Pilgrim Thanksgiving Documents

After arriving late the prior year, fifty percent of the Mayflower’s company had perished in the harsh Massachusetts winter. They were buried without rites for fear the Indians would take military advantage of the company’s severely diminished numbers.

However, it turned out the Pilgrims and Indians became friends and allies, signing a treaty that endured for seven decades. And Bradford’s journal tells of their celebrating and communing together, in one another’s abodes. 

The Pilgrims’ survival was nothing short of miraculous and wonderful and served to encourage them in their convictions and determination.

I remember our annual Thanksgiving meal in the El Pao club where all families were invited and many if not most came and joined in the memorable celebrations.

Historians tell us there are few original (primary) sources from that first Thanksgiving in 1621. 

We have Edward Winslow’s Journal of the Plantation at Plymouth (modern spelling):

“Our harvests being gotten in, our governor sent four men on fowling, that so we might after a special manner rejoice together, after we had gathered the fruits of our labors; they four in one day killed as much fowl, as with a little help beside, served the Company almost a week, at which time amongst other Recreations, we exercised our Arms, many of the Indians coming amongst us, and amongst the resst their greatest king, Massasoit, with some ninety men, whom for three days we entertained and feasted, and they went out and killed five Deer, which they brought to the Plantation and bestowed on our Governor, and upon the Captain and others. And although it be not always so plentiful, as it was at this time with us, yet by the goodness of God, we are so far from want, that we often wish you partakers of our plenty.”

And we have Governor William Bradford’s, Of Plymouth Plantation, 1621 (modern spelling): 

“They began now to gather in the small harvest they had, and to fit up their houses and dwellings against winter, being all well recovered in health and strength and had all things in good plenty. For as some were thus employed in affairs abroad, others were exercised in fishing, about cod and bass and other fish, of which they took good store, of which every family had their portion. All the summer there was no want; and now began to come in store of fowl, as winter approached, of which this place did abound when they came first (but afterward decreased by degrees). And besides waterfowl there was great store of wild turkeys, of which they took many, besides venison, etc. Besides, they had about a peck of meal a week to a person, or now since harvest, Indian corn to that proportion. Which made many afterwards write so largely of their plenty here to their friends in England, which were not feigned but true reports.”

Finally, we also have the letter of William Hilton, passenger on the Fortune, written in November, 1621:

“Loving Cousin: At our arrival in New Plymouth, in New England, we found all our friends and planters in good health, though they were left sick and weak, with very small means; the Indians round about us peaceable and friendly; the country very pleasant and temperate, yielding naturally, of itself, great store of fruits, as vines of divers sorts and in great abundance. There is likewise walnuts, chestnuts, small nuts and plums, with much variety of flowers, roots and herbs, no less pleasant than wholesome and profitable. No place hath more gooseberries and strawberries, nor better. Timber of all sorts you have in England doth cover the land, that affords beasts of divers sorts, and great flocks of turkey, quails, pigeons, and partridges; many great lakes abounding with fish, fowl, beavers, and otters. The sea affords us great plenty of all excellent sorts of sea-fish, as the rivers and isles doth variety of wild fowl of most useful sorts. Mines we find, to our thinking; but neither the goodness nor quality we know. Better grain cannot be than the Indian corn, if we plant it upon as good ground as a man need desire. We are all freeholders; the rent-day doth not trouble us; and all those good blessings we have, of which and waht we list in their seasons for taking. Our company are, for most part, very religious, honest people; the word of God sincerely taught us every Sabbath; so that I know not any thing a contented mind can here want. I desire your friendly care to send my wife and children to me, where I wish all the friends I have in England; and so I rest, Your loving kinsman, William Hilton”

The first formal proclamations came later; they all acknowledge the God of all comfort for His blessings and mercy.

Evidence of Fascism, Socialism, and Communism — Hurting Your Own People

I was recently asked about the usual definition of fascism placing it as a right-wing phenomenon, as if Hitler were a conservative or right wing politician or orthodox Christian(!).

Unfortunately, that is the “popular” understanding of the term; so if you are conservative or traditionalist in your beliefs you are liable to be identified as a fascist. 

Perhaps the best source to consult in this matter is the classic by F. A. Hayek, The Road to Serfdom. In that great work, he makes the obvious observation that the line between fascism and socialism or communism is practically … nil.

The three systems, and their multifarious variants, are undergirded by one constant: total control

All else is dressing. Communism seeks total control by having the state own all property, or “means of production”; fascism seeks total control by having the state direct or force or threaten all property, or “means of production” to act as directed. 

The end result in both cases is the same: totalitarian control of the people and their property. In other words, total control of everything. 

In all such cases, Orwell’s definition applies: a boot grinding on our faces forever.

That is the reality.

To attempt to describe fascism as “conservative” or “right wing” is worse than a distraction. It is false and misleading. 

Another aspect of totalitarianism — regardless of its provenance — is its complete disregard for the people under its governance.

Totalitarianism — whether fascistic or communistic or socialistic — acts and rules to retain power.

The conservative temper is totally of another world. It acts and rules as an exercise of love. It governs with an inchoate understanding that we are responsible not only for those living today, but for those who have gone before us — who have bequeathed us a wonderful heritage — and for those who are yet unborn — who will carry on on our behalf long after we are gone.

Conservative temperament sees our time on this earth as a trust. A responsibility to not only preserve what we have inherited, but to improve upon it and to pass it on to our descendants after us.

It is a disinterested temperament — it cares more for those to come in the future than it does for “me”. 

So when we learn of the former self-described socialist president of Bolivia, Evo Morales, commanding his loyalists to block Bolivia’s major roads, starving out the populace, in order to prevent his arrest on charges of pedophilia, we should not care whether he is a leftwing or a rightwing maniac. 

What we should understand is that he is determined to return to power. 

And when we read that the self-described socialist president of Venezuela, Nicolás Maduro, is providing the vehicles to ensure those road blockages, we should readily understand that Mr. Maduro is also a man consumed with retaining power. Whether he is a “socialist” or a “fascist” is irrelevant.

He and Morales are totalitarians. 

And the totalitarian temper is not limited by forms of governing. It is found in monarchies, dictatorships, democracies, republics, fill-in-the-blank.

In all such cases, the attitude is: the people be damned.

Both Bolivia and Venezuela are suffering greatly. But this does not concern the powerful in those countries.

Their concern is to retain power.

So the blockades have caused over $1.3 Billion in damages to the economy of Bolivia plus untold deaths and wounded by the violence of the Morales thugs. All the while Venezuela’s ruling elite focuses on assisting an ally more than on liberty for her own people. 

So, instead of asking whether a politician or a pundit is right wing or left wing or fascist or socialist or communist, a better question or analysis is: does that person promote or pursue more liberty for the people or does he or she promote more regulations and controls. 

That is the litmus test: liberty or tyranny.

Ah. One more thing: an irreligious people cannot govern itself. Therefore, such a people will confuse “more liberty” with “more libertinage”, which always results in more tyranny.

Pray for the people of Venezuela. And Bolivia.

At a wholesale market in the central Bolivian city of Cochabamba, farmer Damaris Masias watches through tears as 10 tonnes of tomatoes that she spent over a week trying to get through roadblocks are tossed into a bin (Barron’s)