The "Real" Story of Thanksgiving by Rush Limbaugh and John Stossel

[host]

Are they correct or are they worried that we Americans don't love our "capitalism", strongly enough? Is it the 1950's, all over again, are the "dirty commies" gonna get us if we don't fully embrace "free market" ideology?

http://www.worldtribune.com/worldtri...anks_11_22.asp
Thursday, November 22, 2007 Free Headline Alerts
http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/dai...113.guest.html

Rush Limbaugh: The real story of Thanksgiving
See Full Transcript on RushLimbaugh.com

Now, the real story of Thanksgiving: "On August 1, 1620, the Mayflower set sail. It carried a total of 102 passengers, including forty Pilgrims led by William Bradford. On the journey, Bradford set up an agreement, a contract, that established just and equal laws for all members of the new community, irrespective of their religious beliefs. Where did the revolutionary ideas expressed in the Mayflower Compact come from? From the Bible," and this is what's not taught. This is what's left out:

"The Pilgrims were a people completely steeped in the lessons of the Old and New Testaments. They looked to the ancient Israelites for their example. And, because of the biblical precedents set forth in Scripture, they never doubted that their experiment would work. But this was no pleasure cruise, friends. The journey to the New World was a long and arduous one. And when the Pilgrims landed in New England in November, they found, according to Bradford's detailed journal, a cold, barren, desolate wilderness. There were no friends to greet them, he wrote. There were no houses to shelter them. There were no inns where they could refresh themselves. And the sacrifice they had made for freedom was just beginning. During the first winter, half the Pilgrims -- including Bradford's own wife -- died of either starvation, sickness, or exposure.

"When spring finally came, Indians taught the settlers how to plant corn, fish for cod and skin beavers for coats. Life improved for the Pilgrims, but they did not yet prosper! This is important to understand because this is where modern American history lessons often end. Thanksgiving is actually explained in some textbooks as a holiday for which the Pilgrims gave thanks to the Indians for saving their lives, rather than as a devout expression of gratitude grounded in the tradition of both the Old and New Testaments. Here is the part that has been omitted: The original contract the Pilgrims had entered into with their merchant-sponsors in London called for everything they produced to go into a common store, and each member of the community was entitled to one common share. All of the land they cleared and the houses they built belong to the community as well." They were collectivists! Now, "Bradford, who had become the new governor of the colony, recognized that this form of collectivism was as costly and destructive to the Pilgrims as that first harsh winter, which had taken so many lives.

"He decided to take bold action. Bradford assigned a plot of land to each family to work and manage, thus turning loose the power of the marketplace. ... Long before Karl Marx was even born, the Pilgrims had discovered and experimented with what could only be described as socialism. And what happened? It didn't work! Surprise, surprise, huh? What Bradford and his community found was that the most creative and industrious people had no incentive to work any harder than anyone else, unless they could utilize the power of personal motivation! But while most of the rest of the world has been experimenting with socialism for well over a hundred years -- trying to refine it, perfect it, and re-invent it -- the Pilgrims decided early on to scrap it permanently. What Bradford wrote about this social experiment should be in every schoolchild's history lesson," every kid gets. "If it were, we might prevent much needless suffering in the future." Here's what he wrote: "'The experience that we had in this common course and condition, tried sundry years...that by taking away property, and bringing community into a common wealth, would make them happy and flourishing -- as if they were wiser than God,' Bradford wrote.

"'For this community [so far as it was] was found to breed much confusion and discontent, and retard much employment that would have been to their benefit and comfort. For young men that were most able and fit for labor and service did repine that they should spend their time and strength to work for other men's wives and children without any recompense...that was thought injustice.'" That was thought injustice. "Do you hear what he was saying, ladies and gentlemen? The Pilgrims found that people could not be expected to do their best work without incentive. So what did Bradford's community try next? They unharnessed the power of good old free enterprise by invoking the undergirding capitalistic principle of private property. Every family was assigned its own plot of land to work and permitted to market its own crops and products. And what was the result?" 'This had very good success,' wrote Bradford, "for it made all hands industrious, so as much more corn was planted than otherwise would have been." Bradford doesn't sound like much of a Clintonite, does he? Is it possible that supply-side economics could have existed before the 1980s? ... In no time, the Pilgrims found they had more food than they could eat themselves. ... So they set up trading posts and exchanged goods with the Indians.

"The profits allowed them to pay off their debts to the merchants in London. And the success and prosperity of the Plymouth settlement attracted more Europeans and began what came to be known as the 'Great Puritan Migration.'" Now, aside from this program, have you heard this before? Is this "being taught to children -- and if not, why not? I mean, is there a more important lesson one could derive from the Pilgrim experience than this?" What if Bill and Hillary Clinton had been exposed to these lessons in school? Do you realize what we face in next year's election is the equivalent of people who want to set up these original collectivists communes that didn't work, with nobody having incentive to do anything except get on the government dole somehow because the people running the government want that kind of power. So the Pilgrims decided to thank God for all of their good fortune. And that's Thanksgiving. And read George Washington's first Thanksgiving address and count the number of times God is mentioned and how many times he's thanked. None of this is taught today. It should be. Have a happy Thanksgiving, folks. You deserve it. Do what you can to be happy, and especially do what you can to be thankful, because in this country you have more reasons than you've ever stopped to consider.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/art...e_commons.html
The Tragedy of the Commons
By John Stossel

Every year around this time, schoolchildren are taught about that wonderful day when Pilgrims and Native Americans shared the fruits of the harvest. "Isn't sharing wonderful?" say the teachers.

They miss the point.

Because of sharing, the first Thanksgiving in 1623 almost didn't happen.

The failure of Soviet communism is only the latest demonstration that freedom and property rights, not sharing, are essential to prosperity. The earliest European settlers in America had a dramatic demonstration of that lesson, but few people today know it.

When the Pilgrims first settled the Plymouth Colony, they organized their farm economy along communal lines. The goal was to share everything equally, work and produce.

They nearly all starved.

Why? When people can get the same return with a small amount of effort as with a large amount, most people will make little effort. Plymouth settlers faked illness rather than working the common property. Some even stole, despite their Puritan convictions. Total production was too meager to support the population, and famine resulted. Some ate rats, dogs, horses and cats. This went on for two years.

"So as it well appeared that famine must still ensue the next year also, if not some way prevented," wrote Gov. William Bradford in his diary. The colonists, he said, "began to think how they might raise as much corn as they could, and obtain a better crop than they had done, that they might not still thus languish in misery. At length after much debate of things, [I] (with the advice of the chiefest among them) gave way that they should set corn every man for his own particular, and in that regard trust to themselves. ... And so assigned to every family a parcel of land."

The people of Plymouth moved from socialism to private farming. The results were dramatic.

"This had very good success," Bradford wrote, "for it made all hands very industrious, so as much more corn was planted than otherwise would have been. ... By this time harvest was come, and instead of famine, now God gave them plenty, and the face of things was changed, to the rejoicing of the hearts of many. ... "

Because of the change, the first Thanksgiving could be held in November 1623....

I'm surprised that the depths resorted to in the above opinion pieces were even reached? It seems symptomatic of profound concern, desperate messages of extreme fairy tales from extreme conservatives who get paid to spread such bullshit.

Who do they think that they are fooling, and why do they exert the effort?

[dksuddeth]

actually, I can believe most of that wholeheartedly, considering that back then the white man could not realize the possibility of how slacking off in a sharing atmosphere could starve the whole colony. The native americans knew well that they had to work together to survive against other tribes, thus knowing how to divide tasks relatively equally.

[Elphaba]

I'm not convinced that they are attempting to fool anyone, but are expressing their sincere belief in the conservative free market economic system. That they both choose to make their point with the "first Thanksgiving" story is quite a stretch, but both men are known to play loose with history.

Our current economic state requires unbridled consumption of goods to keep it afloat and actions of sharing or conserving would be antithetical to that purpose. We saw much the same thing when Bush to us to "go shopping" rather than to ask of us the shared sacrifice necessary in support of war expenses. I've oversimplified the economic intentions of this administration, but it's close enough for the general case.

In honor of the true "reason for the season" a documentary is now out that addresses our fair trade economy titled, "What would Jesus Buy?" Check out Reverend Billy, if you get the chance.

[Charlatan]

Originally Posted by Elphaba

I'm not convinced that they are attempting to fool anyone, but are expressing their sincere belief in the conservative free market economic system. That they both choose to make their point with the "first Thanksgiving" story is quite a stretch, but both men are known to play loose with history.

That's my read on it as well.

They have an agenda and they are trying it on.

The fact is that neither pure socialism nor pure capitalism work. True success is somewhere in the middle. Finding the correct mix of the two is where the true discussion lies.

[djtestudo]

The thing is, what is said in Stossel's statement (I didn't bother with Limbaugh) is historical fact. It is exaggerated, since they were starving mostly because they picked just about the worst ground possible in the area for farming, but when they switched from communal to private farming and land ownership production increased because of the reasons he gives.

[Charlatan]

Besides, we all know the first Thanksgiving celebrated by Europeans in North America was in Canada in 1578.

[djtestudo]

Originally Posted by Charlatan

Besides, we all know the first Thanksgiving celebrated by Europeans in North America was in Canada in 1578.

Yeah, but that was just Canada