What really happened to cause the first Thanksgiving?

[Little-Acorn]

It is especially relevant now to consider what happened to create the first Thanksgiving; and the stark differences between what we are commonly told and what really happened.

We have just elected a President who has expressed a literal desire to do some of the same things the Pilgrims tried in their first year in the New World. He, and the Congress that has already been pushing such things, would do well to consider the old saying:

"Those who ignore history are doomed to repeat it."

-------------------------------------------------------------

http://mises.org/story/336

The Great Thanksgiving Hoax

Daily Article by Richard J. Maybury | Posted on 11/20/1999

Each year at this time school children all over America are taught the official Thanksgiving story, and newspapers, radio, TV, and magazines devote vast amounts of time and space to it. It is all very colorful and fascinating.

It is also very deceiving. This official story is nothing like what really happened. It is a fairy tale, a whitewashed and sanitized collection of half-truths which divert attention away from Thanksgiving's real meaning.

The official story has the pilgrims boarding the Mayflower, coming to America and establishing the Plymouth colony in the winter of 1620-21. This first winter is hard, and half the colonists die. But the survivors are hard working and tenacious, and they learn new farming techniques from the Indians. The harvest of 1621 is bountiful. The Pilgrims hold a celebration, and give thanks to God. They are grateful for the wonderful new abundant land He has given them.

The official story then has the Pilgrims living more or less happily ever after, each year repeating the first Thanksgiving. Other early colonies also have hard times at first, but they soon prosper and adopt the annual tradition of giving thanks for this prosperous new land called America.

The problem with this official story is that the harvest of 1621 was not bountiful, nor were the colonists hardworking or tenacious. 1621 was a famine year and many of the colonists were lazy thieves.

In his 'History of Plymouth Plantation,' the governor of the colony, William Bradford, reported that the colonists went hungry for years, because they refused to work in the fields. They preferred instead to steal food. He says the colony was riddled with "corruption," and with "confusion and discontent." The crops were small because "much was stolen both by night and day, before it became scarce eatable."

In the harvest feasts of 1621 and 1622, "all had their hungry bellies filled," but only briefly. The prevailing condition during those years was not the abundance the official story claims, it was famine and death. The first "Thanksgiving" was not so much a celebration as it was the last meal of condemned men.

But in subsequent years something changes. The harvest of 1623 was different. Suddenly, "instead of famine now God gave them plenty," Bradford wrote, "and the face of things was changed, to the rejoicing of the hearts of many, for which they blessed God." Thereafter, he wrote, "any general want or famine hath not been amongst them since to this day." In fact, in 1624, so much food was produced that the colonists were able to begin exporting corn.

What happened?

After the poor harvest of 1622, writes Bradford, "they began to think how they might raise as much corn as they could, and obtain a better crop." They began to question their form of economic organization.

This had required that "all profits & benefits that are got by trade, working, fishing, or any other means" were to be placed in the common stock of the colony, and that, "all such persons as are of this colony, are to have their meat, drink, apparel, and all provisions out of the common stock." A person was to put into the common stock all he could, and take out only what he needed.

This "from each according to his ability, to each according to his need" was an early form of socialism, and it is why the Pilgrims were starving. Bradford writes that "young men that are most able and fit for labor and service" complained about being forced to "spend their time and strength to work for other men's wives and children." Also, "the strong, or man of parts, had no more in division of victuals and clothes, than he that was weak." So the young and strong refused to work and the total amount of food produced was never adequate.

To rectify this situation, in 1623 Bradford abolished socialism. He gave each household a parcel of land and told them they could keep what they produced, or trade it away as they saw fit. In other words, he replaced socialism with a free market, and that was the end of famines.

Many early groups of colonists set up socialist states, all with the same terrible results. At Jamestown, established in 1607, out of every shipload of settlers that arrived, less than half would survive their first twelve months in America. Most of the work was being done by only one-fifth of the men, the other four-fifths choosing to be parasites. In the winter of 1609-10, called "The Starving Time," the population fell from five-hundred to sixty.

Then the Jamestown colony was converted to a free market, and the results were every bit as dramatic as those at Plymouth. In 1614, Colony Secretary Ralph Hamor wrote that after the switch there was "plenty of food, which every man by his own industry may easily and doth procure." He said that when the socialist system had prevailed, "we reaped not so much corn from the labors of thirty men as three men have done for themselves now."

Before these free markets were established, the colonists had nothing for which to be thankful. They were in the same situation as Ethiopians are today, and for the same reasons. But after free markets were established, the resulting abundance was so dramatic that the annual Thanksgiving celebrations became common throughout the colonies, and in 1863, Thanksgiving became a national holiday.

Thus the real reason for Thanksgiving, deleted from the official story, is: Socialism does not work; the one and only source of abundance is free markets, and we thank God we live in a country where we can have them.

[Des]

Hm, I thought the real reason we had Thanksgiving is because Sarah Joespha Hale petitioned the government for a day for American families to be home and give thanks for what they had, and Lincoln made it a national holiday.

[darin]

^^^
Place Des squarely in the group of "forced to repeat history"... :(

[Little-Acorn]

A local radio station here has a habit of sending correspondents out to quiz people on common events, personalities, etc., and broadcasting some of the answers they get. Was listening this morning, and they asked "What century was the first Thanksgiving in?" and "What are we giving thanks for, during Thanksgiving?" and a trick question, "Who was President of the U.S. during the first Thanksgiving?"

I'm sure they get a lot of correct answers, and of course they don't broadcast those. Some of the others are interesting. Answers to the first question included "The 1800's", and "December 7, 1941". For the second, they got "America declared independence, I mean, they became their own country." And for the third, "George Washington" and "Abraham Lincoln".

Now I know who they asked.

[Des]

A local radio station here has a habit of sending correspondents out to quiz people on common events, personalities, etc., and broadcasting some of the answers they get. Was listening this morning, and they asked "What century was the first Thanksgiving in?" and "What are we giving thanks for, during Thanksgiving?" and a trick question, "Who was President of the U.S. during the first Thanksgiving?"

I'm sure they get a lot of correct answers, and of course they don't broadcast those. Some of the others are interesting. Answers to the first question included "The 1800's", and "December 7, 1941". For the second, they got "America declared independence, I mean, they became their own country." And for the third, "George Washington" and "Abraham Lincoln".

Now I know who they asked.

The first official Thanksgiving was held under George Washington, but it wasn't declared an official national holiday until Lincoln. After that, Reagan (I'm 99% sure) changed the date to extend the holiday shopping season, but it was moved back to the original date after that. Sarah Josepha Hale, the woman who wrote Mary Had a Little Lamb, petitioned the government for the day to be made national holiday. The connections between pilgrims/indians and thanksgiving are cultural, not historical, as it relates to why we have it as a holiday.

[Little-Acorn]

The first official Thanksgiving was held under George Washington,

And the first real Thanksgiving was held under a clear, blue sky.

"The first Thanksgiving" always refers to the feast the Pilgrims had with the Indians, not to what some politician proclaims a hundred years later or more. Des knows that, but is trying to cover up his goof.

Back to the subject:
The Pilgrims found out firsthand, what the results of "equalizing the outcomes" really are. And they almost starved. It took more than two centuries for the nation to forget that lesson, and finally elect a President who baldly states that he wants to make the same mistake again.

[Des]

And the first real Thanksgiving was held under a clear, blue sky.

"The first Thanksgiving" always refers to the feast the Pilgrims had with the Indians, not to what some politician proclaims a hundred years later or more. Des knows that, but is trying to cover up his goof.

Back to the subject:
The Pilgrims found out firsthand, what the results of "equalizing the outcomes" really are. And they almost starved. It took more than two centuries for the nation to forget that lesson, and finally elect a President who baldly states that he wants to make the same mistake again.

There is a difference between cultural and historical history. Historically, the first Thanksgiving this country observed as a national holiday was under George Washington. As a country. Culturally, we link the thanksgiving feast we have today to the "first thanksgiving" between pilgrims and indians...but that doesn't mean the historical aspect as well as the person who lobbied to make the day a national holiday should be forgotten or left out of history.

This nation has forgotten a lot of lessons. Perhaps if we kept the government out of our schools and taught accurate history, we wouldn't repeat them. That was the point I was trying to make.

[avatar4321]

There is a difference between cultural and historical history. Historically, the first Thanksgiving this country observed as a national holiday was under George Washington. As a country. Culturally, we link the thanksgiving feast we have today to the "first thanksgiving" between pilgrims and indians...but that doesn't mean the historical aspect as well as the person who lobbied to make the day a national holiday should be forgotten or left out of history.

This nation has forgotten a lot of lessons. Perhaps if we kept the government out of our schools and taught accurate history, we wouldn't repeat them. That was the point I was trying to make.

How do you keep government out of public schools?

And how would the Democrats remain in power if they actually took the government out?

[Des]

How do you keep government out of public schools?

And how would the Democrats remain in power if they actually took the government out?

You think it's only democrats interested in the public school systems?

[avatar4321]

You think it's only democrats interested in the public school systems?

I guess that depends how you define interested. If you mean brainwashing children, then yes they are.

[Des]

I guess that depends how you define interested. If you mean brainwashing children, then yes they are.

I think democrats and republicans alike are interesting in brainwashing children.

[darin]

Des, you're being obtuse.

[Des]

Des, you're being obtuse.

Why, because I don't agree with either side, or because I won't say that liberal democrats are the spawn of satan?

[avatar4321]

I think democrats and republicans alike are interesting in brainwashing children.

Exactly how do you see Republicans in anyway trying to brainwash school children?

[Des]

Exactly how do you see Republicans in anyway trying to brainwash school children?

NCLB flourished under a Republican president. Many (not all, many) republicans are Christians who are interested in bringing religious theories into public schools. It's a hard subject because I don't feel the federal government should control the school systems and parents seem pretty removed from what they should be involved in...but the issue most certainly does cross party lines.

[Kathianne]

NCLB flourished under a Republican president. Many (not all, many) republicans are Christians who are interested in bringing religious theories into public schools. It's a hard subject because I don't feel the federal government should control the school systems and parents seem pretty removed from what they should be involved in...but the issue most certainly does cross party lines.

Good post. I don't think the Fed should be involved at all in 'education.' It's a local subject, the more local the better. The states can sort out the problem with property taxes and what not, that makes the system 'unfair', when it does.

I'll grant that in IL the property tax structure creates inherent unfairness, yet the state does find ways to 'equalize.' Funny thing, there have been many years over the past 40 or so, when poorer areas ended up with way more $$per student than most 'wealthier areas', yet the scores have never changed.

Is it the teachers? Perhaps to an extent, more likely the district, expectations, and work required by parents and teachers.

[namvet]

come on..............that was posted in 99..........jez

[Kathianne]

It is especially relevant now to consider what happened to create the first Thanksgiving; and the stark differences between what we are commonly told and what really happened.

We have just elected a President who has expressed a literal desire to do some of the same things the Pilgrims tried in their first year in the New World. He, and the Congress that has already been pushing such things, would do well to consider the old saying:

"Those who ignore history are doomed to repeat it."

-------------------------------------------------------------

http://mises.org/story/336

The Great Thanksgiving Hoax

Daily Article by Richard J. Maybury | Posted on 11/20/1999

Each year at this time school children all over America are taught the official Thanksgiving story, and newspapers, radio, TV, and magazines devote vast amounts of time and space to it. It is all very colorful and fascinating.

It is also very deceiving. This official story is nothing like what really happened. It is a fairy tale, a whitewashed and sanitized collection of half-truths which divert attention away from Thanksgiving's real meaning.

The official story has the pilgrims boarding the Mayflower, coming to America and establishing the Plymouth colony in the winter of 1620-21. This first winter is hard, and half the colonists die. But the survivors are hard working and tenacious, and they learn new farming techniques from the Indians. The harvest of 1621 is bountiful. The Pilgrims hold a celebration, and give thanks to God. They are grateful for the wonderful new abundant land He has given them.

The official story then has the Pilgrims living more or less happily ever after, each year repeating the first Thanksgiving. Other early colonies also have hard times at first, but they soon prosper and adopt the annual tradition of giving thanks for this prosperous new land called America.

The problem with this official story is that the harvest of 1621 was not bountiful, nor were the colonists hardworking or tenacious. 1621 was a famine year and many of the colonists were lazy thieves.

In his 'History of Plymouth Plantation,' the governor of the colony, William Bradford, reported that the colonists went hungry for years, because they refused to work in the fields. They preferred instead to steal food. He says the colony was riddled with "corruption," and with "confusion and discontent." The crops were small because "much was stolen both by night and day, before it became scarce eatable."

In the harvest feasts of 1621 and 1622, "all had their hungry bellies filled," but only briefly. The prevailing condition during those years was not the abundance the official story claims, it was famine and death. The first "Thanksgiving" was not so much a celebration as it was the last meal of condemned men.

But in subsequent years something changes. The harvest of 1623 was different. Suddenly, "instead of famine now God gave them plenty," Bradford wrote, "and the face of things was changed, to the rejoicing of the hearts of many, for which they blessed God." Thereafter, he wrote, "any general want or famine hath not been amongst them since to this day." In fact, in 1624, so much food was produced that the colonists were able to begin exporting corn.

What happened?

After the poor harvest of 1622, writes Bradford, "they began to think how they might raise as much corn as they could, and obtain a better crop." They began to question their form of economic organization.

This had required that "all profits & benefits that are got by trade, working, fishing, or any other means" were to be placed in the common stock of the colony, and that, "all such persons as are of this colony, are to have their meat, drink, apparel, and all provisions out of the common stock." A person was to put into the common stock all he could, and take out only what he needed.

This "from each according to his ability, to each according to his need" was an early form of socialism, and it is why the Pilgrims were starving. Bradford writes that "young men that are most able and fit for labor and service" complained about being forced to "spend their time and strength to work for other men's wives and children." Also, "the strong, or man of parts, had no more in division of victuals and clothes, than he that was weak." So the young and strong refused to work and the total amount of food produced was never adequate.

To rectify this situation, in 1623 Bradford abolished socialism. He gave each household a parcel of land and told them they could keep what they produced, or trade it away as they saw fit. In other words, he replaced socialism with a free market, and that was the end of famines.

Many early groups of colonists set up socialist states, all with the same terrible results. At Jamestown, established in 1607, out of every shipload of settlers that arrived, less than half would survive their first twelve months in America. Most of the work was being done by only one-fifth of the men, the other four-fifths choosing to be parasites. In the winter of 1609-10, called "The Starving Time," the population fell from five-hundred to sixty.

Then the Jamestown colony was converted to a free market, and the results were every bit as dramatic as those at Plymouth. In 1614, Colony Secretary Ralph Hamor wrote that after the switch there was "plenty of food, which every man by his own industry may easily and doth procure." He said that when the socialist system had prevailed, "we reaped not so much corn from the labors of thirty men as three men have done for themselves now."

Before these free markets were established, the colonists had nothing for which to be thankful. They were in the same situation as Ethiopians are today, and for the same reasons. But after free markets were established, the resulting abundance was so dramatic that the annual Thanksgiving celebrations became common throughout the colonies, and in 1863, Thanksgiving became a national holiday.

Thus the real reason for Thanksgiving, deleted from the official story, is: Socialism does not work; the one and only source of abundance is free markets, and we thank God we live in a country where we can have them.
Actually when one gets right down to it, the bottom line is 'if you want to eat, you'll work. What you do on your down time is up to you, but as for food, get with the program.' Nothing socialistic, democratic, about it. It was tyranny pure and simple. Need, but pure and simple and enforced. Once they got through that and giving thanks to God for what they had received, broader thoughts were championed.

[avatar4321]

NCLB flourished under a Republican president. Many (not all, many) republicans are Christians who are interested in bringing religious theories into public schools. It's a hard subject because I don't feel the federal government should control the school systems and parents seem pretty removed from what they should be involved in...but the issue most certainly does cross party lines.

NCLB was written by Ted Kennedy.

Why shouldnt education include ideas about religion?

[Missileman]

Why shouldnt education include ideas about religion?

Whose? Would you be willing to let me choose which religion your kids are "educated" about?

[hjmick]

NCLB was written by Ted Kennedy.

Why shouldnt education include ideas about religion?


Whose? Would you be willing to let me choose which religion your kids are "educated" about?


See, that's the thing. You have to teach them all or teach none of them. Considering the shortcomings of the education system in this country, I have to go with none of them. Teachers have enough on their plates without adding religious studies. If you want to offer a "Religious Studies" course as an elective in the high grade levels, fine, but not part of the standard curriculum.

[avatar4321]

Whose? Would you be willing to let me choose which religion your kids are "educated" about?

I dont see a reason why they shouldnt learn about all. do you?

[Missileman]

I dont see a reason why they shouldnt learn about all. do you?

Do you believe any of those other religions are true? Already knowing the answer to that, the next question is, "Why would you want your kids taught lies?"

[avatar4321]

Do you believe any of those other religions are true? Already knowing the answer to that, the next question is, "Why would you want your kids taught lies?"

Are they being taught lies when they are taught what others believe. I always thought we should encourage people to learn all things.

[Des]

NCLB was written by Ted Kennedy.

Why shouldnt education include ideas about religion?

NCLB is not just a "child" of the democrats, it most certainly is something both parties accomplished together.

Education about religion can occur in a church, and parents can choose which churches they decide to bring their kids too. I don't have an issue with teaching children about different religions at all, if that's what you mean...I have a problem teaching religious ideas or values as truth. Sort of like teaching evolution as a scientific fact when in reality, it's a theory. If that makes sense.

I don't see what's so bad about telling our kids "this is what this religion believes, these are some ideas from this religion. Here is a theory called evolution, it's a pretty neat theory but here are the major flaws in it. In reality, we don't know, so maybe you can grow up and figure it out for yourself."

(evolution only because it's usually on the opposite end of the debate.)

[Missileman]

Are they being taught lies when they are taught what others believe. I always thought we should encourage people to learn all things.

The belief in a thing does not make it true. For instance, the Son of Sam believed a dog instructed him to kill.

The Bible clearly states there is only one God, right? As a Christian, you would have to consider a statement that "Vishnu is the one true god" to be untrue, wouldn't you?

If it's the word lie that is hanging you up, let me re-phrase: Do you want your kids to be taught false information at school?

All in all, I'd say it's more important to stress learning math, science, English, world-affairs, etc. Their study of religion can occur at the proper places, home and church.

[Yurt]

The belief in a thing does not make it true. For instance, the Son of Sam believed a dog instructed him to kill.

The Bible clearly states there is only one God, right? As a Christian, you would have to consider a statement that "Vishnu is the one true god" to be untrue, wouldn't you?

If it's the word lie that is hanging you up, let me re-phrase: Do you want your kids to be taught false information at school?

All in all, I'd say it's more important to stress learning math, science, English, world-affairs, etc. Their study of religion can occur at the proper places, home and church.

there is not some religion in science?

[Little-Acorn]

Actually when one gets right down to it, the bottom line is 'if you want to eat, you'll work. What you do on your down time is up to you, but as for food, get with the program.' Nothing socialistic, democratic, about it. It was tyranny pure and simple.
Once Bradford instituted private-property-based economy (aka Capitalism), no tyranny was involved at all. The need to eat, wasn't forced on the Pilgrims by some overbearing government. It was simply part of human nature, regardless of what anyone did or didn't say about it. And the fact that food must be worked for, also not a product of any government "tyranny". It was simply a fact: Food didn't walk up to you and jump onto your plate. It had to be grown, hunted, gathered, cooked, etc.

Many people pushing the socialist mentality, try to pretend these two facts were somehow "tryannical", as though they were somehow forced on people by the actions of other people (a government). They'd come closer to the truth, if they simply said that God had created those two problems for us (need for food, and the fact that it's not ready to hand), and then left us on our own to try to solve them.

Even more bizarrely, the socialists pretend that somehow government could change them or eliminate the two problems, if only government has enough power and control. Government can't, of course. The only thing it can do, is force someone else to work for the food you get... hardly a "just" solution.

In their first year, the Pilgrims DID have tyranny: people who worked to produce food, were forced to give it to others who didn't work for it. When Bradford changed things, tyranny vanished. People now had the basics they needed to solve their own problems, and they were completely free to do whatever they wanted with them.

Well, one exception: They weren't allowed to violate others' rights in order to solve their own problem. They couldn't steal their neighbor's food or tools, they couldn't kill him and take his land, etc. And government stepped in if anyone tried, and punished him. If you think that government protecting people's basic rights to life, liberty, property, and the pursuit of happiness is "tyranny", then you've never seen real tyranny.

[Missileman]

there is not some religion in science?

In what way?