[on the end of liberalism]
It will eventually happen of necessity. Liberalism is a blight. It was tried in Jamestown, Virginia in their first year of settlement. Many died. After that it was determined that if you did not work, you did not eat. Liberalism, socialism, marxism, they are all of the religion of the slow death spiral.
40 comments
Nomenclature, hyper-fine definitions, around and round it goes. Exit the merry go round.
Words are iterative and require an engineering solution called Fuzzy logic. You might know roughly what I mean.
Historical revisionism is something I simply cannot stand.
The people at Jamestown had such a hard time because none of them knew what the fuck they were walking into. Many of them were either craftsmen or businessmen and they had no clue about the place they were about to try and settle. The summers on the east coast are brutal and if you can't get crops to grow, the winter will be even more so. They also had to deal with Native Americans who were not at all pleased to see unknowns moving into their territory. Add to that the fact that the settlers chose a site that would have been challenging (at best) to try and farm on, plus disease and you understand why so many didn't survive their first year.
Have you visited Jamestown? I have. Everything that happened to them was because they went into this whole shenanigan without any competent information and minus the right skills to defend or feed themselves. A glance at their shacks shows us they weren't master home builders, either.
Now crack open a damn history book, visit the site and stop fucking talking about things you have no actual knowledge of. Only a complete fuckwit thinks the events at Jamestown were caused by either liberalism or laziness. Those people worked their asses off and were too busy trying to survive to even think about politics.
I'd love to see exactly how much you give a shit about politics when you're dealing with hostile natives, the issues that arise when you try to grow crops on wetlands, Typhus and the arrivals of more people from your home country to try to feed and keep alive.
God damned dimwitted fucking jackass.
I see someone else is believing the Rush Limbaugh story of Thanksgiving.*
*For those not in the know, Rush claimed that the first Thanksgiving was a celebration of capitalism. The settlers first tried a form of communism where everyone shared in the crops equally, and of course they got lazy and stopped working so hard because they assumed that everyone else would produce food, so little food was produced and people starved. The next year they decided to allow everyone to keep whatever they raised themselves which allowed the settlement to survive because everyone produced a bumper crop that was so big they had a big banquet to celebrate.
There's no more evidence for Rush's version of Thanksgiving than any other Thanksgiving story, and he likely just pulled it out of his ass.
@kittykaboom:
i was with you until a year ago. turns out that historical revisionism is an integral part of the study of history. now, don't get me wrong, crap like the post above is NOT how you do it. historical revisionism consists of studying and researching a subject to get to what really happened. for instance, the dark ages were not a grimdark period where everyone was covered in shit and dying of the plague was called a natural cause, but a time of incredible socio-political discoveries leading to the renaissance. (fyi, it was called the dark ages because we had fuck-all sources about it until like 2 centuries later)
wiki nails it better than me for the quick version, actually, stating flatly that it should not be confused with negationism (which is bad), and that it is used pejoratively (as in the op).
linky: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_revisionism
the more you know, and all that...
Wait, Jamestown? So... sharing food was what killed Jamestown and not, you know, ignoring or killing Native Americans instead of trading with them for help because we thought they weren't godly enough or white enough or whatever enough to work with?
\m/>_<\m/: Agreed. What I refer to as historical revisionism is an asswipe like the OP who obviously knows nothing about American history but insists upon bloviating about it anyway. They make up their own facts, distort and leave out the few facts they do have until the events they're describing match their own stunted world view.
Example: Homosexuality destroyed ancient Rome. Bullshit. Rome was thriving and prospering until shortly after Christianity became the 'state religion'.
That is the kind of thing that makes me nuts. It's shameless intellectual dishonesty.
Scholarly (also scientific) method that allows for the information to be updated as more is discovered is something I respect and support.
Liberalism was tried in a religious colony? Eh, try again.
@\m/>_<\m/
You are both talking about different things. When Kittykaboom or I talk about historical revisionism, we are referring to the action of taking out working knowledge of history, or what ACTUALLY happened, and in lieu of any evidence, warp it, bias it, or outright lie about it to suit your own desires.
From each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs. Sharing everything with each other means that you ought to have something to share with others, in order to share what they provide. First everyone works together to till the earth, sow the plant, tender to them and then harvest the produce. The produce is shared among all the ones who have participated in some way. If you're not strong and able to plow, you can perhaps sharpen the plow, or make linen clothing of the flax. Or you can amuse people by the fire in the evenings.
I agree that historical revisionism is an integral part of the study of history but, as a term, it is entirely neutral. Historical revisionism can very well mean something postive: going back to the sources to discover that traditional understandings are wrong, as with de Vries's work on the Industrious Revolution. It can also mean something negative: rewriting history to suit one's own needs; it is no accident that the Institute for Historical Review is dedicated to Holocaust denial. Historical revisionism is also about different interpretations of the same sources as can be seen with the debate m/>_<\m/ cites on the Dark Ages. It isn't necessarily about "the more you know" but about how each age sees it, something about which Le Goff writes about in his book History and Memory .
It's difficult to see what Marxism had to do with Jamestown since Marx was born in 1818 and Jamestown was founded in 1607.
Jamestown was a capitalist enterprise, backed by the Virginia Company of London, a joint stock company owned by shareholders. Jamestown was founded to make a profit, pure and simple.
Ironically enough, "he who does not work, shall not eat" was used as one of the slogans of the Mexican revolution. It can be used and has been used as a socialist slogan. The whole idea is to get rid of the idle rich.
@farpadokly
Quique (Enrique) and Ricky (Ricardo) Flores Magón, propagandists, cartoonists and journalists for "El Hijo del Ahuizote" (oppositionist newspaper) were anarchists. Their slogan "Land and Freedom" was retaken by Emiliano Zapata. His other slogan was "He who works the land owns it (la tierra es de quien la trabaja)".
Pretty sure they died in Jamestown 'cause they were out of their depth. It had nothing to do with political ideologies.
Also, I do believe it was just recently announced that some of the dead were possibly cannibalized. Desperate times call for desperate measures I suppose...
Can I ask you something?
What is liberalism?
No, the Jamestown colony failed because exactly zero people there knew what they were doing.
And stop calling everything a religion!
Confused?
So were we! You can find all of this, and more, on Fundies Say the Darndest Things!
To post a comment, you'll need to Sign in or Register . Making an account also allows you to claim credit for submitting quotes, and to vote on quotes and comments. You don't even need to give us your email address.
