The USA and "Anglo-Saxon traditions".

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

When one presents itself only a fool would deliberately seek to complicate things unnecessarily.

And resorting to over simplification leads to distortion. There is no one single and simplistic answer to this specific issue.

If you had bothered reading my posts rather than respond negatively in a knee jerk fashion you would have seen I have repeatedly pointed this out.

Religious concerns were not the only motives.

Economics was a factor but it wasn't like going to the New World was going to make the situation magically disappear.

Going to a new life offered the chance to prosper, a chance that was not available in their present situation. There was also the concern as to what would happen when the truce ended, and of course by 1620, what would become known as the Thirty Years War had just started.

The primary reason that they came here was that they wanted a place to practice their religious beliefs without outside interference

That is incorrect. In the Netherlands they were entirely free to practise their religious beliefs without any interference.

However, for this bigoted group the the Netherlands was too liberal and tolerant. They wanted to establish [as they did] their own intolerant and illiberal theocracy.

[rogue06]

Once again you opt for the simple solution.

When one presents itself only a fool would deliberately seek to complicate things unnecessarily.

The religious "liberty" that this group sought was very specifically defined. It was a remarkably intolerant and specific "Christian" form of liberty. These were seventeenth century Protestant zealots intent on establishing their own theocracy.

If you had bothered reading my posts rather than respond negatively in a knee jerk fashion you would have seen I have repeatedly pointed this out.

However, there were also economic and political factors at play.

From Michael P Winship's Godly Republicanism: Puritans, Pilgrims, and a City on a Hill - see chapter 5

Sometime in 1617, John Robinson and his ruling lay elder, William Brewster, had a lengthy conversation. Their topic was further reformation and the Leiden congregation’s place in it. Neither man was getting any younger. Robinson was around forty and Brewster ten years older, and Holland was not working out as they had hoped when they fled from England a decade earlier. Making a living was hard. Some people who came over had to return when their savings ran out, while others preferred to risk prison in England. The congregation’s children were losing their English, and the separatists were having no success getting the Dutch to reform their notoriously lax Sabbaths.[...] Some of the congregation’s sagest members, well versed in the travel literature, recounted in lurid detail the tortures practiced by Indians, but others pointed out that the twelve years’ truce in the war between Spain and the Netherlands was almost expired and that the Spanish, if past practice was any guideline, might prove as cruel as the Indians.

Economics was a factor but it wasn't like going to the New World was going to make the situation magically disappear.

The primary reason that they came here was that they wanted a place to practice their religious beliefs without outside interference although just like life itself there will always be numerous lesser factors as well.

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

Fascinating.

I was aware of the close connection between Christianity and Colonialism---but it is interesting how different Christian groups had their own justifications.
I thought "city on the hill" idea was from an English legend---but it is religious/Puritan?

From the gospel of Matthew 5.14 "You are the light of the world. A city built on a hill cannot be hid".

For such Christians they perceived themselves as the "new Israelites" taking their promised land and, with divine blessing, smiting the indigenous populations. That they succeeded and prospered in this was evidence to them that their god favoured them and their actions.

At a more practical level firearms [even the more primitive weapons of the early seventeenth century] had a distinct advantage over bows, arrows, knives, and spears. This was a technologically advanced "iron and steel age" culture confronting a stone age culture.

[siam]

As has been previously noted the Pilgrim Fathers had religious freedom in the Netherlands which at the time was the most tolerant and religiously diverse country in Europe. However, it appears that Bradford and others were concerned that the young of their group were becoming disillusioned and turning to a Dutch way of living considered dissolute by the Elders.

There was also the belief among these religious dissenters that they were the Israelites and King James of England was Pharaoh. Their god had first led them to the Netherlands but their exodus to the Americas offered a new promised land in which they could establish their own “city on the hill”.

Based on later events within the Puritan community in Massachusetts, it seems that this group did not want religious freedom but religious uniformity and a community with a government based on their particular version of god and on their particular version of Christianity where the civil and religious authority would be one and the same. In short a theocracy. Intolerance towards those of a different way of thinking was exhibited towards Anne Hutchinson [banished over the Antinomian controversy] and Roger Williams [who advocated religious tolerance and liberty]. Both would go on to establish separate colonies. Eight men and women were also executed by the Puritans for daring to be Quakers.

Within the Americas a form of holy war was also waged on the local indigenous population , the Pequots. The Puritan attack on a Pequot village on the Mystic River would become known as the Mystic Massacre where several hundred Pequots including women and children were slaughtered. Survivors would go on to become slaves or handed over as booty. The attitude of John Mason the Puritan commander contended that his god laughed while the English killed.

But G OD was above them, who laughed his Enemies and the Enemies of his People to Scorn, making them as a fiery Oven: Thus were the Stout Hearted spoiled, having slept their last Sleep, and none of their Men could find their Hands: Thus did the LOR D judge among the Heathen, filling the Place with dead Bodies!
[https://digitalcommons.unl.edu/cgi/v...&context=etas]


Such a viewpoint has strong echoes of language found in the Book of Joshua.

[

Fascinating.

I was aware of the close connection between Christianity and Colonialism---but it is interesting how different Christian groups had their own justifications.
I thought "city on the hill" idea was from an English legend---but it is religious/Puritan?

[siam]

It is a simple question siam. Who does everyone return the land they seized in the past to, given that those they took it from had also seized it from someone who had seized it from someone and so on?

And a superior culture/society isn't just marked by how much they've conquered, but rather how much have they done things like increased life expectancy, raised the standard of living and decreased the odds of dying through famine and war not just for their own people but many others as well.

Personally, I think the matter of land and culture should be separated---that is, I do not agree with the Westphalian concept of "Nation-state" as a combination of land/culture. IMO, human beings have a right to property/land and also have a right to identity (culture/religion/heritage). But combining the 2 rights into one leads to toxicity---many of the new intolerant identity-movements such as the Buddhist movement in Burma, the Hindutva of India, ISIS/Caliphate idea, etc---are harmful....

I think a "superior" culture/civilization is one that large numbers of humanity admire and willingly adopt---one that has been forced onto them cannot be held to such standard. But yes---an ethico-moral culture that leads to benefit for humanity and all of creation would indeed be entitled to the honor of being a "civilization"---with an emphasis on "civil/civility"

[siam]

Do I justify them fighting US Troops in their country? Yes. From their point of view the US are invaders, and they would be justified in resisting.

However, justification in resisting is not the same as justification in actions. If people are not coming to join the country, but are not simply visiting, then the country is justified in treating them as hostile. They are not justified in, say, rounding them all up and summarily executing them. It doesn't justify subjugating their own people, destroying cultural landmarks, etc. In other words, just because they are justified in defending their culture, it does not mean that they are not horrible forces possibly on par with our resident fraulein's historical regime.

That is an interesting perspective.

Resistance is an act---I am a bit lost with the rest of your statement--not join and not visit?----could you elaborate?

As I said----Those who do immoral acts (harm against humanity) are solely responsible for their crimes. However, those that buy into such wrong/evil ideology and its justifications ---and mirror those crimes---they are guilty even if they were the victims of those crimes. If I recall correctly--- ISIS was born out of an environment of trauma in which U.S. military randomly kidnapped hundreds of innocent Iraqi civilians and tortured them for no reason. IMO, just because the U.S. military is lawless, uncivilized, and barbaric does not justify others to abandon their moral standards. On the other hand---resisting oppression is an inherent right of every human being. The right to identity is an inherent right (within reason)---that means all human beings have an equal right to their identity-markers. So, Euro-Americans are entitled to their cultural identity---but so are others....and each generation of Americans is entitled to form their own cultural identities---so long as these cultural identities are founded on the principle of equality of all humanity and do not advocate the evil/bad ideology of supremacy.

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

Congratulations. You finally figured out why the Pilgrims left Amsterdam for America.

Once again you opt for the simple solution.

The religious "liberty" that this group sought was very specifically defined. It was a remarkably intolerant and specific "Christian" form of liberty. These were seventeenth century Protestant zealots intent on establishing their own theocracy.

However, there were also economic and political factors at play.

From Michael P Winship's Godly Republicanism: Puritans, Pilgrims, and a City on a Hill - see chapter 5

Sometime in 1617, John Robinson and his ruling lay elder, William Brewster, had a lengthy conversation. Their topic was further reformation and the Leiden congregation’s place in it. Neither man was getting any younger. Robinson was around forty and Brewster ten years older, and Holland was not working out as they had hoped when they fled from England a decade earlier. Making a living was hard. Some people who came over had to return when their savings ran out, while others preferred to risk prison in England. The congregation’s children were losing their English, and the separatists were having no success getting the Dutch to reform their notoriously lax Sabbaths.[...] Some of the congregation’s sagest members, well versed in the travel literature, recounted in lurid detail the tortures practiced by Indians, but others pointed out that the twelve years’ truce in the war between Spain and the Netherlands was almost expired and that the Spanish, if past practice was any guideline, might prove as cruel as the Indians.

[rogue06]

As has been previously noted the Pilgrim Fathers had religious freedom in the Netherlands which at the time was the most tolerant and religiously diverse country in Europe. However, it appears that Bradford and others were concerned that the young of their group were becoming disillusioned and turning to a Dutch way of living considered dissolute by the Elders.

Congratulations. You finally figured out why the Pilgrims left Amsterdam for America.

[rogue06]

Do I justify them fighting US Troops in their country? Yes. From their point of view the US are invaders, and they would be justified in resisting.

However, justification in resisting is not the same as justification in actions. If people are not coming to join the country, but are not simply visiting, then the country is justified in treating them as hostile. They are not justified in, say, rounding them all up and summarily executing them. It doesn't justify subjugating their own people, destroying cultural landmarks, etc. In other words, just because they are justified in defending their culture, it does not mean that they are not horrible forces possibly on par with our resident fraulein's historical regime.

Given that a substantial portion of ISIS's personnel comes from a wide range of countries -- often those not engaged in hostilities themselves -- to say that they are fighting for "their country" may be a bit of a misnomer.

[rogue06]

If "might makes right" and this equates to superiority then European colonization was "superior"---it does not make them "civilized" (as in having high ethico-moral standards). Therefore such "superiority" is of no benefit to humanity---and one can argue it is harmful to humanity.

It is a simple question siam. Who does everyone return the land they seized in the past to, given that those they took it from had also seized it from someone who had seized it from someone and so on?

And a superior culture/society isn't just marked by how much they've conquered, but rather how much have they done things like increased life expectancy, raised the standard of living and decreased the odds of dying through famine and war not just for their own people but many others as well.

[CivilDiscourse]

WOW!

Are you justifying Al-Qaeda, Taliban, ISIS, and other anti-colonial, anti-Western "freedom movements"?

Do I justify them fighting US Troops in their country? Yes. From their point of view the US are invaders, and they would be justified in resisting.

However, justification in resisting is not the same as justification in actions. If people are not coming to join the country, but are not simply visiting, then the country is justified in treating them as hostile. They are not justified in, say, rounding them all up and summarily executing them. It doesn't justify subjugating their own people, destroying cultural landmarks, etc. In other words, just because they are justified in defending their culture, it does not mean that they are not horrible forces possibly on par with our resident fraulein's historical regime.

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

Whats this about?...can you elaborate?

As has been previously noted the Pilgrim Fathers had religious freedom in the Netherlands which at the time was the most tolerant and religiously diverse country in Europe. However, it appears that Bradford and others were concerned that the young of their group were becoming disillusioned and turning to a Dutch way of living considered dissolute by the Elders.

There was also the belief among these religious dissenters that they were the Israelites and King James of England was Pharaoh. Their god had first led them to the Netherlands but their exodus to the Americas offered a new promised land in which they could establish their own “city on the hill”.

Based on later events within the Puritan community in Massachusetts, it seems that this group did not want religious freedom but religious uniformity and a community with a government based on their particular version of god and on their particular version of Christianity where the civil and religious authority would be one and the same. In short a theocracy. Intolerance towards those of a different way of thinking was exhibited towards Anne Hutchinson [banished over the Antinomian controversy] and Roger Williams [who advocated religious tolerance and liberty]. Both would go on to establish separate colonies. Eight men and women were also executed by the Puritans for daring to be Quakers.

Within the Americas a form of holy war was also waged on the local indigenous population , the Pequots. The Puritan attack on a Pequot village on the Mystic River would become known as the Mystic Massacre where several hundred Pequots including women and children were slaughtered. Survivors would go on to become slaves or handed over as booty. The attitude of John Mason the Puritan commander contended that his god laughed while the English killed.

But G OD was above them, who laughed his Enemies and the Enemies of his People to Scorn, making them as a fiery Oven: Thus were the Stout Hearted spoiled, having slept their last Sleep, and none of their Men could find their Hands: Thus did the LOR D judge among the Heathen, filling the Place with dead Bodies!
[https://digitalcommons.unl.edu/cgi/v...&context=etas]


Such a viewpoint has strong echoes of language found in the Book of Joshua.

Even in 1776 shortly after the declaration of independence the comparison of the fledgling USA with the exodus of the Israelites to the promised land remained strong, to wit the original design for the American seal which showed the parting the Red Sea, the Israelites following a pillar of fire and cloud, and the Egyptian forces perishing.

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

WOW!

Are you justifying Al-Qaeda, Taliban, ISIS, and other anti-colonial, anti-Western "freedom movements"?

Lol! Oh dear it seems your interlocutor has not thought through his remarks.

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

I'd also recommend Sathnam Sanghera: Empireland, about the complicated history of the British Isles and empire. As with most cases, it's not 100% good or bad, it's just complicated.

Thanks for the recommendation.

I agree that these issues are extremely complicated but I suspect that overall the British and other European colonial regimes/empires did more harm than good and much of the turmoil we have witnessed over the last sixty years or so in parts of the world formerly under those regimes may be found to have, at the root, the legacy of imperialism. The USA has likewise made very similar mistakes in its imperialistic meddling in the affairs of other nations.

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

I've read several works on the topics and have already formed a conclusion thank you. That was why I was asking you for yours

I cannot offer simplistic answers to complex issues.

which culture would you say has been far and away the most successful and advanced one to ever exist?

That is a ridiculously over-simplistic question and is on a par with the following:

"One day as Bill and Enid were walking home through Tadgers Wood they saw the Collapse of Roman Imperialism.

"Gosh" said Enid, "So a combination of factors both economic and political has brought down the mightiest Empire the world has ever seen"

Soon they were home and hungrily eating their tea."

[Paraphrase from memory of Terry Jones and Michael Palin]