Thanksgiving can seem awfully disturbing to outsiders what with the knowledge of how the settlers eventually repaid those who saved them with genocide. (Even today, an alarming number of surviving Native Americans get persecuted - often being mistaken for being illegal immigrants, a cruel irony indeed.)
A Friar is a type of monk. A friar monk works within the community and relies on donations.A (non-friar) Monk would be in a closed order, in a self-sufficient community.
Bill’s reaction to ‘Samoset’ is still one of my favourite reactions to anything on QI history (For reference, Samoset is not a million miles away from how people in the English county of Somerset, pronounce Somerset)
I was in Plymouth a couple of years ago.And stood on the steps in the harbour where they loaded the Mayflower,but was told by a local that as the harbour was extended the original steps are in the basement of a local pub .😮
I thought Nick was going to break into singing, "Theme For An Imaginary Western". It's a fabulous Jack Bruce song. The best version is probably by Leslie West (guitarist with the band Mountain) who virtually made the song his own. Take a listen. You will be impressed.
Yep, the risk of illness alone during long ship voyages back then! I knew of the computer game 'The Oregon Trail' from the 1980s, but it was only when I started collecting old DOS PC games that I came to own a few copies, one original, a few remakes (On CD with voice acting and cut scenes!) one box even came with some hay (I'm not kidding here) in the wooden box with the game. And then finally I found the book, not original copy but a 1970s leather bound copy that is an incredible read! Anyway, in the video game it's like every month you trek forwards a wagon wheel falls off (no not the chocolate we have here) or bad water causes the party to become sick and 2 pass from it, etc etc. Many it really made me appreciate the explorers, settlers, and voyagers of that era and the huge risks they took! Probably above is boring for you guys, since you cover all this in school, but for me it was a real eye-opener! This video was great, thanks guys! Oh and Rich Hall does some wonderful travel documentaries being another American welcomed to our country and TV a few decades back.
Even funnier thing (that I learned from QI) is that part of the Mayflower's cargo going to north America was turkeys. Well, "cargo" may be the wrong term. They were a living food source, but probably intended for keeping in their new settlement too.
I saw the title and immediately thought “Squanto!” Quite a story. Pure luck, given the Mayflower was off course and just happened to land where it did, and have someone greet them in English. And I learned this growing up in Australia in the 1970s. I had every US president memorized in order before I started high school, thanks to an American couple (geologists) in our Outback town.
Somerset is county in England with lot of farmers wheee Glastonbury festival and make lot of cider so his name very similar to that so why wknds those jokes - Jonathon creek was really good crime drama starting Alan’s savers and never mind buzzcocks TV panel Show which bill was regular on original series - new series hosted by Greg Davies
Just a side note, Pocahontas is buried in Gravesend, Kent UK. Also I thing it was the native people of Tasmania that we reclassified as 'Flora and Forna', so as not to recognise them as human. We were pretty awful back then.
1. The Plymouth Brethren expedition was a Crown-licenced corporate exoedition. All early English/British colonies were. You set up a "factory" to trade with the locals with a beneficial monopoly in certain goods (tobacco, in this case, I think) and with Royal protection from hostiles (local (rare) other Europeans (frequent)). The deal was you pay back the loans, free land etc with your trade/produce. 2. The Jamestown expedition had only a minority of "Pilgrims" (less than 30 adults, I recall) and most of them died early. But boy! Were they extreme!! In religious terms the Brownist Congregationists weren't just Protestant, just Puritan, or even just the Leiden/Dutch style extremists, they were so far out there, other Puritan groups in the new colonies couldn't get on with them. The group had started off mostly in the English West Midlands, some of their leaders coming from very Establishment backgrounds with high-up connections. Despite the general wave of Protestantism then prevailing, the King (who was a thorough-going Scottish Protestant) and reformed Anglican Church weren't radical enough for them. Nor were the other Non-Conformist churches, so they migrated to a more radical Holland. They weren't radical enough either so they came back and got a place in the Jamestown Expedition so they could go and be as radical as they liked. In political terms, their level of extremism would make hardline Taliban look like moderate Muslims. And yet, the King was tolerant/generous enough to sponsor them and give them the Golden Ticket. 3. You keep referring to monks/friars. As others have said, the Anglican Reformation had ended monastic life in England (at least for the next century or three) but these folks couldn't even cope with the idea of Bishops and an ordained ministry in an Established Church, so you think they would have tolerated monks?! Less extreme Protestants had burned a few of the latter in recent decades. And don't mention the Pope whatever you do. 😂 4. Happily, in the event, the Pilgrim Fathers had almost no impact on the religious (or other) development of the early Colonies. Much more is owed to the wave of Puritans who came out in the following decades. Their myth, however, especially when badly remembered, does. And not always for the best.
People often carry a grudje against the british for colonialism without realising it was always the monarchy, never the british people. Some would argue the british are still colonised by a german/greek royal family today
While Europeans were fighting in different countries around the world. The Americans thought. Naw. Not doing that. Not going over seas. We don't have too. Let's go forward and take the Indians land. Easer. It is sad. How big nations have bad history's. Every country has seen war. I think thers only 3 or 4 times the world known some kind of peace. Good episode. ✌️
It is the entire history of the human race since recorded history began, even prehistory. Every nation has conquered or been conquered at some point or another...thats how empires were built. The english did conquer a lot of the world but england has also been conquered many times...the romans, the normans, the anglo-saxons and even the vikings acquired a huge chunk of england. Life for all humans on earth before the 1800's was pretty shit except for those with wealth and power. And even then, kings, queens, emperors etc, had to watch their backs for people wanting to take the throne from them. Even family members stabbed them in the back if they were next in line for the throne. Native indian tribes used to conquer other tribes in the most brutal ways. This is not predominantly a western thing but a human thing and has always occurred throughout history. Right up to this very day, all the illegal proxy wars going on in the middle east and eastern europe is about gaining control over these territories.
Absolutely! There was internal savagery happening in all civilisations. As soon as one civilisation got the improved means of travel and/or improved weapons, they took that savegery further afield. Given half a chance I suspect any civilisation would try to take over their neighbour - evident in all tribal wars for resources. But to frame it as "the white man" was uniquely brutal is a silly premise.. especially to teach that in schools, which seems to be what is happening.
More to the point, almost all of the early colonies were expressly trade posts, set up by Companies with a Royal Licence. The conquest stuff came later. For one thing Tudor and Stuart England had no standing armies, no real fleet, and the Crown depended on Parliament agreeing to fund either. (The Cromwellian Republic did start the ball rolling a bit.) As a relatively minor European power in this period (well behind the Spanish and French, for example) the projection of any sizeable English force across distance was nigh on impossible (the Iberians could do it because they had a 2 century start and had fortified bases in the genocidally-cleared Caribbean and Central/South Americas) and often failed. Bear in mind too that some "indigenous" peoples were as powerful as early modern European States. West African rulers as an example. But who needs to fight when there is trade to be done? The fighting largely came later when different European powers, the Ottomans, and Asian Empires were competing with each other for markets. Or indigenous empire builders, like the Zulu, came up against non-indigenous ones. But that really only kicks off big time in the C19th.
I suppose the World was shrinking even then, it seems Squanto and Somaset weren't unhappy to see them. Certainly beer and cheese would have been exotic luxuries to them. Their descendants probably regretted the pairs hospitality.
Can we just talk about your extreme bias. At the height of the British empire it's standing army was 150,000 men. You don't go around taking quarter of the globe by violence with so few troops, even with navel superiority, it just isn't possible. It was a trading empire which was a two way thing with the full agreement of the people living there. Example, in the Indian uprising an army of 30,000 were raised against the British rule, the British had an army of 60,000, 56,000 of those were Indian troops fighting for the crown. The narrative Britain took everything by force is totally wrong. Secondly, the British guaranteed the Indians their land after the revolutionary war, when the Americas became independent, it was the now AMERICANS that went back on their word and took the Indian lands. Lastly, it was actually the Indians that started the violence with the Paspahegh raiding Jamestown, boundary squabbles, which escalated. Other skewing of history. It was the Portuguese that started and were the main transatlantic slavers, taking roughly half, you never hear this. British took about a quarter, 2.6 mil over 300 years, yet you'd think only the British did it. The British, contrary to claims, ended it. A few slavers took 2.6 mil, but more Brits freed billions.
You seem a little confused about The 'Pilgrims' . As pointed out, they were far from the first to arrive, but they certainly set the bar for religious bigots. They were not Puritans as usually represented, but 'Brownists' a highly intolerant sect who wanted others to confirm to THEIR particular slant on religion. They tried it in Lincolnshire, then in Holland and decided they might find a more likely market for religious bigotry in The New World. Were they right or not?
Hi Nick & Jodi. If you love your history, have you heard of a tv series called SHARPE starring Sean Bean set in the Napoleonic era. There are some great clips available on TH-cam
You can romanticise the American Indians all you want but they weren't exactly singing kumbaya and welcoming the settlers to the barbecue when they arrived. The tribes were at war with each other long before the settlers arrived, and they didn't take kindly to foreigners building homesteads on "their" land. Inevitably there was going to be a fight, just like has happened since life on earth began. Land doesn't belong to anyone, it's occupied by whoever has the strength to claim and defend it. We should be grateful and give thanks that it was the Europeans that endured hostile conditions to settle in North America and not Communists or Islamists. The fight over land is still ongoing: Ukraine v Russia, Israel v the rest of the Middle East.
I didn’t think we were romanticizing it. I believe I even said that they weren’t perfect or anything like that. But the truth of the matter is in recorded history there were many more instances of them being welcoming at first then the opposite.
Thanksgiving can seem awfully disturbing to outsiders what with the knowledge of how the settlers eventually repaid those who saved them with genocide. (Even today, an alarming number of surviving Native Americans get persecuted - often being mistaken for being illegal immigrants, a cruel irony indeed.)
A Friar is a type of monk. A friar monk works within the community and relies on donations.A (non-friar) Monk would be in a closed order, in a self-sufficient community.
Bill’s reaction to ‘Samoset’ is still one of my favourite reactions to anything on QI history (For reference, Samoset is not a million miles away from how people in the English county of Somerset, pronounce Somerset)
Yeah that made me roar. .😂😂
I was in Plymouth a couple of years ago.And stood on the steps in the harbour where they loaded the Mayflower,but was told by a local that as the harbour was extended the original steps are in the basement of a local pub .😮
Im from somerset and love hearing peoples impressions of how we sound!🤣🤣
It really is a skill to understand some west country accents!🤣
Nick laughing at his own corny jokes is so great
I thought Nick was going to break into singing, "Theme For An Imaginary Western". It's a fabulous Jack Bruce song. The best version is probably by Leslie West (guitarist with the band Mountain) who virtually made the song his own. Take a listen. You will be impressed.
Mountain's version was sung by bassist Felix Pappalardi, who also produced Cream's 'Disraeli Gears'
"Not happy with the land we allocated to you? Sorry sir, but you had no reservation."
Yep, the risk of illness alone during long ship voyages back then!
I knew of the computer game 'The Oregon Trail' from the 1980s, but it was only when I started collecting old DOS PC games that I came to own a few copies, one original, a few remakes (On CD with voice acting and cut scenes!) one box even came with some hay (I'm not kidding here) in the wooden box with the game. And then finally I found the book, not original copy but a 1970s leather bound copy that is an incredible read! Anyway, in the video game it's like every month you trek forwards a wagon wheel falls off (no not the chocolate we have here) or bad water causes the party to become sick and 2 pass from it, etc etc. Many it really made me appreciate the explorers, settlers, and voyagers of that era and the huge risks they took!
Probably above is boring for you guys, since you cover all this in school, but for me it was a real eye-opener! This video was great, thanks guys! Oh and Rich Hall does some wonderful travel documentaries being another American welcomed to our country and TV a few decades back.
Even funnier thing (that I learned from QI) is that part of the Mayflower's cargo going to north America was turkeys. Well, "cargo" may be the wrong term. They were a living food source, but probably intended for keeping in their new settlement too.
You've just re-elected Trum and you say "life was much more traumatizing back then"???? You sure?
He had one hell of a gap year that lasted 15 years.
I saw the title and immediately thought “Squanto!” Quite a story. Pure luck, given the Mayflower was off course and just happened to land where it did, and have someone greet them in English.
And I learned this growing up in Australia in the 1970s. I had every US president memorized in order before I started high school, thanks to an American couple (geologists) in our Outback town.
What is it about ,long hair and a beautiful smile...!
Somerset is county in England with lot of farmers wheee Glastonbury festival and make lot of cider so his name very similar to that so why wknds those jokes - Jonathon creek was really good crime drama starting Alan’s savers and never mind buzzcocks TV panel
Show which bill was regular on original series - new series hosted by Greg Davies
Beautiful haired girl!
Just a side note, Pocahontas is buried in Gravesend, Kent UK. Also I thing it was the native people of Tasmania that we reclassified as 'Flora and Forna', so as not to recognise them as human. We were pretty awful back then.
and her big fan, Captain Smith lived in a huge mansion near Maidstone, Kent that is now a women’s prison.
Um, not "we" they were pretty awful, none of us existed at that time.
1. The Plymouth Brethren expedition was a Crown-licenced corporate exoedition. All early English/British colonies were. You set up a "factory" to trade with the locals with a beneficial monopoly in certain goods (tobacco, in this case, I think) and with Royal protection from hostiles (local (rare) other Europeans (frequent)). The deal was you pay back the loans, free land etc with your trade/produce.
2. The Jamestown expedition had only a minority of "Pilgrims" (less than 30 adults, I recall) and most of them died early. But boy! Were they extreme!! In religious terms the Brownist Congregationists weren't just Protestant, just Puritan, or even just the Leiden/Dutch style extremists, they were so far out there, other Puritan groups in the new colonies couldn't get on with them. The group had started off mostly in the English West Midlands, some of their leaders coming from very Establishment backgrounds with high-up connections. Despite the general wave of Protestantism then prevailing, the King (who was a thorough-going Scottish Protestant) and reformed Anglican Church weren't radical enough for them. Nor were the other Non-Conformist churches, so they migrated to a more radical Holland. They weren't radical enough either so they came back and got a place in the Jamestown Expedition so they could go and be as radical as they liked. In political terms, their level of extremism would make hardline Taliban look like moderate Muslims. And yet, the King was tolerant/generous enough to sponsor them and give them the Golden Ticket.
3. You keep referring to monks/friars. As others have said, the Anglican Reformation had ended monastic life in England (at least for the next century or three) but these folks couldn't even cope with the idea of Bishops and an ordained ministry in an Established Church, so you think they would have tolerated monks?! Less extreme Protestants had burned a few of the latter in recent decades. And don't mention the Pope whatever you do. 😂
4. Happily, in the event, the Pilgrim Fathers had almost no impact on the religious (or other) development of the early Colonies. Much more is owed to the wave of Puritans who came out in the following decades. Their myth, however, especially when badly remembered, does. And not always for the best.
People often carry a grudje against the british for colonialism without realising it was always the monarchy, never the british people. Some would argue the british are still colonised by a german/greek royal family today
While Europeans were fighting in different countries around the world. The Americans thought. Naw. Not doing that. Not going over seas. We don't have too. Let's go forward and take the Indians land. Easer. It is sad. How big nations have bad history's. Every country has seen war. I think thers only 3 or 4 times the world known some kind of peace. Good episode. ✌️
It is the entire history of the human race since recorded history began, even prehistory. Every nation has conquered or been conquered at some point or another...thats how empires were built. The english did conquer a lot of the world but england has also been conquered many times...the romans, the normans, the anglo-saxons and even the vikings acquired a huge chunk of england. Life for all humans on earth before the 1800's was pretty shit except for those with wealth and power. And even then, kings, queens, emperors etc, had to watch their backs for people wanting to take the throne from them. Even family members stabbed them in the back if they were next in line for the throne. Native indian tribes used to conquer other tribes in the most brutal ways. This is not predominantly a western thing but a human thing and has always occurred throughout history. Right up to this very day, all the illegal proxy wars going on in the middle east and eastern europe is about gaining control over these territories.
Absolutely! There was internal savagery happening in all civilisations. As soon as one civilisation got the improved means of travel and/or improved weapons, they took that savegery further afield. Given half a chance I suspect any civilisation would try to take over their neighbour - evident in all tribal wars for resources.
But to frame it as "the white man" was uniquely brutal is a silly premise.. especially to teach that in schools, which seems to be what is happening.
@@drewbewho who framed anything as "the white man"? You're the first person I've heard use that phrase in this discussion.
@@phuealhe spake in context of greater girth, clearly, made broad in the opening clause and indeed in the very tissue of the main argument.
More to the point, almost all of the early colonies were expressly trade posts, set up by Companies with a Royal Licence. The conquest stuff came later. For one thing Tudor and Stuart England had no standing armies, no real fleet, and the Crown depended on Parliament agreeing to fund either. (The Cromwellian Republic did start the ball rolling a bit.) As a relatively minor European power in this period (well behind the Spanish and French, for example) the projection of any sizeable English force across distance was nigh on impossible (the Iberians could do it because they had a 2 century start and had fortified bases in the genocidally-cleared Caribbean and Central/South Americas) and often failed. Bear in mind too that some "indigenous" peoples were as powerful as early modern European States. West African rulers as an example. But who needs to fight when there is trade to be done? The fighting largely came later when different European powers, the Ottomans, and Asian Empires were competing with each other for markets. Or indigenous empire builders, like the Zulu, came up against non-indigenous ones. But that really only kicks off big time in the C19th.
@@phueal9:35
A German leader loved what Britain did in America, used it as a model....
I suppose the World was shrinking even then, it seems Squanto and Somaset weren't unhappy to see them. Certainly beer and cheese would have been exotic luxuries to them. Their descendants probably regretted the pairs hospitality.
Friars are monks. There were no English monks at the time because it was after Henry VIII got rid of the monasteries.
Nick you remind me of zack snider i cant help it
Can we just talk about your extreme bias. At the height of the British empire it's standing army was 150,000 men. You don't go around taking quarter of the globe by violence with so few troops, even with navel superiority, it just isn't possible. It was a trading empire which was a two way thing with the full agreement of the people living there. Example, in the Indian uprising an army of 30,000 were raised against the British rule, the British had an army of 60,000, 56,000 of those were Indian troops fighting for the crown. The narrative Britain took everything by force is totally wrong.
Secondly, the British guaranteed the Indians their land after the revolutionary war, when the Americas became independent, it was the now AMERICANS that went back on their word and took the Indian lands.
Lastly, it was actually the Indians that started the violence with the Paspahegh raiding Jamestown, boundary squabbles, which escalated.
Other skewing of history. It was the Portuguese that started and were the main transatlantic slavers, taking roughly half, you never hear this. British took about a quarter, 2.6 mil over 300 years, yet you'd think only the British did it. The British, contrary to claims, ended it. A few slavers took 2.6 mil, but more Brits freed billions.
Native American tribes often collaborated with the English hoping they'd help them kill rival tribes.
Badly is my guess
You seem a little confused about The 'Pilgrims' . As pointed out, they were far from the first to arrive, but they certainly set the bar for religious bigots. They were not Puritans as usually represented, but 'Brownists' a highly intolerant sect who wanted others to confirm to THEIR particular slant on religion. They tried it in Lincolnshire, then in Holland and decided they might find a more likely market for religious bigotry in The New World. Were they right or not?
Hi Nick & Jodi. If you love your history, have you heard of a tv series called SHARPE starring Sean Bean set in the Napoleonic era. There are some great clips available on TH-cam
Haven’t heard of it. I’ll check it out.
I remember Sharpe, I loved that series. Was one of my favourites growing up.
@BoringReviews The cameo's list is a who's who of famous actors from Brian Cox to Daniel Craig
Yep agreem the Sharp series is still so good!
@yootoobnz8109 There's only one Patrick Harper. God Save IRELAND
You can romanticise the American Indians all you want but they weren't exactly singing kumbaya and welcoming the settlers to the barbecue when they arrived. The tribes were at war with each other long before the settlers arrived, and they didn't take kindly to foreigners building homesteads on "their" land. Inevitably there was going to be a fight, just like has happened since life on earth began. Land doesn't belong to anyone, it's occupied by whoever has the strength to claim and defend it. We should be grateful and give thanks that it was the Europeans that endured hostile conditions to settle in North America and not Communists or Islamists. The fight over land is still ongoing: Ukraine v Russia, Israel v the rest of the Middle East.
I didn’t think we were romanticizing it. I believe I even said that they weren’t perfect or anything like that. But the truth of the matter is in recorded history there were many more instances of them being welcoming at first then the opposite.
Why are you both dressed as toddlers? 😂😂😂
Theme night 😉🤪😅