they swarmed over the whole continent.


----------



## Omar B (Nov 25, 2010)

billcihak said:


> Remember as well that the early people also had slaves, and captured members of other tribes, and ate their enemies and engaged in torture and human sacrifice.  They were not Disney characters, they were primitive peoples living in a harsh environment with inadequate technology and medical care.  The Europeans were ahead of them just enough to give them the advantage.  I'm not saying THe europeans were saints either.  They killed each other and tortured and stole and all the other evils that people are capable of.  My point is that the early native americans were the same.  Not worse, not better, but just people in a primitive time.



Ok, the pilgrims who had the thanksgiving with the natives did not have slaves.  One of the reasons they left the old world was because they disagreed with the practice, they had many reasons, but it was in there.

As for the natives being backwards.  It's debatable.  Many tribes practiced agriculture, they worked metal (they had gold jewelry after all), and many of their medicines worked.  Not because it wasn't cooked up in a lab makes it any less valid, look at Chinese medicine for instance.

They were overwhelmed by numbers and yes, better technology, but they were not as backwards as you would paint them.


----------



## billc (Nov 25, 2010)

I remember an account that I read in my freshman history class by a priest who lived with the indians.  He said that they would carry the sick along with them until they lost their appetite and then they would leave them under a tree to die.  He also spoke about spending the winter with the tribe where they had to remain in their tents to stay warm.  The priest said you had to lay down near the side of the tent, and lift it to get clean air to breath because the smoke was so thick in the tent.


----------



## Omar B (Nov 25, 2010)

Yeah?  What's the point you are trying to make here?  People got sick and died all over the world at that time and even now from easily cured diseases.  People also got cold in winter and used fires to heat their homes ... even now too.


----------



## Steve (Nov 25, 2010)

Just making sure I understand the OP.  Are you saying that Thanksgiving is a liberal plot to brainwash our kids into becoming Socialists?


----------



## billc (Nov 25, 2010)

No.


----------



## Omar B (Nov 25, 2010)

stevebjj said:


> Just making sure I understand the OP.  Are you saying that Thanksgiving is a liberal plot to brainwash our kids into becoming Socialists?



I think he's trying to say that the Pilgrims were from a more advanced society and the natives had nothing to teach them.  But this is ignorning the fact that most of these Pilgrims were from metropolitan areas in England and The Netherlands doing jobs that are pretty similar to what we are doing now.  After all, this was post Renaissance Europe city dwellers, most had never worked on farm in their lives, many of them shop keepers, tailors, shop keepers, butchers, accountants, lawyers, clergy, sailors, brokers of various materials, not the type (even now) to know much about agriculture or starting a new society from scratch.

Reminds me of the last book in the Hitchhiker's Guide To The Galaxy with the entire ship full of accountants, lawyers, hairdressers, phone repairmen, etc.  Who landed on a primordial earth and had zero clue how to do anything but do each other's hair and complain about the humidity.


----------



## Tez3 (Nov 25, 2010)

billcihak said:


> I remember an account that I read in my freshman history class by a priest who lived with the indians. He said that they would carry the sick along with them until they lost their appetite and then they would leave them under a tree to die. He also spoke about spending the winter with the tribe where they had to remain in their tents to stay warm. The priest said you had to lay down near the side of the tent, and lift it to get clean air to breath because the smoke was so thick in the tent.


 

I have to question this, it doesn't ring true, in this day and age that anyone in America just leaves people to die under trees! they would carry them around until they lost their appetites? C'mon, you are going to have to come up with something better than that!

Billchihak, could you put all you want to say in one post rather than one after another?


----------



## billc (Nov 25, 2010)

I am talking about during the time of the colonies, when missionaries went to live with the tribes to convert them.  These practices were observed by a jesuit priest, I think.  I also just found the edit button, so I hope to consolidate my posts.  Happy Thanksgiving, time to indulge.


----------



## Tez3 (Nov 25, 2010)

billcihak said:


> I am talking about during the time of the colonies, when missionaries went to live with the tribes to convert them. These practices were observed by a *jesuit priest*, I think.


 
Oh yes those nice men who tortured and killed my people, coming from the church that initiated the Inquistition, who actually killed more natives in various countries than they converted..by force. Yep always a reliable source of how bad natives are.


----------



## billc (Nov 25, 2010)

It wasn't a reflection of good or bad on his  part he was just making reports about how the native americans lived.  It was an essay in the history supplemental at the University of Illinois at chicago, freshman history way back in 93 or so.  I don't remember the name of the collection.  It is also where the report from the native american winter camp came from.


----------



## Tez3 (Nov 25, 2010)

billcihak said:


> It wasn't a reflection of good or bad on his part he was just making reports about how the native americans lived.


 

Not my point, the Catholic Church along with other Christian beliefs felt that all natives were savages who either needed pacifying ie killed or converting. Their reports of the practices of the people they considered savages can't be trusted to be unbiased eye witness reports.


----------



## Blade96 (Nov 25, 2010)

Blade96 is going to ask permission to borrow your thread to wish all her American friends on here a happy thanksgiving. :uhyeah:


----------



## billc (Nov 25, 2010)

Then of course, the eyewitness accounts of the first thanksgiving shouldn't be trusted either.  Or any history for that matter.  In fact, the study of history should just stop since the accounts of eyewitnesses cannot be trusted.  There is only today.  Was there even a roman republic, or ancient Egypt?  Did the Japanese shogun, in fact exist or was it made up by interested petty japanese warlords?


----------



## Omar B (Nov 25, 2010)

Now you are being facetious when your argument crumbles upon itself.  One sent to convert people can hardly be looked upon as an unbiased source of information.

Fact is a priest sent out to convert the "savage natives" is going to write and report to his superiors that they are just that.  Cortez looked down on the Maya too, but they had great cities, irrigation, medicine, etc.  Sure they had human sacrifice, but that wasnt the whole culture, there are many cultures who have things we look down upon but they contributed to our civilization.


----------



## billc (Nov 25, 2010)

Perhaps the individual commenting on the motives of a long dead jesuit priest is reacting to his own preconcieved notions of the man and his calling.  Maybe all the people who wrote about the wrongs of the catholic church back then, were angry atheists, and protestants who had axes to grind.  Why bother with history at all?


----------



## Omar B (Nov 25, 2010)

That is a ratther immature and illinformed view on history.  If the one source you go by is wrong then it is all garbage huh?  There is a reason people study events from several sides and differing accounts, to try to eliminate personal bias and just see the events as they happened.  I don't think any angry atheist had any axe to grind against the church, the crusades, inquisition and middle ages happened, Martin Luther did nail his note to the door, the pilgrims did leave because of how they were treated by the church, these things happened.

If one were to take the account of Europeans as gospel then China would be nothing but a bunch of warring tribes, India would be nothing but a humid pesthole.  Both very advanced societies who in many ways were way ahead of Europe, but they were not christan and didn't care for European monarchs.


----------



## billc (Nov 25, 2010)

Of course, since discussions on a martial arts forum are the absolute best place to look at all the first hand accounts of all the witnesses to native american tribes from all the myriad points of view I guess being able to bad mouth, one, lone, jesuit preist, (if he was a jesuit, that class was a long time ago) who kept a journal is the best way to examine the validity of his account.  I guess I just didn't take your view point seriously because you may have a bias against Jesuit (?) priests who lived among the native americans.


----------



## Omar B (Nov 25, 2010)

No, you seem fixated on one account when the native people of this country are one of the most well documented aboriginal people out there.  There are literally thousands of books written on them, many first hand accounts from people who lived among them, hunted them, tried to convert them and who held them reverent.  No one should rely on one account, especcially that of a person sent for the sole purpose of converting the savages.

But you have not responded to European thought on Asian culture at the time.  They certainly didn't have a high opinion of China, India, Japan, though we know they were not the backward people they were portrayed as.

And you really shouldn't say such disparaging remarks about discussions on a "martial arts forum," it displays nothing but contempt for a place you choose to be and your fellow posters.  I'm a journalist, there are several scientists, doctors, historians, teachers, police officers, military, etc here.  We are by no stretch of the imagination meatheads, but your open sneer at this place because we don't share your opinion betrays a lot about yourself.


----------



## billc (Nov 25, 2010)

To all the fans of Japanese martial arts, how long did the Japanese feudal period last.  Not that I am complaining, because they were still in their feudal period so long they were able to keep their martial arts and pass them on more completely than their  european counterparts did.  Oh, what was that cult in India suppressed by the British, the Thuggees, and what did they do to the wives with dead husbands, something about throwing them on the burning pyre.  Now I am not saying anything about anyone being superior to anyone else, let's just not claim that they were saints either.


----------



## Omar B (Nov 25, 2010)

Feudalism in some isolated cases still continues to this day, nothing odd about that sort of society going on.  Wives dieing with husbands is hardly an India only practice.  Is this an attempt to obfuscate or change the topic?  We were discussing the first thanksgiving.  Or are you out of sources since you seem to lean on the one account.


----------



## billc (Nov 25, 2010)

You brought up India and Japan.  Books to look at, "wild in wood, the myth of the eco-savage" "Dinesh d'souza's book "the end of racism"  The book Constant Battles, the book War before civillization, The books from my history classes in college, "Michael medved's Ten big lies about America"   These forums are only good for certain things, in depth historical analysis is not one  of them.  I just brought up the one account because it was something I remembered from college.  Is it the only evidence, the only source, of course not.  I just believe that people are people and not saints, if they are indians or europeans or japanese or indians they all have their good points and they all have their warts.


----------



## Steve (Nov 25, 2010)

billcihak said:


> No.


Really?  Sure seemed like it.  



Omar B said:


> I think he's trying to say that the Pilgrims were from a more advanced society and the natives had nothing to teach them.


Well, that part of the agenda is pretty clear.  But in the OP, it sure sounded like he was going off on the liberal media for somehow trying to hide the true history of thanksgiving from everyone.  And then, "The first example of socialisms defeat is  finally getting a hearing."   Socialism is a politically charged word in any political climate, but in this current era, where our sitting President is being lambasted by a very specific demographic, it's a term with very specific meaning.  

Sure sounds like a neo-conservative rant to me.  I think someone should take billcihak's turkey away from him and, if it were me, he wouldn't get any pumpkin pie, either.  Trying to spread ignorant hatred is fine on most days, but Thanksgiving?  

Come on, billcihak.  Give it a rest. You've been posting on this thread literally all day long.  Go spend some time with your family.  And if you don't have family around, find some friends to hang with.  Thanksgiving is a time to be with people NOT hating on everyone.


----------



## billc (Nov 25, 2010)

Actually, I consider myself a Limbaugh, Coulter, levine conservative with a side of Hannity thrown in.  There's no hate going on here, I just like to discuss topics that usually go unnoticed.  Why is it when someone doesn't support an oft held, often wrong view point that the people of the left want to punish and silence them.  Just this week, actually last week, Senator Rockefeller lamented that he wanted to get the FCC to get rid of Fox news.  So much for being open to all sides of an argument.  I would have to agree more with Danesh D'souza, Obama is probably more of an anti-colonialist than a mainstream socialist.


----------



## granfire (Nov 25, 2010)

What is the point of this thread anyhow? 
Rush is I am assuming Limbaugh....not exactly the poster child for thruthiness in the media world. Fox net anything is not, either.

As to the claim the pilgrims were so advanced in their  methods. Well, think again. They might have been for their home in the climate of England, but other locations other problems and methods. Ask any gardener who ever moved long distance!
Also, the 'we know better' way of colonization is what is still destroying tropical rain forests, just because the eco system is not like the fertile plains of Europe or the US midwest with huge amounts of topsoil. 

Now we entered the feudal eras around the world. If you think the pilgrims were less feudal, I think you are mistaken. As they were children of their times, they would have adhered to the strict principles of patriarchy. 
And considering that 2 years after they landed they finally prospered, maybe it took them this long to figure it out. 

I think your statements are condescending at best, borderline inflamatory and founded on at least one questionable source. 

The only thing I do give you is that the first thanksgiving his over romanticized. But considering the holiday originated during the Victorian era...


----------



## Steve (Nov 25, 2010)

billcihak said:


> Actually, I consider myself a Limbaugh, Coulter, levine conservative with a side of Hannity thrown in.  There's no hate going on here, I just like to discuss topics that usually go unnoticed.  Why is it when someone doesn't support an oft held, often wrong view point that the people of the left want to punish and silence them.  Just this week, actually last week, Senator Rockefeller lamented that he wanted to get the FCC to get rid of Fox news.  So much for being open to all sides of an argument.  I would have to agree more with Danesh D'souza, Obama is probably more of an anti-colonialist than a mainstream socialist.


I think I'm wondering why, on Thanksgiving, you're arguing at all, regardless of what kind of political creature you choose.  That's really what I'm wondering.  But maybe it's just me.  

Once again, my recommendation is that you table your agenda for a day, chill out a little, have a glass of mulled cider, eat a piece of pumpkin pie with an extra helping of whipped cream and have a stimulating discussion with family and/or friends.


----------



## jks9199 (Nov 25, 2010)

ATTENTION ALL USERS:

Please keep the conversation polite and respectful.

jks9199
Super Moderator


----------



## aedrasteia (Nov 25, 2010)

Bill

no crankiness here - this could be an interesting conversation!

* can you provide a link to the Stossel piece?  I was away eating large amounts of poultry and did not see it.
* can you briefly summarize the point of the specific objections about viewpoints on First Thanksgiving?  I'm still confused about the nature of the problem regarding this?

just a brief note - over the last 40 years historians and anthropologists have developed a body of abundant scholarship *based on primary sources*, regarding relations/contact between earliest English settlers (Separatists in the 1620s) and native communities as well as considerable research (again based on primary sources, both written and excavated) on nutrition and food preparation. My post-graduate anthropology interest expanded to nutritional and culinary anthropology in the last ten years.  The survival of the earliest european and english settlers has been intensely examined - again, based on time-specific written material and archeological excavation. Lots an lots of enthusiastic, well-argued and well documented perspectives. Anthropologists and historians LOVE this topic.



billcihak said:


> _I have just started wondering why no-one ever questioned the story  about thanksgiving before.
> __How did a stone age, primarily hunter  gathering group like the early native americans help a more advanced,  agriculturally more sophisticated, group of people learn about farming?   Well, if you listen to Rush each year at thanksgiving and watch Stossel  tonight, you will find out that *what we have all been taught about that  event* may not be accurate._



???No one ever questioned? good grief, Historians constantly question  themselves and each other, revise their perspectives, do more hands-on,  source based research and argue with each other. So do good anthros!   Your examples/evidence of 'no-one'?
???     'the story'?  what do you mean?  which story?  the story in basic  elementary school textbooks in 1930?  1950? which ones? Texas?  the ones  in 1740 primers?  the one in a TV cartoon today? can you provide  examples/evidence of 'the story about thanksgiving' which you or the  other people you reference object to?    the 'story ' constructed in the  late 1880s and taught to new immigrants in the US large cities as part  of the assimilation process?
I'd like to take a look at examples of 'what we all have been taught about that event',
I'm guessing you mean history/social studies in K-12 schools. So I really want a link to Stossel's program or maybe he has written something about this?

hope you are well and stuffed with goodies.
thanks, A


----------



## billc (Nov 26, 2010)

The stossel piece can be found at his website at fox business news.  I was pointing out that the emphasis has always been placed on the indians saving the pilgrims from starving.  Stossel points out, as did Rush, that from the account of William Bradford, it was more the communal living, where each person, regardless of work effort, recieved an equal share.  Bradford wrote that this practice was he primary reason they starved those first two years.  Once the pilgrims were allowed to farm their own plots of land, he notes in his journal, they began to have surplus's.  That was pretty much my point.  Less that the indians saved the pilgrims, more that individuals working for themselves created incentive and motivation that communal living didn't.  The emphasis is always that the Indians saved the pilgrims, and this idea is all throughout popular culture.  I was at my parents and my mother had a soap opera on and one of the characters made a toast to the Indians for saving the pilgrims.  I do not think it is a completely accurate account of how it happened.  I know historians debate these issues, it just is not in the important, popular culture.  That is all.  I can't quite remember how it is taught in schools, but I am pretty sure the indivual effort of the pilgrims is never mentioned.  oh, some people watch football, I like to debate controversial topics and hash them out.  That is far more interesting to me and far more entertaining as well.


----------



## granfire (Nov 26, 2010)

so you replace it with another set of propaganda...

Obviously you have never farmed yourself and in that tried to apply your skill in a different climate. Nor have the talking heads of your chosen network.


----------



## billc (Nov 26, 2010)

Nor have I walked on the moon, or deep sea dived or hiked the appalachian trail, or manned a weather station in the antarctic...I don't believe in replacing one set of propaganda with another, but the Indian version is the only one you hear in popular culture and in the schools.  I think Bradford should get more of a hearing, that's all.


----------



## granfire (Nov 26, 2010)

billcihak said:


> Nor have I walked on the moon, or deep sea dived or hiked the appalachian trail, or manned a weather station in the antarctic...I don't believe in replacing one set of propaganda with another, but the Indian version is the only one you hear in popular culture and in the schools.  I think Bradford should get more of a hearing, that's all.



Well, I prefer sources closer to the subject matter, like real historians over a polemic 'news' network.

Like the interesting revelations about the real menu of the first feast.


----------



## Steve (Nov 26, 2010)

billcihak said:


> Nor have I walked on the moon, or deep sea dived or hiked the appalachian trail, or manned a weather station in the antarctic...I don't believe in replacing one set of propaganda with another, but the Indian version is the only one you hear in popular culture and in the schools.  I think Bradford should get more of a hearing, that's all.


What do you think the agenda is behind what you're now just calling the "Indian" version?  Obviously, you believe that there's an agenda at work here.  What do you think that is? 

Do you think that Fox has an agenda?  Presuming so, what might that be?


----------



## crushing (Nov 26, 2010)

Thanksgiving as a recurring national holiday in the US began in 1863 as a proclamation from President Lincoln and there was no mention of pilgrims and _Indians_.  Lincoln's carefully crafted proclamation not only enumerrated America's blessings, but also suggested that "foreign states" should stay out of the war between the states.

http://www.archives.gov/press/press-releases/2009/nr09-25.html

There have been harvest festivals, such as the one(s) between the pilrims and _Indians_, since the beginning of agrarian societies.  Given the fact that each region has its own growing season and those seasons could change somewhat from year to year it would make sense that the harvest festival, or "thanksgiving celebraton", would be more of a regional celebration of the harvest.

Making it a national holiday was done for political reasons.  Changing it from the 4th Thursday in November to the 3rd Thursday in November to extend the Christmas shopping season was done for economic and ultimately political reasons.

Based on the co-opting of various other holidays I get the feeling that rebranding a harvest gathering that goes back for thousands of years as Thanksgiving was also done for religious reasons.


----------



## chrispillertkd (Nov 26, 2010)

Omar B said:


> Ok, the pilgrims who had the thanksgiving with the natives did not have slaves. One of the reasons they left the old world was because they disagreed with the practice, they had many reasons, but it was in there.


 
As is pretty clear from the quote which you yourself highlighted the OP was talking about the _native Americans_ having slaves. 

Here's the part of the OP's post that you quoted,and underlined:



> Remember as well that the early people also had slaves, and captured members of other tribes, and ate their enemies and engaged in torture and human sacrifice.


 
The Pilgrims didn't capture members of "other tribes" or engage in canibalism.

Pax,

Chris


----------



## Steve (Nov 26, 2010)

chrispillertkd said:


> The Pilgrims didn't capture members of "other tribes" or engage in canibalism.
> 
> Pax,
> 
> Chris


As far as we know!


----------



## billc (Nov 27, 2010)

By undermining the historical record, attacking the institutions that created this country, there are people who would use that to change this country into more of a European socialist country.  They need to undermine the constitutions seperation of powers, because they need a strong federal government, they need to destroy the rugged individualism of America's past because it is easier for the federal government to act when the citizens are dependant on it for their medicine, retirement, their wages and so on.  By attacking the past they can organize the future.  If they can make the people of this country doubt the goodness of it, it is easier to make them except changes to it.  Before you doubt this, Rush quoted either Paul Krugman or Thomas Friedman, I'll have to look it up.  This guy said that he wished for one day, that the U.S. had a government like the Chinese did so that we could pass the legislation that he thought was necassary.  These are the guys who like to condemn every aspect of the founding of this country.


----------



## granfire (Nov 27, 2010)

Step away from the koolaid...

If it wasn't for socialist movements around the world the majority of us would still live in squalor, work 7 days a week, 12 or 14 hours a day just to starve over the the one meal you can afford. Forget luxuries like martial arts training for fun or of your choosing.

I find it laughable when people with zero historical sense try to sell their agenda. 
Not to mention the Europhobia you are talking about. 

Socialist movements have given us such things as unions so we can have paid vacations, minimum wages and workman's comp or OSHA.


----------



## crushing (Nov 27, 2010)

Thanksgiving weekend history lesson:  We've always been at war with Eastasia.


----------



## billc (Nov 27, 2010)

Granfire, if you hadn't noticed, the current ecomomic breakdown in Europe comes from a large part from spending other peoples money, eventually you run out of it.  Thanks Prime Minister Thatcher.  This is a lot off topic but I reply, socialism also murdered over 100 million people, and more, in the soviet union, china, germany, italy, japan, cambodia, and vietnam and has kept  more people, as Milton Friedman would say, in crushing poverty than it has helped.  Thanks.


----------



## Tez3 (Nov 27, 2010)

billcihak said:


> Granfire, if you hadn't noticed, the current ecomomic breakdown in Europe comes from a large part from spending other peoples money, eventually you run out of it. Thanks Prime Minister Thatcher. This is a lot off topic but I reply, socialism also murdered over 100 million people, and more, in the soviet union, china, germany, italy, japan, cambodia, and vietnam and has kept more people, as Milton Friedman would say, in crushing poverty than it has helped. Thanks.


 

Right, you do know that Maggie Thatcher was a Conservative? and she hasn't been around for a long time?
And over here, socialism is different from communism and the national socialism that was Hitler's pet project was actually fascism?


----------



## Steve (Nov 27, 2010)

billcihak said:


> By undermining the historical record, attacking the institutions that created this country, there are people who would use that to change this country into more of a European socialist country.  They need to undermine the constitutions seperation of powers, because they need a strong federal government, they need to destroy the rugged individualism of America's past because it is easier for the federal government to act when the citizens are dependant on it for their medicine, retirement, their wages and so on.  By attacking the past they can organize the future.  If they can make the people of this country doubt the goodness of it, it is easier to make them except changes to it.  Before you doubt this, Rush quoted either Paul Krugman or Thomas Friedman, I'll have to look it up.  This guy said that he wished for one day, that the U.S. had a government like the Chinese did so that we could pass the legislation that he thought was necassary.  These are the guys who like to condemn every aspect of the founding of this country.


Earlier, I asked, "Are you saying that Thanksgiving is a liberal plot to brainwash our kids into becoming Socialists?" And you said, "No."  But now...  are you saying yes?

Really, I'm just trying to get you to put your agenda out there and speak plainly so I can understand what the heck you're talking about.


----------



## Tez3 (Nov 27, 2010)

stevebjj said:


> Earlier, I asked, "Are you saying that Thanksgiving is a liberal plot to brainwash our kids into becoming Socialists?" And you said, "No." But now... are you saying yes?
> 
> Really, I'm just trying to get you to put your agenda out there and *speak plainly so I can* *understand what the heck you're talking about*.


 

Amen!


----------



## granfire (Nov 27, 2010)

billcihak said:


> Granfire, if you hadn't noticed, the current ecomomic breakdown in Europe comes from a large part from spending other peoples money, eventually you run out of it.  Thanks Prime Minister Thatcher.  This is a lot off topic but I reply, socialism also murdered over 100 million people, and more, in the soviet union, china, germany, italy, japan, cambodia, and vietnam and has kept  more people, as Milton Friedman would say, in crushing poverty than it has helped.  Thanks.



The current break down in Europe came from people not doing their math, by promising the popular like taking over all responsibilities of a broke former communist country, guaranteed by a conservatist statesman over the objection of a socialist politician

It is also the fallout from insane, no, crazy money mismanagement in the US. Did I say insane and crazy? I meant illegal and unethica, all in the name of capitalism. Enron looks like a church picnic compared to the events that shook the world economic. 

So, if you please, get some real information!


----------



## Blade96 (Nov 27, 2010)

billcihak said:


> How did a stone age, primarily hunter gathering group like the early native americans help a more advanced, agriculturally more sophisticated, group of people learn about farming? The european settlers had better technology and techniques than the indians



That's easy. The Natives knew the new world in ways that the Europeans didnt, so even though the Europeans might have had some more advanced stuff that doesn't mean they necessarily knew how to use it in a new world.


----------



## elder999 (Nov 28, 2010)

billcihak said:


> , The Truth About the First Thanksgiving..


 
Well, now another is behind us. Some spent it stuffing themselves. Some spent the entire day watching football. Some did both. Some went to church and offered thanks-then stuffed themselves and watched football all day. Some, like myself, offered thanks in other ways, ate a moderate feast (I&#8217;m just no good at &#8220;stuffing&#8221; myself anymore, though I do like to eat.) and maybe watched a movie. I hope you all enjoyed your holiday.

_&#8221;The Truth About the First Thanksgiving&#8221;_

[yt]UXoNE14U_zM[/yt]

A few things&#8230;&#8230;

When the &#8220;Pilgrims&#8221; arrived on North American shores, Europeans had been making contact with the Indians of that region for close to 100 years-to devastating effect. With no resistance to smallpox, entire villages had died, or had their population severely depleted. This was what confronted these individuals, some 102, when they arrived&#8230;they couldn&#8217;t find the place near the Hudson where they were supposed to go, and wound up in what became Massachussets. There, they occasionally plundered the corn supplies of these dead villages for food-having brought no livestock with them. They spent much of that first winter on the Mayflower, and by winter&#8217;s end, they had buried 52 of their members. The remainder took up residence in an Indian village called Patuxet-the home of a man called _T&#8217;isqauntum_, who had been kidnapped years before, and spent those years in slavery in Spain and England, before managing to make his way home, only to find his village dead. It was he who 
was called &#8220;Squanto.&#8221; 


Interestingly, T&#8217;squantum probably wasn&#8217;t his real name-the words mean something akin to &#8220;anger of the spirits.&#8221; It was kind of like introducing himself as &#8220;_The Wrath of God_&#8221; &#8211;a bit of hyperbole. 

Anyway, if the &#8220;Pilgrims&#8221; arrived in 1620, and celebrated &#8220;the first Thanksgiving&#8221; in *1621*-it was this feast, attended by Massasoit, Squanto and others, that is referenced as such mostly-it was under the rules of, as you and other conservatives have chosen to call it, _socialism_, though it was really more of a collectivist compact. The one that the Pilgrims actually called &#8220;Thanksgiving,&#8221; that took place in 1623-after they changed the rules (as noted by Bradford)-was in thanks for the arrival of new colonists _and __supplies_- and consisted of a day full of prayer and very little revelry and was not attended by any Indians except T&#8217;squantum, who had something of an outcast status among the Wampanoag, spoke English, and yes, famously helped the Pilgrims with their crops. Interestingly, the method of using fish with corn seed was unknown to the Indians at that time-they primarily practiced, as others said, crop rotation and soil amendment-usually with sea weed. Of course, the fish method was used in _Europe_, where T&#8217;squantum probably saw it used during his years of slavery.

Anyway, that &#8220;non-collectivist pro-property rights&#8221; utopia that Stossel and Limbaugh are idiotically attributing to the first Thanksgiving, isn&#8217;t the Thanksgiving they were looking for&#8230;move along, move along&#8230;.:lfao:

And the Pilgrims? People too stupid to bring the right supplies, find the place they were licensed to colonize, half of whom died in the first year and that the local natives took pity upon. Not very good navigators.Not very good farmers. Not very good hunters. Not really much good at anything. :lfao: :lfao:

Well, not really took pity-more like tried to politically exploit-depleted by smallpox, and surrounded by hostile tribes like the Naragansetts and Abenaki, the Wampanoag were using the Pilgrims to control coastal trade-as they always had-and to make an ally against the powerful tribes that surrounded them. 

Of course, that didn&#8217;t work out too well. By the end of King Phillip&#8217;s war in 1678, the Wampanoag were pretty well devastated, to the extent that some sought refuge by volunteering for slavery-imagine being so fearful for your life that you willingly became a slave? I often have, since that&#8217;s what my great, great, great, great, great, great grandmother, Ruth Moses did. Family legend has it that she was Metacomet&#8217;s grandchild-there&#8217;s no way of knowing this for a fact, but since Metacomet was Massassoit&#8217;s son-later to be called Prince Phillip-you can see how the period has 
special interest for me.

Oh, and the Pilgrims did have a few slaves-it wasn't that their religion forbade them, but that most of them couldn't _afford_ them.




billcihak said:


> I remember an account that I read in my freshman history class by a priest who lived with the indians. He said that they would carry the sick along with them until they lost their appetite and then they would leave them under a tree to die. He also spoke about spending the winter with the tribe where they had to remain in their tents to stay warm. The priest said you had to lay down near the side of the tent, and lift it to get clean air to breath because the smoke was so thick in the tent.


 
Knowing natives-and teepees (not "tents)-as I do, it&#8217;s entirely possible that the Indians in question were hostile to the father, or playing a joke. I spent a winter in my teepee when I was building my house-it&#8217;s a natural venturi, and one with a properly built fire burning will suck in fresh air and eject smoke almost automatically. 

As for the housing of the technologically inferior Eastern Woodlands Indians-oh, I mean, _my ancestors_-the _wetu_-a bark insulated house made on a bent pole frame-was remarkably warm and dry. The colonists would have been used to a fire burning under an open hole in the ceiling, as the chimney was just coming into use in England during that part of the 17th century. In fact, colonist William Wood, who wrote _New England&#8217;s Prospect,_ in1694, wrote that wetu &#8220;_were warmer than our English houses_&#8221; and&#8221; _deny entrance to any drop of rain, though it come fierce and long._&#8221;

I guess you&#8217;re like everyone else, billcihak-we *love* to talk about things we know nothing about. I&#8217;m no different, and apparently neither are John Stossel and Rush Limbaugh....:lfao:

Happy Thanksgiving again, everyone!


----------



## oaktree (Nov 28, 2010)

Maybe seeing what benefit thanksgiving is what matters.
 Trying to verify the history misses the point of a moment were we can express our graditude with the ones we hold dear.

It is my humble opinion disregard it if you will.


----------



## Steve (Nov 29, 2010)

oaktree said:


> Maybe seeing what benefit thanksgiving is what matters.
> Trying to verify the history misses the point of a moment were we can express our graditude with the ones we hold dear.
> 
> It is my humble opinion disregard it if you will.


This is really what I was getting at, too.  

We could do the same thing on Christmas day, talking about the Oak and Holly Kings, the pagan roots, and the multiple inconsistencies that combining a pagan holiday with a christian one brings about.  But I'd rather focus on holiday cheer, mulled cider, giving and receiving gifts and seeing kids light up at the thought of Santa Claus and his reindeer.

Thanksgiving is a time for fellowship and family.  Politicizing it in any way just completely misses the point.  Particularly ON that day.


----------



## elder999 (Nov 30, 2010)

QUOTE=stevebjj;1340762]This is really what I was getting at, too.  

We could do the same thing on Christmas day, talking about the Oak and Holly Kings, the pagan roots, and the multiple inconsistencies that combining a pagan holiday with a christian one brings about.  But I'd rather focus on holiday cheer, mulled cider, giving and receiving gifts and seeing kids light up at the thought of Santa Claus and his reindeer.

Thanksgiving is a time for fellowship and family.  Politicizing it in any way just completely misses the point.  Particularly ON that day.[/QUOTE]


Well, of course- thoughI don't know that "fellowship and family" necessarily qualify as offering thanks.
N o matter. YourXmas analogy has some merit, but the distinct advantagee of apparent  basis i in fact.

Whereas Stossel and Rush simply couldn"t get their facts right, or distiguish 1621 from 1623.


----------



## Steve (Nov 30, 2010)

elder999 said:


> stevebjj said:
> 
> 
> > This is really what I was getting at, too.
> ...


  Giving thanks, sure.  What I was talking about is that holidays like Thanksgiving and Christmas are about getting together.


----------



## granfire (Nov 30, 2010)

stevebjj said:


> Giving thanks, sure.  What I was talking about is that holidays like Thanksgiving and Christmas are about getting together.



Sometimes they are about giving thanks that they are over


----------



## billc (Nov 30, 2010)

Yeah, communal efforts rarely succeed and more often than not deliver what they experienced in the early colonies.  If you watched Stossel's show, "the tragedy of the commons"  you will have seen several more ways that the government screws things up.  I'm curious, how does the fact that the primitive shelters kept out water disprove anything I pointed out.  Do you still live in the teepee?  Probably not.  Did shelters that kept out water prove a definitive advantage over a written language, superior metal working skills, gunpowder, the wheel...


----------



## granfire (Nov 30, 2010)

billcihak said:


> Yeah, communal efforts rarely succeed and more often than not deliver what they experienced in the early colonies.  If you watched Stossel's show, "the tragedy of the commons"  you will have seen several more ways that the government screws things up.  I'm curious, how does the fact that the primitive shelters kept out water disprove anything I pointed out.  Do you still live in the teepee?  Probably not.  Did shelters that kept out water prove a definitive advantage over a written language, superior metal working skills, gunpowder, the wheel...



Are you trying to make a case for the extermination of the natives?

The wheel does not help you any if you have no roads to move it on. Incase you missed it, the Inka empire thrived well for a long time without a single cart. not to mention superior stone masonry skills. 

You under the illusion that only what Europe brought forth is good. This is the mind set that brought us the Trail of Tears and Wounded Knee, along with the tragedy that is the Dark Continent. 
Somewhere in this arrogance fits the Chinese opium war...

I have my doubts that modern houses are so superior over what you call primitive shelters. And let's face it, many places city ordinance - also a treasure from the Old World stands between you and a Tee-Pee. Or CPS...

Superior metal working skill does not help you when you have no ore to smelt. And written language is overrated. Most people can't read for comprehension...


----------



## Tez3 (Nov 30, 2010)

billcihak said:


> Yeah, communal efforts rarely succeed and more often than not deliver what they experienced in the early colonies. If you watched Stossel's show, "the tragedy of the commons" you will have seen several more ways that the government screws things up. I'm curious, how does the fact that the primitive shelters kept out water disprove anything I pointed out. Do you still live in the teepee? Probably not. Did shelters that kept out water prove a definitive advantage over a written language, superior metal working skills, gunpowder, the wheel...


 

How do you know communal efforts rarely succeed? Have you ever lived in a small village anywhere in the world? These communal efforts work fine.

I still don't understand what you are getting at, you say communal efforts don't work then say governments screw things up. 

You are missing a big point and that's that the people native to the land they are in will always have the advantage over incomers. The invention of the wheel is only great in places where you can run a wheel, not so good on mountains,in thick forests, snow or water logged land. There's no point in having a wheel if you don't need one. Gunpowder - if what you have works well, is easy to make and use why do you need gunpowder? Same with metal working, if it's not broke don't fix it. Why would you need a written langauge if you have a fine oral tradition? 

It's a mistake to judge people by the possessions _you_ think they should have rather that what they think they should have. I take it you think that South American Indian tribes are primitive because they don't eat at Mc Donalds? However could you survive in the Amazon rain forest without modern day gadgets and gizmos? If they all broke down how long would you last? could you catch your food, clothe yourself, heal yourself, shelter and live comfortable all on your own? I doubt it but I bet they can so who's the sophisicated ones now?


----------



## Empty Hands (Nov 30, 2010)

Tez3 said:


> How do you know communal efforts rarely succeed? Have you ever lived in a small village anywhere in the world? These communal efforts work fine.



But, but, but, SOCIALISM!!!


----------



## granfire (Nov 30, 2010)

Empty Hands said:


> But, but, but, SOCIALISM!!!



yeah, a disgusting concept: doing something to benefit your fellow man without monetary compensation...
makes me want to vomit....


----------



## billc (Nov 30, 2010)

I always wonder why people think socialism is so great.  Yeah, it claims to "help your fellow man," but over a 100million dead people might disagree.  The bankruptcy of all the socialist nations of Europe would be another clue to its ineffectiveness.  As I think Margaret Thatcher said, " The problem with socialism is that eventually you run out of other peoples money."  And as you saw on the Stossle show, the government run parks, the indian reservations the depletion of the Buffalo herds, all came from relying on someone else "helping their fellow man," as opposed to following your own dreams and trying to do the best for yourself and your family.  Walter Williams was on another Stossle special back when he was on ABC.  Williams pointed out that the reason someone in New York had a nice steak to eat wasn't because the cattle rancher cared any more for the New Yorker than anyone else.  that rancher was taking care of their own family, and the great by product was that the New Yorker had a great steak.  It is that hidden hand thing from Adam Smith.  This lesson was started way back in the colonial days as you can read from Bradford's writings.


----------



## granfire (Nov 30, 2010)

billcihak said:


> I always wonder why people think socialism is so great.  Yeah, it claims to "help your fellow man," but over a 100million dead people might disagree.  The bankruptcy of all the socialist nations of Europe would be another clue to its ineffectiveness.  As I think Margaret Thatcher said, " The problem with socialism is that eventually you run out of other peoples money."  And as you saw on the Stossle show, the government run parks, the indian reservations the depletion of the Buffalo herds, all came from relying on someone else "helping their fellow man," as opposed to following your own dreams and trying to do the best for yourself and your family.  Walter Williams was on another Stossle special back when he was on ABC.  Williams pointed out that the reason someone in New York had a nice steak to eat wasn't because the cattle rancher cared any more for the New Yorker than anyone else.  that rancher was taking care of their own family, and the great by product was that the New Yorker had a great steak.  It is that hidden hand thing from Adam Smith.  This lesson was started way back in the colonial days as you can read from Bradford's writings.



You are talking communism. 

However, you are all over the place, armed with just enough Fox polemic to be dangerous.

When you have a group, a small group of people with limited resources you can't succeed with anything but communism. Such is life. The phrase that covers that is "united we stand"


----------



## aedrasteia (Nov 30, 2010)

Bill

_"The first example of socialisms defeat is finally getting a hearing." - _from OP
it was 1621... there is no "socialism".  No communism.  No liberals or anything like that. Nothing similar to the groups criticized by the folks you have cited. And there won't be for nearly 300+ years.  This group of religious Separatists, shopkeepers and ordinary people are thousands of miles from home, supplies, support or influences. There aren't any groups remotely similar in England or the continent in the late 1500s or early 16oos. Or at least you didn't mention that or i missed it and it wasn't part of the conservative posts I read or Stossels' report unless I missed something.   Where do you think this "socialism" came from?

thanks, A


----------



## CanuckMA (Nov 30, 2010)

billcihak said:


> I always wonder why people think socialism is so great.


 

Have a look North. Canada is a Socialist country. We fared a damn sight better during this last recession. Wasn't as long or deep. One of the big factor? Government regulation of our banking sector.


----------



## Tez3 (Dec 1, 2010)

How is people living in villages helping each other 'socialism'? We have heavy snow here at the moment, everyone is helping each other to clear paths, fetch bread and milk and make sure the old and vulnerable are ok,that sort of thing is that socialism then because we live 'communally'? We watch out for the kids, we have a village fete all those sorts of well known socialist activities. Just the same as many communities all round the world. 

As Aedrasteia rightly pointed out there was no socialism, communism or the like when the settlers landed in America. How could they live any other way than 'communally' which would have basically meant helping each other out, looking after each other and doing what humans have done since we evolved, it's how the human race survives, it has nothing to do with politics.  

_There is a vast difference between communism and socialism_, Billchihak, I suggest you find out whet the differences are before flinging around how many you think were killed by a political system.

Tell me though, how do you work out the depletion of the buffalo herds is due to 'socialism'? That I want an explanation of! that and the comment 'Indian reservations', what does that mean?

Do you actually have a view of your own that doesn't come from a TV show? Your facts are wonderfully mixed up, ie the 'bankruptcy' of socialist Europe, how come the non socialist countries are suffering just the same then? do you not think that the sub prime mortgage markets of America had anything to do with the banks around the world having a meltdown then?

I have this picture in my head what what the settlers 'should' have done when they landed, they should have all set up businesses, buying and selling everything they needed from each other. Nothing done for free, even the women acting as midwives etc would charge for their services, even the grave digging would come at a price. Each family would be separate from the others, all living in splendid capitalist isolation. Yeah right.


----------



## Empty Hands (Dec 1, 2010)

Tez3 said:


> How is people living in villages helping each other 'socialism'? We have heavy snow here at the moment, everyone is helping each other to clear paths, fetch bread and milk and make sure the old and vulnerable are ok,that sort of thing is that socialism then because we live 'communally'? We watch out for the kids, we have a village fete all those sorts of well known socialist activities. Just the same as many communities all round the world.



You sick, immoral, perverted bastards!  How do you live with yourselves?  You damn bunch of moochers and welfare parasites! 



Tez3 said:


> Do you actually have a view of your own that doesn't come from a TV show?



Of course he does, Rush Limbaugh hasn't been on TV for years...


----------



## Tez3 (Dec 1, 2010)

Empty Hands said:


> You sick, immoral, perverted bastards! How do you live with yourselves? You damn bunch of moochers and welfare parasites!
> 
> 
> 
> Of course he does, Rush Limbaugh hasn't been on TV for years...


 
I know, we stay awake at night worrying about this....not!

Actually the snow is beginning to worry me now, we've had an awful lot of it and we are starting to get cut off, this is definitely not normal, I think it's all a communist plot.
This is just the road from me a couple of days ago ( in the People's Republic of the North Riding of Yorkshire), we've had nearly a foot of snow since and it's still falling. Tis pretty though! ( and you don't get pretty in communist states!)


----------



## Blade96 (Dec 1, 2010)

CanuckMA said:


> And have you ever been to Cape Cod? Not the best planting land if you don't know what you're doing. And even if you have some clue, the sseds brought from England would have a real hard time growing in that soil.



I was, in 1992 when i was 14. What i remember about it is its not really farmland as you said.

And I been to plymouth rock. and what i remember most about that is I thought then, Its a place. So i go to it, look over the railing aurrounding something inside and.....its a rock :roflmao:

me being just 14 didnt know it was literally a grey rock with 1620 written on it.  I said to my parents 'its just a rock!'

Stunned.... :uhyeah:


----------



## granfire (Dec 1, 2010)

Tez3 said:


> I know, we stay awake at night worrying about this....not!
> 
> Actually the snow is beginning to worry me now, we've had an awful lot of it and we are starting to get cut off, this is definitely not normal, I think it's all a communist plot.
> This is just the road from me a couple of days ago ( in the People's Republic of the North Riding of Yorkshire), we've had nearly a foot of snow since and it's still falling. Tis pretty though! ( and you don't get pretty in communist states!)



Stunning picture!
(has me thinking of Jame Harriot DVM)


----------



## Tez3 (Dec 1, 2010)

Thanks Granfire! it's up in the Dales in North Yorkshire. Yes it is Herriot country, he was a vet up here, his son still is. It's very hard country to make a living from, there's really only sheep farming and that's incredibly hard work. The farmers have lived here for generations (some are descended from the Vikings who used to live here) and know the country well, it's quite a hostile environment for humans even in the summer months.
If modern technology was that good there'd be people living all over the moors and hills but it isn't and there are very few people up here. Only the people who know how to live here are the ones here (surprisingly lol), even in the 21st century you can't just descend on a place and expect to make a living from it without actually knowing much. The wheel isn't much good in the snow, even 4x4s can't make it up the road, it's good old Dales ponies, failing that it's Shank's pony. Life hasn't changed a huge lot up here since the days of the Pilgrim Fathers other than some modern conveniences like the air ambulance. You can't rely on electricity or getting to the local supermarket. People are self sufficient, everyone mucking in, oops it's communal living again! I doubt that the original settlers would have survived up on our moors easily without help from the locals so bless them they needed every bit of help they could get so very far across the Pond.

For New Yorkers, this starts in the original York lol! 
http://news.bbc.co.uk/local/york/hi/people_and_places/newsid_9245000/9245061.stm


----------



## granfire (Dec 1, 2010)

looking at the building I thought about how many times thee god doctor wrote about being stuck out in the freezing cold with a hand up a lambing ewe's butt...

I am from the blazing South (Germany that is) and even there  the neighbors lend a hand.
You could not build a barn without the villagers, impossible.
And even today circumstance might force otherwise self sufficient farmers to seek help.

But I think country people have the advantage here:
they have known their neighbors all their lives. The tight knit community of a small village. (then again, the pilgrims were a tight knit social group...)

No man is an island.

PS I was going to suggesting to get a pony....


----------



## Tez3 (Dec 1, 2010)

Excuse this thread 'kidnap', you can have it back in a minute but I know people like nice photos lol and there is a tenous link as William Bradford came from Yorkshire albeit a bit further south.!
http://news.bbc.co.uk/local/york/hi/people_and_places/nature/newsid_9231000/9231009.stm

No 14 is my local town, Richmond, the castle can be seen at the back, the old building on the right nearest river is Richmond School where Lewis Carroll went to school.

Ok, back to OP


----------



## Tez3 (Dec 1, 2010)

granfire said:


> looking at the building I thought about how many times thee god doctor wrote about being stuck out in the freezing cold with a hand up a lambing ewe's butt...
> 
> I am from the blazing South (Germany that is) and even there the neighbors lend a hand.
> You could not build a barn without the villagers, impossible.
> ...


 
Exactly! In that respect little has changed since they set sail for America and it's nothing to do with socialism, people all over the world live like this, under all sorts of political systems.

We have our own breed of ponies up here, lovely sturdy things. Known for taking the farmer home from the pub when he's had a few too many! See! the wheel can't do that for you!


----------



## granfire (Dec 1, 2010)

LOVE it!! can you email me the little one?


----------



## Blade96 (Dec 1, 2010)

we have our own pony breed here too....the Newfoundland pony.


----------



## billc (Dec 1, 2010)

I googled these numbers.  National Socialists in Germany, death toll:5.9 million jews, Soviet Pow's 2-3 million, ethnic poles 1.82 million plus homosexual, romani, disabled kicks this number up a bit.  Union of Soviet Socialist Republics 50-60 million.  China, 72 million, Cambodia 3 million(?).  So, I figure if the socialists kill another 100 million people they will probably be able to  work out the kinks in their system and finally make perfect people for a perfect planet.  Yeah, that sub-prime mortgage goof up, I know that Carter and clinton used the community reinvestment act to force banks to make bad loans to people who could not afford them.  Our president, Barak, trained A.C.O.R.N. activists in how to intimidate banks into giving bad loans to people who could not afford them.    On Rush's show I heard the audio of Sen. Barney Frank and other democrats squaring off against Bush administration officials, telling them that there was nothing wrong with the mortgage industry and that reforms were not necassary.  So please, government intervention in the banking industry was a big cause of the meltdown.  Banks forced to make bad loans to people who couldn't afford them and then they tried to unload these bad mortgage's, it just made sense.  Why do people assume that Jesus would be a lefty?  I never understood that.  Also, your helping your neighbors is how things should be done.  The government should only do those things that people cannot effectively do on their own.  Imagine if your town said, one, it will be a punishable offense to help your neighbor, and they site, taking advantage of your neighbor, the possiblily of not doing it right and the usual reasons government takes something over.  then they levy a fee, or tax on you and your neighbors to  hire public employee's to do the same thing you were doing.  They unionize these guys, they waste most of the money, they embezzle the money, all things that happen when government takes over what you do naturally.  Imagine how screwed up helping your neighbors would become, and on top of that, the neighbors would not be getting any help.  You know this is what happens, you see it all the time.


----------



## granfire (Dec 1, 2010)

billcihak said:


> I googled these numbers.  National Socialists in Germany, death toll:5.9 million jews, Soviet Pow's 2-3 million, ethnic poles 1.82 million plus homosexual, romani, disabled kicks this number up a bit.  Union of Soviet Socialist Republics 50-60 million.  China, 72 million, Cambodia 3 million(?).  So, I figure if the socialists kill another 100 million people they will probably be able to  work out the kinks in their system and finally make perfect people for a perfect planet.




I think the number of dead Russians was closer to 10 million or even 20. 

However. You are still not getting past the labels that - in part - were chosen on purpose, to deceive.

National Socialist Germany was a _FASCIST_, TOTALITARIAN state. Granted, some of the 'improvements' made lower class people's lives a lot better, but it was nor 'socialist', if anything it was the opposite. (read 'Mein Kampf, then again, nobody else did... why should you)

Soviet Russia also liked the socialist label, when indeed they were _bolshevic_, and, oh, surprise, very totalitarian, especially after dear old Stalin took power...

So, your homework assignment for today would be to research the death toll of Sweden. I mean other than the break-up of ABBA and the demise of Volvo ans Saab.
A country that tried to accomplish the '3rd way' 


72 million Chinese don't even register on the radar, Cambodia was a nut job who offed the educated elite of the country...

Like I said, maybe you turn off the TV and actually dig into real sources and learn of what you speak before you do so.


So, let me ask you: Do you like your paid vacation, workman's comp, etc?

Also, many socialist activist were killed prior and during the 3rd Reich. Thrown into the slammer for long, LONG times (as compared to everybody's fav, non German dictator Adolf) maybe you should try to google Rosa Luxemburg and the Spartakus movement.


----------



## granfire (Dec 1, 2010)

billcihak said:


> I googled these numbers.  National Socialists in Germany, death toll:5.9 million jews, Soviet Pow's 2-3 million, ethnic poles 1.82 million plus homosexual, romani, disabled kicks this number up a bit.  Union of Soviet Socialist Republics 50-60 million.  China, 72 million, Cambodia 3 million(?).  So, I figure if the socialists kill another 100 million people they will probably be able to  work out the kinks in their system and finally make perfect people for a perfect planet.  Yeah, that sub-prime mortgage goof up, I know that Carter and clinton used the community reinvestment act to force banks to make bad loans to people who could not afford them.  Our president, Barak, trained A.C.O.R.N. activists in how to intimidate banks into giving bad loans to people who could not afford them.    On Rush's show I heard the audio of Sen. Barney Frank and other democrats squaring off against Bush administration officials, telling them that there was nothing wrong with the mortgage industry and that reforms were not necassary.  So please, government intervention in the banking industry was a big cause of the meltdown.  Banks forced to make bad loans to people who couldn't afford them and then they tried to unload these bad mortgage's, it just made sense.  Why do people assume that Jesus would be a lefty?  I never understood that.  Also, your helping your neighbors is how things should be done.  The government should only do those things that people cannot effectively do on their own.  Imagine if your town said, one, it will be a punishable offense to help your neighbor, and they site, taking advantage of your neighbor, the possiblily of not doing it right and the usual reasons government takes something over.  then they levy a fee, or tax on you and your neighbors to  hire public employee's to do the same thing you were doing.  They unionize these guys, they waste most of the money, they embezzle the money, all things that happen when government takes over what you do naturally.  Imagine how screwed up helping your neighbors would become, and on top of that, the neighbors would not be getting any help.  You know this is what happens, you see it all the time.




I am sure the staff appreciates your effort to keep the discussion uncluttered, but for argument's sake, when you go off on a completely new tangent, do us all a favor and make brand new post.

and add a hard return to it, a paragraph here and there so we can actually tell where the ideas separate or intersect.

However...
no, never mind. trying to follow you burned up my GPS.


----------



## CanuckMA (Dec 1, 2010)

Bill, turn off Rush, and look north. It's a great socialist country that borders you. Other than strongly worded letters, our government doesn't do much violence.


----------



## Tez3 (Dec 2, 2010)

billcihak said:


> I googled these numbers. National Socialists in Germany, death toll:5.9 million jews, Soviet Pow's 2-3 million, ethnic poles 1.82 million plus homosexual, romani, disabled kicks this number up a bit.
> 
> National Socialists were Fascists, *very Far Right*.
> 
> ...


 

We know nothing of the sort for two reasons.
!. we don't actually know what you are talking about and
2. we can't understand your posts.


----------



## granfire (Dec 2, 2010)

Tez3 said:


> We know nothing of the sort for two reasons.
> !. we don't actually know what you are talking about and
> 2. we can't understand your posts.



:lfao::lfao:

That does about cover it...


----------



## billc (Dec 2, 2010)

I never understood what people meant when they said Nazis were far right and communists were far left.  I got the left part but not the far right part.  I did some looking into it and found that if you are far right, you like limited government.  A far right nut job would be someone who goes and lives on a mountain to avoid having to deal with the federal authorities.  The far left, however, loves big all controlling governments that control every last detail of their citizens lives.  That is why the Nazis, communists, socialists, and fascists are all really the same thing.  They all worked and work for the largest government possible often to either soul draining or life stealing effect.  It is like ice cream, you have strawberry ice cream and chocolate and vanilla, but they are all flavors of ice cream.  Nazis, communists, fascists, socialists are all big government control ideologies.  Besides, I believe it was Lenin who came up with the term fascist to distinguish his international socialism from the socialists in Italy and Germany.  And let's not forget WW2 Japan, they were socialists as well.  Also, Hitler and Mussolini were both fans of Marx, Hitler just believed in it for Germans.  Also, the saying in germany at the time when the marxists were helping the early Adolf was first the brown shirts, then the red shirts.  Unfortunately for the communists version in germany, hitler wanted his guys in charge, that is why he arrested all the old time commies.


----------



## Empty Hands (Dec 2, 2010)

billcihak said:


> I did some looking into it and found that if you are far right, you like limited government.



"some looking" = "listened to Mark Levin some more"?

This is only true for a small part of the modern right, and in America in particular.  Ideologues never seem to understand that "right" and "left" are entirely context dependent.  "Right" is synonymous with "conservatism."  "Conservatism" broadly defined is resistance to political/social change, and a preference for traditional institutions and modes of governance.  A conservative in 2010 in America may wish to preserve certain libertarian ideals implicit in the founding, of which a small government is a part.  A conservative in 2010 in Iran may wish to preserve the theocracy of the Mullahs.  A conservative in 2010 in the UK may wish to preserve the health system they have had for more than 60 years, no matter how "left" an American conservative may think it is.  A conservative in 1700 in France would have been a monarchist.

So, the Nazis and fascism generally.  Fascism emphasized a return to the values of the past like working the soil in contrast to modern work and values (especially art).  Fascism emphasized the power and authority of business and military interests over that of the common people.  German fascism emphasized a return to the racial purity of a mythical group of ancient people (the Aryans).  Generally speaking, fascism was _all about _returning to the supposedly superior values of the past, purifying the race to a superior group from the past, and emphasizing strength and conquest.  All of these values properly understood are conservative, albeit extreme.

When you look at a totalitarian left example, such as the USSR, you do not see this emphasis on the past or on conserving or regaining lost values.  The ideology of the USSR was all about ideological purity and moving forward into the future, with new future values and new future superiority.  Thus, the essential difference between the right wing fascists and the left wing communists.

Words mean things.  Conservatism is not defined by the positions currently espoused by Rush et al., and you can't twist that to suit your ends.  At least not honestly.


----------



## Tez3 (Dec 2, 2010)

billcihak said:


> I never understood what people meant when they said Nazis were far right and communists were far left. I got the left part but not the far right part. I did some looking into it and found that if you are far right, you like limited government.
> 
> Limited to a dictator usually!
> 
> ...


 
Now there you are so wrong, Hitler despised the Marxists as they did him.
Where do you get your history from?


----------



## granfire (Dec 2, 2010)

billcihak said:


> I never understood what people meant when they said Nazis were far right and communists were far left.  I got the left part but not the far right part.  I did some looking into it and found that if you are far right, you like limited government.


where did you get that idea?



> A far right nut job would be someone who goes and lives on a mountain to avoid having to deal with the federal authorities.


lol?


> The far left, however, loves big all controlling governments that control every last detail of their citizens lives.  That is why the Nazis, communists, socialists, and fascists are all really the same thing.


I am sure the communists that died in Nazi camps will be overjoyed to hear that.


> They all worked and work for the largest government possible often to either soul draining or life stealing effect.


soul and life draining?


> It is like ice cream, you have strawberry ice cream and chocolate and vanilla, but they are all flavors of ice cream.


 what?



> Nazis, communists, fascists, socialists are all big government control ideologies.


 Next thing you try to tell me that tomatoes, apples, bananas and avocados are all the same, after all you do buy them in the same aisle at the store...



> Besides, I believe it was Lenin who came up with the term fascist to distinguish his international socialism from the socialists in Italy and Germany.


 I think Lenin was long dead by the rise of Fascism. 



> And let's not forget WW2 Japan, they were socialists as well.


Japan?! Really?!


> Also, Hitler and Mussolini were both fans of Marx, Hitler just believed in it for Germans.


again, read the book. I think you can get it for e-reader...in case you have no idea how this block of paper works...


> Also, the saying in germany at the time when the marxists were helping the early Adolf was first the brown shirts, then the red shirts.  Unfortunately for the communists version in germany, hitler wanted his guys in charge, that is why he arrested all the old time commies.


Now where did you get that poop?

Again, you are all over the map. 

A little history lesson for you:
Socialism was born out of the industrial revolution of the mid 19th century. For the historically challened, that translates to the 1800s, but midway through, somewhat on the same time line as the US Civil war, or, as we Southeners call it "The War between the States"
Reason: Rich people, like the Vanderbilds, and Carnegies own the companies for which the poor people worked. many times 7 days a week, 12 or 14 hours a day. The pay was minimal, food scarce. One man could be replaced by something like 5 women for a fraction of the pay, a woman by about 15 children for even less money. (thus the need for many children) Conditions were poor or dangerous, why bother, the workforce is replacable.

In the late 1800s German Prime Minister Otto von Bismark introduced social laws to curb the growing influence of the socialist movements in the nation. because the majority of the population was poor and restless...
back in those days communism was actually a good sounding idea. <GASP> I know.

Fast forward: The eve of WWI. (it started in 1914, over a dispute between Austria and Serbia, go figure) Germany thought it a wise move to free and introduce exiled Lenin through the back door into Russia. No major political reason (and if they had an idea of what they unleashed, I am sure they would have rather taken the beating) to break the two front war they were entangled with. That was 1917. 
Lenin overthrew the Czar, then the Duma as the moderate communist changes didn't go far enough for him...say hello to the Bolshevic.

Now, where am I, ah, right, Post war Europe: The left, the socialists (damn them for wanting food and housing, ungrateful bastards) were hunted down, sentenced to long and hard prison terms. (Did you research Rosa Luxemburg? There is a film out about her, in case you prefer the cliff note version) the right, the conservatives, equally unruly got mere slaps on the wrists, a version of boys will be boys. Our all time favorite poster boy Adolf is a prime example.

Now, a little explanation about left and right...the terms derive from where the party blocks were seated, seen from the president of the congregation. Not a lot of sinister stuff, just chairs. 


Now, I am sure I can dig up one of the many speeches were dear old Adolf was raving about the evils of the bolshevistic capitalist jews. And when you pick that phrase appart one should scratch his head, since they just don't fit together by sheer definition of the words. 

Now, I am really REALLY interested were you get the notion, the idea that Hitler and Mousolini _liked_ Marx and Engels?


----------



## Tez3 (Dec 2, 2010)

Granfire, you have far more patience than I!


----------



## granfire (Dec 2, 2010)

Tez3 said:


> Granfire, you have far more patience than I!



I am deceptive that way!


----------



## Omar B (Dec 2, 2010)

Why bother?  He obviously knows little history, throws around words he doesn't know the meaning of (communal living and socialism are not the same or even analogous), grammar, spelling, punctuation and paragraphs (learn to separate ideas, geeze) all tell me this kid is just that a kid.  Not a college student like he claims, but maybe a middle schooler who listens to Rush and watches Stossel.


----------



## Tez3 (Dec 2, 2010)

Omar B said:


> Why bother? He obviously knows little history, throws around words he doesn't know the meaning of (communal living and socialism are not the same or even analogous), grammar, spelling, punctuation and paragraphs (learn to separate ideas, geeze) all tell me this kid is just that a kid. Not a college student like he claims, but maybe a middle schooler who listens to *Rush* and watches *Stossel*.


 
I don't even know who they are lol!


----------



## billc (Dec 2, 2010)

Guys, you are being fooled by the superficial differences.  The nazis, communists, italian fascists, the japanese empire, all wanted to create paradise on earth.  The nazis wanted a racial pure society, the commies wanted true communism, from each...to each, and so on.  The thing that makes them all the same is that they used large central governments with no checks, no balances, no regard for the individual, in order to create their version of heaven on earth.  Kenjutsu is a sword art that uses a long sword with a long handle, the phillipine arts use shorter swords with shorter handles, but they are both sword arts.  Try not to get lost in the superficial aspects of the different types of socialist.  
Try some of my sources: Friedrich van Hayek, "the road to serfdom," he explains how socialism always allows the worst types of people to rise to the top.  R. J. Rummel, "Death by Government," goes through the various mass murders committed by governments.  " Liberal Fascism," by Johah Goldberg, chronicles Hitler, Mussolini, Roosevelt and the other socialists  of the 1930's and 40's.  "The Black Book of Communism," I don't remember the authors of this book, it was written by french socialists.  "Hollywood Party," how the communists infiltrated Hollywood, especially its trade unions and so on.  On youtube, check out Milton Friedman when he took on Phil Donahue or read anything by Milton Friedman.
Socialism is supposed to be the middle step to true communism.  The government siezes control of the means of production until the last stage, true communism is achieved where there is no government.
Granfire, you obviously missed a lot in your little history lesson, this is obviously not the forum for an in depth analysis, that is why I guide people to other sources, some quick hitting like Rush, Mark Levine, Bighollywood.com or Breitbart.com, and longer research sources like the books I recommend.  It is up to interested parties to go farther and look deeper.

The best definition of a communist comes from Ann Coulter, she says, "a communist is a socialist who really means it."

Canuckma, the reason you don't have to do violence or spend a lot of money on your millitary is that you live next to us.  We do a lot of the heavy lifting.


----------



## CanuckMA (Dec 2, 2010)

Just, wow.


----------



## Tez3 (Dec 2, 2010)

billcihak said:


> Guys, you are being fooled by the superficial differences.
> 
> Of course we are and you are the only one who knows the truth.
> 
> ...


 

Try us.

But with punctuation, spelling and paragraphs please.


----------



## granfire (Dec 2, 2010)

I bet he has a socialist lurking in his bathroom, too...


----------



## granfire (Dec 2, 2010)

Tez3 said:


> I don't even know who they are lol!



You didn't miss much, as the excerpts show


----------



## Steve (Dec 2, 2010)

billcihak said:


> I never understood what people meant when they said Nazis were far right and communists were far left. I got the left part but not the far right part. *I did some looking into it* and found that if you are far right, you like limited government. A far right nut job would be someone who goes and lives on a mountain to avoid having to deal with the federal authorities.


Where did you look?


----------



## granfire (Dec 2, 2010)

stevebjj said:


> Where did you look?



Fox


----------



## Omar B (Dec 2, 2010)

_The best definition of a communist comes from Ann Coulter, she says, "a communist is a socialist who really means it."

_That's not a definition by any stretch of the word since within the statement you are not told what either are.  What you have there is a cute little catch phrase coined by the woman who said 9/11 widows loved attention.  She's good at saying things that appeals to the LCD.


----------



## aedrasteia (Dec 2, 2010)

billcihak said:


> Guys, you are being fooled by the superficial differences.  The nazis, communists, italian fascists, the japanese empire, all wanted to create paradise on earth.  The nazis wanted a racial pure society, the commies wanted true communism, from each...to each, and so on.  The thing that makes them all the same is that they used large central governments with no checks, no balances, no regard for the individual.. Socialism is supposed to be the middle step to true communism.  The government siezes control of the means of production until the last stage, true communism is achieved where there is no government.



Bill
thanks. I do understand your point, i think.

But in your OP, you are specific regarding 1621, Thanksgiving and the 'socialism' of these first English, Separatist colonists. 
It is 1621. There aren't any nazis, communists, fascists, japanese etc.  These are all 20th century movements and/or ideologies. there is no 'government' to seize anything in Plimoth.

where does this 1621 'socialism' come from?  As far as I can find in the comments by Stossell, Limbaugh and the other conservative writers and blogs, this assertion is just made without any answer to the question. It's hundreds of years into their future before anything remotely resembling 'socialism' develops.

The commentators made the assertion about this 'socialism' and its 'defeat' and you endorse their perspective. that's really OK.

But can you (or they) source it historically ??

I'm digging around too. My sources include Samuel Eliot Morrison, editor of the 1952 edition of William Bradfords work and Nathan Philbrick, winner of the National Book Award and author of last year's Mayflower, a deeply researched and riveting account of this history. Also Richard Slotkin, Regeneration through Violence: the Myth of the American Frontier 1600-1860 (with emphasis on the earliest writings from America by English colonists).  All three of these writers are scrupulous about using primary sources and clearly separating factual, sourced assertions from legitimate interpretation - thats why they are excellent historians.

What is the origin of the 'socialism' you have identified and named?  Bradford's description is not in dispute here, though he cannot use that descriptor, because it did not exist (nor did the concept).

What's the origin (historically and conceptually)??

many thanks, A


----------



## Omar B (Dec 2, 2010)

I think the socialism comes from his not understanding that many small tribes didn't have a concept of ownership and had everything from food to their own children in kind.  Real communal living.

Like the Arawak Indians from Jamaica that welcomed Columbus and his people, fed them, gave them homes in their village, only to be completely wiped out.


----------



## Blade96 (Dec 2, 2010)

Good grief. Billcihak, your history.......


----------



## Empty Hands (Dec 2, 2010)

Blade96 said:


> Good grief. Billcihak, your history.......



But he said he went to many sources like breitbart.com, Rush and Mark Levin!  I'm just surprised he also didn't list that well known historian and academic expert Glenn Beck.  Must have been a simple oversight.


----------



## billc (Dec 2, 2010)

I'm not a big watcher of Glen Beck but he does some great work.  I do catch bits of his radio show now and then.  He mentioned Rahm Emanuels brother today, is it Zeke Emanuel, one of obamas advisors on healthcare.  Beck brought up emanuels thoughts on health care.  If you are age 0-3 the society shouldn't expend a lot of resources on you, the same if you are over 50.  Here is a Beck check for Beck bashers.  Go find what Rahm's brother has actually said about health care in the U.S. and tell me, did Beck make it up?


----------



## Tez3 (Dec 2, 2010)

billcihak said:


> I'm not a big watcher of Glen Beck but he does some great work. I do catch bits of his radio show now and then. He mentioned Rahm Emanuels brother today, is it Zeke Emanuel, one of obamas advisors on healthcare. Beck brought up emanuels thoughts on health care. If you are age 0-3 the society shouldn't expend a lot of resources on you, the same if you are over 50. Here is a Beck check for Beck bashers. Go find what Rahm's brother has actually said about health care in the U.S. and tell me, did Beck make it up?


 
:-offtopic


----------



## Empty Hands (Dec 2, 2010)

Tez3 said:


> :-offtopic



The actual topic is an argument of such ignorance and breathless stupidity that nearly anything else we could talk about would be an improvement.


----------



## Empty Hands (Dec 2, 2010)

billcihak said:


> Go find what Rahm's brother has actually said about health care in the U.S. and tell me, did Beck make it up?



Beck lies, misrepresents, and conspiracy theorizes with nearly every breath.  I would sooner trust my parrot's knowledge of political science and history over Beck's.  Here is a takedown of Beck's history from a libertarian at Reason magazine, hardly someone opposed to Beck's ideology on principle.  Maybe you will listen to him.

Just because someone flatters your ideology doesn't make them right.  Do you think Bill Bennett or Irving Kristol (luminaries of the conservative past) would pay the slightest attention to Beck's antics?  Follow their infinitely more sound example.

This applies to basically everyone you've indicated you get your information from.  You are being misled.


----------



## Omar B (Dec 2, 2010)




----------



## billc (Dec 2, 2010)

Aedrasteia, My initial post dealt with Bradford stating that the colonists had an equal share regardless of what their contribution was.  I heard this account through Rush and now Stossle, Stossle had an Economist from George Mason University who discussed the Company policy that forced the colonists to the original arrangement.  Rush read from Bradfords account of how the amount of productivity increased in the colony once each family was allowed to work their own parcel of land.  I have to say, I am not a  historian, so my research in this is going to be limited to other people who do the research, and I like to point people to other perspectives they may not have seen or heard before.  Yes, socialism of the modern period is not what they knew, but they practiced communal living and suffered for it.  Way back when and they learned the hard lesson that from each, according to their abiltiy, to each according to their needs, just doesn't work.

Did you see the Stossle show, it was interesting.  The explanation of why the buffalo were slaughtered and why the jungles are being deforested was interesting.  The best part was  the woman who defended publicly managed parks vs. privately managed parks.

I do not plan on getting my books out to dig into this topic.  I do not plan on doing research on the colonies, did enough of that in college, the same for fascism, communism and nazism.  For me, this is sitting around and hashing things out.  I like Rush, Coulter, Stossle, Levine, Thomas Sowell, Walter williams, I consider them my research staff.  I have enjoyed Hayeks works, The Road to Serfdom, and the Constitution of Liberty, and Dinesh D'souza is another great source.  Dennis Prager is another great thinker, with lots of wisdom, especially his book "Think a Second Time."  He presents a great argument for ethical monotheism, as well as several interesting arguments including a great discussion on the death penalty as well as the evils of pacifism.   I have to say your screen name is a handful, had to go back and write it down.  Good talking to you.  

I also like Mark Levine, I listen to him on my way home from my kali class.  He is great as well.


----------



## billc (Dec 2, 2010)

Well, topic police, everyone else brings things up and I respond.  I wouldn't mind starting another thread, but it seemed silly when this one is going so strong, look at the number of views.  Let me know, I'll start fresh if you want.  Oh, did Rahms brother actually say the things that Beck said he did?  Just asking, it would be a good check on Beck.  I learned about the Road to Serfdom from both Rush and Walter Williams, the former chair of the economics department of George Mason University.  Also, I learned about the great little book by Friedrich Bastiate, "the law" written just when socialism was getting wound up in France.  It is a great, short read against taking other peoples property.


----------



## Blade96 (Dec 2, 2010)

Empty Hands said:


> But he said he went to many sources like breitbart.com, Rush and Mark Levin!  I'm just surprised he also didn't list that well known historian and academic expert Glenn Beck.  Must have been a simple oversight.



Oh gosh, I stand  corrected, he really does know his history then!


----------



## billc (Dec 2, 2010)

Empty hands, Beck interviews Bennet on his radio show, you could yahoo Beck and Bennet.  It is at Becks website.


----------



## elder999 (Dec 2, 2010)

billcihak said:


> . I'm curious, how does the fact that the primitive shelters kept out water disprove anything I pointed out.


 
Alone it doesn't. Convenient how you ignored that Stossel and Rush had the wrong "Thanksgiving," pretty much disproving everything in your original post. It does point out that what you're calling "technologically inferior" or "superior" isn't necessarily inferior or superior at all-merely different.



billcihak said:


> . Do you still live in the teepee? Probably not.


 
Boy, did you ask the wrong guy! I have _three_ tepees. One was kept outside of our old house in the Jemez, and yes, it pretty much continued to function as our bedroom-in spite of having a rather decent master suite in the house. We _like_ sleeping outside-these days, we sleep on the patio I built at our new (hopefully temporary) home. I also regularly attend or run ceremonies in a tepee-those last all night long, so, while I'm not getting any sleep, I'm still in there for a great deal of time. The smallest tepee is used for camping-especially if I'm attending a Sundance-some people are looking for it to know that I'm there.



billcihak said:


> .
> Did shelters that kept out water prove a definitive advantage over a written language, superior metal working skills, gunpowder, the wheel...


 
Well, what "advantage" did a written language offer the Pilgrims, or other early colonists? Do you have any idea how the Indians transmitted information at that time, in order to compare? WHile only a few Indian cultures had a written language, and one Cherokee-Sequoyah- saw the advantage of it and _invented_ one, the Indians had methods of communication that were just as rapid or more so than the colonists, and traditions fo maintianing oral histories that were as accurate as writing.

While the advantages of metal working might be readily apparent, anyone who has handled an obsidian knife-which some primitive societies used to remove cataracts, so they're remarkably sharp-or worked with one made of horn or other stone will tell you that there's very little that can be accomplished with a metal knife over a good stone one. Axes, of course, were another story.....

As for gunpowder, and guns themselves, this is vastly overrated, especially considering the time period. Have you ever fired a matchlock musket? I have-they're impressively loud and smokey, long to reload and fire, and not very accurate. The bow and arrow, on the other hand, was accurate within the same range, easy to reload and fire repeatedly, and easy to reproduce.Firearms didn't really become much of an advantage for more than 200 years, with the advent of longer range and repeating rifles in the mid to late 19th century.By the time of King Phillip's war, there were close to 80000 colonists in New England, compared to around 10000 Indians-it was this, that the Europeans kept coming, and coming, and coming, and quickly outnumbered the Natives-as well as the Indians' reluctance to completely destroy villages-whatever their brutal procilivities towards fallen enemies-as their European counterparts did, that led time and again to the Indians' defeat. A clash of cultures, not technologies.

As for the wheel-again, not much of an advantage where there were no roads, and only a marginal one where there were roads at that. 

As for the cooperative compact of the Pilgrims, it was not unlike the way alot of other villages subsisted. That it wasn't successful has more to do with the weather, and the Pilgrims' general ineptitude. Bradford writes of their successful season in 1623-a full three years after their arrival, and two after the feast that is known as the "first Thanksgiving," also being due to the weather. 

And, of course, they'd learned European planting methods by that point.......from an Indian. :lfao:


----------



## billc (Dec 2, 2010)

I almost forgot one of my favorite radio guys, hugh hewitt, a constitutional law professor who also has a law practice that helps to protect people from the abuses of endangered species laws.  Great knowledge and wisdom.


----------



## granfire (Dec 2, 2010)

billcihak said:


> I almost forgot one of my favorite radio guys, hugh hewitt, a constitutional law professor who also has a law practice that helps to protect people from the abuses of endangered species laws.  Great knowledge and wisdom.



what?

Dude, What ever it is you are drinking and smoking....it ain't good for you...


----------



## Omar B (Dec 2, 2010)

I like chicks with long legs.

Since we are randomly saying stuff.


----------



## billc (Dec 2, 2010)

Elder 999, the technology of the sail, ships, navigation were what I tried debating with my history professor, it is good that you caught that little bit of technology.  Had the early native americans had their own navy things would have been completely different back then.  Rush and Stossle are still right, the communal nature of the settlement was killing them.  Supply ships took months to make that crossing, when they were able to get there in the first place.  The giving each family a parcel of land for their own use saved the settlers.  You need food to feed 80,000 people.  I also remember an account, I'm not sure if my professor mentioned it or if it was in our reading samples, when the colonists and early native americans were comparing weapons.  The natives showed how quickly they could use their bows, vs. the slower weapons of the colonists.  However, the colonists placed a metal breast plate on a tree.  The natives shot at it only to have their arrows bounce off.  The natives were then said to have picked up their gear and left in a huff.
The technological advantage of the Europeans eventually won the day, that's all.  They brought more people, their tech improved and the early native americans were pushed out because they couldn't compete.  It happens.

You might want to check out the book, "War before civillization," because the early peoples were just as savage as the europeans.  Also look at the book, " why we fight," Iwould quote from the books but I just lent them to a friend.  It was interesting that archeologists have had a blind eye when it comes to the way early peoples fought with each other and used up their resources.  One of the thoughts in War Before... is that more advanced millitaries often need to adopt the tactics of less tech sophisticated enemies, colonists who had to fight off indian raids adopted their tactics, Rogers Rangers and such and then used those skills to fight the British Army.  Part of the reason is that the natives could fade away and didn't have population centers like those in Europe.  But, the natives would eventually lose because the more advanced millitary had the supply base to attack the natives in the middle of winter, giving the natives no time to recoup their personel and supply losses.  Something along those lines anyway, I need the book to be more exact.


----------



## elder999 (Dec 2, 2010)

Omar B said:


> I like chicks with long legs.
> 
> Since we are randomly saying stuff.


 
I like pie. :lfao:


----------



## Omar B (Dec 2, 2010)

billcihak said:


> Elder 999, the technology of the sail, ships, navigation were what I tried debating with my history professor, it is good that you caught that little bit of technology.  *Had the early native americans had their own navy things would have been completely different back then.* *Rush and Stossle are still right, the communal nature of the settlement was killing them.*  Supply ships took months to make that crossing, when they were able to get there in the first place.  *The giving each family a parcel of land for their own use saved the settlers.*  You need food to feed 80,000 people.  I also remember an account, I'm not sure if my professor mentioned it or if it was in our reading samples, when the colonists and early native americans were comparing weapons.  The natives showed how quickly they could use their bows, vs. the slower weapons of the colonists.  However, the colonists placed a metal breast plate on a tree.  The natives shot at it only to have their arrows bounce off.  The natives were then said to have picked up their gear and left in a huff.
> *The technological advantage of the Europeans eventually won the day, that's all.  They brought more people, their tech improved and the early native americans were pushed out because they couldn't compete.  It happens.*
> 
> You might want to check out the book, "War before civillization," because the early peoples were just as savage as the europeans.  Also look at the book, " why we fight," Iwould quote from the books but I just lent them to a friend.  I*t was interesting that archeologists have had a blind eye when it comes to the way early peoples fought with each other and used up their resources.*  One of the thoughts in War Before... is that more advanced millitaries often need to adopt the tactics of less tech sophisticated enemies, colonists who had to fight off indian raids adopted their tactics, Rogers Rangers and such and then used those skills to fight the British Army.  Part of the reason is that the natives could fade away and didn't have population centers like those in Europe. * But, the natives would eventually lose because the more advanced millitary* had the supply base to attack the natives in the middle of winter, giving the natives no time to recoup their personel and supply losses.  Something along those lines anyway, I need the book to be more exact.



Who needs a Navy when you have everything you need right there?  Besides, the Arawak Indians of Jamaica expanded outwards as far as Florida and Brazil as well as every island within the Caribbean.  

How was their communal nature killing them?  You keep saying it but not pointing to actual proof.

Yeah, giving other people's land.

Numbers won the day, if it was technology then they would have all been wiped out then, last I checked they are still around ... Hey how ya doin' Elder?

You mean like every other society?  Oh how recently were we fighting a war for oil.

Ever heard that there's no resistance tougher than an indigenous population?


----------



## Blade96 (Dec 2, 2010)

The sun will die in 5 billion years.


----------



## Omar B (Dec 2, 2010)

Blade96 said:


> The sun will die in 5 billion years.



My kicks are f-ing devastating.


----------



## elder999 (Dec 2, 2010)

Omar B said:


> .
> 
> Numbers won the day, if it was technology then they would have all been wiped out then, last I checked they are still around ... Hey how ya doin' Elder?


 
Doin' good. They don't come much more technological than me. :lfao:


----------



## Omar B (Dec 2, 2010)

I wanna eat that bear in your avatar.


----------



## elder999 (Dec 2, 2010)

Omar B said:


> I wanna eat that bear in your avatar.


 
Dude.

You should look here. A while ago, Danny-the man who facilitated my vision quest-was introducing me to a Mexican fellow. The Mexican guy asked my name, and Danny said_ "el Oso."_ At which point, the Mexican asked,_ ¿Qué clase de oso es él?-"_What sort of bear is he?"- and Danny replied, _el Oso de Dios_, or " the bear of God."

That's how we get names around this stuff, and how I wound up with that one.

You don't wanna eat *that* bear. :lol:

(Okay-ultra tech and ultra primitive,hence another name" _walks in both worlds._ :lol: )

Except for this time of year, bear pretty much tastes like crap, anyway....:lfao:


----------



## granfire (Dec 2, 2010)

Pass that pipe that's circulating, this is turning into surreal theater...


----------



## Omar B (Dec 2, 2010)

elder999 said:


> Dude.
> You should look here. A while ago, Danny-the man who facilitated my vision quest-was introducing me to a Mexican fellow. The Mexican guy asked my name, and Danny said_ "el Oso."_ At which point, the Mexican asked,_ ¿Qué clase de oso es él?-"_What sort of bear is he?"- and Danny replied, _el Oso de Dios_, or " the bear of God."
> That's how we get names around this stuff, and how I wound up with that one.
> You don't wanna eat *that* bear. :lol:
> ...



I've got some Russian friends who are really into bear.  Only thing is you can't buy the meat in stores here.  I've already got a trip to Russia planned for 2018, but if I don't make it sooner I'm coming after that avatar man!


----------



## granfire (Dec 2, 2010)

I hope you got a hat to collect your behind in....I don't think elder is gonna give his totem friend up laying down....


----------



## Empty Hands (Dec 3, 2010)

These pretzels are making me thirsty!


----------



## CanuckMA (Dec 3, 2010)

I seem to remember communal living and socialism building a country out of nothing not that long ago.


----------



## granfire (Dec 3, 2010)

CanuckMA said:


> I seem to remember communal living and socialism building a country out of nothing not that long ago.



Did that entail a large ship with pairs of every animal?


----------



## Steve (Dec 3, 2010)

A little random, but since it came up in the thread, stone scalpals, specifically obsidian scalpals are used by some surgeons becaus they are very, very sharp, although more delicate than steel.  The surgeons who use them allege that they are superior to metal and reduce or eliminate scarring.


----------



## granfire (Dec 3, 2010)

stevebjj said:


> A little random, but since it came up in the thread, stone scalpals, specifically obsidian scalpals are used by some surgeons becaus they are very, very sharp, although more delicate than steel.  The surgeons who use them allege that they are superior to metal and reduce or eliminate scarring.



This whole thread has been an exercise in random...

I have not heard about obsidian scalpels...I will have to ask my mom, because that's fascinating. (but then again, those undeveloped heathens performed surgery on heads, exposing the brain...long before that was thought about in Europe...)


----------



## Steve (Dec 3, 2010)

granfire said:


> This whole thread has been an exercise in random...
> 
> I have not heard about obsidian scalpels...I will have to ask my mom, because that's fascinating. (but then again, those undeveloped heathens performed surgery on heads, exposing the brain...long before that was thought about in Europe...)


  Random is okay sometimes.  

A little more on point, primitive does not necessarily mean inferior.  In many cases, such as in the link posted to the hand crafted knives, advances in technology often lead to cheaper, but not necessarily better.  Manufacturers are always trying to find the right balance between cost and quality.  Doing things "The Old Way" can often yield far superior quality products than machine stamped, assembly line products.  Not always, but I'd go so far as to say often enough to matter.  

There's a saying I'm fond of:  "I can give you done well, done fast or done cheap.  Pick any two."


----------



## billc (Dec 4, 2010)

Yes, like the japanese sword.  The ww2 swords given to officers, from what i have heard from a colllector friend of mine were stamped blades or something like that.  Although I saw a program called weapon master where they compared an authentic( I think) sword vs. a modern sword.THey had a bias against the traditional weapon.


----------



## elder999 (Dec 4, 2010)

billcihak said:


> Yes, like the japanese sword. The ww2 swords given to officers, from what i have heard from a colllector friend of mine were stamped blades or something like that. Although I saw a program called weapon master where they compared an authentic( I think) sword vs. a modern sword.THey had a bias against the traditional weapon.


 

Yeah, sort of like how most of us have a bias against B.S. that conflates the events of 1621 with ones that occured in *1623* and masquerades as "scholarship."

_I can give you fast, I can give you what fits our agenda, or I can give you *true*_

Pick *one* :lfao: :lfao: :lfao::lfao::lfao:


----------



## Tez3 (Dec 5, 2010)

billcihak said:


> Yes, like the japanese sword. The ww2 swords given to officers, from what i have heard from a colllector friend of mine were *stamped blades* or something like that. Although I saw a program called weapon master where they compared an authentic( I think) sword vs. a modern sword.THey had a bias against the traditional weapon.


 

Wouldn't stamped blades belong to post office workers?


----------



## granfire (Dec 5, 2010)

oh, right, random...


----------



## Tez3 (Dec 5, 2010)

My brain takes me off in strange trains of thoughts sometimes....... plus I'm recovering from a very odd weekend! I think I've gone deaf too. My daughter was going to drive across country for a cheerleading competition, we were just going to watch but because of the weather she came with us instead so we had to stay and watch all of it. No surprise to Americans I expect but it's not what I thought it was, there were stunt cheers, dance cheers, tumbling etc all very good actually but so very very very loud! Hundreds of kids and their supporters shouting support for their teams. It's nothing like the cheerleaders we tend to see at sports venues. The stunts which my daughter loves are actually terrifying to watch. She does MMA as well. 

This thread is unbelievable but I'm not sure it's in a good way!


----------



## granfire (Dec 5, 2010)

Tez3 said:


> My brain takes me off in strange trains of thoughts sometimes....... plus I'm recovering from a very odd weekend! I think I've gone deaf too. My daughter was going to drive across country for a cheerleading competition, we were just going to watch but because of the weather she came with us instead so we had to stay and watch all of it. No surprise to Americans I expect but it's not what I thought it was, there were stunt cheers, dance cheers, tumbling etc all very good actually but so very very very loud! Hundreds of kids and their supporters shouting support for their teams. It's nothing like the cheerleaders we tend to see at sports venues. The stunts which my daughter loves are actually terrifying to watch. She does MMA as well.
> 
> This thread is unbelievable but I'm not sure it's in a good way!




You poor thing had to suffer through a CHEERLEADING event...

No, seriously, I am feeling very sorry for you....

But I do have to say that the good teams are impressive with the athletics. 

(but the injury rate is big, too, and the injuries can be severe)

After a game a few years back, I wanted to gouge out my ears with a rusty spoon, and that was out on the field, a long way away from the girls...

I am not the cheery type so that is torture...


----------



## elder999 (Dec 5, 2010)

billcihak said:


> Yes, like the japanese sword. The ww2 swords given to officers, from what i have heard from a colllector friend of mine were stamped blades or something like that. Although I saw a program called weapon master where they compared an authentic( I think) sword vs. a modern sword.THey had a bias against the traditional weapon.


 

I think he means _shin gunt&#333; (_&#24335;&#36557;&#20992-though the idea of any Japanese preferring one to a hand forged blade is something crazy....if he means "modern sword" as in "modern _forged _sword", well, I can see that, especially for tameshigiri.



Tez3 said:


> My brain takes me off in strange trains of thoughts sometimes....... plus I'm recovering from a very odd weekend! I think I've gone deaf too. My daughter was going to drive across country for a cheerleading competition, we were just going to watch but because of the weather she came with us instead so we had to stay and watch all of it. No surprise to Americans I expect but it's not what I thought it was, there were stunt cheers, dance cheers, tumbling etc all very good actually but so very very very loud! Hundreds of kids and their supporters shouting support for their teams. It's nothing like the cheerleaders we tend to see at sports venues. The stunts which my daughter loves are actually terrifying to watch. She does MMA as well.
> 
> This thread is unbelievable but I'm not sure it's in a good way!


 
I *still* like pie......I used to really like _cheerleader_ pie!:bangahead::headbangin::wink1: :lfao: :cheers: :highfive:  artyon:

*Drunken cheerleader pie* was best of all.....ahhhhh, college.....

:cheers::ladysman::ladysman:


----------



## Tez3 (Dec 5, 2010)

granfire said:


> You poor thing had to suffer through a CHEERLEADING event...
> 
> No, seriously, I am feeling very sorry for you....
> 
> ...


 
This was in a big Victorian ballroom, very high roof but with hundreds of kids, teenagers and girls, wow the noise was something.! Very nice to see lots of young people though doing something, can't say it's my thing but they were disciplined, polite and having a great time so it's got to be good for kids. 
My daughter says they don't do the 'supporting' sports team stuff at all, though they do shout of course lol, lots of gymnastics, dance and movements, again good for kids. 

Mind, perhaps those thoughts are a bit socialist?


----------



## billc (Dec 5, 2010)

Cheerleading has come a long way from cheering at half-time during football games.  It seems now that they have cheerleading teams that are twice the size of most sports teams.


----------



## Tez3 (Dec 5, 2010)

billcihak said:


> Cheerleading has come a long way from cheering at half-time during football games. It seems now that they have cheerleading teams that are twice the size of most sports teams.


 
None of the British teams go near a sports field, they aren't attached to teams at all, in fact it's nothing to do with sport! they compete against each other and give displays, they only 'shout' about themselves.
http://www.cheerleading.org.uk/bcaallstars.html

there were American and Canadian judges there at the weekend so I'm assuming it's they have the same type of cheerleading in the States.


----------



## billc (Dec 5, 2010)

Like most things, check out youtube, you can probably find all kinds of video of the various competitions.


----------



## Tez3 (Dec 5, 2010)

billcihak said:


> Like most things, check out youtube, you can probably find all kinds of video of the various competitions.


 

Cheers, but to be honest I'm really only interested in it when my daughter does it! Not my thing I'm afraid other than I approve of kids doing things that benefit them.


----------



## billc (Dec 5, 2010)

Yeah, she probably has already looked at all that stuff on her own.  Good luck with the cheerleading.


----------



## granfire (Dec 5, 2010)

it has really made a huge step away from the sports arena becoming a sport in its own right...
but you gotta bring your ear plugs....


----------



## billc (Dec 5, 2010)

I think here in the states it cheerleading just lost  out on being declared a sport by whoever governs that sort of thing here.  Because of that they lose out on  a lot of protections that the other sports get.  Penn and Teller, on their show Bulls**t, did an expose on cheerleading and its fight for recognition as an official sport as opposed to, I think you would call it an activity.


----------



## granfire (Dec 5, 2010)

well, it's a girly activity to support the jocks on the football team. 
But it's a sport


----------



## WC_lun (Dec 5, 2010)

It definitely take physical skills and discipline.  I can appreciate that.  Though, like Tez, it isn't something I'm really into.  If ESPN2 is showing a cheerleader tournament and ESPN is is playing basketball, I'll watch basketball...and I don't really care for basketball


----------



## Tez3 (Dec 6, 2010)

We were talking oin the car on the way back about how the media portrays children today as just sitting in front of computers all day yet thousands and thousands of kids this weekend would have been doing some activity or another, there are many thousands involved in Guidng and Scouting, theres hundreds of sports kids are involved in, football is obviously popular here, theres hundreds of kids teams, even leagues for them, street dance is hugely popular here,as well as other types of dance, there's thousands (boys and girls) involved in cheerleading, I know too there are thousands in the various martial arts, the 'street' sports such as skate boarding and anything to do with bikes are popular, we have gymnastic clubs, athletic clubs etc etc the kids aren't as they are portrayed by the media, the kids are moving! Of course some are sitting all day on computers and games but not all and it certainly isn't an 'epidemic'. there are also thousands of competitions in these sports and activities that kids enjoy which knocks the old chestnut about competition not being good for kids on the head. Kids are still kids! 

Now that's something to be thankful for!


----------



## granfire (Dec 6, 2010)

kids are better than their reputation. 

But too many fall into the stereotype...


----------



## elder999 (Dec 7, 2010)

billcihak said:


> Elder 999, the technology of the sail, ships, navigation were what I tried debating with my history professor, it is good that you caught that little bit of technology. Had the early native americans had their own navy things would have been completely different back then


 
As I'll show,  technologies develop where there's a need for them, usually driven by overused resources, but also by some other necessity-like laziness.

The Polynesians had-or, rather, _have_-a  complex ancient navigational system that allowed them to cross vast distances in the Pacific, with near pinpoint precision. Didn't keep Europeans from conquering them......



billcihak said:


> . Rush and Stossle are still right, the communal nature of the settlement was killing them. Supply ships took months to make that crossing, when they were able to get there in the first place. The giving each family a parcel of land for their own use saved the settlers.


 
Rush and Stossle are *wrong*. They've got the wrong "thanksgiving." There wouldn't ahve been a 1623 and changed rules if the Wampanoag hadn't protected and fed them back in 1621. More people and supplies-what the Pilgrims were "giving thanks" for-arrived in 1623, but could as easily have arrived to an empty settlement, if not for the Wampanoag.



billcihak said:


> . The natives showed how quickly they could use their bows, vs. the slower weapons of the colonists. However, the colonists placed a metal breast plate on a tree. The natives shot at it only to have their arrows bounce off. The natives were then said to have picked up their gear and left in a huff.


 
I'd like a citation please. Knowing the nature of armor and primitive bows at the time, as well as the nature of the people involved this anecdote seems specious to me.


The technological advantage of the Europeans eventually won the day, that's all. They brought more people, their tech improved and the early native americans were pushed out because they couldn't compete. It happens.



billcihak said:


> You might want to check out the book, "War before civillization," because the early peoples were just as savage as the europeans.


 
Don't have to look in the book; it's in my blood. On occasion, I want to rip someone's heart out and have a piece.....alas, it's more than  frowned upon in the society I find myself in....:lfao:

Alrighty, then-technology.

Often, the urge to explore, and enhance technology comes from a real limitation in resources. Where resources are adequate, or more than adequate, as they were for Indians before the arrival of Europeans, there is no impetus for developing technology beyond that which meets their needs. 

Sometimes a change comes along that is radical-this was the case for the Commanche and their "discovery" of the horse. Left behind by Spanish explorers, horse herds soon populated the plains, and transformed the Commanche from the "stone-age hunter gatherers" you confused the Eastern Woodlands Indians with earlier to what some would call the greatest light cavalry in history in less than 200 years.

Sometimes, the need arises from laziness. Funny story: there was a professor named Johnson at Northwestern University back at the end of the 19th century. His classroom was on the third floor. Professor Johnson was a rather portly fellow, and was annoyed that he had to go down four flights of stairs to the basement to adjust the boiler in the winter-then go up the stairs. Then go back down when his room got too warm. Then go up the stairs. Then go back down when his room got too cool. Then...well, you get the idea. So, he made the first variable remote thermostat-and could adjust the temperature in his room and control the boiler from that room. This was, of course, also the very first _Johnson Control_, a company that is still with us today, world wide....Some might call it necessity, but *Laziness* _is the mother of invention_ :lfao:


----------

