And I have a copy, along with manuscripts from other colonists, both there and from Virginia/Maryland and from the Carolinas, and from French and Spanish colonists in Florida and the Moblie/Biloxi/Pascagula region.

I have to be honest, I have never been very comfortable at all with any revisionist history, whether it comes from the right or left. There is much to say in support of Rob’s theory and yet one should not just out of hand dismiss Sparkie’s point. There were, I suspect a multitude of factors that played a role in the survival of the Pilgrims and that includes the Native Americans, individualism + self-interest, the latter two as Bat pointed out, and for many of us – Divine Intervention.

Even when the history in question is quite recent and a mountain of facts are available, the bias of men and their ideologies will color their interpretation of events and neither side ever gets very close to the truth of the matter. The truth is that the world is not a very tidy place, clear choices and absolute facts are rarely if ever available to the players on the stage of history at the time events unfold and they had to act on the circumstances before them not on political theory, they did not have the luxury of beating every issue to death before they moved and if pinned down at the moment would rarely analyze events in the same terms that are afforded to historians.

There is absolutely no doubt in my mind that the best chances for survival are among those that believe in individual responsibility and maximum liberty. I look at every society that tried some sort of socialistic to communistic system; the first never achieves the level of prosperity and opportunities for success that can be found in those states offering the greatest liberty; and in the latter case, there is neither individual prosperity nor opportunities for success at all.

And if the Indians didn’t teach them, they still would not have been able to farm.

The Indians saved your ass….and then you killed them.

Further, isn’t it funny to watch Rob promote government involvement in “capitalism”??? I thought they don’t need the government “for anything”???

Every family was assigned a private parcel of land. They could then keep all they grew for themselves, but now they alone were responsible for feeding themselves. . .

When do the poor get their free land to take care of themselves Rob???? Is that capitalism when the Government tells you can have this free land if you obey our polices?? Just curious.

Nman, I was not accusing you of anything, just putting it out there. The Disneyfication of our history has painted the Puritans as poor, oppressed refugees, seeking for freedom, when the facts are quite the opposite. They were driven from England because their neighbors were tired of their crap. At a time when life was harsh and unforgiving the Puritans wanted everything to be harsher and even less forgiving, and they held the Church of England in contempt. That was the nail that finally did them in. Catholics and Jews had a bad time under CoE, the Puritans had it 10 times worse, because they deserved it. They were the Fundamentalist Jihadis of their age, and people DID NOT put up with their crap.

I was just listing you guys to draw your attention, not start a scrum.

The righties are so afraid that Capitalism is going down the drain (and it isn’t at all) that they are now resorting to rewriting history of the pilgrims. Man, you guys are scared stiff!

Reaqlly, djerk? Using the actual, factual accounts from the time is “rewriting” history. How about you prove that, a$$hole.

limbaugh tells this story every year. it should be read once a month to liberal everywhere. those that disagree should be politely asked to try it on their own and see how it all works out… oh wait…. that was the ussr.

This thread is about the Pilgrims, ellinas; are you really that desperate for attention?

Are you saying that these people didn’t have a sense of community and did not have in mind the common good? It is my recollection of my study of the early Americans that while they indeed were individualists and believed in liberty, they still maintained a strong sense of pooling their resources in time of need for the “common good.” Maybe I am misunderstanding your point.

By the way my family on both sides goes back to the American Revolution. That doesn’t imply greater knowledge of those people, we never had diaries or much family history other than important names, dates and special events.

This is idiotic. The idea that people would get more incentive from private property than death is asinine.

Where is all your proof that Christians are using terrorism to force people to convert to Christianity, whiny lying c%nt?

Neiman,

My point was simply that people are always more productive and their efforts are more profitable when they are free to pursue their own interests as they define them, rather than being tethered to and restricted by an imposed “common good.”

I am not denying the Plymouth colonists’ sense of community at all, and I apologize if my comments left you with that impression.

Sparkie,

I believe the term you’re searching for is “enlightened self-interest.”

Its interesting that what happened at Plymouth is the very same thing that happened in Russia and the other former Soviet colonies once the shackles of communism were thrown off. Individual liberty and self-interest work to enhance peoples’ lives. Enforced paternalisitc socialism doesn’t.

so we are to believe that they spontaneously acquired the knowledge to grow corn, a crop which existed in the americas alone? perhaps there was a, say, few year learning curve.

also, i think its a reach to call it an economic incentive. how about a not-dying-over-the-winter incentive?

Kibbutz are on the decline in Israel, and often have outside backers. Moreover, Kibbutz has always been a minority movement, voluntary AND religious in nature. (A close comparison is monks in a monestry, or priests in a rectory) A small group of people can willingly choose to form a small collective and sometimes prosper. Organized by the state…it fails.

Commenters here would be well advised to actually read William Bradford’s history “On Plimoth Plantation” before spreading their ignorance. Many settlers picked fights with the Indians; the Pilgrims concluded a treaty which included extradition when evidence of a crime was committed–and held to it. Bradford credited both the Indians and free markets for the survival of the colony.

Moreover, the Pilgrims traded for their land; they did not take it by force from the previous owners.

Finally, they did indeed leave to practice their religion in peace–which was Separatist, not Puritan. Far from being hounded out by their neighbors, they were in fact oppressed directly from London–even purchasing ships and supplies to escape England from sympathetic neighbors–but their hopes then being dashed by the King’s customs officers and navy.

Lot of people with a lot of wrong ideas here–again, get thee to http://www.visionforum.com and get yourself a copy of Bradford’s history of Plimoth Plantation.