6 ms·

Conspicuously Absent: The Puritan method of avoiding temptation by invading neighboring communities that did not share their austere and guilt-riddled lifestyl

Conspicuously Absent: The Puritan method of avoiding temptation by invading neighboring communities that did not share their austere and guilt-riddled lifestyle choice, driving them from their homes, taking them prisoner, and/or outright murder in the name of their self-proclaimed righteousness. There’s a reason they got chased out of wherever they showed up…history should rightfully remember them as a bunch of self-important no-fun assclowns.

Ensorceled 4y ago
I was thinking also of this: > If life coaches make their living by pushing us to do what we know we ought to, for a Puritan, the whole community of brethren was the coach. Has this person even heard of "The Scarlet Letter"? Or know anything about Puritans using stocks, whips or brands on sinners? Or mutilating them by cutting off ears or boring holes in their tongues. When I think of "life coach" I don't envision someone branding me or cutting off an ear if I don't meet this weeks "life goal"
- starkd 4y ago
  Oh, c'mon. Everyone knows there's more depth to history than the common populist version. As a group, most humans fail miserably. At any time in history, this is is so. This doesn't mean individual's from any era have nothing to offer in terms of understanding ourselves. You might try broadening your reading list beyond the high school approved reading list.
2OEH8eoCRo0 4y ago
We are free to pick and choose what we think is worth preserving or adopting.
- Kye 4y ago
  But maybe let's avoid things that are dependent on violent overthrow of competing ideologies. If a way of life only works by crushing other ways, it's a bit garbage.
  - 2OEH8eoCRo0 4y ago
    Self reflection and discipline is garbage?
    - Kye 4y ago
      Those are features of many ways of life, not ways of life in themselves. What those terms mean depends on the backing ideology. They don't exist in isolation. This thread is discussing Puritanism.
  - yuuu 4y ago
    “dependent on” != “associated with”
    - Kye 4y ago
      Well, the topic is Puritanism. That's what I was talking about.
      - yuuu 4y ago
        All aspects of Puritanism are “dependent on violent overthrow of competing ideologies?”
        Kye 4y ago
        These were people who fled Europe because they considered the Catholic church of the 1500s/1600s too liberal. How well do you think they got on with their neighbors? I've seen firsthand how effective an eliminationist ideology can be even without overt violence growing up in Baptist country.
        yuuu 4y ago
        It’s unclear what you’re trying to say. All aspects of Puritanism are bad because some people did violent things, historically? Nobody’s arguing with the latter, and the comment you originally responded to was, “We are free to pick and choose what we think is worth preserving or adopting.”
- aliasxneo 4y ago
  I've read a majority of the Puritan works available to us (at least a couple of dozen), and while I don't necessarily agree with them on all points theologically, they certainly perfected the art of soul care. In particular, Richard Sibbes is poetic in the way he addresses brokenheartedness (his work, The Broken Reed, probably sits at the apex of this). They also had a significantly higher view of pastoral care, one that I wish had not been lost in our modern age. I try to read the Reformed Pastor at least once every few years as a reminder (contrary to popular belief, this has nothing to do with reformed theology).
  - starkd 4y ago
    Also contrary to popular belief, it was not that the Puritans genuinely thought themselves to be better than everyone else. Their writing indicate they were all too acutely aware of their sinfulness. They knew of the difficulties in steering clear of it. When you are starving and you find bread, it is only natural you want to inform others how they too can find it. This is probably the root of their overzealousness.
dash2 4y ago
I assume you are thinking of America, but what makes you think that's to do with Puritanism? Catholics did very much the same in the Americas. In fact, didn't people of all religions, including Native Americans, often fight with and attack their neighbours, throughout human history?
- thisiscorrect 4y ago
  The Puritans were especially strident in imposing their beliefs though. Their concept of collective salvation meant they'd brook no dissent at all. And so _anyone_ not toeing the line was treated as a mortal threat and could be subject to immense cruelty. Interestingly, many descendants of these Puritans are still just as willing to impose their own religious beliefs on the rest of humanity. Although some details of the religion are vastly different, its rough shape is still the same (humanity can be remade and perfected, everyone must join in this endeavor or we're all lost, rejection of hierarchy, etc.) I'd wager this is even the source of many of the moral conceipts we see in America's foreign policy. Every farflung tribe on Earth must organize a government the way we organize ours. Every society must tolerate the same beliefs that we do, and also not tolerate the same things that we do not.
  - dash2 4y ago
    I don't think they had a concept of collective salvation. They were very clear that salvation was individual, and that even people who thought they were saved, and who everyone around them thought was saved, might not be. I think you're right that they were strict about imposing their beliefs, at least in C17 New England, but I am not sure that relates much to their foreign policy wrt the Indian tribes. But I will defer to someone who knows more.
    - thisiscorrect 4y ago
      A very accessible book which discusses exactly the intersection of Puritan beliefs and their treatment of American Indians is "American Nations" (https://www.google.com/books/edition/American_Nations/Oc5VDwAAQBAJ https://www.google.com/books/edition/American_Nations/Oc5VDw...). https://www.chronicle.com/article/patriotism-and-the-puritan-legacy/ https://www.chronicle.com/article/patriotism-and-the-puritan... is an essay on a related topic.
JasonFruit 4y ago
Now do... the entirety of human endeavor. Whenever we discover a way we think is good, some of us decide we should impose it on others by force. The Puritans were nothing special in that regard, though high school reading lists tend to focus on them.
- maxbond 4y ago
  It's not that this is actually something everyone does, but that those people also foist their views of history on us, and include this narrative to naturalize and justify their behavior.
  - JasonFruit 4y ago
    >> some of us > not... something everyone does Yeah. That being said, I think you're ascribing to intent what is attributable to worldview: people of that sort see history in terms of the advancement of the Gospel, the ongoing Communist revolution, or the progress of industrialization, and they communicate it as such.
    - maxbond 4y ago
      > Yeah. I misspoke, what I meant was, this isn't the inevitable course of history; the past is prologue and not destiny. I believe one of the reasons this pattern repeats is the idea that it is "natural" and inevitable, and while it is literally true that it is natural - everything is - that doesn't mean it is "human nature" in the sense that it is inescapable. Cancer is natural, that doesn't mean we have to accept it. > That being said, I think you're ascribing to intent what is attributable to worldview: people of that sort see history in terms of the advancement of the Gospel, the ongoing Communist revolution, or the progress of industrialization, and they communicate it as such. I agree, I was personifying larger-than-human phenomena, so while I find intent to be a useful metaphor it it isn't literally true. The thing I want to communicate with this metaphor is that there are choices and an agenda involved, motivated reasoning. Your examples are good, I think a particularly illustrative one is "the white man's burden"; the idea that white people must bear the "burden" of the Atlantic slave trade and colonialism more broadly is patently absurd, very clearly working backwards from the premises that colonialism is good, actually, and good for the colonized at that, to find an intellectual justification for behavior that was obviously deeply immoral and incompatible with their stated beliefs. This is just going so far out on a limb that it's really easy to see the game they're playing, but in all of these examples we've cited, it's a repackaging of political realism to match the aesthetics of that society and time in history. Someplace I see this in our time is in the rhetoric of Jordan Peterson, an obvious chauvinist who's created an intellectual framework for why the patriarchy is good, actually. If you peer past his showmanship and undeniable charisma, you see the that same kernel of political realism; "the strong do what they may, and the weak suffer what they must." So for him in particular it's like, oh isn't it so terrible that the lower class is destitute, but what's much more important than their conditions are that we need steep hierarchies, and wouldn't you know it, I've got some misrepresentations of lobster biology to justify this as natural and inevitable. Peterson is far more artful than Kipling, and he does a better job of keeping the quiet part quiet, but it's a repackaging of the same ideas.
swayvil 4y ago
That's a bit of a caricature. Surely they did what was only right and necessary. Put their faith in good authorities and sensible arguments. Just like us.
starkd 4y ago
This completely misses the point. It's almost like you didn't even read the article. He makes clear they were by no means perfect, nor did they genuinely see themselves that way. Where the Buddhists' self-reflection was to accept reality, the puritans strove to change the self. This doesn't mean they all succeeded. You just want to denounce everyone else as imperfect (which is easy to do). You might try the Puritans' advice and look at your own failings first.
Ntrails 4y ago
> history should rightfully remember them as a bunch of self-important no-fun assclowns. Let us all remember everyone as only their worst things, and learn nothing from their best eh?
jkepler 4y ago
Actually, the Puritans left England for Holland because they were at the receiving end of violent imprisonment for holding religious convictions that differed with the Anglican church and authorities. Then they left the Netherlands because they felt that their children were becoming too Dutch. After the Puritans founded Plymouth Bay colony, they let William Rogers (if I have his name correct) leave when he disagreed with them, and he went and founded Rhode Island... where he eventually excommunicated his own wife (so maybe he just had issues getting on with folks). So I'm not sure what episodes of violently attacking neighbors you're speaking of. Additionally, according to American feminist history researcher Mardi Keyes in a lecture I heard years ago, Puritan New England was the first society in the world where legally women had the full right to bring divorce suites in cases of abuse, infidelity, or neglect; 50% of the cases were brought by women (she said if you look of the court records one can see this evidence) and it was the closeness of their communities that enabled neighbors and friends to provide testimonial evidence, which often enabled women to leave dreadful marriages. This stands in stark contrast to the pejorative caricaturing of Puritans as anti-women.

Ensorceled 4y ago

I was thinking also of this: > If life coaches make their living by pushing us to do what we know we ought to, for a Puritan, the whole community of brethren was the coach. Has this person even heard of "The Scarlet Letter"? Or know anything about Puritans using stocks, whips or brands on sinners? Or mutilating them by cutting off ears or boring holes in their tongues. When I think of "life coach" I don't envision someone branding me or cutting off an ear if I don't meet this weeks "life goal"

starkd 4y ago
Oh, c'mon. Everyone knows there's more depth to history than the common populist version. As a group, most humans fail miserably. At any time in history, this is is so. This doesn't mean individual's from any era have nothing to offer in terms of understanding ourselves. You might try broadening your reading list beyond the high school approved reading list.

2OEH8eoCRo0 4y ago

We are free to pick and choose what we think is worth preserving or adopting.

Kye 4y ago
But maybe let's avoid things that are dependent on violent overthrow of competing ideologies. If a way of life only works by crushing other ways, it's a bit garbage.
- 2OEH8eoCRo0 4y ago
  Self reflection and discipline is garbage?
  - Kye 4y ago
    Those are features of many ways of life, not ways of life in themselves. What those terms mean depends on the backing ideology. They don't exist in isolation. This thread is discussing Puritanism.
- yuuu 4y ago
  “dependent on” != “associated with”
  - Kye 4y ago
    Well, the topic is Puritanism. That's what I was talking about.
    - yuuu 4y ago
      All aspects of Puritanism are “dependent on violent overthrow of competing ideologies?”
      - Kye 4y ago
        These were people who fled Europe because they considered the Catholic church of the 1500s/1600s too liberal. How well do you think they got on with their neighbors? I've seen firsthand how effective an eliminationist ideology can be even without overt violence growing up in Baptist country.
        yuuu 4y ago
        It’s unclear what you’re trying to say. All aspects of Puritanism are bad because some people did violent things, historically? Nobody’s arguing with the latter, and the comment you originally responded to was, “We are free to pick and choose what we think is worth preserving or adopting.”
aliasxneo 4y ago
I've read a majority of the Puritan works available to us (at least a couple of dozen), and while I don't necessarily agree with them on all points theologically, they certainly perfected the art of soul care. In particular, Richard Sibbes is poetic in the way he addresses brokenheartedness (his work, The Broken Reed, probably sits at the apex of this). They also had a significantly higher view of pastoral care, one that I wish had not been lost in our modern age. I try to read the Reformed Pastor at least once every few years as a reminder (contrary to popular belief, this has nothing to do with reformed theology).
- starkd 4y ago
  Also contrary to popular belief, it was not that the Puritans genuinely thought themselves to be better than everyone else. Their writing indicate they were all too acutely aware of their sinfulness. They knew of the difficulties in steering clear of it. When you are starving and you find bread, it is only natural you want to inform others how they too can find it. This is probably the root of their overzealousness.

dash2 4y ago

I assume you are thinking of America, but what makes you think that's to do with Puritanism? Catholics did very much the same in the Americas. In fact, didn't people of all religions, including Native Americans, often fight with and attack their neighbours, throughout human history?

thisiscorrect 4y ago
The Puritans were especially strident in imposing their beliefs though. Their concept of collective salvation meant they'd brook no dissent at all. And so _anyone_ not toeing the line was treated as a mortal threat and could be subject to immense cruelty. Interestingly, many descendants of these Puritans are still just as willing to impose their own religious beliefs on the rest of humanity. Although some details of the religion are vastly different, its rough shape is still the same (humanity can be remade and perfected, everyone must join in this endeavor or we're all lost, rejection of hierarchy, etc.) I'd wager this is even the source of many of the moral conceipts we see in America's foreign policy. Every farflung tribe on Earth must organize a government the way we organize ours. Every society must tolerate the same beliefs that we do, and also not tolerate the same things that we do not.
- dash2 4y ago
  I don't think they had a concept of collective salvation. They were very clear that salvation was individual, and that even people who thought they were saved, and who everyone around them thought was saved, might not be. I think you're right that they were strict about imposing their beliefs, at least in C17 New England, but I am not sure that relates much to their foreign policy wrt the Indian tribes. But I will defer to someone who knows more.
  - thisiscorrect 4y ago
    A very accessible book which discusses exactly the intersection of Puritan beliefs and their treatment of American Indians is "American Nations" (https://www.google.com/books/edition/American_Nations/Oc5VDwAAQBAJ https://www.google.com/books/edition/American_Nations/Oc5VDw...). https://www.chronicle.com/article/patriotism-and-the-puritan-legacy/ https://www.chronicle.com/article/patriotism-and-the-puritan... is an essay on a related topic.

JasonFruit 4y ago

Now do... the entirety of human endeavor. Whenever we discover a way we think is good, some of us decide we should impose it on others by force. The Puritans were nothing special in that regard, though high school reading lists tend to focus on them.

maxbond 4y ago
It's not that this is actually something everyone does, but that those people also foist their views of history on us, and include this narrative to naturalize and justify their behavior.
- JasonFruit 4y ago
  >> some of us > not... something everyone does Yeah. That being said, I think you're ascribing to intent what is attributable to worldview: people of that sort see history in terms of the advancement of the Gospel, the ongoing Communist revolution, or the progress of industrialization, and they communicate it as such.
  - maxbond 4y ago
    > Yeah. I misspoke, what I meant was, this isn't the inevitable course of history; the past is prologue and not destiny. I believe one of the reasons this pattern repeats is the idea that it is "natural" and inevitable, and while it is literally true that it is natural - everything is - that doesn't mean it is "human nature" in the sense that it is inescapable. Cancer is natural, that doesn't mean we have to accept it. > That being said, I think you're ascribing to intent what is attributable to worldview: people of that sort see history in terms of the advancement of the Gospel, the ongoing Communist revolution, or the progress of industrialization, and they communicate it as such. I agree, I was personifying larger-than-human phenomena, so while I find intent to be a useful metaphor it it isn't literally true. The thing I want to communicate with this metaphor is that there are choices and an agenda involved, motivated reasoning. Your examples are good, I think a particularly illustrative one is "the white man's burden"; the idea that white people must bear the "burden" of the Atlantic slave trade and colonialism more broadly is patently absurd, very clearly working backwards from the premises that colonialism is good, actually, and good for the colonized at that, to find an intellectual justification for behavior that was obviously deeply immoral and incompatible with their stated beliefs. This is just going so far out on a limb that it's really easy to see the game they're playing, but in all of these examples we've cited, it's a repackaging of political realism to match the aesthetics of that society and time in history. Someplace I see this in our time is in the rhetoric of Jordan Peterson, an obvious chauvinist who's created an intellectual framework for why the patriarchy is good, actually. If you peer past his showmanship and undeniable charisma, you see the that same kernel of political realism; "the strong do what they may, and the weak suffer what they must." So for him in particular it's like, oh isn't it so terrible that the lower class is destitute, but what's much more important than their conditions are that we need steep hierarchies, and wouldn't you know it, I've got some misrepresentations of lobster biology to justify this as natural and inevitable. Peterson is far more artful than Kipling, and he does a better job of keeping the quiet part quiet, but it's a repackaging of the same ideas.

swayvil 4y ago

That's a bit of a caricature. Surely they did what was only right and necessary. Put their faith in good authorities and sensible arguments. Just like us.

starkd 4y ago

This completely misses the point. It's almost like you didn't even read the article. He makes clear they were by no means perfect, nor did they genuinely see themselves that way. Where the Buddhists' self-reflection was to accept reality, the puritans strove to change the self. This doesn't mean they all succeeded. You just want to denounce everyone else as imperfect (which is easy to do). You might try the Puritans' advice and look at your own failings first.

Ntrails 4y ago

> history should rightfully remember them as a bunch of self-important no-fun assclowns. Let us all remember everyone as only their worst things, and learn nothing from their best eh?

jkepler 4y ago

Actually, the Puritans left England for Holland because they were at the receiving end of violent imprisonment for holding religious convictions that differed with the Anglican church and authorities. Then they left the Netherlands because they felt that their children were becoming too Dutch. After the Puritans founded Plymouth Bay colony, they let William Rogers (if I have his name correct) leave when he disagreed with them, and he went and founded Rhode Island... where he eventually excommunicated his own wife (so maybe he just had issues getting on with folks). So I'm not sure what episodes of violently attacking neighbors you're speaking of. Additionally, according to American feminist history researcher Mardi Keyes in a lecture I heard years ago, Puritan New England was the first society in the world where legally women had the full right to bring divorce suites in cases of abuse, infidelity, or neglect; 50% of the cases were brought by women (she said if you look of the court records one can see this evidence) and it was the closeness of their communities that enabled neighbors and friends to provide testimonial evidence, which often enabled women to leave dreadful marriages. This stands in stark contrast to the pejorative caricaturing of Puritans as anti-women.