Plymouth or Jamestown?

[Diabolical Materialism]

Heard a joke on Twitter that Democrats vs. Republicans is just Plymouth vs. Jamestown. There was a great deal of disagreement over which was which.

[Diabolical Materialism]

I'm inclined to say Plymouth for the reasons listed above. But I'm hesitant as the only thing that would make 17th century colonial life bearable would be being absolutely sh1tfaced all the time. Harder to do among the Puritans.

[Diabolical Materialism]

WI: St. Augustine

[Diabolical Materialism]

I created this thread specifically to get HenryWallaceVP and Truman to argue

[Diabolical Materialism]

Why are you people incapable of considering anything without drawing some kind of arbitrary line and trying to place them as such?

Charles II upon his restoration, basically drank and bedded his way into the good graces of the elites.

I’m not sure what the second sentence has to do with anything I said, and I don’t know what the first is even referring to.

Cavaliers were far more libertine, self-indulgent and restrained then their opponents. That is why in my head the first thing that occurs to me when I hear the term is not reactionary slave driver, but a self indulgent rich guy, sleeping with everything that moves.

Yes? And how is that in any way incompatible with also being reactionary slave drivers?

Its not, in fact they go hand in hand in some circumstances.

OK, good to clear up that miscommunication. My point was more that their libertine social life does not negate their reactionary political views.

Is support for wine, women and song versus opposition to such not a political view itself?

Supporting the good life for the elite while keeping everyone else in abysmal poverty is a pretty right-wing philosophy.

The issue is that their political opponents of the day were also members of the social elite, who instead of seeking to reduce social inequality decided to clamp down on drinking and smiling on Sundays.

It's important to remember that in these days the "political sphere" of society by and large began and ended with the elite.

This thread has... taken a turn. Anyway, if you want to find modern liberal attitudes towards religious pluralism in the 17th century you're wasting your time. You can find the origins of it, though, at the radical end of Protestantism (i.e. the diverse groups termed as 'Puritans' in English), but 'origins' must be stressed as the concept was never extended to religious groups regarded as being political enemies. No one was really in favour of that at the time.

Nah this exact argument was the one I was hoping to start

[Diabolical Materialism]

The issue is that their political opponents of the day were also members of the social elite, who instead of seeking to reduce social inequality decided to clamp down on drinking and smiling on Sundays.

It's important to remember that in these days the "political sphere" of society by and large began and ended with the elite.

I mean, I think it’s pretty clear that the Puritans and later New England WASP elites (I’m not sure which exactly you’re referring to here) showed a greater interest in social inequality (even if for the latter group, it was motivated by moralistic paternalism) than the Southern elite, who actually actively sought to maintain maximum inequality, ever did.

I should've made the timeline I was referring to a little more explicit, that's my mistake. I was referring to the early Puritans. Who for the longest time had little issue with owning slaves, and later directly profiting from the slave trade.

New Englanders descended from the Puritan tradition did tend to be more considered with general social welfare than their counterparts in the South. But during the colonial period neither society was particularly interested in shaking up the established social order. 

[Diabolical Materialism]

It's important to remember that in these days the "political sphere" of society by and large began and ended with the elite.

Its like at various points people forget such obvious realities of the period in question and latch onto a groups elite status as an x-factor to refute an argument. Bonus points if such elites were involved in slavery.

The thing is I get why. It's difficult to imagine a political structure and scope of ideology contained within such a small group of people with a shared material class. It's tempting to project modern ideological definitions that were constructed in a time of mass suffrage and political engagement to the past.

[Diabolical Materialism]

In hindsight I was I had included St. Augustine as an option. Perhaps it's my home state bias but I do think that there's a seat at the table for St. Augustine when comparing Jamestown and Plynouth. In many ways it was a synthesis of the two. For better or for worse.