wrote in message
...
The puritans, including the pilgrims, were, by our lights, pretty
unpleasant people. And certainly they became oppressive when they got
the chance in the New World. But they weren't, in general, into
oppressing anyone in England, for the simple reason they didn't have
the power.


Substitute "Charlie" for "Pilgrims" and you've got something closer to
reality.

Your observations are historically more accurate, but you must realize that
anything or any one with which Charlie does not agree, regardless of
accuracy, is subject to the most foul attacks. He can't seem to shed his
antiestablishment bias even in the face of fact.

I'm sure you're referring, in your "unpleasant" remark, to the "government
vs. individual" conflict which is as old as civilization. Only thing that
kept people alive in the early years was acting in concert, but this meant
the individual had to sacrifice some of themselves to gain the protection of
the group. The rules were clearly enunciated, more or less democratically
derived, and, by the standards of Europe, where hanging,drawing and
quartering were still employed, the consequences were often fairly minor.
Yet, as always, when an individual sees no personal gain in following the
standards of society -or diminished threat, something we often disregard -
he acts selfishly, sometimes attempting to destroy the order and process
which protected and protects him.

Do you think the Puritan settlers - for the Pilgrims were much different -
were any different than the intolerant elitists who are trying to overturn
the US elections? Read Calvinist sermons and then Jesse Jackson, and
there's not a lot of difference.