The USA and "Anglo-Saxon traditions".

[siam]

I'm not saying that Europeans were right. Just that calling them immigrants and comparing them to modern day immigrants is just a mismatched comparison.

Its like comparing cars to ww2 era tanks when talking about passenger comfort on the road.

Yes it is a stretch ---but a valid one? ---we are both saying the same thing---that the European-American settlers did not want to assimilate to others but want others to assimilate to them. They want others to do what they themselves were unwilling to do (and are still unwilling to do).
It is understandable that people want to retain their cultural identities---So if European-Americans acknowledge this privilege for themselves---they should allow it for others too....its only fair (golden rule)....?...

[CivilDiscourse]

It was completely different. <hypatia's hatred of christians snipped>

Yes it was.

[rogue06]

William Bradford, one of the founders, and later a governor, of the Plymouth Colony, was one of the "dissenter" congregation led by John Robinson that left England and settled in The Netherlands where many of them spent upward of a decade in poverty working as weavers before they boarded the Mayflower. That decision [again citing Bradford] appears to have included a fear of assimilation into Dutch society. It may also have been exacerbated by economic and political factors.

The assimilation issue is one of the factors I was referring to when I mentioned that Amsterdam was "too free." They sought out a place where there would be no outside interference.

I'm also under the impression that a significant number of the original colonists were either anything but poor themselves, or came from families that could be described that way. That's not to say they were fabulously wealthy but what folks today would call "comfortable."

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

The mindset was quite different though. The "new world" was seen, as largely unclaimed land, ripe for someone to come in and settle on.

It was completely different. For many Christian settlers the Americas were the new Israel and therefore they had no qualms about applying the biblical accounts of the [supposed] eradication of the indigenous peoples of Canaan. Smiting the heathens was divinely sanctioned.

[Mountain Man]

I can't find a copy of the actual document either, which is troubling, but it's extensively quoted by a healthy variety of news sites. Given the broad harvest of quotes, it'd be difficult to dismiss it as cherry picking.

[Mountain Man]

Unfortunately, this is considerably less so these days. Many immigrants (especially those not interested in coming here legally) are not at all interested in assimilating. They are aided by some on the left who in some cases even encourage them to remain separate and even don't learn English.

As the saying goes, "This is the United States of America. You shouldn't have to press one for English."

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

That is actually a statement more or less on a par with those that didn't see a need to remove 'separate but equal' in the '60s.

When one is trying to live one's life according to certain principles, and even more so raising ones children in an environment that is pulling day after day contrary to your morals and beliefs, it presents a struggle that is not easy to overcome. Seeking out a place to create an ideal environment free from influences that would undermine one's efforts to live out one's life in accordance with one's religion is a common occurrence and more than that, is a natural human response to such an situation. Trivializing it and declaring it could not possibly have been a motivating factor for the pilgrims is a bit absurd. That IS why they came. That is in fact what many of them did.

William Bradford, one of the founders, and later a governor, of the Plymouth Colony, was one of the "dissenter" congregation led by John Robinson that left England and settled in The Netherlands where many of them spent upward of a decade in poverty working as weavers before they boarded the Mayflower. That decision [again citing Bradford] appears to have included a fear of assimilation into Dutch society. It may also have been exacerbated by economic and political factors.

[CivilDiscourse]

I'm afraid, "us" non-Europeans who have had the misfortune to be colonized---are well aware of the "colonial mindset". ---and not just the "new world"---the whole world was seen as ripe for the picking---"occupied" or not. And just to make clear---The Natives of any land did not consider themselves as invisible---they were very certain they really occupied their own lands.

I do not see it as much of a loss to humanity if the "colonial mindset" and /or its consequent legacy of supremacy and justification of prejudice is reduced by another culture that is more beneficial to humanity.
However, not everything about European heritage culture (West) is bad/harmful...and the good can be adopted by others for their own benefit...likewise, the good from other cultures can also be adopted by the West---a mutual give and take/sharing.....
What is changed and what is retained is the right of each generation to decide....?.....

I'm not saying that Europeans were right. Just that calling them immigrants and comparing them to modern day immigrants is just a mismatched comparison.

Its like comparing cars to ww2 era tanks when talking about passenger comfort on the road.

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

Darn good question!

I don't know why I introduced Denmark back in post #61. That's the third brain fart in as many days.

Anno Domini?

[siam]

The mindset was quite different though. The "new world" was seen, as largely unclaimed land, ripe for someone to come in and settle on. Compare that to modern day immigrants who are moving into a (known and understood) sovereign country. It creates two very different dynamics and mindsets.

I'm afraid, "us" non-Europeans who have had the misfortune to be colonized---are well aware of the "colonial mindset". ---and not just the "new world"---the whole world was seen as ripe for the picking---"occupied" or not. And just to make clear---The Natives of any land did not consider themselves as invisible---they were very certain they really occupied their own lands.

I do not see it as much of a loss to humanity if the "colonial mindset" and /or its consequent legacy of supremacy and justification of prejudice is reduced by another culture that is more beneficial to humanity.
However, not everything about European heritage culture (West) is bad/harmful...and the good can be adopted by others for their own benefit...likewise, the good from other cultures can also be adopted by the West---a mutual give and take/sharing.....
What is changed and what is retained is the right of each generation to decide....?.....

[rogue06]

You are. What has Denmark to do with Amsterdam?

Darn good question!

I don't know why I introduced Denmark back in post #61. That's the third brain fart in as many days. Kinda hard to hide that I'm fairly distracted by the news of a potential break in something that has been stalled by the $@%#$ Chicom coronavirus.

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

Wrong.

You are. What has Denmark to do with Amsterdam?

[rogue06]

The oft-called Pilgrim Fathers had no need to find "a place to practice their religious beliefs without interference". They already had found one in the Netherlands where they had the freedom to do precisely that.

Pardon?

Wrong. What they found in Denmark was, in a sense, a place that was "too free." What I mean by that is that everyone was allowed to do so which they found was "polluting" their own teachings. That's why they left Amsterdam and thereabouts and headed to the New World. A place where they could practice their religion without any sort of interference. They wanted a place for like-minded co-religionists to be able to go and live where everything was based upon their ideals and certainly not somewhere where your one neighbor is a Catholic and the other is a Huguenot.

[oxmixmudd]

The oft-called Pilgrim Fathers had no need to find "a place to practice their religious beliefs without interference". They already had found one in the Netherlands where they had the freedom to do precisely that.

That is actually a statement more or less on a par with those that didn't see a need to remove 'separate but equal' in the '60s.

When one is trying to live one's life according to certain principles, and even more so raising ones children in an environment that is pulling day after day contrary to your morals and beliefs, it presents a struggle that is not easy to overcome. Seeking out a place to create an ideal environment free from influences that would undermine one's efforts to live out one's life in accordance with one's religion is a common occurrence and more than that, is a natural human response to such an situation. Trivializing it and declaring it could not possibly have been a motivating factor for the pilgrims is a bit absurd. That IS why they came. That is in fact what many of them did.

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

The Pilgrims and Puritans came not seeking a "better life" which typically is inextricably to economic opportunities. They came in search of a place to practice their religious beliefs without interference.

The oft-called Pilgrim Fathers had no need to find "a place to practice their religious beliefs without interference". They already had found one in the Netherlands where they had the freedom to do precisely that.

While they were indeed free in Denmark to practice their beliefs an entirely new problem emerged. People started adapting and adopting customs and practices that did not mesh well with their beliefs. So they sought a place where they could practice in peace free of outside interference and influence. By doing so they actually sacrificed the economic stability that they enjoyed in Denmark and traded it for a decided uncertainty.

Pardon?