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.
Real thanksgiving
- Thread starter billc
- Start date
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.
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
Senior Master
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.
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!
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!
OP
- Thread Starter
- #7
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.
OP
- Thread Starter
- #9
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.
OP
- Thread Starter
- #10
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.
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.
OP
- Thread Starter
- #12
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?
OP
- Thread Starter
- #14
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.
OP
- Thread Starter
- #16
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
Senior Master
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.
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.
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.
