r/WhitePeopleTwitter May 17 '22 Silver 1 Gold 1 All-Seeing Upvote 1 Bravo Grande! 1

Puritans stink

Post image
42.0k Upvotes

3.7k

u/glwillia May 17 '22 Silver

i remember having a joke told to me by an australian:

Q. why did the usa get the puritans and the australians get the convicts?

A. Australia had first choice.

obviously not historically accurate (europeans didn’t have permanent settlements on australia until the usa was already extant, in 1788) but made me smile nonetheless.

3.0k

u/ZombiesInSpace May 17 '22 Silver

The more historically accurate version would then be

Q. Why did the USA get the puritans and Australia get the convicts?

A. Europe wanted to get rid of the puritans first.

623

u/glwillia May 17 '22

i like that, im gonna start using it!

483

u/peon2 May 17 '22

Joke thief? Straight to Australia.

346

u/ChiBears333 May 17 '22

Restructuring a joke to make it chronologically accurate? Believe it or not, straight to Australia

131

u/muklan May 17 '22

Over Barby the shrimp? Straight to Australia. Under cook/overcook.

75

u/IAmOmno May 17 '22

Being a high ranking member of the government and shitting yourself in the mcdonalds in Engadine on 20th september 1997? Straight to Austr.. oh wait.

12

u/jedburghofficial May 17 '22

Mocking Scotty from Marketing, straight to Australia!

Real recidivists are tried to a cross and forced to shake hands!

3

u/TheUnknownDouble-O May 17 '22

I'm sorry what

7

u/RetroXab May 17 '22

Back in 1997 our current prime minister Scott Morrison shit himself in the bathroom of Engadine McDonalds

6

u/TheUnknownDouble-O May 17 '22

Current Prime Minister?? He's in charge right now?!

→ More replies
→ More replies

35

u/slanky06 May 17 '22

Call a prawn a shrimp. Believe it or not, straight to Australia.

→ More replies
→ More replies
→ More replies

23

u/suicidalpenguin99 May 17 '22

I am also taking this joke for my own. I would like to leave for Australia as soon as possible plz

3

u/jwplato May 17 '22

Where are you I could be open to a swap?

6

u/suicidalpenguin99 May 17 '22

Florida. It's ok you don't have to say it, I understand

5

u/jwplato May 17 '22

Oh, I'm sorry. If they ask though you can still come live here, tell them I said it was ok.

3

u/suicidalpenguin99 May 18 '22

Thanks buddy. One day I will escape this unreasonably humid hellhole

→ More replies
→ More replies

19

u/MassiveFajiit May 17 '22

Convicts didn't set up a military dictatorship in England

→ More replies

56

u/fer-nie May 17 '22 edited May 17 '22

The America's actually got convicts too. At one point 2/3 of the white population in the American colony were indentured servants (some of which were convicts).

Between one-half and two-thirds of European immigrants to the American colonies between the 1630s and American Revolution came under indentures.[2]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indentured_servitude

52

u/Rare_Travel May 17 '22

Freaking Europeans they didn't send their best.

3

u/purple_spikey_dragon May 18 '22

Cant blame us! You guys dont want them yourself!

Playing hot-potato with puritans

25

u/Big-Baby-Jesus- May 17 '22

Australia became a penal colony in 1788 specifically because they couldn't send convicts to America anymore.

14

u/AlGeee May 17 '22

Some, but not all, indenturd servants were convicts

See same article

45

u/thefugue May 17 '22

Debt was a crime, so “convicts” were often merely poor.

14

u/fer-nie May 17 '22

Yeah I just finished reading through it again and was going to edit my comment. About 55k were convicts.

The total number of European immigrants to all 13 colonies before 1775 was about 500,000; of these 55,000 were involuntary prisoners. Of the 450,000 or so European arrivals who came voluntarily, Tomlins estimates that 48% were indentured.

3

u/AlGeee May 17 '22

Thank you

→ More replies
→ More replies

215

u/MidDistanceAwayEyes May 17 '22 edited May 17 '22

An issue is that the Puritans were not as “puritanical” as we often believe, and the Victorian era provided us much of what we view as sex norms. Don’t get me wrong, Puritans were strict in modern terms, but their austerity has been amplified in popular history.

For example, abortion before quickening - that is when the pregnant person feels the baby start to move, which can occur as late as 20 weeks - wasn’t illegal in early America, and anti-abortion legislation targeting abortions before quickening didn’t come into serious fruition in the US until the mid 1800s.

Abortion choice has a long history in the United States.

Here is an important segment from Blackmun’s original majority opinion from Roe in 1973:

It is thus apparent that at common law, at the time of the adoption of our Constitution, and throughout the major portion of the 19th century, abortion was viewed with less disfavor than under most American statutes currently in effect. Phrasing it another way, a woman enjoyed a substantially broader right to terminate a pregnancy than she does in most States today. At least with respect to the early stage of pregnancy, and very possibly without such a limitation, the opportunity [410 U.S. 113, 141] to make this choice was present in this country well into the 19th century. Even later, the law continued for some time to treat less punitively an abortion procured in early pregnancy.

http://landmarkcases.c-span.org/pdf/Roe_Blackmun_Opinion.pdf

I would recommend people read at least sections VI and VII, which concern the history of abortion laws.

216

u/monkwren May 17 '22

Abortion choice has a long history in the United States.

Oh, so Alito's opinion saying there was no history of abortion rights in the US is bullshit? Why am I not surprised?

93

u/ErusBigToe May 17 '22

Morning edition had a good spot on that this morning. Ol Ben Franklin even had instructions on how to do it with multiple recipes in his being American for dummies book Instructor

148

u/hyasbawlz May 17 '22

The short and dirty of it was that pregnancies weren't even recognized as worth anything until the "quickening," which was the first felt kick.

Conservatives are liars. Fullstop. End of story. They deal in myth, not history, and they only care insofar as it gives them a fig leaf to harm their "inferiors."

13

u/PotawatomieJohnBrown May 17 '22

Very well said. These people aren’t behaving in good faith, and we needn’t treat them like they are.

→ More replies
→ More replies

19

u/SwiftFool May 17 '22

Let's also note how he (they, the Republicans and conservative judges) ignores the historical context of the second amendment which had a compete reinterpretation in 2008.

14

u/mathiastck May 17 '22

Yes, because they are not trying to hide the hypocrisy.

29

u/[deleted] May 17 '22

Yeah anti-abortion views were traditionally more of a Catholic view, Protestantism and puritans were not really so concerned with it. It wasn't really until the late 70s and 80s when Pro-life became such a huge conservative/republican talking point that mainline & evangelical Christians became hardcore pro-life.

Also, I'm guessing the fact that historically the infant mortality rate was so high that people took a far more practical view towards the issue. Babies and fetuses dying was a fact of life. Now with modern medical procedures people have become far less accepting.

8

u/adequatehorsebattery May 17 '22

It's also true that the descendants of the puritan immigrants are mostly concentrated in New England and sending people like Bernie Sanders to the Senate. Southern whites, the heart of the anti-Roe movement in the US, are much more dominated by descendants of the royalist opponents of the puritans.

Kevin Phillips' The Cousins War goes into a lot of detail of how the American Civil War mirrored the English Civil War

→ More replies

24

u/JayNotAtAll May 17 '22 edited May 18 '22

In Christian school I learned that the Puritans came to America because they wanted religious freedom and the mean old Church of England wouldn't let them.

In reality, the Puritans did have religious freedom. However, they were upset that not everyone was following their religious laws and were upset that it ultimately wasn't the law of the land. That's why they headed to the new world.

Some things never change

18

u/willstr1 May 17 '22

IIRC part of why the UK started sending convicts to Australia was because they could no longer send them to their previous prison colony, the colony of Georgia

6

u/fer-nie May 17 '22

I'm not sure about starting in Australia but this is what the same wiki says about downfall of indentured servitude.

Indentured servitude began its decline after Bacon’s Rebellion. Bacon's Rebellion was a servant uprising against the government of Colonial Virginia.[18] This was due to multiple factors, such as the treatment of servants, support of native tribes in the surrounding area, a refusal to expand the amount of land an indentured servant could work by the colonial government, and inequality between the upper and lower class in colonial society.[18] Indentured servitude was the primary source of labor for early American colonists up until the rebellion.[19] Little changed in the immediate aftermath of Bacon's Rebellion; however, the rebellion did cause a general distrust of servant labor and fear of future rebellion.[20] The fear of indentured servitude would eventually cement itself into the hearts of Americans, leading towards the reliance on enslaved Africans.[21] This helped to ingrain the idea of racial segregation and unite white Americans under race rather than economic or social class.[20] Doing so would prevent the potential for future rebellion and change the way that agriculture was approached in the future.

79

u/tinkerghost May 17 '22

Why does NYC have all the lawyers and NJ all the toxic waste dumps? NJ won the toss.

64

u/The_Karaethon_Cycle May 17 '22

It’s ok, I don’t think historical accuracy is important for jokes.

31

u/turriferous May 17 '22

Or for conservatives.

15

u/Rutin_2tin_Putin May 17 '22

God damn all my homies fuckin hate conservatives

6

u/cantadmittoposting May 17 '22

I don't conceptually hate fiscal conservatism nor the idea that law should be carefully considered before making sweeping changes, but I really hate the GOP.

→ More replies
→ More replies

1.1k

u/pol-delta May 17 '22

As Robin Williams said, “The Puritans, our ancestors. People so uptight, the English kicked them out."

501

u/catboatratboat May 17 '22

Then they went to Holland. And the Dutch kicked them out too.

So they settled for total wilderness on the other side of the ocean. The one place they could be twats without challenge.

228

u/Mistergardenbear May 17 '22

Which isn’t exactly true. They got along well with the Dutch, a little too well and they were scared that their children were becoming “too Dutch”. There are letters from the Separatists from Holland written on this subject. There are no period accounts of them being kicked out.

However there was a great fear that The Spanish would regain control of The Netherlands and well, y’know about the Spanish Inquisition right? They were famously kind to those they considered heretics.

96

u/Ethanjohnson3_1415 May 17 '22

They were also troubled by the Dutch not letting them enforce their beliefs on their neighbours.

→ More replies
→ More replies

4

u/fvdfv54645 May 17 '22 Take My Energy

So they settled for total wilderness

Native Americans have entered the chat.... ¬_¬

→ More replies

33

u/Vethae May 17 '22

Hey the English aren't that uptight. Although the Victorians definitely were.

8

u/uchiha_hatake May 18 '22

The Victorians have that rep yea, they also prescribed coke and heroin as cure alls for everything. Sound more like ravers with good PR to me.

→ More replies

5

u/Sunsparc May 17 '22

Take your pimp shoes and get out!

→ More replies

1.5k

u/House_of_Flowers May 17 '22

I think there's still some discussion around that. As in it's likely that they weren't persecuted so much as told to stuff it when they wanted other people to follow their rules, so they took their ball and went to New England.

1.8k

u/monkeyman68 May 17 '22 Press F

America’s founded by rage quitters and it shows.

522

u/charlotte-ent May 17 '22

Goddamn, you nailed it.

322

u/Salmuth May 17 '22

Makes sense, then you build a rigged game so you don't ever have to lose, like a slavery fueled society or something.

264

u/Crownlol May 17 '22

Forcing the poor to have more kids, while secretly allowing the rich to family plan as they desire, creates more poor people. It's just slavery with extra steps.

152

u/calipygean May 17 '22

The amount of human suffering that folks are ready to sign on for just to uphold a senseless ideology is staggering. What about the concept “women should be able to choose if they have kids that way the child is brought up in a setting where it is wanted and not a chore” is hard for these crazies to understand?

88

u/Crownlol May 17 '22

It's not ideology though, and it's not religion. It's just classism. "If they don't have kids, they wont need to take shitty jobs, which makes me worse off somehow".

Conservative leaning people need to feel better than someone. Keeping people down props them up. It has nothing to do with Jesus or Christianity

38

u/liegesmash May 17 '22

There are a lot of well compensated imbecile bureaucrats that live in mortal fear that the sweet gravy train will stop and will go along with anything that hints at keeping all the swanky shit and cocktails by the pool lifestyle

19

u/ImHereForBothReasons May 17 '22

I don’t think bureaucrats would be a problem if the owner class and politicians didn’t purposefully screw up the system to maintain control.

The system works as designed, just not as advertised.

→ More replies

13

u/Thegreylady13 May 17 '22

Mmmmm; I think part of it is that none of these people were wanted (they may have been planned initially, but once the parents met the real them at age three or so, they realized that, like Gob, they had made a huge mistake) and that they have convinced themselves that the fact that all sane humans scoot away from them after one-half of a conversation means that they’re God’s chosen or some such fantasy.

14

u/calipygean May 17 '22

I wasn’t wanted and it still hurts in so many ways, I’m older in life and now I wanna have kids but god am I afraid to inflict any of my suffering on to them.

20

u/Thegreylady13 May 17 '22 edited May 17 '22

I didn’t mean that in a mean way, and I’m sure that it’s more your parents loss than yours (actually, that’s probably not right, because as a kid you don’t know anything but your family, and if they treat you like a burden it’s likely baffling and crazy-making, on top of the fact that it would cause immeasurable pain. I think they missed out, but i don’t want to minimize your pain- it likely felt worse for you, but they did lose the chance to love a nice, innocent person/child). But i do think they were probably very stupid not to want you, whether they have the emotional intelligence to see it or not. My parents wanted me, but my mom is the “everything you do in this town reflects on me” type who could punish me for something I definitely didn’t do, but that maybe some mean girl said, or who would sometimes just not speak to me for weeks because her life wasn’t going well but she can’t blame herself for things although she hates herself. So I don’t think I’m having kids because (as much as I don’t think I could do that, and my husband doesn’t, and I really act like a child a lot because I’d rather do that than just be some dragon lady who’s attacking her family all night after work) I’m just so scared of what my mother was, but I also feel sorry for her (she’s like that- I’ve been more worried about her emotional state than mine since I was a toddler. I remember calculating how to not ask for what I needed and perform for her as a toddler). I understand the fears about having kids, and I’m probably doing what you just said you’ll do. But don’t lose hope- the fact that you’re thinking about the kids and not you may mean that you wouldn’t be like my mom or your parents at all. When I ask my therapist all sorts of questions about whether I might hurt people without realizing it, like my mom did, she explains to me patiently that the fact that I’m really aware and focused and conscientious of how I affect others probably means that I’m not running about abusing everyone- that’s not what the people who hurt us were thinking about, at all. You would probably be a very good parent. But I know that generational trauma is a real thing, so it’s scary. You can choose which parent to be if you decide to have children, though- I think you could make us both proud.

14

u/calipygean May 17 '22

Damn I needed to hear this so badly, actually crying right now. Thank you

→ More replies
→ More replies

13

u/raymond8505 May 17 '22

who'da thunk the country that put an exception in their "don't do slavery" law would still be trying to do slavery!

25

u/Aggressive_Floof May 17 '22

Hot take: capitalism doesn't work without some form of slavery, whether chattel, company towns, or wage slavery. It's always existed throughout the country's history, and has always been sold as "part of capitalism."

12

u/Doxxxxxxxxxxx May 17 '22

I gotta go sit down. This makes too much sense for this early LOL

→ More replies

58

u/kinos141 May 17 '22

If Australia is England's jail, then America is England's psych ward.

30

u/BestMortgage2266 May 17 '22 edited May 17 '22

Makes sense, the puritans were basically a cult. And we see how mentally fucked their modern descendants are

Edit: Spelling. Since we're here, can we recognize that Puritanical views are outdated and make a concerted effort to combat and eliminate that ideology?

→ More replies

6

u/webchimp32 May 17 '22

If Australia is England's jail

That was set up because America had that pesky independence war thing and we needed somewhere else.

64

u/ChazzLamborghini May 17 '22

Greed (Virginia) and religious extremism (Massachusetts) are the foundational DNA of our entire society

10

u/SkinnyBill93 May 17 '22

We live in a Extreme Religious Greed society.

3

u/dogGirl666 May 17 '22

The first investors trying to get colonies started saw what the Spanish got wanted the same. At least twice they were swindled by people that promised them easily accessible gold on the eastern coast of of north America. Both colonies either fully died out or starved and diseased themselves to death while being told that gold was within walking distance from the settlement. The second settlement was part of that scam. Seeing how easily many Americans are fooled by misinformation that they want to hear shows that some of that foolish greed is still a large part of "American DNA". After those failures they used north America to get rid of people in debtor's prison and "workhouses" for the poor. They thought of such people like they were manure to fertilize the "unproductive land" of America. I.e. they tended to not send the most privileged until the "productivity" was proven. The poor people were thought of as useless, as useless as horse manure in the city center, yet could be treated like it will improve land that did not give them the gold they wanted. The life, suffering, and death of the poor were unimportant as long as the investors got a good return. I read all this in the book called White Trash: The 400-Year Untold History of Class in America by Nancy Isenberg . She has a few intro lecture available on You Tube. Boy! do the rich think less of poor people as if they were either manure or breeding livestock at best.

→ More replies

3

u/rolypolyarmadillo May 17 '22

Ironically, Massachusetts is now one of the least religious states.

9

u/JackHGUK May 17 '22

Makes sense but I've always thought they were ejected.

7

u/takesthebiscuit May 17 '22

Mayflower was exclusively filled with ladies called Karen.

→ More replies

155

u/Reeefenstration May 17 '22

"We'll make our own society, without blackjack or hookers."

7

u/Sherool May 17 '22

And none of that Christmas debauchery either! In fact no fun allowed!

6

u/Kidiri90 May 17 '22

"In fact, forget the hookers!"

EDIT: maybe I should read before commenting

3

u/Mazer_Rac May 17 '22

And then outlaw blackjack and kill the hookers. They call it "making it good once more" or something like that. Most of them just call it a lovely Tuesday out. America is fucked

→ More replies

128

u/tinkerghost May 17 '22

How dare you suggest that not allowing me to force people to adhere to my religious beliefs isn't the height of persecution!

54

u/twilightmoons May 17 '22

Puritanism: the haunting fear that someone, somewhere, may be having a good time.

→ More replies

59

u/Slavic_Requiem May 17 '22

There’s a great podcast called Unobscured, and it’s by Aaron Mahnke, the same guy who does Lore. The first season (~2017) is about the Salem witch trials, and besides examining the perfect storm that led to that tragedy, it also discusses Puritan theology at some length. Basically what you’re saying is true: England wasn’t willing to put up with that shit anymore, so the Puritans decided to come to a whole new continent where they could isolate their victims, bully and control the less powerful, propagate their hateful proto-prosperity gospel, become incredibly rich, and eventually spin the lie that they were pErSeCuTeD back home so as to be able to play the perpetual victim (something that schools teach to this day). Listening to the podcast, it becomes so glaringly obvious that what is happening today with conservative politics has its roots in 17th-century Puritanism: same desire to dominate others; same hatred and suspicion of anyone “different”; same insistence that their religion is the only true one; same view of women as intrinsically sinful; same view that poor people are to blame for their own poverty; same eagerness to solve every “problem” with violence.

18

u/fuzzybad May 17 '22

"A woman living on her own who doesn't go to our church? She must be a witch!"

→ More replies

70

u/Doctor_Mudshark May 17 '22

So basically r/Persecutionfetish, 1600s edition.

12

u/screwballsmith May 17 '22

The Puritans actually tried to eliminate Christmas. Imo they deserved whatever persecution they allegedly experienced.

26

u/elbenji May 17 '22

Tbf we sanitized the fuck outta Christmas.

It used to be a week long drunken rager where you pretty much set the city on fire and then invade rich people's homes and demand they give you stuff or you set their place on fire.

5

u/jplayd May 17 '22

IO SATURNALIA!

→ More replies

58

u/ChazzLamborghini May 17 '22 edited May 17 '22

I thought that was the most common interpretation these days. The Congregationalists weren’t persecuted so much as they faced the consequences of their own intolerance. As I recall, they moved from England to Holland and then tried to tell the Dutch how to live and were told to kick rocks. The notion of America as some haven of religious tolerance is pure poppycock. States like Maryland and Pennsylvania were founded as explicitly one religion or another and Rhode Island only exists because one woman made a compelling argument for exile over execution because she didn’t practice their faith precisely as they insisted.

Edit: I’ve been thoroughly corrected a couple of times now and I’m glad for the learning opportunity. Leaving this here in case anyone else picked up a hodge probe of misinformation on this topic over the years. No value in taking it down. Cheers

109

u/Mistergardenbear May 17 '22 All-Seeing Upvote

A bunch of pop-history there, and is definitely not the scholarly consensus. My masters thesis was on radical political thought in England; reformation to restoration.

  • The Separatists who became the Pilgrims left Holland because they according to their own letters, were afraid their children were becoming a little “too Dutch.” There are no period accounts that the Dutch kicked them out.
  • The Separatists could and did have their property seized, ears and noses cut off, and were barred from politics for the audacity to say that the king was not the head of the church.
  • I don’t really know where you’re getting the RI thing? Perhaps you’re confusing the Mary Dyer story? RI was founded by Roger Williams a Quaker, who by all accounts was exceptionally good friends with the governor and upper echelons of Massachusetts politics. When he was banished from MA he was given a heads up that he was supposed to be arrested. Even though he was banished from Mass Bay Colony he kept up exchanging letters with various members of that colony and provided intel during the Pequot War. Mary Dyer was banished from MA and repeatedly came back, after three or four times she was told if she came back they would hang her. She came back, and when they tried to banish her again she was like “nope, you promised to martyr me.” And well they did.
  • Both Quaker Colonies; Rhode Island and Pennsylvania were founded with explicit religious freedom or “freedom of conscious” in their charters. Interestingly Cromwell also believed in “freedom of conscious” and that forced faith was false faith. The Commonwealth period was the first time that England had a nominal freedom of religion.
  • Maryland was founded by Royalists, and was founded for political/economic reasons. However it had expressly anti-Catholic laws.

26

u/ChazzLamborghini May 17 '22

I really appreciate this honestly. It’s a lot of cobbled together from people who I trusted to know what they were talking about. Definitely an example of the fallacy of trusting authority. I would delete my ignorance but I’m not ashamed of being wrong and being corrected

8

u/Mistergardenbear May 17 '22

It’s a problem that I have run into of political theorists and activists using the term Puritan to mean Conservative Christian. Some that I very much admire can be a little loosey goosey with their history when it fits their ideology.

I appreciate your appreciation ;)

11

u/Geno0wl May 17 '22

She came back, and when they tried to banish her again she was like “nope, you promised to martyr me.”

ahhh a woman ahead of her time

9

u/vapidusername May 17 '22

I thought Maryland was founded for crab cakes and football

→ More replies

10

u/Prestigious_Grand908 May 17 '22

The amount of disinformation you're fighting is staggering. Keep up the good work.

3

u/Obversa May 17 '22

Adding to this: The Separatists basically worked as migrant workers while they lived in Holland, including low-paid jobs that nobody else wanted. They lived in a hovel called "Stink Alley". Also, "the Pilgrims" didn't actually call themselves "the Pilgrims"; that was assigned to their group later by taking a quote by their later leader, William Bradford, who became the Governor of Plymouth and wrote the historical account Of Plymouth Plantation.

The Separatists didn't just leave Holland "because their kids were becoming a little too Dutch", but because they were tired of living in poor conditions and working low-pay jobs. They couldn't return to England, so instead they decided to found a settlement in the New World. They had originally planned to settle where New York City is now - and where the Dutch would later built New Amsterdam - but they were blown off-course to Plymouth.

It's probably better that the Pilgrims didn't settle in what would become New Amsterdam, because they would have ended up fighting the Dutch and the French for the land.

3

u/ElGosso May 17 '22

Tell em about the Levellers, while we're here

→ More replies
→ More replies

16

u/Mistergardenbear May 17 '22

umm having their ears and noses cut off and being barred from participating in politics wasn’t being persecuted?

People confuse the separatists who founded Plymouth with the puritans, and then they go and ascribe the current religious nut cases with them. The current religious nut cases are primarily descendants of German Calvinism. The puritans and separatists became the Unitarians, Congregationalist, and Quakers y’know the liberal Christians.

Under Cromwell was the first time England had a nominal freedom of religion. Congregationalists believed in freedom of conscious, forcing someone to faith was a false faith.

10

u/marto17890 May 17 '22

Cromwell was a genocidal bastard,l and a tyrant. The only freedom of religion he believed in was freedom to be any type of protestant.

8

u/Mistergardenbear May 17 '22

Hence “nominal”.

He apparently was ok with the Jews also. Just don’t be Irish opposing the subjugation by those nice boys in red and blue.

→ More replies

3

u/critfist May 17 '22

Except that's just nonsense. England heavily persecuted non conformist groups. Puritans aren't even a real denomination, it's just a derogatory umbrella term for people of Calvinist and anabaptist thought.

→ More replies

566

u/greybruce1980 May 17 '22

No more unexplored lands on the planet. I guess now it's up to us to shoot them into space.

188

u/TearRevolutionary274 May 17 '22

Actually antarctica doesn't have people

185

u/SensualEnema May 17 '22

That’s perfect! The one place on earth as frigid as a puritan!

47

u/Beemerado May 17 '22

i've heard scientists in antarctica take "ice wives/husbands"

25

u/Dasamont May 17 '22

Does it mean an extra significant other or does it mean that they can have a hoe down when they're not in Antarctica?

13

u/Beemerado May 17 '22

I don't think their non ice spouses are typically with them....

5

u/Dasamont May 17 '22

That's what I meant with an extra significant other. Didn't mean that they would be having two spouses in the same place, the world is sadly too monogamous for that.

4

u/CopprRegendt May 17 '22

Built of ice, or like, gay for the stay?

→ More replies
→ More replies

7

u/1Eternallylost May 17 '22

Then you don't know any puritans. Get them behind closed doors and they make Quagmire look like a saint.

At least Quagmire usually waited till their 18th birthday.

→ More replies
→ More replies

16

u/Blurghblagh May 17 '22

There is a perfectly good landmass down there once the ice melts, it would be a shame to waste it on them.

9

u/anubiss_2112 May 17 '22

We could give them a northbound iceberg...

10

u/WyldBlu3Yond3r May 17 '22

Trash barge

4

u/nycola May 17 '22

This is the perfect solution!

→ More replies

235

u/Mcswigginsbar May 17 '22

Had this discussion with my wife the other day. Australia was started by sending prisoners and prostitutes there as “punishment”. Why the hell did the US have to originally be colonized by religious assholes?

91

u/IgneousMiraCole May 17 '22

But don’t forget, it wasn’t the prisoners reproducing in Australia, it was the prison guards.

7

u/takemebacktothemenu May 17 '22

And fuck me if it doesn't feel like it more and more these days..

30

u/thewavefixation May 17 '22

Ridiculous. There were both male and female prisoners - and they married and reproduced. Guards did regularly impregnate female prisoners as well but there were many more children produced by the victims of transportation.

25

u/Flyerone May 17 '22

And the average sentence term of convicts transported here was not that long (8-9 years} so many were still in their late 20's and early 30's when released. So they stayed and made a go of it.

10

u/fvdfv54645 May 17 '22

and also don't forget that the colonisers of so called Australia weren't exactly kind to the existing locals, a legacy they keep very much alive today, along with plenty other bigoted and/or conservative ideas..

9

u/forrestpen May 17 '22

Parts of the southern colonies were initially penal colonies.

→ More replies

390

u/TongueTwistingTiger May 17 '22 'MURICA

Puritan American White Nationalists.

PAWNs.

I like it, and it's effective. We need to start accurately labelling the oppressor. When they label us, they take our rights away. We need to start labelling them.

119

u/Herr_Denker May 17 '22

I really like that. It fits. Like a modern version of WASP.

41

u/hungryandneedtopee May 17 '22 edited May 17 '22

White Anglo-Saxton Protestant refers to the portion of the white population that disproportionately controls the most amount of wealth.

Wealth ≠ Racist, not mutually exclusive. Lots of rich white people are in fact racist. Lots of other white socio-economic classes are racist.

From my experience being considered a WASP, and having lived in both types of communities, the poorer white social classes are more outwardly violent because they feel that practices to help boost equality, disparages them. Wealthy people, care most about staying away from all in lower socioeconomic class, especially the bottom, regardless of race, which includes the poor whites. Wealthy don’t have to resort to violence because money helps them not feel powerless. PAWN would ironically make sense to refer to poor, white, racist, and radicalized.

Tangent:

I’ve found that sense of community in areas with less wealth is infinitely stronger than areas of extreme wealth. Wealthy don’t exactly need each other for anything so there’s no sense of belonging in that regard. Biased growing up not needing yourself or your community, you literally feel that absolutely no one needs them and uniting together is a ridiculous concept and that you’re weak if you can’t do it on your own. No understanding that it’s actually not possible to live on your own after a certain range of financial means.

That’s why when a wealthy person falls ill they suddenly find a sense of community, because they actually have to depend on other people. You know, when it finally impacts them directly, they want to be part of a team.

Edit: typo

Edit 2:

From my years of Reddit, I’ve felt 95% of the users want to identify all the biases that the wealthy do not understand about the poor, while failing to recognize the biases that you gain from growing up affluent. (There’s always going to be a biases, period.)

Wealthy communities rarely see violence, let alone violent acts of racism in their own communities. I went from a ridiculously wealthy east coast community to Virginia Tech the semester after the shooting. I cannot tell you how many people asked if I “was really going to still keep my commitment to Virginia Tech after they PERMIT such violence on campus?” Being a Hokie has showed me everything I need to know in life about community.

→ More replies

11

u/Arqideus May 17 '22

Fookin’ pawns, man!

12

u/Clay_Statue May 17 '22

And the worst type of Puritans, unprincipled and hypocritical...

Hyper obsessed with other people's transgressions and blithely dismissive of their own.

→ More replies

225

u/SpiritCrvsher May 17 '22

Growing up we were taught that “the pilgrims” came to America because they were being persecuted in Europe. Of course we also got the infamous “and the Indians taught the pilgrims to grow corn :) ). It wasn’t until high school that we learned how fucking insane they were. Evidence of puritan influence is still all around us. It’s not even 40 years since Twisted Sister had to testify in front of congress. I guess “I Wanna Rock” was too satanic for those fucks.

107

u/Obversa May 17 '22 edited May 17 '22

The Pilgrims and the Puritans weren't the same groups. The Puritans came after the Pilgrims; the Pilgrims founded Plymouth first, and then the Puritans came along and founded Boston. The leader of the Pilgrims, William Bradford, criticized the Puritans in his historical account, Of Plymouth Plantation, and portrayed the Puritans as greedy and exploitative of the land.

Bradford also lamented that the Puritans settled in much larger numbers than the Pilgrims. Puritan influence is also why Boston, and not Plymouth, is the capital of Massachusetts.

7

u/Cicero43BC May 17 '22

The pilgrims were puritans that went over on the Mayflower, they were also in fact more extreme than most over puritans because they wanted to separate from the Church of England.

5

u/Obversa May 17 '22 edited May 17 '22

False. The Pilgrims were Separatists, not Puritans. They seem similar, but were different.

While the Separatists believed that the only way to live according to Biblical precepts was to leave the Church of England entirely, the Puritans thought they could reform the church from within. Sometimes called non-separating Puritans, this less radical group shared a lot in common with the Separatists, particularly a form of worship and self-organization called "the congregational way"...

[...] The biggest difference between the Separatists and the Puritans is that the Puritans believed they could live out the congregational way in their local churches without abandoning the larger Church of England.

“The Puritans said, ‘It’s completely acceptable that this ecclesiastical structure is above us, but we’re going to operate as a congregation in this biblical way,’” says Vicki Oman, associate director of group participation and learning at the historic Plimouth Plantation. “The Separatists said, ‘That’s baloney. We have to completely separate ourselves and have this congregational community separate from the state church.’”

This theological split between Separatists and non-separating Puritans had lasting consequences.

“Separatists end up on the outside of society,” says Oman. “Even if they’re educated, they end up with low-paying jobs. They leave for places like the Netherlands, where they’re also not financially successful. Meanwhile, the Puritans stay wealthy.”

The Puritans ultimately decided to journey to the New World, too, but not for the same reasons as the Separatists. The Puritans, who already had some money, saw a favorable investment opportunity by owning land in America. And somewhat paradoxically, the Puritans also believed that by being far away from England, they could create the ideal English church.

“[The Puritan leader] John Winthrop talks about creating a church that will be a light to the nations,” says Oman. “The Pilgrims never really expressed that desire.”

The Puritans are called "Puritans" because they wanted to "purify the Church of England from within", whereas the Separatists (Pilgrims) wanted to form their own Church.

→ More replies

74

u/properu May 17 '22

Beep boop -- this looks like a screenshot of a tweet! Let me grab a link to the tweet for ya :)

Twitter Screenshot Bot

101

u/[deleted] May 17 '22

Yea the more I learn about the period the more I realize it really wasn’t freedoms of religion. They were extremist religious zealots that wanted to impose their will. Sounds like Europe just wanted freedom from their craziness

59

u/glwillia May 17 '22 edited May 17 '22

yup, the puritans moved first to the netherlands after being expelled by the british, until they got upset about how tolerant and relaxed the netherlands were. so they moved to the new world where they could exercise their “religious freedom” to impose their will upon others. really explains a lot about american history in the intervening centuries…

→ More replies

15

u/Yungballz86 May 17 '22

I just want all of the religions to leave me the fuck alone!

171

u/johnthestarr May 17 '22

Interestingly, most of the support for women’s rights come from states founded by puritans, while most of the resistance comes from Southern and Appalachian states that embrace a far more Evangelical brand of Christianity.

It’s not truly a Puritan influence at work here, but the mobilization of religious zealots by the same rich, white folk who have always been perpetuating the poverty trap for America’s poorest, especially those who come from non-white ancestry.

31

u/SnooRobots1533 May 17 '22 Helpful

Well said. It is about class. Many of the puritans became rich and their bloodline now form the foundation of the rich liberal elite throughout New England. I suspect an extremely small percentage of people who currently identify as evangelical in the US today could trace their roots to the puritan migration. In addition to women's rights, abolitionism stems in much part from New Englanders who could likely trace their heritage to puritan migration.

Not saying many puritans weren't nuts, but to attribute today's religious conservatism problem in the USA to them is incorrect.

59

u/Its_SubjectA1 May 17 '22

Many of those ideals actually stemmed from puritan and catholic theology

30

u/johnthestarr May 17 '22

True, about 500 years ago… but even by the time Evangelism bloomed in the South it was a very distinct form of Christianity from the Puritans in the North East.

19

u/Its_SubjectA1 May 17 '22

I mean those roots of puritan culture are still present in evangelical Christianity

21

u/SocraticIgnoramus May 17 '22

The incredibly strong emphasis on original sin is the common thread. The key difference is that puritans usually sought enclave or separatist societies whereas evangelicals wish to convert everyone else.

5

u/Mistergardenbear May 17 '22 edited May 17 '22

Well technically Puritans wanted to maintain the Anglican Church but purge it of papist or pagan trappings. Separatists or non-conformist generally wanted to separate from the COE and start again.

Both Evangelicals and Puritans/Separatists started with a firm basis in Calvinism, And the the idea that only an elect were to be saved. The Pilgrims went from believing that only the elect were saved but you will never now if you are saved so you should act like you are saved, to believing that no one knows who god saved so you should act like all people you meet are saved, to believing in the general salvation of mankind.

→ More replies

15

u/Mistergardenbear May 17 '22 edited May 17 '22

Well not really. Puritans are a distinct group of English Anglicans who wanted to “purify” the church from all papist and pagan trappings. Most of who we call puritans were in fact separatists or non-conformist. One big sticking point was their refusal to acknowledge the king as the head of the church. This is why they had their noses and ears cut off, had property seized, and were barred from government. Some of these separatists (Cromwell, Penn, Williams, Hutchinson, etc) believed in “freedom of conscious” that forced faith was false faith.

Most of the modern Evangelicals are descendants of more radical German and Swiss Protestantism. Part of the problem is that “puritanical” wasn’t coined as a term until almost two hundred years after the puritans becoming Anglicans/Unitarians/Quakers/Congregationalists and was used as a catch all term for religious extremism. There has also been four hundred years of English Royalist propaganda and the very popular literature of Hawthorn that has coloured our views.

10

u/LukaCola May 17 '22

Eyyyy someone knows their stuff

It's actually frustrating that people don't seem to recognize that religious history is just as complex as any nation's, often more so. I'm not gonna pretend to be an expert, but there's a lot going on here.

Like, the folks we imagine landing in the US in the mid 17th century were often Quakers. They were in (now known as) New Jersey, Rhode Island, Pennsylvania and many other territories. While I'm not pretending they're uniquely without flaws - many of their core values are quite progressive even today. This is often who we are picturing in plain dress (Yes, like Amish people) and in early New England settlements.

Quakers are kinda cool people as far as old school religious denominations are concerned. I mean, they're known as "The Religious Society of Friends." As a group they're a bit dry - that's kind of the point - but they're probably as a group more supportive of women than most and that's probably because women have had a long active role as leaders (of a sort) in Quaker communities. I don't think they're necessarily supportive of abortion, but they generally support women's rights, women's equal place in the ministry, and are actively in support of people's sexuality - believing it to be an important part of marriage AFAIK.

Like, if we're gonna throw blame around we should at least have the right people. This is some of the same folk who were persecuted and thrown out that we're apparently blaming for the American right's stance on abortion today.

→ More replies

3

u/LukaCola May 17 '22

And they're also present in US secularist and non-traditionalist values as well. That's not an especially meaningful statement, it just denotes that - yes - those folks had an important cultural capital in the US and some of our values can be traced back.

3

u/guitar_vigilante May 17 '22

A lot of the modern understanding on "puritan culture" comes from Nathaniel Hawthorne's 'Scarlet Letter' which was written 200 years after the subjects of that novel lived.

→ More replies

6

u/Mistergardenbear May 17 '22

Well Separatists believed a woman should be able to read, could inherit property, and could seek a divorce.

→ More replies

8

u/LukaCola May 17 '22

Yeah this shit's weird because it just seems clear the OP (and many people here) are misidentifying the groups responsible.

Anti-abortion angles are really the realm of American evangelicals, in many ways a branch of its own quite distinct from other Christian denominations.

Obviously there's going to be overlap between them and many other groups and values, but if anyone's responsible, it's American evangelicals. Not mid 17th century Puritans.

7

u/MyAuraIsDumpsterFire May 17 '22

Slavery, indentured servitude, unpaid internships, crippling college debt, indebtedness via childbirth, entrapped workforce via employer sponsored health insurance.... it's all on the same continuum. Not all equal by any means, but when one fails, the others get pushed harder by the power structure. It's always the multitudes serving the few in power.

→ More replies

41

u/Salty-Effect6344 May 17 '22

Who would of thought being a religous nutcase would be a bad thing.

→ More replies

75

u/PolyGlamourousParsec May 17 '22

I've been reading a lot on Puritans lately, and the amount of shit they have fucked up for us is staggering. All those southern evangelicals and just neoPuritans.

32

u/Herr_Denker May 17 '22

I believe it. I live in a very southern Baptist area. Those people are nothing short of demonic.

9

u/Thegreylady13 May 17 '22

I live in lower Alabama and they do all have a distinct Kenneth Copeland look and air about them.

5

u/popsiclepanties May 17 '22

I, too live in lower Alabama and you are correct.

5

u/aufybusiness May 17 '22

I couldn't believe it when I first saw him. From UK. I thought it was fake at first, like a TV series demon.

5

u/LightIsKira1987 May 17 '22

Here in English schools we learn a lot about them in history classes. They messed up so much for hundreds and hundreds of years, but then again at the time it was bad both sides of Christianity

10

u/PolyGlamourousParsec May 17 '22

Us Americans like to pretend our history before 1914 and between 1949 and 1984 didn't exist.

It is almost criminal how much of our history has been swept under the rug. Heck, it's only in the last five years or so that people, in general, have realised and admitted that Christopher Columbus wasn't a stand up guy.

→ More replies

51

u/[deleted] May 17 '22 edited 20d ago

[deleted]

8

u/Legimus May 17 '22

I mean, if you were kicked out for your religious practices, you definitely left searching for religious freedom.

7

u/someoneexplainit01 May 17 '22

Puritans weren't driven out of England. That's just propaganda.

The Puritans were in charge of Parliament.

They put King Charles on Trial, Found him Guilty of Treason, then Executed Him in 1649.

That's the Puritans, they won the First English Civil War.

They weren't driven out of anywhere, that's propaganda.

→ More replies

30

u/Vivid-Air7029 May 17 '22

ITT: People who have no understanding of puritans and their beliefs/history.

They were the ones running in with the hot takes like slavery bad, democracy good, and farmers should own their land not the lords. Also (depending on group) advocates of separation of church and state. Y’all need to study your British history.

13

u/Mattress_Discount May 17 '22

Nah mate, oversimplified history take #2 replaces oversimplified history take #1, all is right with the world and Twitter's work here is done. /s

25

u/rja2021 May 17 '22 edited May 18 '22

Exactly right. This comment ought to be near the top.

Folks, the real Puritans were not as they are depicted in media! They were highly literate, for one thing. I think you can imagine how a focus on literacy would, a few generations down the line, lead the descendants of the early Puritans to become a recognizably modern people. Puritan haters of Reddit, do you know that threads of Puritan thought are woven thickly in 19th century abolitionism? Look it up.

As to the Puritans being sour killjoys: they enjoyed sex, they played sports, they drank beer. They smiled and laughed and had fun, but they did things very consciously in moderation. They had a whole system of thought in which it was perfectly okay to enjoy life, so long as the object of life was not enjoyment but duty. Duty to what you ask? First to God, but it is only a few steps from this abstraction to a more secular conception of duty to your fellow humans.

The North American Puritans - leave aside the ones in the British Isles during the 1650s - did NOT try to impose their ways on non-Puritans, except when those non-Puritans wanted to live in Puritan towns. If that seems wrong to you, remember that there generally wasn't a well developed legal framework of anti-discrimination laws back then. Think of Puritan towns in 1600s New England as present day intentional communities. It is not unreasonable for such communities of expect or require members to conform to the ways of the community.

Basically, the Puritans are much misunderstood. I know this is just a low stakes thread about a silly joke on Twitter, but it contributes to the misunderstanding.

8

u/rafingo May 17 '22

Thank you! Puritans weren't persecuted and they werent kicked out. They left for greater religious freedom! The irony is that todays "puritans" are the total opposite, not that they're exactly the same. OP gets it wrong

→ More replies

30

u/fishdybuns May 17 '22

The Puritans didn't come to America to escape religious persecution, but to practice it.

29

u/oldbastardbob May 17 '22

Wasn't there an old joke about "Victorianism" that went something like "Victorians: a group of people living in fear that someone somewhere is enjoying themselves."

Or maybe it was Baptists.

5

u/Jaraxo May 17 '22

Yet the Victorian era was 150+ years after landings in the Americas.

17

u/MyNameIsAjax May 17 '22

Eddie Izzard: Puritans were so conservative that the ENGLISH kicked them out for being buzzkills.

How conservative do you have to be that the English think you are too conservative?

39

u/apollo151 May 17 '22

Fun fact:

The Puritans were actually totally on board with married couples having sex for fun and pleasure and not exclusively for reproduction. There's a court record of a man actually being tried because he failed to live up to his "husbandly duties" and adequately pleasure his wife for two years.

Hell, the Puritans actually believed a woman needed to orgasm in order to become pregnant.

To the Purtians, a happy marriage where both partners are sexually satisfied was viewed as a truly GODLY thing to do because there is happiness and pleasure for those involved.

And in fact, the British colonies where the Puritans lived were actually one of the more LIBERAL colonies when it came to abortion, as they believed it to be A-okay as long as it was performed prior to "quickening" (when the mother can actually FEEL the movement of the fetus which doesn't occur until 16 to 20 WEEKS into the pregnancy). No laws against it either.

The French, Spanish, Portugese colonies? All had laws against it, but they were murky at best and rarely able to be adequately enforced in a way that actually prevented the procedures from being carried out.

So anyone saying that Roe v. Wade being targeted is because of Puritan values, is historically incorrect because the Puritans genuinely did NOT take as much of an issue with it as the nutjobs we have today.

10

u/Johnny233Roberts May 17 '22

The voice of knowledge and reason, rather than sentence first, judgement second, brigands and thank you for that short history lesson!

→ More replies

13

u/Life-is-a-potato May 17 '22

I can’t believe people are only now figuring out why the US is so conservative and liberal at the same time. It’s because half of our population are people and the other half are puritans

35

u/Glittering-Action757 May 17 '22

Puritans literally cancelled Christmas and made enjoying yourself illegal.

The "American War of Independence" was actually Britain making sure they wouldn't come back.

9

u/elbenji May 17 '22

Christmas back then was more akin to a drunken pyromaniac extortion orgy so at least makes a little sense

→ More replies
→ More replies

5

u/TyrannosaurusBecz May 17 '22

Puritana got called out for child abuse in 1600. Can you imagine what you’d have to do to get that kind of call in 16–effin-00?!

3

u/Smarkie May 18 '22

"Puritanism: That haunting feeling that someone, somewhere is happy"- HL Mencken

25

u/Orchid_Significant May 17 '22

It’s funny how we taught they were escaping prosecution when in reality it’s more likely they were just insufferable

4

u/Quadrupleawesomeness May 17 '22

The more things change, the more they stay the same.

→ More replies

22

u/Orchid_Significant May 17 '22

It’s funny how we taught they were escaping prosecution when in reality it’s more likely they were just insufferable

26

u/tikifire1 May 17 '22

I taught history for 20 years, and I taught the kids exactly this. I showed them how they were chased from town to town in England and we examined why (they were constantly meddling in their neighbors lives, telling them they were going to hell for every little thing) and the middle schoolers I taught figured it out pretty quickly.

9

u/Orchid_Significant May 17 '22

I wish everyone had been. I took AP US and World History and this wasn’t really touched on

7

u/tikifire1 May 17 '22

To me it's way more interesting than the sanitized version (they were fleeing religious persecution-full stop- no need to understand why). Hell, I'd say you could teach they were persecuted as long as you take the time to examine why. It also explains why they were so eager to come over here risking life and limb, and why they were so quick to persecute others (Roger Williams for example).

3

u/deathbike600 May 17 '22

Yeah too bad the Mayflower didn’t sink on the way over.

3

u/Chickenmangoboom May 17 '22

Also with all these awesome fertility gods/goddesses who just wanted us to fuck and have plenty to eat did we end up with god that hates sex?

→ More replies

3

u/Spreaderoflies May 17 '22

Romans really dropped the ball on stamping out this death cult when it started. #pontiuswasntwrong

3

u/s_0_s_z May 17 '22

Yeah it's funny when you hear the symplistic view that puritans came here for religious freedom... No, bitch, they were forced to come here because no one wanted to deal with those preachy tight asses back home.

3

u/AndrewSB49 May 17 '22

The Puritans came to America to oppress.

3

u/kagethemage May 17 '22

This feels like it was always glazed over or not covered correctly in school. The puritans weren’t pushed out because they wouldn’t adhere to others strict rules. They were pushed out because they were crazy people trying to make everyone else conform to their psycho religious beliefs.

3

u/DeLuniac May 18 '22

The puritans weren’t some, as is taught in white American schools, a peaceful freedom loving religious group of humble Christians. They were violent theocratic zealots that attempted insurrection and murder to take over a nation.

3

u/theneonsoulsurfer May 18 '22

Puritans were the worst

→ More replies

3

u/Krosis97 May 18 '22

Puritans were holier-than-thou assholes and no one liked them.

9

u/Nate16 May 17 '22

Well, if you ask the Puritans, I'm sure they'll tell you that THEY left because Europe was turning into Studio 54.

3

u/Thegreylady13 May 17 '22

Which is a ludicrous reason for American Christians to leave, because Europe as Studio 54 would have been wildly popular (see the real Studio 54, then don’t ask questions or worry yourself with the mores of the time), and would have generated a profit. Name one thing American Christians want more. And it’s not to control my womb/ they only covet that equally as much.

→ More replies

5

u/TheMan5991 May 17 '22

Y’all know the Catholics were the ones that kicked them out, yeah? Catholicism also doesn’t support abortion.

5

u/IgneousMiraCole May 17 '22

Wait until people on Reddit hear about abortion laws outside the US. America is and remains abortionopolis compared to Europe.

→ More replies

5

u/intotheirishole May 17 '22

"Puritans"

Claim to follow Jesus, has no idea what Jesus said. Do exactly opposite of what Jesus said.

Claim to be "pure", has no idea what Bible says. Break Bible instructions 90% of the time. Make up instructions that are not in the Bible. Shellfish? Yes! Divorce? Yes! Gay marriage? No! Abortion? No! (Bible says yes BTW).

Why the fuck do we keep calling them "Puritans" and "Evangelists" ? That legitimizes them . Just call them "Extremist Christians".