Skip to comments.
The Real Story of Thanksgiving
Rush Limbaugh Show ^
| November 23, 2011
| Rush Limbaugh
Posted on 11/23/2011 6:17:58 PM PST by bopdowah
RUSH: Now time for a tradition, an annual tradition, and that is The Real Story of Thanksgiving from my book that I wrote back in the early nineties. I wrote two of them, actually. In one of the books I wrote, The Real Story of Thanksgiving. And reading from it has become something we do every year on the program because it's still not taught. The myth of Thanksgiving is still what is taught, and that myth is basically that a bunch of thieves from Europe arrived quite by accident at Plymouth Rock, and if it weren't for the Indians showing them how to grow corn and slaughter turkeys and how to swallow and stuff, that they would have died of starvation and so forth.
(Excerpt) Read more at rushlimbaugh.com ...
TOPICS: Apologetics; General Discusssion; History; Religion & Politics
KEYWORDS: catholic; jealousy; pilgrims; revisionism; spite; thanksgiving
1
posted on
11/23/2011 6:18:02 PM PST
by
bopdowah
To: bopdowah
Like I said on the other thread about this, the history regarding Plymouth is a bit more complex then that. You have to be careful when trying to correct revisionist history, that the account you come up with isn't just as flawed as what you were trying to fix. Make Haste From Babylon: The Mayflower Pilgrims and Their World Pg 250. From the outset, the colony was a commercial project, as well as a mission inspired by religous ideals. Weston wished to make money, as the contract put it, from "trade, traffic, trucking, working, fishing" on the American coast. Far from being a commune, the Mayflower was a common stock: the very words employed in its contract. All the land in the Plymouth Colony, its houses, its tools, and its trading profits (if the appeard) were to belong to a joint-stock company, owned by the shareholders as a whole. When the final value of the assets was determined after seven years, the investors and the colonists would divide them up: that was the plan. All of the participants, those who stayed in England and those who had come to America, would recieve a dividend in proportion to the amount of shares they owned. Those who had no capital, but simply came on the boat, were deemed to have a single share. If any investors injected more cash, he or she would recieve extra shares accordingly. It was not the same thing as a modern corporation, but a likeness existed.
To: bopdowah
3
posted on
11/23/2011 6:51:53 PM PST
by
Jack Hydrazine
(It's the end of the world as we know it and I feel fine!)
To: JerseyanExile
The joint stock company was the basis for the organization of several of the original European settlements on the east coast.
4
posted on
11/23/2011 7:23:12 PM PST
by
marsh2
To: JerseyanExile
A case can be made that the core issue is: Centralized decision making or diffused, individual decision making.
When William Bradford allotted specific portions of land to individuals/families, when to sow, work the fields, and reap became the decisions of the individual rather than the community of a central planner.
Bradford was quite clear that the individual method was what saved the Plymouth Colony from another (and probably final) “Starving Winter”.
5
posted on
11/23/2011 8:35:54 PM PST
by
GladesGuru
(In a society predicated upon freedom, it is necessary to examine principles."...the public interest)
To: GladesGuru
Correction: “community of a social planner” should be “a community or a social planner.”
6
posted on
11/23/2011 8:38:31 PM PST
by
GladesGuru
(In a society predicated upon freedom, it is necessary to examine principles."...the public interest)
To: GladesGuru
A good point. But still, my point is that calling the Plymouth Colony in its first year communist is wrong. By that standard, anyone who isn’t self employed is a communist. A corporation? Communist. A company town? Communist.
To: bopdowah
8
posted on
11/23/2011 8:54:28 PM PST
by
Salvation
("With God all things are possible." Matthew 19:26)
To: JerseyanExile
As you say, be careful. Read Max Weber and you see that the religious motives and the economic motives were mixed, and the religious motives were strong. Careful you don’t imply that the Pilgrims were like Ben Franklin in their thinking. Just as the Virginia company was more strongly influenced by religious motives than we are led to believe , so the Pilgrims were more a religious colony than a commercial enterprise.
9
posted on
11/23/2011 9:06:40 PM PST
by
RobbyS
(Viva Christus Rex.)
To: bopdowah
10
posted on
11/23/2011 9:23:35 PM PST
by
Jack Hydrazine
(It's the end of the world as we know it and I feel fine!)
To: JerseyanExile
The reason most of the hippie communes in the 60s and 70s failed was that they turned from being communal to being communist where a few self appointed themselves to be the leaders. The leaders were of course to busy leading to engage in actual work and the workers suddenly realized that they were more like slaves. Food then ran out in the Winter and the workers left then the leaders couldn't maintain and the farm went up for sale in the Spring. Saw it happen time and again when I was there in the Ozarks.
11
posted on
11/23/2011 11:18:14 PM PST
by
fella
("As it was before Noah, so shall it be again.")
Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson