20 Nov : Unlike the better known Independence Day holiday that citizens of The United States have celebrated since the signing of the Declaration on the 4th of July 1776, the holiday of Thanksgiving has a more nebulous beginning and sometimes lesser known history…writes Philip Sankot.
But in spite of Thanksgiving’s less formal origin, if one is taught and understands it’s full substantive history, The United States’ holiday of Thanksgiving could arguably have a wider appreciation by more people all over the world.
The United States’ current “Day of Thanksgiving” can be traced all the way back to the earliest European colonists who founded Plymouth Colony in what is now the state of Massachusetts back in year 1620.
In his writings, History of Plymouth Plantation, William Bradford, who was an early governor of the colony, made perhaps, the most significant observation of what our Thanksgiving holiday represents, even today, almost 390 years later.
Early on, Bradford comments how the colony had been organized in a manner such as to communally support one another. This included the production of food as well as other needs. All food that was grown was to be collected, stored, and distributed among those who needed it, when they needed it. Bradford wrote “all such persons as are of this colony are to have their meat, drink, apparel, and all provisions out of the common stock and goods of the said colony.” It was an early experiment in socialism that I imagine must have SOUNDED like a good idea at the time in an effort to alleviate the fears of uncertainty that might have existed within the members of the colony otherwise. But like so many “well intentioned plans” there are “unintended consequences”.
Although it was not defined as such, but this early experiment in what we now define as “Socialism”, brought about just such “unintended consequences”.
William Bradford noted, “For the young men, that were most able and fit for labor and service, did repine (complained) that they should spend their time and strength to work for other men’s wives and children without any recompense. The strong, or man of parts, had no more in division of victuals(foodstuffs) and clothes than he that was weak and not able to do a quarter(of what) the other could; this was thought injustice.”
And the real “unintended consequence” of this method of resource distribution turned out to be incentivized weakness, which included general laziness, faking being sick to avoid work, stealing of food, and eventually starvation and death for many of the colonists because not enough food was being produced. And what’s possibly more important, there was not enough favorable incentive in their socialist experiment to produce that which would benefit the largest number of people.
William Bradford wisely observed that this first experimental economic structure was bringing about the WORSE in the people of the colony that is within all of us as, rather than bringing out the BETTER in the people of the colony that is ALSO within all of us. “Upon the point all being to have alike, and all to do alike, they thought themselves in the like condition, and one as good as (an) another; and so, if it did not cut off those relations that God hath set amongst men, yet it did at least much diminish and take off the mutual respects that should be preserved amongst them.”
So a few years poor harvests not being able to sustain the colony to everyone’s need or desire leading to starvation and death, and not to mention the diminishing population in spite of the additional colonists that had arrived since 1620, SOMETHING DIFFERENT had to be done. After the poor harvest of 1622 and before the growing season of 1623, William Bradford and those he met in counsel decided to abolish the current economic experiment and replace it with a less controlled, more self sustaining system.
In an effort to produce as much food as possible for everyone, it was decided that every family would receive two things. The first thing each family would get would be one a parcel of land. And the second would be the responsibility to manage that land and grow upon it what they saw fit for themselves. And whatever they grew they could keep, trade, or sell to others in the colony.
Bradford writes “This had very good success, for it made all hands very industrious, so as much more corn was planted than otherwise would have been by any means the Governor or any other could use, and saved him a great deal of trouble, and gave far better content. The women now went willingly into the field, and took their little ones with them to set corn; which before would allege weakness and inability; whom to have compelled would have been thought great tyranny and oppression.”
So, it was not until the harvest of 1623 that the members of Plymouth Colony had the sustaining bountiful harvest to be really thankful for. They had more than they needed as a colony, no one was starving from lack of food, and they were able to trade with the regional Wampanoag Tribe.
In this simple story of the Plymouth Colony, equality may not have been achieved. One family may have had an excess of pumpkins and squash, while another family may have had an excess of corn and beans. But is does illustrate how the incentive to work for one’s self interest in primary, can have the secondary affect of benefiting everyone else.
Today, two people sharing a Thanksgiving dinner can put significance to that dinner any way they see fit. Many people may not want to think as deeply into the fundamental importance behind a day of “giving thanks” beyond just eating what’s in front of them. But once learning the principles at play behind William Bradford’s recount of the early years of Plymouth Colony, perhaps MORE people would choose to be thankful that they are a part of a more capitalistic economic system that incentivizes strength, self interest, and all the primary and ancillary rewards that result.
And for those who may not be as poised to take advantage of this capitalistic system driven by self interest as others in the same system, even they can still thankful to be a secondary or tertiary beneficiary of those do make use of the incentive of self interest.