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.

[Unconditional Surrender Truman]

I'd say my chances of not being cooked and eaten were probably better at Plymouth than Jamestown, so them. But in seriousness: there are so many reasons to prefer Plymouth of the two, at least during the early period of its existence. Worse comes to worse, I can always defect to Rhode Island, assuming I survive the first few decades.

[Wikipedia delenda est]

Obviously Plymouth, one of the most democratic and egalitarian places in the world at the time. Godly Puritans, it turns out, are much better at running a society than aristocratic Cavaliers and profit-seeking adventurers. I truly believe the political cultures of the American North and South in the 19th century can be traced back to this early period.

[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.

[If my soul was made of stone]

Plymouth starved a lot less, and the local Native populations would be more likely to accept me there when I inevitably became tired of the trappings of colonial life and came to desire a more authentic existence.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

I agree with the Plymouth consensus, even though I'd have to keep my religious beliefs to myself. Less starvation, somewhat less hostile (at least early on) relations with the Native Americans, and generally more competent and more public-spirited governance make it the obvious choice.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Jamestown is clearly Republican, as the early colonists were there to seek their fortune, yet were disdainful of doing actual work.

[darklordoftech]

New England winters and malaria are both terrifying.

[Chunk Yogurt for President!]

Jamestown was fiscally conservative, Plymouth was socially conservative.

[darklordoftech]

People talk about “our Puritan roots”, but “greed is good” seems more like Jamestown than like the Puritans.

[Diabolical Materialism]

WI: St. Augustine

[Unconditional Surrender Truman]

People talk about “our Puritan roots”, but “greed is good” seems more like Jamestown than like the Puritans.

Of course it is more complicated that this, but I suppose one could argue the protestant work ethic is essentially "greed is God."

[Filuwaúrdjan]

People talk about “our Puritan roots”, but “greed is good” seems more like Jamestown than like the Puritans.

Of course it is more complicated that this, but I suppose one could argue the protestant work ethic is essentially "greed is God."

Not really, no.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

People talk about “our Puritan roots”, but “greed is good” seems more like Jamestown than like the Puritans.

America is a mashing together of contradictory origin stories, that help to define the problems that we still experience to this day.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Jamestown was fiscally conservative, Plymouth was socially conservative.

Jamestown being "cavalier" as such would indeed be more permissive of "various" behaviors provided you had the money to make people look the other way. Much less so in Plymouth with its "our way or to hell with you (literally)" approach taken by the Puritans.

So the Ukraine meme kind of applies here.

[Wikipedia delenda est]

Jamestown was fiscally conservative, Plymouth was socially conservative.

Jamestown being "cavalier" as such would indeed be more permissive of "various" behaviors provided you had the money to make people look the other way. Much less so in Plymouth with its "our way or to hell with you (literally)" approach taken by the Puritans.

So the Ukraine meme kind of applies here.

Except that in a context in which immorality is a defining feature of the aristocracy, religious moralism is not a "conservative" attitude. In such a social structure, the plain, russet-coated Puritan who knows what he fights for is more liberal than that you call a cavalier. And it's not like the episcopal church of the South was any more religiously tolerant than the Plymouth Puritans; to the contrary, it was much less so.

[Nightcore Nationalist]

Write in: Philadelphia.


And to Orser67's point in the other thread:  American Nations is an excellent read and has pretty objective takes on all of the different cultures.  Including the Puritans... intolerance towards outsiders and what we modern Americans define as "Liberty" and personal freedom.

[Wikipedia delenda est]

Write in: Philadelphia.


And to Orser67's point in the other thread:  American Nations is an excellent read and has pretty objective takes on all of the different cultures.  Including the Puritans... intolerance towards outsiders and what we modern Americans define as "Liberty" and personal freedom.

I guess that's why the Puritans in England allowed the Jews to return to the country after 400 years of being banned under the Catholic turned Anglican monarchy.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Write in: Philadelphia.


And to Orser67's point in the other thread:  American Nations is an excellent read and has pretty objective takes on all of the different cultures.  Including the Puritans... intolerance towards outsiders and what we modern Americans define as "Liberty" and personal freedom.

I guess that's why the Puritans in England allowed the Jews to return to the country after 400 years of being banned under the Catholic turned Anglican monarchy.

Things can be done in a selective fashion.

[Alcibiades]

Jamestown was fiscally conservative, Plymouth was socially conservative.

Jamestown being "cavalier" as such would indeed be more permissive of "various" behaviors provided you had the money to make people look the other way. Much less so in Plymouth with its "our way or to hell with you (literally)" approach taken by the Puritans.

So the Ukraine meme kind of applies here.

Claiming that the Cavaliers were more “socially liberal” than the Puritans is certainly quite the take. I didn’t realise you could own slaves and spit at peasants, but so long as look the other way with regards to drunkenness and partying, you’re socially liberally. Are David Cameron and Boris Johnson lefties because of the entitled debauchery of their younger years?

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

How about Roanoke?

[Wikipedia delenda est]

Write in: Philadelphia.


And to Orser67's point in the other thread:  American Nations is an excellent read and has pretty objective takes on all of the different cultures.  Including the Puritans... intolerance towards outsiders and what we modern Americans define as "Liberty" and personal freedom.

I guess that's why the Puritans in England allowed the Jews to return to the country after 400 years of being banned under the Catholic turned Anglican monarchy.

Things can be done in a selective fashion.

I'm not quite sure what you mean by this, but the readmission of the Jews to England was not an exception to a rule or some great aberration from the Puritans' general religious policy. It makes quite a bit of sense contextually when one knows that the Puritans were tolerant of Protestant Dissenters and others whom the old regime had persecuted.

[Unconditional Surrender Truman]

I guess we're just going to ignore that Rhode Island exists, then. How could it, when the Puritans of Plymouth and Massachusetts Bay were so tolerant of Protestant dissenters?

In 1658, Plymouth Court ordered that any boat carrying Quakers to Sandwich be seized to prevent the religious heretics from landing. A year earlier, Quakers in Sandwich had established the first Friends‘ Meeting in the New World. Magistrates in both Plymouth and Massachusetts Bay colonies were alarmed by Quaker teachings that individuals could receive direct personal revelations from God. To protect orthodox Puritanism, the courts passed a series of laws forbidding residents from housing Quakers. Quakers themselves were threatened with whipping, arrest, imprisonment, banishment, or death. But driven by conscience, some Quakers repeatedly returned to Massachusetts to preach; four of them, including Mary Dyer, went to the gallows before a shocked King Charles ordered an end to the hanging of Quakers in 1661.

Not so different from how Quakers were treated anywhere else in the New World —but then, that is the point.

[Unconditional Surrender Truman]

Jamestown was fiscally conservative, Plymouth was socially conservative.

Jamestown being "cavalier" as such would indeed be more permissive of "various" behaviors provided you had the money to make people look the other way. Much less so in Plymouth with its "our way or to hell with you (literally)" approach taken by the Puritans.

So the Ukraine meme kind of applies here.

Claiming that the Cavaliers were more “socially liberal” than the Puritans is certainly quite the take. I didn’t realise you could own slaves and spit at peasants, but so long as look the other way with regards to drunkenness and partying, you’re socially liberally. Are David Cameron and Boris Johnson lefties because of the entitled debauchery of their younger years?

Did I miss where Yankee said the Cavaliers were "socially liberal" somewhere? In any case, let's not pretend slavery was unique to the Southern colonies in this period; it very much was not.

[Alcibiades]

Jamestown was fiscally conservative, Plymouth was socially conservative.

Jamestown being "cavalier" as such would indeed be more permissive of "various" behaviors provided you had the money to make people look the other way. Much less so in Plymouth with its "our way or to hell with you (literally)" approach taken by the Puritans.

So the Ukraine meme kind of applies here.

Claiming that the Cavaliers were more “socially liberal” than the Puritans is certainly quite the take. I didn’t realise you could own slaves and spit at peasants, but so long as look the other way with regards to drunkenness and partying, you’re socially liberally. Are David Cameron and Boris Johnson lefties because of the entitled debauchery of their younger years?

Did I miss where Yankee said the Cavaliers were "socially liberal" somewhere? In any case, let's not pretend slavery was unique to the Southern colonies in this period; it very much was not.

You’re right, he didn’t directly say it, but it was sort of implied that they were more so than the Puritans. The fact that they weren’t the only ones to initially own slaves doesn’t the change the fact that they held a deeply, uniquely (for America) reactionary worldview.