Thanksgiving history - the story

[Economist]

I've read about this many times before, but I wanted to share it with you all. A little piece of thankgiving history that many aren't aware of.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2007/11/the_tragedy_of_the_commons.html

 

[mgb_phys]

The tragedy of the commons has been regulalrly dismissed by archeologists and historians - certainly for the case of medieval europe.
In a small village where everyone knows each other, are intermarried and the same families have been living their for centurys abuse of common land was almost unheard of. In fact land efficency dropped significantly following the various enclosure acts - mostly due to no longer allowing your animals to 'organically-fertilise' the land.

I suspect the pilgrim's complete lack of climatic and farming knowledge and equipement had a greater effect on their poor farming than their pinko tendancies.

But the real meaning of thanksgiving is. If you see a group of people in funny clothes and talking about god, turn up in a big ship - kill them at the start, it will save trouble in the long run!

 

[Economist]

The tragedy of the commons has been regulalrly dismissed by archeologists and historians - certainly for the case of medieval europe.

I've never heard that it's been regularly dismissed by archeologists or historians, and I kinda find it hard to believe. If it is true however, I know that economists have many documented cases of tragedy of the commons (past and present). For example, over-fishing, over-hunting, excess pollution, etc.

http://www.econlib.org/library/Enc/TragedyoftheCommons.html
http://www.econlib.org/library/Enc/PropertyRights.html

In a small village where everyone knows each other, are intermarried and the same families have been living their for centurys abuse of common land was almost unheard of.

I don't see how this in anyway discredits the tragedy of the commons. At first sight it does seem counterintuitive, but tragedy of the commons is mainly about weakly defined property rights. And it seems possible that in a really small village this may be less of an issue considering that they may have some sort of understanding even though no one owns the property (in legal terms).

 

[edward]

Ironically on the flip side we have:

The Tragedy of the Anticommons

Anticommons property can best be understood as the mirror image of commons property (3, 8). A resource is prone to overuse in a tragedy of the commons when too many owners each have a privilege to use a given resource and no one has a right to exclude another (9). By contrast, a resource is prone to underuse in a "tragedy of the anticommons" when multiple owners each have a right to exclude others from a scarce resource and no one has an effective privilege of use. In theory, in a world of costless transactions, people could always avoid commons or anticommons tragedies by trading their rights (10). In practice, however, avoiding tragedy requires overcoming transaction costs, strategic behaviors, and cognitive biases of participants (11), with success more likely within close-knit communities than among hostile strangers (12-14). Once an anticommons emerges, collecting rights into usable private property is often brutal and slow.

http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/280/5364/698

 

[chemisttree]

The link you provided states that the first thanksgiving was in October of 1623. This statement prefaces the story and is necessary to provide a proper time line that after two years of communal farming they all nearly starved (because of communalism).

Only 53 of the original 100 or so that landed at Plymouth rock survived the winter. These celebrated their first thanksgiving in October of 1621, slightly less than a year after they first landed (not two years later). The nearly 50 that died during the first winter can't be explained by any communal farming practice!

This story gets the date of the first Thanksgiving absolutely wrong! Can anything else it purports be accepted as fact without some tedious research?

Not by me.

At best this story is a parable and not history.

"our harvest being gotten in, our governor sent four men on fowling, that so we might after a special manner rejoice together, after we had gathered the fruits of our labors; they four in one day killed as much fowl, as with a little help beside, served the Company almost a week, at which time amongst other Recreations, we exercised our Arms, many of the Indians coming amongst us, and amongst the rest their greatest king Massasoit, with some ninety men, whom for three days we entertained and feasted, and they went out and killed five Deer, which they brought to the Plantation and bestowed on our Governor, and upon the Captain and others. And although it be not always so plentiful, as it was at this time with us, yet by the goodness of God, we are so far from want, that we often wish you partakers of our plenty."

A quote from Edward Winslow, Mourt's Relation
This was a description of the Autumn of 1621.
http://www.pilgrimhall.org/plgrmhll.htm"

 

[mgb_phys]

I don't see how this in anyway discredits the tragedy of the commons. At first sight it does seem counterintuitive, but tragedy of the commons is mainly about weakly defined property rights.

The economic theory "tragedy of the commons" is definitely true, you can see it in everything from SUVs to pork barrel defense contracts - it's just ironic that the explanation/example always given - of medeaval common land is wrong.

It's a bit like using water down a bath plug and coriolis force to show that the Earth rotates. The Earth rotates, and coriolis force exists but water down your bath plug doesn't demosntrate it.

 

[Economist]

This story gets the date of the first Thanksgiving absolutely wrong! Can anything else it purports be accepted as fact without some tedious research?

If what you say is true, then no it can't be accepted as fact without some tedious research. However, I just wanted to point out that this situation has been discussed in other articles, and there's even a book written on the topic. So if anyone actually wants to do the "tedious research" I'm sure the info is available.

 

[Economist]

Ironically on the flip side we have:

The Tragedy of the Anticommons

http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/280/5364/698

This seems very interesting and I definitely want to read it. In one sense though, I am compelled to ask how private property could be underused? Isn't it the owner's decision to determine how much he wants to use (or let other people use)? So how do we define underuse?

 

[Skyhunter]

If what you say is true, then no it can't be accepted as fact without some tedious research.

Not really much research. There are exactly two historical references to the firsat Thanksgiving in the New World. Although the religious practice of "giving thanks" precedes the Plymouth colony feast.

There are only two contemporary accounts of the 1621 Thanksgiving: First is Edward Winslow's account, which he wrote in a letter dated December 12, 1621. The complete letter was first published in 1622.

Our corn [i.e. wheat] did prove well, and God be praised, we had a good increase of Indian corn, and our barley indifferent good, but our peas not worth the gathering, for we feared they were too late sown. They came up very well, and blossomed, but the sun parched them in the blossom. Our harvest being gotten in, our governor sent four men on fowling, that so we might after a special manner rejoice together after we had gathered the fruit of our labors. They four in one day killed as much fowl as, with a little help beside, served the company almost a week. At which time, amongst other recreations, we exercised our arms, many of the Indians coming amongst us, and among the rest their greatest king Massasoit, with some ninety men, whom for three days we entertained and feasted, and they went out and killed five deer, which they brought to the plantation and bestowed on our governor, and upon the captain and others. And although it be not always so plentiful as it was at this time with us, yet by the goodness of God, we are so far from want that we often wish you partakers of our plenty.

The second description was written about twenty years after the fact by William Bradford in his History Of Plymouth Plantation. Bradford's History was rediscovered in 1854 after having been taken by British looters during the Revolutionary War. Its discovery prompted a greater American interest in the history of the Pilgrims. It is also in this account that the Thanksgiving turkey tradition is founded.

They began now to gather in the small harvest they had, and to fit up their houses and dwellings against winter, being all well recovered in health and strength and had all things in good plenty. For as some were thus employed in affairs abroad, others were exercising in fishing, about cod and bass and other fish, of which they took good store, of which every family had their portion. All the summer there was no want; and now began to come in store of fowl, as winter approached, of which this place did abound when they came first (but afterward decreased by degrees). And besides waterfowl there was great store of wild turkeys, of which they took many, besides venison, etc. Besides they had about a peck of meal a week to a person, or now since harvest, Indian corn to that proportion. Which made many afterwards write so largely of their plenty here to their friends in England, which were not feigned but true reports.

http://www.mayflowerhistory.com/History/thanksgiving.php

Stossel is a joke. One of those people on my permanently ignore list.

 

[Economist]

Stossel is a joke. One of those people on my permanently ignore list.

I like Stossel. I don't disagree that he makes some mistakes (as I'm sure he does). The reason I like the guy is because he's a complete libertarian, and the only mainstream one I know of. I think it's cool that people may get exposed to a different perspective. Especially, considering that most journalists are liberal (very liberal?) and the the few that aren't are generally conservative.

 

[ShawnD]

I like Stossel. I don't disagree that he makes some mistakes (as I'm sure he does). The reason I like the guy is because he's a complete libertarian, and the only mainstream one I know of. I think it's cool that people may get exposed to a different perspective. Especially, considering that most journalists are liberal (very liberal?) and the the few that aren't are generally conservative.

I like him too. I don't always agree with him, but he sure knows how to support with claims with evidence. If there was one reason to watch TV, it would be to watch what he does. I don't watch TV, but if I did, you know I'd watch him more

edit: it looks like Stossel made a response to Moore's sicko. It's on youtube as "sick in america". I can't look at it now since, but I'm psyched to see this

 

[Skyhunter]

John Stossel is not a true Libertarian. Nor is he an honest journalist.

ABC's http://www.organicconsumers.org/Organic/stossellies.cfm" About Organic Food Are Inadequate

The San Francisco Chronicle
8/21/2000
Cultivating the Truth About Organics
By Brian Halweil

I WATCHED IN DISBELIEF as John Stossel, co-anchor of ABC's "20/20,"
delivered a half-hearted apology August 11 for falsifying evidence in a
report that claimed organic produce is potentially more dangerous than food
raised using toxic agrochemicals, antibiotics, added hormones, genetically
engineered seeds and massive animal-feeding factories.

In his apology, Stossel did admit that some tests he relied on to support
his conclusion had never been conducted. But he shrugged that off as a
minor oversight, maintaining that because organic farmers favor manure and
other natural fertilizers over synthetic chemicals, organic produce carries
a greater risk of E. coli infection and "could kill you."

What wasn't mentioned is that most of the manure spread on land in the
United States is, in fact, used by conventional farmers. The difference is
that organic farmers are the only ones required to farm in a way that might
minimize the risk of E. coli or other food-borne illness. Organic
certification standards require that all raw manure is applied to the
fields or orchards at least 60 days, and sometimes as many as 120 days,
before the produce is harvested -- a period that allows for ecological
processes that eliminate harmful microbes. (The pathogens become food for
other soil organisms or degrade from exposure to the elements).

Conventional growers, in contrast, can spray on raw, uncomposted manure
(even on fruits and veggies that are but days from being harvested), in
addition to human sewage sludge and slurry from industrial animal farms --
all practices that are explicitly forbidden under organic regulations. <snip>

he fabrication of information on an ABC news report -- not to mention the
neglect of extensive evidence disputing its conclusions -- raises serious
questions of journalistic integrity. According to Brill's Content magazine,
over the last two years, Stossel has collected hundreds of thousands of
dollars in speaking fees from various industry and conservative groups,
including agribusiness interests. At the very least, this gives the
appearance of a potential conflict of interest, and with the organic food
market in this country growing by more than 20 percent a year, there is no
shortage of groups who feel threatened -- agrochemical companies, biotech
companies, and nonorganic food manufacturers and retailers.

He is a paid lackey.

I guess if you work for Disney, fantasy can pass for reality.

Dan Rather would have been fired.

 

[ShawnD]

John Stossel is not a true Libertarian. Nor is he an honest journalist.




He is a paid lackey.

I guess if you work for Disney, fantasy can pass for reality.

Dan Rather would have been fired.

You're fighting a strongly bias libertarian using a strongly bias hippy group? Come on now. Take another look at the wording of this

Conventional growers, in contrast, can spray on raw, uncomposted manure
(even on fruits and veggies that are but days from being harvested), in
addition to human sewage sludge and slurry from industrial animal farms --
all practices that are explicitly forbidden under organic regulations.

No law is in place to stop normal farmers from spraying manure and sewage because that never happens. The majority of fertilizer used is inorganic because it costs a hell of a lot less.

Salts made of ammonium, nitrate, phosphate, and potassium normally do not contain ecoli. Animal manure naturally contains ecoli; you might have some ecoli in your intestines right now as you read this. Stossel lying about doing tests doesn't automatically negate this.

I don't see how getting paid to give speeches to people who care about your message makes somebody a liar. Get this: democrats pay money to listen to Clinton speeches. OMG WHAT A SH|TBAG. He's just telling people what they want to hear!1

 

[Economist]

Dan Rather would have been fired.

LOL. Actually, Dan Rather has definitely been accussed of being intellectually and journalistically dishonest. Just read these articles.

http://www.capmag.com/article.asp?ID=4165

http://www.capmag.com/article.asp?ID=4070

 

[Skyhunter]

No law is in place to stop normal farmers from spraying manure and sewage because that never happens. The majority of fertilizer used is inorganic because it costs a hell of a lot less.

Obviously you have never lived on a farm with livestock.

Salts made of ammonium, nitrate, phosphate, and potassium normally do not contain ecoli. Animal manure naturally contains ecoli; you might have some ecoli in your intestines right now as you read this.

Ecoli exists in the GI tract of most mammals.

Stossel lying about doing tests doesn't automatically negate this.

So he had no evidence to support his claim so he just made it up. Are you arguing that just because there is no evidence to support the claim that it is still valid?

I don't see how getting paid to give speeches to people who care about your message makes somebody a liar.

It doesn't. But fabricating studies that don't exist and lying in order to advance the interests of the people paying you to make these speeches, does tend to show an extreme bias toward ones cash cow. Journalist should at very least have an appearance of objectivity.

The fact that Stossel can lie, make stuff up, and then people like you are willing to defend him, says a lot about confirmation bias and it's effect on human thought and perception..