Obama makes link between First Thanksgiving and America's refugee origins

[webfact]

Obama makes link between First Thanksgiving and America's refugee origins



WASHINGTON: -- President Barack Obama carved the turkey as the first family helped feed veterans and the homeless for Thanksgiving. They visited a Washington church where Michelle and her mother handled the greens and the burgers, while the daughters’ kitchen skills looked a little rusty.

Later in his national address the president tried to provide food for thought.

“In 1620, a small band of pilgrims came to this continent, refugees who had fled persecution and violence in their native land. Nearly 400 years later, we remember their part in the American story – and we honor the men and women who helped them in their time of need,” he said. He then brought past and present firmly together.

“I’ve been touched by the generosity of the Americans who’ve written me letters and emails in recent weeks, offering to open their homes to refugees fleeing the brutality of ISIL.”

Obama was more merciful with another turkey, Abe, who received the traditional presidential thanksgiving pardon. TOTUS will now be free to live out his years at the 1,000-acre “White House on Turkey Hill”.


-- (c) Copyright Euronews 2015-11-27

[ezzra]

Yes, but non of those refuges were economical refugees with dubious travel documents and a good possibility

that some of them are terrorists infiltrators... this man will conjure up any excuse in the book to let potentially

problematic group of people to enter the country..

[sirineou]

an other member in this forum arjuanadawn made a very interesting post in another thread about Syrian refugees concerning the puritans and Obama's mention of them.I hope I am not violating any forum rules by mentioning his name, but I wanted to give proper credit.

if I might paraphrase and if I understood correctly, he made the point that the pilgrims were not refugees but rather were religious extremists looking for a place to practice their extremism, IMO and not a point he made, not much unlike the Taliban or ISIS today.

Unfortunately the post was moderated away , Hopefully arjunadawn will come along and post in this thread as I found his reply very interesting and I am sure others will also.

[Pimay1]

Yes, but non of those refuges were economical refugees with dubious travel documents and a good possibility

that some of them are terrorists infiltrators... this man will conjure up any excuse in the book to let potentially

problematic group of people to enter the country..

He is an absolute fool. Recent polls show 60% of Americans oppose his call to allow 10,000 refuges into the country.

[Usernames]

an other member in this forum arjuanadawn made a very interesting post in another thread about Syrian refugees concerning the puritans and Obama's mention of them.I hope I am not violating any forum rules by mentioning his name, but I wanted to give proper credit.

if I might paraphrase and if I understood correctly, he made the point that the pilgrims were not refugees but rather were religious extremists looking for a place to practice their extremism, IMO and not a point he made, not much unlike the Taliban or ISIS today.

Unfortunately the post was moderated away , Hopefully arjunadawn will come along and post in this thread as I found his reply very interesting and I am sure others will also.

The pilgrims banned lawyers. Too bad they're not in power today.

[sirineou]

an other member in this forum arjuanadawn made a very interesting post in another thread about Syrian refugees concerning the puritans and Obama's mention of them.I hope I am not violating any forum rules by mentioning his name, but I wanted to give proper credit.

if I might paraphrase and if I understood correctly, he made the point that the pilgrims were not refugees but rather were religious extremists looking for a place to practice their extremism, IMO and not a point he made, not much unlike the Taliban or ISIS today.

Unfortunately the post was moderated away , Hopefully arjunadawn will come along and post in this thread as I found his reply very interesting and I am sure others will also.

The pilgrims banned lawyers. Too bad they're not in power today.

I think the Taliban also banned lawyers

[Usernames]

an other member in this forum arjuanadawn made a very interesting post in another thread about Syrian refugees concerning the puritans and Obama's mention of them.I hope I am not violating any forum rules by mentioning his name, but I wanted to give proper credit.

if I might paraphrase and if I understood correctly, he made the point that the pilgrims were not refugees but rather were religious extremists looking for a place to practice their extremism, IMO and not a point he made, not much unlike the Taliban or ISIS today.

Unfortunately the post was moderated away , Hopefully arjunadawn will come along and post in this thread as I found his reply very interesting and I am sure others will also.

The pilgrims banned lawyers. Too bad they're not in power today.

I think the Taliban also banned lawyers

And of course the Pilgrims led people by the hundreds or thousands to unused soccer stadiums and executed them, right?

[sirineou]

an other member in this forum arjuanadawn made a very interesting post in another thread about Syrian refugees concerning the puritans and Obama's mention of them.I hope I am not violating any forum rules by mentioning his name, but I wanted to give proper credit.

if I might paraphrase and if I understood correctly, he made the point that the pilgrims were not refugees but rather were religious extremists looking for a place to practice their extremism, IMO and not a point he made, not much unlike the Taliban or ISIS today.

Unfortunately the post was moderated away , Hopefully arjunadawn will come along and post in this thread as I found his reply very interesting and I am sure others will also.

The pilgrims banned lawyers. Too bad they're not in power today.

I think the Taliban also banned lawyers

And of course the Pilgrims led people by the hundreds or thousands to unused soccer stadiums and executed them, right?

there weren't thousands of people or soccer stadiums then, but if I remember correctly there were a few witches they got their hands on.

[NeverSure]

an other member in this forum arjuanadawn made a very interesting post in another thread about Syrian refugees concerning the puritans and Obama's mention of them.I hope I am not violating any forum rules by mentioning his name, but I wanted to give proper credit.

if I might paraphrase and if I understood correctly, he made the point that the pilgrims were not refugees but rather were religious extremists looking for a place to practice their extremism, IMO and not a point he made, not much unlike the Taliban or ISIS today.

Unfortunately the post was moderated away , Hopefully arjunadawn will come along and post in this thread as I found his reply very interesting and I am sure others will also.

One person's extremist is another's moderate. The Church of England was the official and only allowed religion (if that's not extremism.)

The "separatists" were, at least in their minds, fleeing resultant persecution. One of the things that was established in America at the founding of the country was an absolute separation of church and state.

[Jingthing]

Yes, but non of those refuges were economical refugees with dubious travel documents and a good possibility

that some of them are terrorists infiltrators... this man will conjure up any excuse in the book to let potentially

problematic group of people to enter the country..

He is an absolute fool. Recent polls show 60% of Americans oppose his call to allow 10,000 refuges into the country.

He should make decisions like that based on polls? Is that what a great leader does? Besides, he's not running for office ever again.

[Lee4Life]

an other member in this forum arjuanadawn made a very interesting post in another thread about Syrian refugees concerning the puritans and Obama's mention of them.I hope I am not violating any forum rules by mentioning his name, but I wanted to give proper credit.

if I might paraphrase and if I understood correctly, he made the point that the pilgrims were not refugees but rather were religious extremists looking for a place to practice their extremism, IMO and not a point he made, not much unlike the Taliban or ISIS today.

Unfortunately the post was moderated away , Hopefully arjunadawn will come along and post in this thread as I found his reply very interesting and I am sure others will also.

Both of you do them and many others a dishonor and should be ashamed of yourselves for making such statements. They were not "religious extremists", nor terrorists. They were peaceful people being persecuted for their beliefs. They were the ones being persecuted. Turning Thanksgiving into something that it is not and never has been is equally disgraceful and distasteful.

Edited November 27, 2015 by Lee4Life

[NeverSure]

Yes, but non of those refuges were economical refugees with dubious travel documents and a good possibility

that some of them are terrorists infiltrators... this man will conjure up any excuse in the book to let potentially

problematic group of people to enter the country..

He is an absolute fool. Recent polls show 60% of Americans oppose his call to allow 10,000 refuges into the country.

He should make decisions like that based on polls? Is that what a great leader does? Besides, he's not running for office ever again.

He should indeed care what the people want. The people of the US didn't elect a ruler. Well I guess they did elect one with "executive orders" but they didn't know it when they voted.

He's not running for office again and he doesn't seem to care about the Democrats who will be. He seems to be happy to give the likes of Trump more traction.

Cheers.

[Pimay1]

Yes, but non of those refuges were economical refugees with dubious travel documents and a good possibility

that some of them are terrorists infiltrators... this man will conjure up any excuse in the book to let potentially

problematic group of people to enter the country..

He is an absolute fool. Recent polls show 60% of Americans oppose his call to allow 10,000 refuges into the country.

He should make decisions like that based on polls? Is that what a great leader does? Besides, he's not running for office ever again.

He should make decisions based on the will of the people and whats good for America. He is a sorry excuse for a leader much less a great leader. Running for office again has nothing to do with making decisions concerning the security of a nation and its citizens.

Edited November 27, 2015 by Pimay1

[sirineou]

an other member in this forum arjuanadawn made a very interesting post in another thread about Syrian refugees concerning the puritans and Obama's mention of them.I hope I am not violating any forum rules by mentioning his name, but I wanted to give proper credit.

if I might paraphrase and if I understood correctly, he made the point that the pilgrims were not refugees but rather were religious extremists looking for a place to practice their extremism, IMO and not a point he made, not much unlike the Taliban or ISIS today.

Unfortunately the post was moderated away , Hopefully arjunadawn will come along and post in this thread as I found his reply very interesting and I am sure others will also.

One person's extremist is another's moderate. The Church of England was the official and only allowed religion (if that's not extremism.)

The "separatists" were, at least in their minds, fleeing resultant persecution. One of the things that was established in America at the founding of the country was an absolute separation of church and state.

"The "separatists" were, at least in their minds, fleeing resultant persecution"

and looking for a place where they can exercise theirs.

Separation of church and state, perhaps the best thing that happened to this country.

[Usernames]

The pilgrims banned lawyers. Too bad they're not in power today.

I think the Taliban also banned lawyers

And of course the Pilgrims led people by the hundreds or thousands to unused soccer stadiums and executed them, right?

there weren't thousands of people or soccer stadiums then, but if I remember correctly there were a few witches they got their hands on.

Emphasis on "a few." http://www.pachs.net/blogs/comments/how_many_witches_were_executed/ That's all of Europe, over several centuries. Most were in Germany and had nothing to do with the pilgrims. Meanwhile, the Taliban conducted routine massacres over the course of less than a decade and murdered tens of thousands. Comparisons? Really?

[Baerboxer]

an other member in this forum arjuanadawn made a very interesting post in another thread about Syrian refugees concerning the puritans and Obama's mention of them.I hope I am not violating any forum rules by mentioning his name, but I wanted to give proper credit.

if I might paraphrase and if I understood correctly, he made the point that the pilgrims were not refugees but rather were religious extremists looking for a place to practice their extremism, IMO and not a point he made, not much unlike the Taliban or ISIS today.

Unfortunately the post was moderated away , Hopefully arjunadawn will come along and post in this thread as I found his reply very interesting and I am sure others will also.

Both of you do them and many others a dishonor and should be ashamed of yourselves for making such statements. They were not "religious extremists", nor terrorists. They were peaceful people being persecuted for their beliefs. They were the ones being persecuted. Turning Thanksgiving into something that it is not and never has been is equally disgraceful and distasteful.

They were peaceful people? Remind us again please, how did they treat the indigenous native North American peoples, whose kindness saved them and whose land they occupied?

That parallel is interesting. They came to America and were welcomed and helped by the people living there. Once strong enough they turned and all but destroyed those people and their cultures. Forced into accepting the new comer's religion with little tolerance, bounties paid for their scalps, germ warfare used against them, ruthlessly exploited. treaties torn up whenever it suited the new comers.

Sounds familiar - but history does often repeat.

[Johpa]

One person's extremist is another's moderate. The Church of England was the official and only allowed religion (if that's not extremism.)

The "separatists" were, at least in their minds, fleeing resultant persecution. One of the things that was established in America at the founding of the country was an absolute separation of church and state.

There were few tolerant religions during the pre-Enlightment era of the Pilgrims, an intolerant group at best who were upset at the Church of England for being too liberal. Both the Separatists and the Puritans adhered to very conservative interpretations of their scriptures, the Christian Salafis of their times. Not the best comparison to make except that the myth has replaced history.

[NeverSure]

One person's extremist is another's moderate. The Church of England was the official and only allowed religion (if that's not extremism.)

The "separatists" were, at least in their minds, fleeing resultant persecution. One of the things that was established in America at the founding of the country was an absolute separation of church and state.

There were few tolerant religions during the pre-Enlightment era of the Pilgrims, an intolerant group at best who were upset at the Church of England for being too liberal. Both the Separatists and the Puritans adhered to very conservative interpretations of their scriptures, the Christian Salafis of their times. Not the best comparison to make except that the myth has replaced history.

I agree. The Pilgrims were very intolerant. However it is true that they left to get freedom from the religion of the Church of England. By the time the dust settled and the US was officially formed, it was hard-coded into the Constitution that there would be separation of church and state and religious freedom. The Constitution doesn't use the term "separation of church and state" but what it does say makes it a fact.

Cheers.

[Nobb]

The Native Americans at that time did not have to pay for the Pilgram health care and give them welfare to live better than than American people that lives on the streets. Also so many Americans who joined the military who are disabled do not get the same treatment. America needs a big change please vote for Trumph!

[Steely Dan]

Has anyone noticed that in lieu of any coherent argument in favor of letting in thousands of migrants from a hostile culture the population is being bombarded with emotive arguments cynically intended to stymie debate.

Edited November 27, 2015 by Steely Dan

[Jingthing]

Canada is taking the bull by the horns!

Welcome!

The poster is REAL.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/nova-scotia/isis-nova-scotia-changes-name-to-avoid-terrorist-group-association-1.2840727

Edited November 27, 2015 by Jingthing

[arjunadawn]

an other member in this forum arjuanadawn made a very interesting post in another thread about Syrian refugees concerning the puritans and Obama's mention of them.I hope I am not violating any forum rules by mentioning his name, but I wanted to give proper credit.

if I might paraphrase and if I understood correctly, he made the point that the pilgrims were not refugees but rather were religious extremists looking for a place to practice their extremism, IMO and not a point he made, not much unlike the Taliban or ISIS today.

Unfortunately the post was moderated away , Hopefully arjunadawn will come along and post in this thread as I found his reply very interesting and I am sure others will also.

I looked for the piece I posted and it is gone or I can no longer find it. Why would this make news? Is it because the refugee issue is current or because it is current and because Obama is effectively co-opting another's history to stalk his agenda- a tired and proven technique of progressives? Or, is it so brutally obvious that even Obama made the connection to this analogy without actually processing why it seems so obvious a connection?

Obama compares Syrian refugees to pilgrims on the Mayflower http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/261368-obama-syrian-refugees-are-like-pilgrims-on-the-mayflower

Obama is actually correct with this comparison, though not for the reasons his cultural co-opting presumes. (I thought it was progressive blasphemy to co-opt another culture? Perhaps if not white it remains off limits). The pilgrims were religious extremists. They were the afterbirth of the reformation. They were the extremist side of the coin. They wanted a return to even more religiosity than that found in Denmark and elsewhere. They're overriding economic aim was to live their economic life in such a way as to not feed the licentiousness of evolving Europe. They wanted to more purely practice their faith. They also made clear they wanted to proselytize the savages. The pilgrims are the Puritans; those puritanical bread breakers who gave us the Salem Witch Trials. They effectively banned the arts and certainly music, except approved hymns. We may have, as a once christian nation, traced our legacy back toward them with reverence and praise but let us now consider them critically, as Obama's statement demands we do.

The Pilgrims were the Puritans. The Puritans were puritanical. This is the reason this adage evolved to describe the intolerant, the theocratic, and the militant. I do not indict them for these things, but these things are true. Were they 'people of their times' as apologists variously offer for history's transgressors? No! Clearly not, because Puritans exist even in our days, as Obama's Freudian slip illustrates. The comparison between those who have secular state wrapped up in their faith and those from long ago who have secular state wrapped up in their faith cannot be more precise. Were the pilgrims seeking to come to the US today they would find themselves on a farm with David Koresh, or not permitted entry, or entry made conditional. There is nothing at all about what the Puritans held dear that is central to a plural free people today. Puritans would first seek out Westboro Baptist Church but find them too liberal. Puritans as Refugees? Yes, exactly Mr. Obama, this is the concern.

This would not be the first time one carelessly overlooked the explicit language of this executive. Obama is many things but he has a deep seated narcissistic need to telegraph in his words. He has done this frequently. It is no mistake that he linked the two, the rationale of course being the mis-perceived, idealized perception of the pilgrims as making mashed potatoes, cooking a bird and "Dear, why don't you invite your Indian friend to join us" nonsense.

There is virtually nothing said above to develop the refugee connection to what I describe as the Puritanical pilgrims they are associated with. Why? We all know why. It is not necessary. We all know exactly why the analogy is frightening. This is the deeper alarm- how we can all intuitively see the connection. This is the danger. We know exactly what we are concerned about, and so does Obama. We can see how the "link" may be a concern.

See: Bradford's History of the Plymouth Settlement 1608-1650

Edited November 27, 2015 by arjunadawn

[arjunadawn]

an other member in this forum arjuanadawn made a very interesting post in another thread about Syrian refugees concerning the puritans and Obama's mention of them.I hope I am not violating any forum rules by mentioning his name, but I wanted to give proper credit.

if I might paraphrase and if I understood correctly, he made the point that the pilgrims were not refugees but rather were religious extremists looking for a place to practice their extremism, IMO and not a point he made, not much unlike the Taliban or ISIS today.

Unfortunately the post was moderated away , Hopefully arjunadawn will come along and post in this thread as I found his reply very interesting and I am sure others will also.

Both of you do them and many others a dishonor and should be ashamed of yourselves for making such statements. They were not "religious extremists", nor terrorists. They were peaceful people being persecuted for their beliefs. They were the ones being persecuted. Turning Thanksgiving into something that it is not and never has been is equally disgraceful and distasteful.

"Dishonor?" How entirely predictable, and measurable. However, since the facts regarding the Pilgrims/Puritans are measurable, historical well known, and common, then you demonstrate you are unprepared to sit at the big people table.

My argument opposing refugees is not made better by insisting pilgrims were puritans. Pilgrims were puritans because... they were Puritanical! That is where the name comes from. In your narrow, self serving time frame you assert that Thanksgiving has and has not been this or that; ie. your worldview. This is a fantasy created in your lifetime alone- your view, but it has been carefully orchestrated by government and media and artists and merchandising to package you a composite. "Thanksgiving" had no ducks or yams or songs or football originally; it was only church god church, perhaps a food day was added- but that was not the Thanksgiving!. It was a very slow evolution and was not finally accepted nor recognized until the 1860s. Empowering Thanksgiving as a day or particular connection to a fictitious era, with an intolerant Puritan people, is your choice. History and facts are more stubborn, and compelling. Thanksgiving has been marginally recognized and was only imbued with special nationalist powers in contemporary times. Indeed, by the time the Constitution was written the repeating dangers and excesses of faith stalking as the secular were well known, and excised from the Blueprint of Society. It was significantly due to excesses of the puritans once on these shores that the framers realized faith will always oppress man if left to rule. If you want 'em, you keep 'em. The idea a christian, or a Jew, or an Indian, or a black man, or a muslim or me doesn't share your worldview is "dishonor" "disgraceful" or "distasteful" marks you as wholly divorced from reason and tolerance.

The Pilgrims were every bit the same as what we fear in refugees- that is why there is a connection. We fear the Puritanical (read pilgrim) behavior we see universally acted out from islam all of the world, every day, for over a 1,000 years. Another faith, but the same expressions of Man wrapping god around his own ambitions and insecurities. The concern is not the belief, the concern is imposing it on others.

Go ask an Indian family what Thanksgiving anecdotes and familiar practices are passed down to form their Thanksgiving delusion of honor and distaste. Go ask a poor black family in the French Bayou, or Eskimos what they think of your puritan masters. Go ask the numerous other black families in America what your wonderful Thanksgiving traditional source means to them- nothing. Utterly nothing. Puritans were no more than same ole same ole white masters who kept the plantation until the 1860s. Go ask the Chinese who have been here since the 1800s. Ask them. Your world view is so narrow you cannot see facts if they bite your nose.

[MaxYakov]

Canada is taking the bull by the horns!

12301649_10153605408430861_2444956037848013794_n-191x250.jpg

Welcome!

The poster is REAL.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/nova-scotia/isis-nova-scotia-changes-name-to-avoid-terrorist-group-association-1.2840727

Yes, and why wouldn't it be real?

Who knew that psycho, suicidal cockroaches could spell, use social media and attempt a phony caliphate back in December, 2009? Maybe we should get the Egyptians to officially change the name of Isis, the ancient goddess to be PC and avoid any potential confusion.

ISANS (previously iSIS) History Page:

"ISANS was created by the merger of Halifax Immigrant Learning Centre (HILC) and Metropolitan Immigrant Settlement Association (MISA) on December 1, 2009. MISA was established in 1980 and HILC in 1988."

Are you real?

Edited November 28, 2015 by MaxYakov

[Lee4Life]

an other member in this forum arjuanadawn made a very interesting post in another thread about Syrian refugees concerning the puritans and Obama's mention of them.I hope I am not violating any forum rules by mentioning his name, but I wanted to give proper credit.

if I might paraphrase and if I understood correctly, he made the point that the pilgrims were not refugees but rather were religious extremists looking for a place to practice their extremism, IMO and not a point he made, not much unlike the Taliban or ISIS today.

Unfortunately the post was moderated away , Hopefully arjunadawn will come along and post in this thread as I found his reply very interesting and I am sure others will also.

Both of you do them and many others a dishonor and should be ashamed of yourselves for making such statements. They were not "religious extremists", nor terrorists. They were peaceful people being persecuted for their beliefs. They were the ones being persecuted. Turning Thanksgiving into something that it is not and never has been is equally disgraceful and distasteful.

They were peaceful people? Remind us again please, how did they treat the indigenous native North American peoples, whose kindness saved them and whose land they occupied?

That parallel is interesting. They came to America and were welcomed and helped by the people living there. Once strong enough they turned and all but destroyed those people and their cultures. Forced into accepting the new comer's religion with little tolerance, bounties paid for their scalps, germ warfare used against them, ruthlessly exploited. treaties torn up whenever it suited the new comers.

Sounds familiar - but history does often repeat.

Do you forget what Thanksgiving was and who was there? Do you have the Pilgrim's mixed up with the U.S. Calvary?

[Lee4Life]

an other member in this forum arjuanadawn made a very interesting post in another thread about Syrian refugees concerning the puritans and Obama's mention of them.I hope I am not violating any forum rules by mentioning his name, but I wanted to give proper credit.

if I might paraphrase and if I understood correctly, he made the point that the pilgrims were not refugees but rather were religious extremists looking for a place to practice their extremism, IMO and not a point he made, not much unlike the Taliban or ISIS today.

Unfortunately the post was moderated away , Hopefully arjunadawn will come along and post in this thread as I found his reply very interesting and I am sure others will also.

Both of you do them and many others a dishonor and should be ashamed of yourselves for making such statements. They were not "religious extremists", nor terrorists. They were peaceful people being persecuted for their beliefs. They were the ones being persecuted. Turning Thanksgiving into something that it is not and never has been is equally disgraceful and distasteful.

"Dishonor?" How entirely predictable, and measurable. However, since the facts regarding the Pilgrims/Puritans are measurable, historical well known, and common, then you demonstrate you are unprepared to sit at the big people table.

My argument opposing refugees is not made better by insisting pilgrims were puritans. Pilgrims were puritans because... they were Puritanical! That is where the name comes from. In your narrow, self serving time frame you assert that Thanksgiving has and has not been this or that; ie. your worldview. This is a fantasy created in your lifetime alone- your view, but it has been carefully orchestrated by government and media and artists and merchandising to package you a composite. "Thanksgiving" had no ducks or yams or songs or football originally; it was only church god church, perhaps a food day was added- but that was not the Thanksgiving!. It was a very slow evolution and was not finally accepted nor recognized until the 1860s. Empowering Thanksgiving as a day or particular connection to a fictitious era, with an intolerant Puritan people, is your choice. History and facts are more stubborn, and compelling. Thanksgiving has been marginally recognized and was only imbued with special nationalist powers in contemporary times. Indeed, by the time the Constitution was written the repeating dangers and excesses of faith stalking as the secular were well known, and excised from the Blueprint of Society. It was significantly due to excesses of the puritans once on these shores that the framers realized faith will always oppress man if left to rule. If you want 'em, you keep 'em. The idea a christian, or a Jew, or an Indian, or a black man, or a muslim or me doesn't share your worldview is "dishonor" "disgraceful" or "distasteful" marks you as wholly divorced from reason and tolerance.

The Pilgrims were every bit the same as what we fear in refugees- that is why there is a connection. We fear the Puritanical (read pilgrim) behavior we see universally acted out from islam all of the world, every day, for over a 1,000 years. Another faith, but the same expressions of Man wrapping god around his own ambitions and insecurities. The concern is not the belief, the concern is imposing it on others.

Go ask an Indian family what Thanksgiving anecdotes and familiar practices are passed down to form their Thanksgiving delusion of honor and distaste. Go ask a poor black family in the French Bayou, or Eskimos what they think of your puritan masters. Go ask the numerous other black families in America what your wonderful Thanksgiving traditional source means to them- nothing. Utterly nothing. Puritans were no more than same ole same ole white masters who kept the plantation until the 1860s. Go ask the Chinese who have been here since the 1800s. Ask them. Your world view is so narrow you cannot see facts if they bite your nose.

You know nothing of me nor my worldview, and the fact that you can compare all refugees to extremist murderers does not exactly speak wonders of your worldview. The fact is that the original thanksgiving was not a bunch of white people getting together to celebrate taking over the new world. Yes...there were people that took advantage of native americans...but that's not what thangskiving is about....at least not for me and not for the original celebrants.( which included native americans by the way)

[arjunadawn]

an other member in this forum arjuanadawn made a very interesting post in another thread about Syrian refugees concerning the puritans and Obama's mention of them.I hope I am not violating any forum rules by mentioning his name, but I wanted to give proper credit.

if I might paraphrase and if I understood correctly, he made the point that the pilgrims were not refugees but rather were religious extremists looking for a place to practice their extremism, IMO and not a point he made, not much unlike the Taliban or ISIS today.

Unfortunately the post was moderated away , Hopefully arjunadawn will come along and post in this thread as I found his reply very interesting and I am sure others will also.

Both of you do them and many others a dishonor and should be ashamed of yourselves for making such statements. They were not "religious extremists", nor terrorists. They were peaceful people being persecuted for their beliefs. They were the ones being persecuted. Turning Thanksgiving into something that it is not and never has been is equally disgraceful and distasteful.

"Dishonor?" How entirely predictable, and measurable. However, since the facts regarding the Pilgrims/Puritans are measurable, historical well known, and common, then you demonstrate you are unprepared to sit at the big people table.

My argument opposing refugees is not made better by insisting pilgrims were puritans. Pilgrims were puritans because... they were Puritanical! That is where the name comes from. In your narrow, self serving time frame you assert that Thanksgiving has and has not been this or that; ie. your worldview. This is a fantasy created in your lifetime alone- your view, but it has been carefully orchestrated by government and media and artists and merchandising to package you a composite. "Thanksgiving" had no ducks or yams or songs or football originally; it was only church god church, perhaps a food day was added- but that was not the Thanksgiving!. It was a very slow evolution and was not finally accepted nor recognized until the 1860s. Empowering Thanksgiving as a day or particular connection to a fictitious era, with an intolerant Puritan people, is your choice. History and facts are more stubborn, and compelling. Thanksgiving has been marginally recognized and was only imbued with special nationalist powers in contemporary times. Indeed, by the time the Constitution was written the repeating dangers and excesses of faith stalking as the secular were well known, and excised from the Blueprint of Society. It was significantly due to excesses of the puritans once on these shores that the framers realized faith will always oppress man if left to rule. If you want 'em, you keep 'em. The idea a christian, or a Jew, or an Indian, or a black man, or a muslim or me doesn't share your worldview is "dishonor" "disgraceful" or "distasteful" marks you as wholly divorced from reason and tolerance.

The Pilgrims were every bit the same as what we fear in refugees- that is why there is a connection. We fear the Puritanical (read pilgrim) behavior we see universally acted out from islam all of the world, every day, for over a 1,000 years. Another faith, but the same expressions of Man wrapping god around his own ambitions and insecurities. The concern is not the belief, the concern is imposing it on others.

Go ask an Indian family what Thanksgiving anecdotes and familiar practices are passed down to form their Thanksgiving delusion of honor and distaste. Go ask a poor black family in the French Bayou, or Eskimos what they think of your puritan masters. Go ask the numerous other black families in America what your wonderful Thanksgiving traditional source means to them- nothing. Utterly nothing. Puritans were no more than same ole same ole white masters who kept the plantation until the 1860s. Go ask the Chinese who have been here since the 1800s. Ask them. Your world view is so narrow you cannot see facts if they bite your nose.

You know nothing of me nor my worldview, and the fact that you can compare all refugees to extremist murderers does not exactly speak wonders of your worldview. The fact is that the original thanksgiving was not a bunch of white people getting together to celebrate taking over the new world. Yes...there were people that took advantage of native americans...but that's not what thangskiving is about....at least not for me and not for the original celebrants.( which included native americans by the way)

The connection was not made between Thanksgiving and the refugees, it was between the "Pilgrims "and the refugees. You apparently write to a different OP. The byline cites the "first thanksgiving" but that is not the issue.

I do not compare anything, Obama compared. I only cite the facts that the pilgrims were indeed radical fundamentalists, a known historical fact. It was true then and when our modern template on civility and plural discourse is applied, it markedly amplified. If Obama is correct, then the greatest concerns about refugees is that housed among them are "extremists" (a term Obama would use but not honest people). Obama makes the connection. A sterile view of history makes for good bedtime reading but not intellectual candor.

What you muse thanksgiving is about is only true from a packaged, canned, repetitive point of view. The "original" celebrants had a dedicated day of "thanksgiving" that was worshipful, dedicated to hymns and adoration, admonishments of fire and brimstone, and only later did multiple days attach whereby one was for non liturgical feasting. This is not the thanksgiving of our days- not since 1863. Obama made the comparison to pilgrims. Pilgrims were religious fundamentalists. Religious zealots are our greatest concern among refugees; this is the core issue. So, take it up with Obama, not me.

Note: The original thanksgiving most certainly was "a bunch of white people getting together to celebrate."

Edited November 29, 2015 by arjunadawn

[Chicog]

Yes, but non of those refuges were economical refugees with dubious travel documents and a good possibility

that some of them are terrorists infiltrators

Were you there then?

[JHolmesJr]

Obama should cease and desist…even if he does get his way and gets those 10,000 in, the state governments will make their lives so miserable that terrorism might sound like a more appealing alternative to them. Resentment will breed extremism.

[sirineou]

an other member in this forum arjuanadawn made a very interesting post in another thread about Syrian refugees concerning the puritans and Obama's mention of them.I hope I am not violating any forum rules by mentioning his name, but I wanted to give proper credit.

if I might paraphrase and if I understood correctly, he made the point that the pilgrims were not refugees but rather were religious extremists looking for a place to practice their extremism, IMO and not a point he made, not much unlike the Taliban or ISIS today.

Unfortunately the post was moderated away , Hopefully arjunadawn will come along and post in this thread as I found his reply very interesting and I am sure others will also.

Both of you do them and many others a dishonor and should be ashamed of yourselves for making such statements. They were not "religious extremists", nor terrorists. They were peaceful people being persecuted for their beliefs. They were the ones being persecuted. Turning Thanksgiving into something that it is not and never has been is equally disgraceful and distasteful.

"Dishonor?" How entirely predictable, and measurable. However, since the facts regarding the Pilgrims/Puritans are measurable, historical well known, and common, then you demonstrate you are unprepared to sit at the big people table.

My argument opposing refugees is not made better by insisting pilgrims were puritans. Pilgrims were puritans because... they were Puritanical! That is where the name comes from. In your narrow, self serving time frame you assert that Thanksgiving has and has not been this or that; ie. your worldview. This is a fantasy created in your lifetime alone- your view, but it has been carefully orchestrated by government and media and artists and merchandising to package you a composite. "Thanksgiving" had no ducks or yams or songs or football originally; it was only church god church, perhaps a food day was added- but that was not the Thanksgiving!. It was a very slow evolution and was not finally accepted nor recognized until the 1860s. Empowering Thanksgiving as a day or particular connection to a fictitious era, with an intolerant Puritan people, is your choice. History and facts are more stubborn, and compelling. Thanksgiving has been marginally recognized and was only imbued with special nationalist powers in contemporary times. Indeed, by the time the Constitution was written the repeating dangers and excesses of faith stalking as the secular were well known, and excised from the Blueprint of Society. It was significantly due to excesses of the puritans once on these shores that the framers realized faith will always oppress man if left to rule. If you want 'em, you keep 'em. The idea a christian, or a Jew, or an Indian, or a black man, or a muslim or me doesn't share your worldview is "dishonor" "disgraceful" or "distasteful" marks you as wholly divorced from reason and tolerance.

The Pilgrims were every bit the same as what we fear in refugees- that is why there is a connection. We fear the Puritanical (read pilgrim) behavior we see universally acted out from islam all of the world, every day, for over a 1,000 years. Another faith, but the same expressions of Man wrapping god around his own ambitions and insecurities. The concern is not the belief, the concern is imposing it on others.

Go ask an Indian family what Thanksgiving anecdotes and familiar practices are passed down to form their Thanksgiving delusion of honor and distaste. Go ask a poor black family in the French Bayou, or Eskimos what they think of your puritan masters. Go ask the numerous other black families in America what your wonderful Thanksgiving traditional source means to them- nothing. Utterly nothing. Puritans were no more than same ole same ole white masters who kept the plantation until the 1860s. Go ask the Chinese who have been here since the 1800s. Ask them. Your world view is so narrow you cannot see facts if they bite your nose.

You know nothing of me nor my worldview, and the fact that you can compare all refugees to extremist murderers does not exactly speak wonders of your worldview. The fact is that the original thanksgiving was not a bunch of white people getting together to celebrate taking over the new world. Yes...there were people that took advantage of native americans...but that's not what thangskiving is about....at least not for me and not for the original celebrants.( which included native americans by the way)

Dont blame you for getting upset , difficult to have long held beliefs challenged . I don't give up on them easily also , I guess a natural human reaction. But give up on them we must, They say. Those who do not learn from history are condemned to repeat it"

and unfortunately repeat we do.

Like said by other , this s not about Thanksgiving, a great tradition IMO a day families get together reconnect, and express appreciation for all they have

This is about the comment Obama, made linking the Pilgrims to today's refugees, and tough given the modern narrative, politically astute by Obama, for those familiar with history ironic.

That Obama will link the refugees with those who behaved much in the way the ones the refugees are trying to escape from is unfortunate IMO

This is from a respectable institution I am sure you are familiar with and whose opinion I am sure would accept, the Smithsonian

" In the storybook version most of us learned in school, the Pilgrims came to America aboard the Mayflower in search of religious freedom in 1620. The Puritans soon followed, for the same reason. Ever since these religious dissidents arrived at their shining “city upon a hill,” as their governor John Winthrop called it, millions from around the world have done the same, coming to an America where they found a welcome melting pot in which everyone was free to practice his or her own faith.

The problem is that this tidy narrative is an American myth. The real story of religion in America’s past is an often awkward, frequently embarrassing and occasionally bloody tale that most civics books and high-school texts either paper over or shunt to the side. And much of the recent conversation about America’s ideal of religious freedom has paid lip service to this comforting tableau."

Read more at:http://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/americas-true-history-of-religious-tolerance-61312684/?no-ist

You be the judge,

Chears , hope you had a Happy Thanksgiving, and wish you many many more

Edited November 29, 2015 by sirineou