Ben Shapiro: The Truth About Thanksgiving

Ben Shapiro takes a look at the true story of Thanksgiving – not the multiculturalism and socialism pushed by leftists every November. See video and transcript below:

 

 

TRANSCRIPT:

THE REAL STORY OF THANKSGIVING

Thanksgiving is almost upon us, and once again we’ll be treated to the usual dumbed down version of the Thanksgiving story: white Europeans landed in America fleeing religious persecution, were too dumb to farm, and relied on the wise Native Americans to help them. Then they had a meal together and learned to share, after which the white Europeans genocided the Native Americans. Let’s watch some football!

The whole story is much more interesting. And it’s also not particularly friendly to leftists.

The Puritans who came to Massachusetts on the Mayflower weren’t emissaries of religious tolerance. They actually left liberal Holland to push for “the glory of God and advancement of the Christian Faith,” as it says right in the Mayflower compact. Turns out that Christianity was more important than multiculturalism to the heroes of Plymouth Rock.

And Christianity, not multiculturalism, saved the Puritans. The first winter, half the new settlers died. That was because of drought and plague, and failure to understand the crops. Then Squanto showed up.

Squanto wasn’t just a Native American refugee from the Disney movie Pocahontas. He was a Christian. Apparently, Squanto was just a boy when he met the English for the first time – he was captured and sent back to England for training as a guide. In 1614, he returned to America with John Smith – but he was then kidnapped again by one of Smith’s men, sent back to Spain, and sold into slavery.

Spanish monks bought him and taught him Christianity. He somehow ended up in England, and earned the respect of an Englishman who paid for his passage back to the New World. In 1619, Squanto went home.
But by the time he got back, his entire village had been killed by disease.

One year later, the Pilgrims showed up, settling in Squanto’s devastated village. Governor William Bradford wrote that Squanto “became a special instrument sent of God for [our] good…[he] never left us till he died.”
It was Christian Squanto, not “native Americans” generally, who taught the Pilgrims how to farm.

With Squanto’s help, the Pilgrims survived to celebrate the first Thanksgiving in 1621. When he died one year later, he asked Bradford to pray for him so that he could “go to the Englishmen’s God in heaven.”
But that wasn’t the end of the story, either.

The Pilgrims had set up a massive obstacle for themselves: their idea of a religious utopia was a giant commune. And like all communist organizations, it failed spectacularly.

Governor William Bradford wrote: “The failure of that experiment of communal service, which was tried for several years, and by good and honest men, proves the emptiness of the theory of Plato and other ancients, applauded by some of later times – that the taking away of private property, and the possession of it in community, by a commonwealth, would make a state happy and flourishing; as if they were wiser than God…community of property was found to breed much confusion and discontent, and retard much employment which would have been to the general benefit.”

Both men and women refused to work. Stealing became rampant.

So, what did the Puritans do? Bradford described it: in 1623, after the first Thanksgiving, they trashed the system: “The Governor, with the advice of the chief among them, allowed each man to plant corn for his own household…So every family was assigned a parcel of land. This was very successful.”

So successful that more than a century and a half later, George Washington explained the legacy of religious purity in his first Thanksgiving proclamation: “it is the duty of all nations to acknowledge the providence of Almighty God, to obey His will, to be grateful for His benefits, and humbly to implore His protection and favor.” And it is with thanks to God and his principles and the pursuit of his purity that we celebrate this Thanksgiving.

Correction: The Puritans and Pilgrims were distinct groups; all references to the Puritans should be to the Pilgrims.

  • cacslewisfan

    Thanks for this great video! I have shared it with all my friends!

  • tagalog

    The Pilgrims were Separatists, that is, they were Congregationalists who believed in separation from the main body of Congregationalists because they thought the Church of England was too much like the Roman Catholics. The Puritans were also Congregationalists, but they accepted the legitimacy of the Church of England.

    The Pilgrims/Separatists and the Puritans were not particularly friendly toward one another in Massachusetts Bay Colony; that’s why the Puritans settled away from the Separatists and founded Boston, while the Separatists settled in Plimouth Plantation.

    Around 1700, many Separatists converted to Presbyterianism in New England.

    • Ken Abbott

      “The Pilgrims/Separatists and the Puritans were not particularly friendly toward one another in Massachusetts Bay Colony; that’s why the Puritans settled away from the Separatists and founded Boston, while the Separatists settled in Plimouth Plantation.”

      That, plus the Separatists got there first (1620, as opposed to later in the decade).

      Good observations, Tagalog. Not many people today are familiar with the facts of the early English settlement of what became New England. I’m glad some still care enough to pay attention.

      • tagalog

        I am descended from two of the Separatists who settled Plimouth Plantation, and my family were among those who converted to Presbyterianism at some time roughly around 1700. We’re all still Presbyterian, except for my aunt (not blood kin, an in-law), who was a Jehovah’s Witness.

        • Ken Abbott

          Cool. Someone in my family traced one branch all the way back to Massachusetts Bay Colony in the 1630s. Eventually the family landed in Michigan, by way of Connecticut and upstate New York. My grandparents were Congregationalists, which makes sense given the way we started, but I myself am Presbyterian.

          • tagalog

            My family went west too, first to the Green Mountains of Vermont (there’s a story that one of us was a Green Mountain Boy on the Ticonderoga raid, but it’s just a story, not proved), then, after the Revolution, got a grant of land for service in it in upstate New York, just across the Vermont line. They stayed there until my aunt (see above), who inherited the family farm from my uncle, sold it about 30 years ago.

    • http://www.stubbornthings.org NAHALKIDES

      Interesting history lesson.

  • Ok

    Watch out for the selling of the “separatist” word. Today, it is a cloak for those who are racist… You know, people who don’t like a certain tribe of people regardless of any good or bad, but who will quickly capitalize on any bad, bad which is found in all tribes of the HUMANE race, the only race.

    • TheKnowerseeker

      I eat political correctness for breakfast and pass it out into the john where it belongs.

      • Ok

        Which political correctness, the crap on the Left or the crap on the right?

        • TheKnowerseeker

          The social crap on the left and the economic crap on the right. I’m a communitarian.

          • Ok

            Social and economic crap on both sides. When it comes to social, the Left is more obvious…but there’s some minions within the Right, thus, and again, watch out for the selling of the word “separatists.” Square one.

  • billobillo54

    Thank you Mr. Shapiro for a measured and fair treatment of the Pilgrims and Puritans. In terms of general political and social philosophy both groups of separatists are united under Protestantism, free enterprise, liberty and limited government. Please also note the historic Puritan rejection of Christian Replacement Theology and the historic Puritan acceptance of Jews and Israel.

    • TheKnowerseeker

      That’s because most of today’s Protestant fundamentalists don’t know about the theological origin of the Rabbinic Jews (*cough* *cough* the Pharisees *cough* *cough*) or what the Talmud is. I’m one that does, however, and I educate others.

      • billobillo54

        The Puritans, like many Protestant “fundamentalists” understood Rabbinic Judaism, the Pharisees and the Talmud. What they are able to do is perceive the major disagreement over the Person of Jesus and maintain obedience to God, and show great deference to Jews and actually teach Jews about Zionism (like Theodore Herzl) as explained by the Apostle Paul in Romans Chapter 11. They also, being “fundamentalists” read the Torah and the Prophets literally, and possessing basic reading comprehension skills (being “fundamentalists” the skills must be basic) they perceive that Israel is indeed extant, even militarily powerful and politically dominant, at the end of the age through God’s intervention.

        • TheKnowerseeker

          I live in the “Bible Belt” and am surrounded by Protestant fundamentalists (Pentecostals and Baptists) — and am kin with some — and the overwhelming majority know nothing about the Talmud or the true nature of Rabbinic Judaism.

          About the modern nation of Israel: Because it is led by Rabbinic Jews (Orthodox and Ultra- in particular) and is vicious toward all non-Jews, including Palestinian Christians, I do not believe that it is the restored Israel that is under God’s providence and will recognize Christ some day as Sovereign and Messiah, so I do not support its existence as an occupier of the Palestinian people. That Israel will be another.

          • billobillo54

            I see we disagree profoundly on every point.

  • tagalog

    The closest the Pilgrims ever got to genocide was the Pequot Massacre, I think it was about 1638, which was a Puritan operation.

    On the other hand, the Abenaki in 1702 committed the Deerfield Massacre, so the Indians aren’t blameless on the massacre front.

    • JacksonPearson

      Fast forward to 2014….:

      • tagalog

        I’m there. Or here. Whatever.

        The Sioux and the Pequots are still around. The Sioux won their lawsuit against the U.S. for the Black Hills, but are hot because we gave them some gigantic multi-billion dollar judgment which they rejected because they want the land. The Pequots have a casino.

        Concentration camps seem to be gone. Now we (not WE we, al-Qaeda or ISIS or whoever) just shoot folks down where they stand. We don’t store them for later disposal.

        We still have Rangers, God bless ‘em. Too few.
        No Pilgrims, though.

    • quousque

      …..’They did not violate one single immigration law that the Massachusetts Indian tribes of the time had passed’……That is simply fascinating.

      • cjkcjk

        And true, they paid for all their land and were far, far more peaceful and just than the Indians.

      • tagalog

        Well, can you cite me to the Indian law of immigration that was in effect at the time? I’m talking about LAW, not custom or practice.

  • Guest

    Worth considering while watching Shapiro’s ignorant drivel.

    • cjkcjk

      I can see you’re fully indoctrinated with revisionist history, surely you are a product of public edumaction.
      I’m guessing you’re a history professor for the state.
      Oh, and how about pointing out one error or falsehood in what he said?

    • tagalog

      The Pilgrims were not undocumented. They had plenty of documentation. And with the one exception of taking cached food, they traded or otherwise paid for their food.

    • TheKnowerseeker

      And if the tribes had banned together and fought off the European invaders (“immigrants”) in unison, they might still own this land. They didn’t, and now we own it. And if we don’t fight off the Hispanic invaders now….

    • Buster’s View

      You post something stupid like that and then call Shapiro’s offering drivel? Amusing.

  • Dan Knight

    Thank you Ben! That was the best three and a half minute explanation of Thanksgiving I’ve ever heard! Happy Thanksgiving to all!

  • TheKnowerseeker

    If communal living is such a pipe dream, then why did it work well for the first (Apostolic) church? However, I will agree that it only works if its participants are strictly born-again, Holy-Spirit-infused Christians, and that’s hard to maintain. On the other hand, because *Communism* removes God from the equation (and even persecutes the worship of God), that system in particular is a cruel joke and always bound to fail and make people suffer in whatever form it may take. Yet, one should notice that it was not big-corporation, laissez-faire capitalism that allowed the Pilgrims to flourish but rather (it seems, according to the article) a distributist style system.