The Piligrim's Were Jerks

[debrand]

I decided to read Paul Johnson's A History of The American People, Zinn's A People's History of The United Sates and Lies My Teacher Told Me(can't remember the author's name)

Although Johnson is EXTREMELY positive toward the United States and religion, he includes this little detail from John Winthrop.

He rejoiced at the providentail news that the Indians within a range of 300 miles, "Are swept away by the small-pox...so God hath hereby cleared our title to this place."

So Christian extremist have always been selfish jerks. :roll:

[Deleted03]

you're really realizing that now? The Catholic Church had a full trial to determine if Natives had a soul. It resulted in a yes, but still went on killing them all...

[fundifugee]

Horrifying, isn't it? Way worse than jerks -- Old Testament style genocidaires.

I recommend a book called 1491 by Charles C Mann.

It is stunning the disaster wreaked in the godly christian history of this land.

[Conuly]

You didn't know that? Yeah, that's the truth behind The First Thanksgiving.

In fairness, the Pilgrims didn't set out to cause that disease. And, in fairness, when they went and took over, those people were already dead and not coming back. There's nothing inherently wrong with pragmatism.

But they also robbed graves, which is just tacky, and gave thanks for the plague. No matter how you slice it, giving thanks for a plague is icky and gross.

[Stephers831]

Long time Lurker with a first post here. Not only did the pilgrams think that by killing off the natives with disease they were more godly but they used that justification for centuries to take away land, the native ways of living, and eventually their children to be raised in indoctrination schools where they were denied the herritage of their people. Having 2 great grandmothers on the paternal side who were full blooded Indian I was taught early just how trust worthy and "loving" the government and settlers were.

[debrand]

you're really realizing that now? The Catholic Church had a full trial to determine if Natives had a soul. It resulted in a yes, but still went on killing them all...

Although I knew that the Pilgrims were fanatical, their joy over the death of so many innocent people still shocks me. However, I had no idea that the Catholic Church held a trial to decide if the Natives had a soul.

fundifugee, I will look up the book 1491. Thanks

[MrsKay]

Which is why MrKay and I do not do Thanksgiving.

[ladypuglover]

Sadly it was not just religious fanatics but the general view point from those from Europe. Thankfully we have changed our view point.

eta because missing words can change the whole meaning of what you were trying to say.

[NurseNell]

The pilgrims were people of their time and place. It's easy with what we know now to judge people of the past but what's the purpose?

[aubrietta]

Actually, the oppression is going on to this day - recently, the city I live in attempted to pass a law that would blocked residents on Reserves from being able to vote in city elections. The last Residential school in Canada closed in the 1990s. Oppression of Aboriginal continues today in many forms.

[Beb]

Actually, the oppression is going on to this day - recently, the city I live in attempted to pass a law that would blocked residents on Reserves from being able to vote in city elections. The last Residential school in Canada closed in the 1990s. Oppression of Aboriginal continues today in many forms.

This.

The settlers of America practiced genocide against the American Indian. They did so under the belief that they were on a mission from God........just one more example of how vile, violent, hideous, and inhumane acts have traditionally been committed under the guise and in the name of religion.

For a graphic description (often in the words of the perpetrators) of some of this unforgivable and tragic behavior, check this out:

http://tinyurl.com/74tubmb

The truly unfortunate result of this is that racism toward the American Indian, particularly those on reservations, is rampant, especially in reservation border towns, and those who notoriously practice it are in a high state of denial.

It's a national shame.

[holierthanyou]

Actually, the oppression is going on to this day - recently, the city I live in attempted to pass a law that would blocked residents on Reserves from being able to vote in city elections. The last Residential school in Canada closed in the 1990s. Oppression of Aboriginal continues today in many forms.

Technically true, but did you know we still have "schools with a boarding residence" that are comprised of 100% First Nations students? I know for sure that Manitoba and Ontario still have these "schools with a residence". Of course, it is also not an option for the students to just attend during the day, because the school is located so far from their home community. They are flown into the school in late August, and are flown home to their communities the first week of June. Depending on the weather and feasibility/safety of flying a small aircraft in the winter months, they should also be flown home for an extended Christmas break, but that doesn't always happen due to weather/safety. Oh, and even though the schools are comprised of 100% First Nations students, the teachers and administration?? Not 100% First Nations. About half are white. "School with a residence" is just a dumbass attempt to circumvent the negative connotations that are (obviously) attached to calling a school with white staff and First Nations students a 'residential school'.

End rant.

ETA: Oh look, they're hiring- anyone want to work at a residential school school with a residence?

frontiersd.mb.ca/HR/SiteAssets/Pages/compensation/Shift%20Head.pdf

[fundifugee]

Although I knew that the Pilgrims were fanatical, their joy over the death of so many innocent people still shocks me. However, I had no idea that the Catholic Church held a trial to decide if the Natives had a soul.

Similar trials occurred within the Baptist and Presbyterian churches, with regards to whether enslaved African Americans had souls. The two churches reached different conclusions, but those results only affected whether African Americans were allowed to attend church and at times, learn to read; that they remained enslaved was not part of the question.

[NurseNell]

Actually, the oppression is going on to this day - recently, the city I live in attempted to pass a law that would blocked residents on Reserves from being able to vote in city elections. The last Residential school in Canada closed in the 1990s. Oppression of Aboriginal continues today in many forms.

I have no problem confronting today's injustices and oppression. We should do that, there is no reason for it today, we know better. I have problems judging the Pilgrims, when such behavior was the norm, not the exception.

[debrand]

I have no problem confronting today's injustices and oppression. We should do that, there is no reason for it today, we know better. I have problems judging the Pilgrims, when such behavior was the norm, not the exception.

To a certain extent I agree that we have to realize that some horrible actions were a product of the perpertrators' culture. However, there really are some Americans who don't know the darker side of our history. They believe the myth and are angered when anyone tries to bring reality into their cherished legends.

Humans are still very capable of committing genocide in the name of an extremist belief system. That is why it is important to look at what the pilgrims(and others) actually did so that we don't repeat their mistakes.

Wasn't Oliver Cromwell a Puritan? My British history isn't exactly great. Weren't the Puritans the fundies of their time period?

[Beb]

I have no problem confronting today's injustices and oppression. We should do that, there is no reason for it today, we know better. I have problems judging the Pilgrims, when such behavior was the norm, not the exception.

Can these things really be considered the "norm"?

Almost the entire Pequot tribe was burned alive and massacred, village by village, while asleep. Women and children were cut to pieces while trying to hide under their beds.

The term, “heads roll,†was a literal translation of the atrocities against the Indians in the east. Each white victory resulted in a “Thanksgiving celebration†against what they named heathen savages. The heads of Indians were hacked off and kicked through the streets of Manhattan like soccer balls.

http://tinyurl.com/74tubmb

The above link may be difficult to read, but it gives a graphic accounting of just how far Christian fundamentalism (or indeed, ANY religious fundamentalism) can go, all the while thinking they are doing God’s will. These people thought God had directed their actions, deplorable as those were.

Were their actions the “norm� I don’t think so--only among the extreme fundamentalists who thought they were acting for God. We have similar things going on today.

At FJ, we snark on fundamentalism, and yet, the things we choose to snark about are minor--very minor--and simple compared to how far fundamentalism can take itself.

The problem is, in America, racism against the American Indian still exists on a very large scale, and those who are entrenched in it are in a huge state of denial and especially want to ignore the roots of how the U.S. was settled.

At one point--not so long ago--slavery was considered the “norm†in the U.S. Discrimination and worse of African Americans is what prompted the Civil Rights movement of the 60s and 70s. And yet, racism was the “norm†at that time. Should it have been ignored? Should it be ignored now, simply because it was the norm? Thankfully, no.

The Pilgrims engaged in behavior that should never be considered the norm.

If the spirit moves you, click on the link and get a glimpse into that “norm.â€

[NurseNell]

To a certain extent I agree that we have to realize that some horrible actions were a product of the perpertrators' culture. However, there really are some Americans who don't know the darker side of our history. They believe the myth and are angered when anyone tries to bring reality into their cherished legends.

Humans are still very capable of committing genocide in the name of an extremist belief system. That is why it is important to look at what the pilgrims(and others) actually did so that we don't repeat their mistakes.

Wasn't Oliver Cromwell a Puritan? My British history isn't exactly great. Weren't the Puritans the fundies of their time period?

Yes, there are those who deny the truth of what really happened. There are people who deny the Holocaust also. And yes humans are still capable of genocide, there are too many modern examples to deny it.

Oliver Cromwell was a Puritan. I know there is a difference between Puritans and Pilgrims, not sure exactly what they are. I think Puritans wanted to be remain part of England, but I could be wrong. It's been a long time since I took a history class. I read mostly WWII, Holocaust, and Resistance books, not earlier history.

[Artemis]

The 'Puritans' were a group of English Protestants who felt that the reforms of the Catholic church in England under Henry VIII did not go far enough. After his death, and the death of his son, Edward VI, many of them became the 'Marian Exiles' who left England for the Netherlands, Germany and Switzerland when the Catholic Mary Tudor attempted to bring Catholicism back to England and started burning Protestants.

Their theology tended to be Calvinist or Zwinglian rather than Lutheran: the doctrines of predestination and election were important to them. Many returned from Europe when Elizabeth came to the throne, hoping that she would further 'purify' the Church of England from its remaining Catholic practices and beliefs. (Elizabeth was a trimmer par excellence: she wanted moderation in everything, and for her religion was subordinated to political expediency.)

When Elizabeth died, she was succeeded by James VI of Scotland and I of England, whose religion was more heavily influenced by Calvinism and the work of John Knox: he had had a lot of influence on the young James, and had preached against James' mother, Mary Stuart, especially after she was implicated in the murder of her husband. Knox was a Calvinist.

At the time in England, Catholicism was feared and reviled, partly because of its association with Spain, the major political power, and because of the bitter religious wars in the France of the time. To be Catholic was to be anti-establishment, and to be a traitor. (Hence Guy Fawkes.) At the same time, the Anglican Church (Church of England, which was quite Arminian in ethos, and did not preach 'sola fide', but allowed good works to be a route to salvation as well as faith, was seen as dangerously near Catholicism by Calvinists and some Lutherans.

It was against this background, and the background of an increasing dislike of a corrupt court, the tithes required by the Anglican Church, and the constant attempts of James I and then Charles I to circumvent Parliament and impose unconstitutional taxes, that English Puritanism and non-conformist dissent - that is, religious sentiment that did not conforme to the Anglican 39 Articles of Belief - grew up, and led, as a political and religious movement, to the English Civil Wars. 'Cavaliers' - those who fought for the King were pro-establishment and Anglican or covert Catholics (especially after Charles I married Henrietta Maria of France, who tried to manoeuvre him into granting religious dispensations for Catholics). Those who fought with Cromwell, himself an English Puritan, were primarily non-conformists and Calvinists, and included such sects as the Levellers, who were essentially proto-Communists.

The Pilgrims were a slightly different kettle of fish. They were English non-conformists, essentially Brownists, who fled to the Netherlands under Elizabeth as their views were extreme and not tolerated. From there they set up the colony in new Plymouth, Mass, where they had arranged to emigrate because they were concerned about losing their cultural identity in the very tolerant Netherlands.

So effectively, the Pilgrims can be called Puritans, since they fell into that category of people who wanted the Anglican communion 'purified', but not all Puritans were Pilgrims.

[Knight of Ni]

I second the recommendation of the book 1491. Before reading it I never realized just how complex the cultures were that the European's destroyed. The American Indian civilizations depicted in the book were vastly different than the ones we were taught in school. In fact in some ways the Aztecs were more advanced than the Europeans, especially in terms of sanitation.

[Deleted03]

The pilgrims were people of their time and place. It's easy with what we know now to judge people of the past but what's the purpose?

I think the West needs a big reminder that our culture is not superior to any other, that we still have a lot of inequalities going on and still fail on so many levels First Nations and Natives (and Aboriginese) without even mentioning women, people of color, and immigrants (and so and so).

It might seem we're over this behavior of holier than thou, but that's not true at all.

[NurseNell]

I second the recommendation of the book 1491. Before reading it I never realized just how complex the cultures were that the European's destroyed. The American Indian civilizations depicted in the book were vastly different than the ones we were taught in school. In fact in some ways the Aztecs were more advanced than the Europeans, especially in terms of sanitation.

I'll put that book on my to be read list, thanks.

I've read that the Muslims were advanced in the field of public health but that Europeans dismissed their teachings because of the religious differences. It was another few centuries before they realized the Muslim had been right all along.

Artemis, thanks for your synopsis of that period of history. I should know it better. My paternal grandfather's ancestors were members in England of Thomas Hooker's church. When Hooker went to the Netherlands my ancestors came to Cambridge, MA. Later they invited Hooker to join them and he did.

[Knight of Ni]

I'll put that book on my to be read list, thanks.

I've read that the Muslims were advanced in the field of public health but that Europeans dismissed their teachings because of the religious differences. It was another few centuries before they realized the Muslim had been right all along.

Artemis, thanks for your synopsis of that period of history. I should know it better. My paternal grandfather's ancestors were members in England of Thomas Hooker's church. When Hooker went to the Netherlands my ancestors came to Cambridge, MA. Later they invited Hooker to join them and he did.

Yes that's correct. During the Middle Ages and I think up to the Renaissance Muslim nations were some of the most advanced in the world health wise. The Europeans disliked the ideas that something besides God and sin could cause disease while the Muslims were already studying the beginnings of germ theory.

[fundifugee]

A good article, also about the recent history of colonization of the Americas, and very telling in light of recent Titanic "celebrations".

[link=]http://www.vancouversun.com/health/Titanic+disasters+selective+memories/6512732/story.html[/link]

Why our massive fascination with what, in the larger scope of things, was the relatively small tragedy of the Titanic?

Why this collective cultural amnesia about the titanic catastrophe that redrew the demographic map of B.C., erased and diminished whole communities and even tribes, their languages and their historic narratives, and destroyed traditional economies?

Surely this is worthy of acknowledgment by the institutions of the society that came to prominence in its aftermath?

Perhaps the failure to do so is because of who the suffering victims were, and because acknowledging the role of this cataclysm in creating our B.C. — Boyd called the 1862 epidemic the first nations’ “final disaster†— requires confronting some of the unpleasant foundations of “the best place on earth.â€

Read more: http://www.vancouversun.com/health/Hume ... z1t9xpjLQG

[gardenvarietycitizen]

The other thing to keep in mind (generally, for anyone anywhere in the world) is that just like compounding interest, wealth obtained in the past gives a great advantage to your odds of having wealth today. Capital builds up. Takes money to make money. So some of the advantages that groups and institutions have today because they have a lot of capital, too often they think, well, it's my money or whatever it is, without thinking just why they (or their ancestors/prior office holders/etc) were able to amass at some times when others weren't.

Plenty of wealth accumulation in the US would not have accumulated in the places it did without the free labor of slaves and the theft of property (and improvements to that property) from former inhabitants. While you can't erase history, a little more open acknowledgment of that would be nice from time to time.

[keen23]

The book Guns, Germs and Steel has an interesting view on how different societies came into power and "evolved" based on the resources available to them. It's not a perfect book by far, but it is an interesting read. Like Eurasia managed to evolve more quickly because they had large animals that were able to be domesticated- horses, goats, cattle- and better access to grains that could be grown large scale. South America pretty much had llamas and alpacas for large animals, and nothing else that could be used for transportation or pulling a plow.

Oh, and the town I grew up in was supposedly the site of the first planned slaughter of Native Americans. Miles Standish led the massacre of the Pecksuot at the Wessagusset 1623, by claiming to be arranging a truce, when in actuality, the warriors were locked in the fort and slaughtered. This was the spark that would eventually lead to the Pequot war.