4 ms·
Quakers? Repressive? The exact opposite. Pennsylvania and Philadelphia had religious freedom; it was a haven of non-repression.
by SamReidHughes 5y ago
Quakers? Repressive? The exact opposite. Pennsylvania and Philadelphia had religious freedom; it was a haven of non-repression.
- rayiner 5y agoYou have to be careful to distinguish between freedom for distinct communities and freedom for individuals within communities. Pluralism doesn’t necessarily go hand in hand with individualism. Quaker society was quite rigid when it came to enforcing norms and social order within communities, against individuals. Similarly, Singapore has broad freedoms for its distinct ethnic and religious groups. But it aggressively enforces social order as to individuals.
- SamReidHughes 5y agoWhat was the most repressive aspect of being a Quaker? The Puritans were throwing people in jail, and they had that whole Rhode Island thing. (Did Rhode Island flounder?) The Dutch, I'm ignorant of. Let's say you're a Quaker and you come over as an indentured servant in southeast Pennsylvania in the William Penn era. After your servitude is up, you get 50 acres and another 50 acres from William Penn and become a farmer. How much less repressive would your environment or your children's environment be if you weren't a Quaker? You're still a farmer, farming, who crossed the ocean to a new world to be an indentured servant. Did the non-Quakers slack off?