Jump to content

This Economics Of The Pilgrims


Recommended Posts

Let me just lay one more little thought on your brain, son.

If you offered 40 acres of good, creek-fed bottom land for free to every ghetto dweller in America, and then you cut off all assistance and told the cops to start beating on them, you would see a fuck of a lot less ghetto dwellers in America. 200 years later, dopes would be talking smack about what a bunch of "rugged individualists" those ghetto dwellers were, and saying how they chose capitalism over socialism.

 

American history has something very exceptional about it: FREE LAND. That doesn't jump out at ya much, if ya study the world's histories.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 50
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Historians say that the settlers in Plymouth … did indeed agree to hold their property in common — William Bradford, the governor, referred to it in his writings as the “common course.” But the plan was in the interest of realizing a profit sooner, and was only intended for the short term; historians say the Pilgrims were more like shareholders in an early corporation than subjects of socialism.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Historians say that the settlers in Plymouth … did indeed agree to hold their property in common — William Bradford, the governor, referred to it in his writings as the “common course.” But the plan was in the interest of realizing a profit sooner, and was only intended for the short term; historians say the Pilgrims were more like shareholders in an early corporation than subjects of socialism.

 

Of course, you are not refering here to bond servants, convicts, apprentices, women, or people under 25. You are talking about prehaps 10% of the colony's population at any given time.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

No, YOU are creating your own history. I happen to really LIKE history, which I why I called BS on your romantic notions.

 

 

 

See, here you are doing EXACTLY what you just accused me of doing. Coming here is not something people CHOSE - it's something they got STUCK WITH. You have a little girl, hollywood understanding of history.

 

Most of the pilgrims were mostly not acting as free agents, most of the time. You think they were because you have a mythological and unschooled view of history. You probably have not read one single book of historical fiction in your life since high school, much less read an actual history book or taken a history course of any type.

 

All those hale and hearty souls that jumped in Connestoga wagons to head west? They were not EXACTLY "volunteers," either, son. When Horace Greeley said, "Go west, young man; go west," it was not a friendly old fella giving good advice. It was a prominent member of the American Aristocracy/Oligarchy giving marching orders to clear the crowded seaboard cities. There were billy clubs behind that "advice," to back it up. The pioneers were PUSHED west.

 

You toss out all these memes and, when I tell you it ain't so, you pretzel yourself out of shape with a thread like this one, and then you have to pretend that your "original" point was that socialism lost to capitalism in early America. Not only was that rubbish NOT THE ORIGINAL POINT, it also remains unproven. We had a mix in the colonies and have had a mix since. During those times when we lean too hard one way or the other, things get screwy. The end.

lofl...sure things like that happened...but gad damn cannon...you forget the fur trade era...the mormons, the gold rush...the indian wars and cattle drives........sh it cannon..you tried to paraphrase the entire history of the united states into a......."the government beat the hell out of the cowardice population and forced them to explore the country much to their chagrin"

 

cannon you are right...the folks of new jersey are the most valiant people on the face of the earth...they endured tremendous hardship...hardship that could only be compared to a bush style waterboarding...and unlike the commie pu ssy pilgrims that traveled across the ocean and begged the king for help at every sign of hardship...the folks of new jersey gave one valient effort to take care of their own problems...without saddling every other american with the debt...certainly THIS generation of american is the greatest..and the ones that floated their asses across the atlantic, in a wooden sail boat,,taking months to arrive......risking life and limb...settling a continent that was as unknown as the moon...indians and wild animals to deal with...well they aint got sh it on those rugged little new jersey folk for they are surely the cream of the crop...

 

sorry...wont bring it up again...i stand corrected

Link to post
Share on other sites

lofl...sure things like that happened...but gad damn cannon...you forget the fur trade era...the mormons, the gold rush...the indian wars and cattle drives........sh it cannon..you tried to paraphrase the entire history of the united states into a......."the government beat the hell out of the cowardice population and forced them to explore the country much to their chagrin"

 

Actually, I was responding to YOUR broad brush, rosy view of history.

 

Fact is, the cowboys were up shiit creek if they got more than 20 miles from a bunk house or a chuck wagon. It was the INDIANS who were the rugged individualists, not the cowboys, not the pilgrims, and not the pioneers (though the pioneers were the closest - had to be). The 49ers had no real options. They had possible gold and free land in front of them, and cops with billy clubs behind them.

 

We celebrate our native heritage in hollywood films all the time. But we put a cowboy hat on our native forebearers, because we don't want to confront our cultural patricide.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Something in this thread smells revisionist.

 

Horace Greeley signaling people to leave under threat sounds a bit over the top. Expansion was attractive to many people. They may have had the 'gold rush fantasy' wherein the real money was made selling shovels to prospectors. But enticements and stories of success were prevalent. Even Europe must have heard Greeley's go west decree because they came in droves (from his east). They couldn't let them fill the eastern cities while the open land sat there, the very thing from which their stories came. They were pushed to be sure, but they were pretty much just being told to continue what they were already in the middle of doing largely.

 

Homestead Act and crowded cities. Inevitable expansion but also pushed. Lots of reasons for lots of people.

 

Everything isn't a conspiracy. I saw that on the internet.

------

 

 

 

I can only imagine what the big camping trip was like. Going in the first place must have taken guts knowing first, that you may not even get there and second, if you do there's only a small chance of ever getting back. Pretty much had to suck where you were at to decide to go.

Indentured servitude, disease, early death, etc. Woman came in numbers much later. And you guys are bitching about Russians?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Something in this thread smells revisionist.

 

Horace Greeley signaling people to leave under threat sounds a bit over the top. Expansion was attractive to many people. They may have had the 'gold rush fantasy' wherein the real money was made selling shovels to prospectors. But enticements and stories of success were prevalent. Even Europe must have heard Greeley's go west decree because they came in droves (from his east). They couldn't let them fill the eastern cities while the open land sat there, the very thing from which their stories came. They were pushed to be sure, but they were pretty much just being told to continue what they were already in the middle of doing largely.

 

Homestead Act and crowded cities. Inevitable expansion but also pushed. Lots of reasons for lots of people.

 

Everything isn't a conspiracy. I saw that on the internet.

You are correct. When one is de-romantacizing, there is a danger that one will over-emphasize. As I said eralier - FREE LAND!

 

So, yeah, the pull was enormous. The pretense there was no PUSH simply ignores the mechanics of human geography. That was my only point.

 

Not EVERY person who went west was under some threat in the east (cops, starvation) - just the majority. There WERE adventurers.

 

But if you look at the Klondike vs. the 49ers, you get a picture of what happens when there's a boom and things are NOT dire at home. Then, only the adventurers go, and not the depserados.

Link to post
Share on other sites

You are correct. When one is de-romantacizing, there is a danger that one will over-emphasize. As I said eralier - FREE LAND!

 

So, yeah, the pull was enormous. The pretense there was no PUSH simply ignores the mechanics of human geography. That was my only point.

 

Not EVERY person who went west was under some threat in the east (cops, starvation) - just the majority. There WERE adventurers.

 

But if you look at the Klondike vs. the 49ers, you get a picture of what happens when there's a boom and things are NOT dire at home. Then, only the adventurers go, and not the depserados.

 

Well said.

 

 

dammit :)

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Actually, I was responding to YOUR broad brush, rosy view of history.

 

Fact is, the cowboys were up shiit creek if they got more than 20 miles from a bunk house or a chuck wagon. It was the INDIANS who were the rugged individualists, not the cowboys, not the pilgrims, and not the pioneers (though the pioneers were the closest - had to be). The 49ers had no real options. They had possible gold and free land in front of them, and cops with billy clubs behind them.

 

We celebrate our native heritage in hollywood films all the time. But we put a cowboy hat on our native forebearers, because we don't want to confront our cultural patricide.

you have taken this conversation completely off topic...but i will oblige you....

this is what i got out of your bull sh it essay...the east coast was full of corrupt politicians, abusive cops and tyrannical policeis that made the prospect of going west into unknown land... facing savage bands of indians, exposure to the elements, hunger and thirst... more palitable. is that what you are saying?

 

then i can deduce that from your viewpoint of history..it took more courage to stay in the east...to face all that abuse...than it took to pack your sh it and leave. is that what you are saying? cause not everyone left..some stayed and delt with the billy club wielding police cannon...those must be the brave souls and the cowards took the easy way out...they left.

 

well i agree with you that the east coast was, is, and always will be a place to flee...i will not agree with you that the MAJORITY of the people left because of heavy handed police officers. as a matter of fact i can assure you that more people were ENTICED to move out here because of the prospect of cheap land, free land, fewer people, and a lot less governance.

 

you see cannon, the east couldnt produce the kind of food needed to sustain a growing nation, expansion was necessary. and from the trappers that explored the west, to the sod busters that tackled the prairies...they were tougher than hell...they wanted to live a life away from all the "people" in the east...

 

i grew up with the descendants of these people cannon...my wifes family homesteaded this town...i have talked to them about this sh it....you can read what ever book you want...why not ask the people that moved out here? they are still here cannon..their children anyway....some of the originals....

Link to post
Share on other sites

you have taken this conversation completely off topic...but i will oblige you....

this is what i got out of your bull sh it essay...the east coast was full of corrupt politicians, abusive cops and tyrannical policeis that made the prospect of going west into unknown land... facing savage bands of indians, exposure to the elements, hunger and thirst... more palitable. is that what you are saying?

Yes, that is my thesis.

then i can deduce that from your viewpoint of history..it took more courage to stay in the east...to face all that abuse...than it took to pack your sh it and leave. is that what you are saying? cause not everyone left..some stayed and delt with the billy club wielding police cannon...those must be the brave souls and the cowards took the easy way out...they left.

No, this is not my position. They were not DEPOPULATING the eastern seaboard - just thinning the herd. The folks who stayed were mostly fat and happy, or so underclass and beggared that they could not afford the trip west.

well i agree with you that the east coast was, is, and always will be a place to flee...i will not agree with you that the MAJORITY of the people left because of heavy handed police officers. as a matter of fact i can assure you that more people were ENTICED to move out here because of the prospect of cheap land, free land, fewer people, and a lot less governance.

Oh, look: nuance. So there was a push (my thesis) AND a pull (your thesis). SYNTHESIS. Glory-be.

you see cannon, the east couldnt produce the kind of food needed to sustain a growing nation, expansion was necessary. and from the trappers that explored the west, to the sod busters that tackled the prairies...they were tougher than hell...they wanted to live a life away from all the "people" in the east...

Yes, it was getting crowded. Yes, people were pushed. Yes, people were pulled. It was neither the romantic picture that you painted, nor the bleak one that I painted - though I assure you, mine was certainly CLOSER to the truth - just a tad monolithic. Some people really were balls for leather, happy as a clam to go traipsing. I am that sort myself, so I KNOW we exist. We represent roughly ten percent of the human population - those who are more motivated TOWARD novelty and pleasure that motivated AWAY from strangeness and pain.

 

You can probably google that (toward motivation vs. away motivation).

 

The great unwashed mass were not unlike Mexicans swimming the Rio - they were in violation of standing treaties, invading land that did not belong to them. A big piece of the revolutionary war was because the brits tried to force the colonies to respect existing treaties with the savage redskins. You can google it - the colonies wanted to cross the alleghenies and the brits forbade it.

i grew up with the descendants of these people cannon...my wifes family homesteaded this town...i have talked to them about this sh it....you can read what ever book you want...why not ask the people that moved out here? they are still here cannon..their children anyway....some of the originals....

I AM a descendant of those people - one who understands, respects, and incorporates into his world view, the history of our people.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Let me just lay one more little thought on your brain, son.

 

If you offered 40 acres of good, creek-fed bottom land for free to every ghetto dweller in America, and then you cut off all assistance and told the cops to start beating on them, you would see a fuck of a lot less ghetto dwellers in America. 200 years later, dopes would be talking smack about what a bunch of "rugged individualists" those ghetto dwellers were, and saying how they chose capitalism over socialism.

 

American history has something very exceptional about it: FREE LAND. That doesn't jump out at ya much, if ya study the world's histories.

 

As long as you used it, you kept it. Probably were exceptions but that was a basic rule to the 40 acres and a mule plan. You had to farm it, not ignore it.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

As long as you used it, you kept it. Probably were exceptions but that was a basic rule to the 40 acres and a mule plan. You had to farm it, not ignore it.

 

No, the pioneers did not get a mule - but they COULD claim more than 40 acres, depending on conditions. Some ranchers claimed tens of square miles.

 

The 40 acres and a mule thing was reparations. That's why the conversation about reparations is silly, and over - already happened.

Link to post
Share on other sites

come on guys....what economic practice determined the success of the pilgrims

It appears that they set up majority rule, which is likely to mean the individual has no rights, which eliminates capitalism. It seems the colony owned the property by virtue of the fact that majority ruled, which makes it a version of socialism.

 

"by virtue hereof to enact, constitute, and frame, such just and equal laws, ordinances, acts, constitutions, and offices, from time to time, as shall be thought most meet and convenient for the general good of the colony; unto which we promise all due submission and obedience." -- modern version of mayflower compact (https://www.google.com/search?q=mayflower+compact&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&hl=en&client=safari#itp=open0)

 

What do you mean by success and what evidence do you have to support it?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Jesus.

 

Everyone get set for the great and final cataclysmic battle, the

 

 

 

CLASH OF THE

ROMANTIC NOTIONS!

 

 

 

Nothing like an historical revisionist/American exceptionalist going toe to toe with a school-girl economic acolyte of retard rand.

 

The memes are gonna FLY, folks. Watch yourselves! :lol: :lol: :lol:

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

They almost starved under socialism, literally.

 

They tried it due to religious belief.

 

Once they went back to individual initiative and private property/ negotiated wages, they recovered and prospered.

 

Really they starved because of socialism?

It wasn't because of the illnesses that killed many of the crew and left them with only six or seven people able to hunt, farm and care for the rest.

And the change wasn't because there leader died and their charter was given away by the new guy, it was because they were rejecting that awful, terrible sharing.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Really they starved because of socialism?

It wasn't because of the illnesses that killed many of the crew and left them with only six or seven people able to hunt, farm and care for the rest.

And the change wasn't because there leader died and their charter was given away by the new guy, it was because they were rejecting that awful, terrible sharing.

 

 

 

They literally could not hunt - they had no hunting skills, yet. They were taught by the indians. And their farming methods were not entirely suited to the new world. And then, yeah - they got sick.

 

Blame socialism, I say.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

No, the pioneers did not get a mule - but they COULD claim more than 40 acres, depending on conditions. Some ranchers claimed tens of square miles.

 

The 40 acres and a mule thing was reparations. That's why the conversation about reparations is silly, and over - already happened.

 

Yes, you are right. I guess a timeline does play a small part when looking at history. :)

 

Since you mention reparations, isn't it odd how that got some kind of traction in the public conversation and then just whimpered away? I didn't really follow it so I don't know if there was finally one thing that put it to rest. Like your statement here. Did that make the difference? I don't really remember it coming out.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Yes, you are right. I guess a timeline does play a small part when looking at history. :)

 

Since you mention reparations, isn't it odd how that got some kind of traction in the public conversation and then just whimpered away? I didn't really follow it so I don't know if there was finally one thing that put it to rest. Like your statement here. Did that make the difference? I don't really remember it coming out.

 

Reparations only got traction in that folks had a lot of fun being outraged by the notion, and soundly mocking it. The idea was nothing but a victimologist's wet dream.

 

In universities, you have these minority studies guys who specialize in figuring out new ways that minority groups have been sold down the river.

 

Oops - that phrase comes from slavery days - my bad if it caused anyone any pain. ANYHOW, the groups will sit around and dream up new ways that the lives of minorites have been anything but a cake walk - no offense to any black people, as the term "cake walk" comes from the culture of recently freed slaves - which might bring back some bad memories. ANYHOW, these guys specialize in being victims, is the point.

 

Anyhow, those folks who do that for a living are pretty much the only ones the idea ever got traction with.

Link to post
Share on other sites

the antiquated pilgrims knew that socialism sucked...and they progressed past it...why cant you nuckle dragging progladites do the same?

That's a meme. They were more strongly socialist than we are, all along. They understood that a mix of community and individualism was better than either by itself.

 

You see, koolaid (the stuff you are spewing) had not yet been invented. They needed to get by in the REAL WORLD, and you cannot eat ideology. Good thing, too - because yours is poisonous. :)

Link to post
Share on other sites

That's a meme. They were more strongly socialist than we are, all along. They understood that a mix of community and individualism was better than either by itself.

 

You see, koolaid (the stuff you are spewing) had not yet been invented. They needed to get by in the REAL WORLD, and you cannot eat ideology. Good thing, too - because yours is poisonous. :)

and in your mind you are right, in reality..you dont exist............

Link to post
Share on other sites

cannon...you can post that the pilgrims were commies...you can put up links all day long promoting that bull sh it....and guess what, i can do the same with my argument...however this government was not set up as a socialist government.. since the founders of this country were closer to the pilgrims than you and i they came to the same conclusion that i have...i can only presume that they knew that socialism didnt work either...

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...