This definitely was one the greatest questions ever asked on QI. Even better you had Sandi, Henning and Clive who are all well educated, interesting and genuinely love to learn.
The Puritans and Pilgrims get confused even among New Englanders who are taught the history. The Pilgrims (also known as Scrooby Congregation, English Dissenters, or Brownists) came on the Mayflower, in 1620, but the Puritans came about 10-20 years later. These two groups in fact founded distinct colonies; Pilgrims established Plymouth Colony, Puritans established Massachusetts Bay Colony. Eventually these were combined (in the 1690s) into one Province of Massachusetts Bay. You can in fact still see the original boundary between the two colonies in the borders of the Massachusetts state counties in the southeastern part of the state. Incidentally, it was the Puritans, but not the Pilgrims, behind the Salem Witch Trials. What makes it a bit confusing is that both the Pilgrims and the Puritans were both of a religious lineage from Seperatist Puritanism, but they were distinct sects with distinct aims.
Both went to the US in part due to religious tolerance though and wanting to impose their own. The one in the Netherlands in case of the pilgrims. And just looking into it more the Pilgrims are considered a branch of puritans.
I believe the big divider between the two groups was the Puritans wanted to "purify" the Church of England of any connection to the Catholic Church. The Pilgrims on the other hand didn't like the idea of a central authority at all and believed the Church of England resembled too much like the Catholic Church. In the Pilgrim's case, they were kinda escaping persecution as their followers refused to attend Church of England services which lead to fines and eventually prison if the fines weren't paid. It's the main reason they left for the Netherlands.
This is really interesting, I really wish we were taught more world history in the UK rather than our own periods which can be discovered by just going to National Trust sites most of the time lol
@@RubenTheCartographer I don't know if that's entirely accurate on QI's part as it sounds like they are confusing them with the Puritans. Catholics at that time were discriminated against in the Netherlands and I have no idea whether the Brownists were bothered by the tolerance of other Protestant denominations. The reasons why the Brownists were unhappy in the Netherlands were more cultural than religious. They struggled to find work because none of them spoke Dutch nor did they want to as they wanted to hold on to their English identity and culture. If anything the reason why they left the Netherlands was more by a stroke of luck as they had heard that the London Virginia Company was looking to sponsor a group of people to set up a colony in the New World. It should be noted that the Brownists lived in the Netherlands for 12 years so I doubt it was down to religious tolerance.
@@paulpeterson4216But the number of Australasian people(s) who could have been killed by God's Pustulous wrath - and even then the number that survived such devastation, were far fewer in number than the great plethora of peoples throughout the New World. Have to main and kill & convert as many as possible after all.
@@paulpeterson4216 We did have convicts sent to the American colonies, too. It doesn’t get as much air time, perhaps because the transported were a men convicted of lesser crimes and sent off on ships in among other travelers (that I don’t know, only guessing),
I'll always remember Greg Proops doing a stand up bit in England and mentioning American Thanksgiving or, "as it's known here, 'F*** Off, Puritan, Day.'"
They had to come here because pretty much everyone kept kicking them out of the country. They tried several countries in Europe but people got quite sick of their schit very fast, and booted them out. So the New World was really their only option.
@@john.premose Joseph Smith the founder became quite tyrannical and started imprisoning and silencing people who were against him. He was a mayor of a small town. So the citizens of the town eventually got together and shot him.
Also of course they didn't really left from England. They had been living in Leiden, Holland for quite a well by then. They only stopped over in England to change from a small channel hopper called Speedwell to the larger Mayflower to cross the Atlantic.
Not quite: The Mayflower was hired for the voyage, but the Speedwelll had been purchased by the company of investors financing the voyage. Both ships were supposed to come, with the Speedwell remaining in the settlement. But after two attempts, it appeared (another story in itself) unseaworthy and so was sold.
@@andyalder7910 The Pilgrims were a subset of Puritans, so yes, Puritans arrived on the Mayflower. I mean, it seems weird for British people to be telling Americans we have our own history wrong, you know? But the Pilgrims were Puritans (good old William Brewster of Scrooby, and his Separatist friends). Also, they first landed at Provincetown and the local landmarks make the distinctions clear, but they *settled* at Plymouth (and yes, the rock is just hooey).
@@zapkvr There weren't many of them in Europe, and those that were, were not in charge. They also taxed Christians at a higher rate. They were hardly in favor of religious freedom.
He didn't dispel anything. He just reinforced the conventional British belief. Just like the British Empire never killed Zulu's, or Maoris, or aborigènes. The British arrange historical facts to suit their own sensitivities.
It's sad, but very enlightening, to know that America has a long history of arguing that religious freedom includes the freedom to restrict other people's religious freedom.
Finke and Starke wrote the book "Churching of America" which runs down the history of the tension between the Conservatives and the Liberals. Fascinating
@@zapkvr Thank you for the recommendation; I shall seek out the book. I enjoyed _Lies My Teacher Told Me_ .The author, James Loewen, analysed the most widely-used high school U.S. history textbooks & corrected the many legends, exaggerations, & outright lies. It's an excellent read (or listen via Audible) despite its 1990s copyright. An updated edition was released recently.
When I hear someone talk about Puritans I always think of Mr and Mrs Whiteadder: "You have chairs?! Wicked child! Chairs are an invention of Satan! In our house Nathaniel sits on a spike!" "And where do you sit?" "I sit on Nathaniel. Two spikes would be an extravagance."
LOL My Mayflower ancestor was a petty criminal in England who came here as basically an indentured servant who got into a good number of scrapes on this side of the pond. He was one of the first to fight a duel here and got in trouble for it. He's a very colorful character that I find amusing and fascinating.
While America has proud traditions of openness and freedom, the vocal minority of zealots seeking to impose their religious views on others through state/legal coercion has never really gone away, and has an outsize influence in American politics to this day.
'America has proud traditions of openness and freedom' - hahahahaha! US involvement in coups since WWII - and these are only the ones Wikipedia (centre-right in its politics, generally) will consent to admitting happened (examples such as Bolivia and Venezuela in the last few years are missing). The US weren't open about an awful lot of these, and many, many of them involved the restriction of people's freedoms, often replacing elected, democratic governments with hard-right dictators. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_involvement_in_regime_change 5.1 1940s 5.1.1 1945-1948: South Korea 5.1.2 1945-1949: China 5.1.3 1947-1949: Greece 5.1.4 1948: Costa Rica 5.1.5 1949-1953: Albania 5.1.6 1949: Syria 5.2 1950s 5.2.1 1950-1953: Burma and China 5.2.2 1952: Egypt 5.2.3 1952: Guatemala 5.2.4 1952-1953: Iran 5.2.5 1954: Guatemala 5.2.6 1956-1957: Syria 5.2.7 1957-1959: Indonesia 5.2.8 1959-1963: South Vietnam 5.2.9 1959-1962: Cuba 5.3 1960s 5.3.1 1960-1965: Congo-Leopoldville 5.3.2 1960: Laos 5.3.3 1961: Dominican Republic 5.3.4 1961-1964: Brazil 5.3.5 1963: Iraq 5.3.6 1965-1967: Indonesia 5.4 1970s 5.4.1 1970: Cambodia 5.4.2 1970-1973: Chile 5.4.3 1971: Bolivia 5.4.4 1974-1991: Ethiopia 5.4.5 1975-1991: Angola 5.4.6 1975-1999: East Timor 5.4.7 1976: Argentina 5.4.8 1979-1992: Afghanistan 5.5 1980s 5.5.1 1980-1989: Poland 5.5.2 1981-1982: Chad 5.5.3 1981-1990: Nicaragua 5.5.4 1983: Grenada 5.5.5 1989-1994: Panama 5.5.6 1989: Paraguay 6 1991-present: Post-Cold War 6.1 1990s 6.1.1 1991: Iraq 6.1.2 1991: Haiti 6.1.3 1992-1996: Iraq 6.1.4 1994-1995: Haiti 6.1.5 1996-1997: Zaire 6.2 2000s 6.2.1 2000: FR Yugoslavia 6.2.2 2001-2021: Afghanistan 6.2.3 2003-2021: Iraq 6.2.4 2005: Kyrgyzstan 6.2.5 2006-2007: Palestinian Territories 6.2.6 2005-2009: Syria 6.3 2010s 6.3.1 2011: Libya 6.3.2 2012-2017: Syria
@@julianevans9548 Dude, chillax. These are comments in response to a comedy show segment regarding Puritans, not the minutes of the America Haters' Annual Symposium. I'm not on the payroll of the US government and am not gonna justify each of their foreign interventions - in fact, I've personally opposed and protested a couple of them - but your calling the governments of Libya, Syria, Iraq, Afghanistan, Yugoslavia, Zaire, Paraguay, etc., "free" and "democratic" does little to help your credibility.
@@V45194 You seem to be missing out on reading comprehension, given that you replied to someone saying "often replacing elected, democratic governments" pretending they said something entirely different. Also, the USA were built on exploitation, slavery and land theft, so those "proud traditions of openness and freedom" hardly ever extended beyond white rich cishet men and still barely do. You can pretend reality doesn't exist and live in your nationalistic fantasy all you want, but if you truly believe that your home country is capable of those ideals, you should start by dropping the pathetic denial.
@@V45194 The USA definitely has overthrown, or participated in the overthrow of, democratically elected governments in Central and South America. I'm just wondering what you base your assertion on that "America has proud traditions of openness and freedom"? In the constitution, yes, I'll give you that. But in the actual actions of the nation...? Well, ask a Native American or Black or Chinese over the last 200 years whether they have experienced openness and freedom in the USA. I agree that you have a massive problem with religious zealots imposing their will on the state. Again, this should be protected against by the separation of church and state, but in practise... not so much. Sorry, just relaying some minutes from the America Haters' Annual Symposium.
It was the pilgrims that where on the Mayflower and they left the Netherlands after coming over from the UK, in part due to religious tolerance in the Netherlands. Where they where afraid that their kids might switch religion.
The reason they were in the Netherlands was because they'd tried to force their beliefs on others in England. Going to Holland didn't work out in large part because of a lack of work/income. Locals wouldn't employ the men and the women weren't allowed out unaccompanied by a male member of their community. Religion works in mysterious ways, in this case to force a dissenting group to run for the hills.
We have two faces. On one face, we want to help others to fulfill their dreams. On the other face, we want to burn all you love and imprison you in your own mind.
Ahhh the dark old days when Sandy was naught but an occasional guest contestant. How far we've come. Maybe Stephen will appear on the final edition as a contestant though?
There is the Pilgrims Monument in Provincetown Massachusetts. Most Americans who don't live in Massachusetts have no clue that's where they landed. Of course now it's a vacation spot for the LGBTQ+ community.
It's the main reason the founding fathers were adamant that church and state should forever remain separate. You wouldn't be able to tell the way republican politicians like Lauren Boebert are carrying on.
And perhaps the English should also speak to how they burned/killed/arrested the puritans for their disagreements with the Church of England.... but it is more fun to tell stories about those who you don't live with anymore
Aww…. A snarky comment from someone living in a country who celebrates the gold-digging, do-nothing Princess Diane, voted in Brexit, and destroyed peoples lives world wide for empire building… Don’t have some sheep to protect in the Faulkland instead of making narrow-minded, sweeping comments about a country and its people? I mean, really? You don’t get to be prejudiced against a group of people and then claim to know better.
Yeah but we need more than this, lol. By the 1700s the Puritans didn't even have much real power in Massachusettes, let alone by 1776, because the original colonial charter was revoked in 1684 in part due to the Puritans repeatedly breaking its rules...
@@nehrigen And too damn right they did that! Those loonies made the Taliban look like a bunch of peace-loving hippies, do you also feel sorry for ISIS by any chance?
There was a lot of that going around. Then you had Roger Williams, who after getting kicked out of Massachusetts Bay went and founded Rhode Island specifically as a place of religious tolerance.
This is a semantic argument. "Persecution" is defined as hostility and ill-treatment, based on political/religious beliefs, (I combined them, Church and State, because they were 2 branches of the same tree) as well as other acts frowned upon. The "Puritans" couldn't get their form of anti-Catholic theocracy and had hostility directed at them from James I, who's KJB was an abomination to them, for changing the divine word of god. Of course religious (zealots or not) are going to be ostracized and treated with hostility from their church and government when they show forceful objection. Yes they were "persecuted". This religious battle was going on with James I, as well as with his predecessor, Elizabeth I, and going on for much longer, (the 80 years war) than just a snapshot or moment in time, a lot longer. There's a great YT video on this and Guy Fawkes, from a videographer named (apropos) John Smith; it's worth the watch if you don't mind reading the PowerPoint presentation style. It's not long, only about 5 minutes. ruclips.net/video/-Ry7eHvl7B0/видео.html You will learn something I'm sure you did not know.
@@michaelsommers2356 I didn't say they were the same. They have very similar interests and wants however. If you're looking to elicit some form of response, try harder.
It's true that the motivation for Pilgrims to leave England was not "persecution," per se. However, religious persecution in general was a feature of England at the time, after the Religion Act of 1592, particularly of Jews, Catholics, and Quakers. Separatist Puritans like the Pilgrims were in fact prohibited from setting up churches in England, and some were executed. So it's not entirely a myth.
The separatists, now called Pilgrims, are completely different from the Puritans who were themselves not separatists. There were two different groups and two different settlements.
Pilgrims and Puritans are two completely different groups of people. Both were separatists, but that's all. One seek freedom of religion (praise god in whatever form you want), the other investment in a land and freedom to build a stricter version of pre-reformation English religion. One is Wendy's, the other McDonald.
@@SneakyBadAssOG The Pilgrims didn't want religious freedom any more than the Puritans did. Except for themselves, of course. What you are saying is the equivalent of saying that Baptists and Methodists are completely different groups. In fact, they are both Christians.
@@estranhokonsta No they weren't. They are a subset of Puritans, at least in every book I have read. At any rate, they didn't call themselves Pilgrims or Puritans; those are historical terms. Puritans believed that the reformation had stopped early in England and pushed for stronger protestant and anti-Catholic policies. That fits both groups. The distinction is whether they were separating or non-separating. "Anglican, Puritan, and Sectarian in Empirical Perspective" is a good example of a source that explores these distinctions. At any rate, in this video, Stephen Fry clearly refers to the Pilgrims as Puritans.
@@SneakyBadAssOG They can't both be separatist if the defining difference is that one of them was separatist and the other was not. Later Puritan migrations to the Americas consisted of non-separating Puritans. They established Anglican churches here.
How a bunch of men used the ideals of the Enlightenment to create a country when the dna of its people was borne out of such hatred religious beliefs is baffling at times. The US founding was far from perfect (3/5ths of a person comes to mind) so I get it and I’m not blind to it’s flaws. But to be able to weave together a society where you’re free to believe whatever religious nonsense you want as long as you don’t force it down someone else’s throat. (Which, once again, I’m not blind to reality and history and the fact that has happened and is happening now). But as a 48 year old American, I was taught the myth that these people were just trying to peaceful practice their religion. Then I read Lies My History Teacher Taught Me (I may not have the title right) and it opened my eyes to the fact they weren’t a day or two off the boat when they started digging up graves! And it got worse from there!! Plus, I was raised Mormon and that same nonsense is taught there. The “oh, we’re just a peaceful people who want to practice our religion” defense is used to distract from the hard reality they are horrible people.
And of course as was pointed out previously it wasn't named for Amerigo Vespucci but for Richard Americke a welsh merchant who sponsored Caboto's voyage.
The idea that they left England because it was too tolerant isn’t really accurate. While it’s true that the Church of England was much more culturally liberal than the Brownists (the group from which the pilgrims came), the CofE still did not tolerate dissenting churches and sought to force their conformity. Had the English government granted equal rights to the Brownists and other religious nonconformists, they probably would have been satisfied with it.
Although you raise some valid points, it’s not quite that simple and they were religious extremists who would not have been happy with a status quo. They objected to the C of E adopting the 1662 book of common prayer and having bishops and wanted to insist that all churches in the land were governed on their Presbyterian model and only used their theology and forms of worship.
I'm afraid that this isn't true. My Baptist church (in the UK) is old enough to have been around during the civil war. After the monarchy was reinstated, the church underwent religious persecution. The police sometimes broke into the church and beat people up during services. Our pastors were fined or put in prison. Their "crime" was refusing to join the Church of England. The original architecture of the church reflected this, with a secret escape route for the preacher. I am not saying this to bash the Church of England, which I consider a force for good despite that unfortunate period. But to claim that the Puritans weren't persecuted in that era is both incorrect and disrespectful to my spiritual ancestors. I would be grateful if QI could be more careful with its research on future when dealing with sensitive topics.
@@gravel7614 Sorry, I should have clarified that I was referring to the UK civil war, which happened around the same time as America was being colonised. And yes, my church is several hundred years old.
@@pi4t651 I completely misunderstood what you were saying. Misread like an idiot. I thought you were talking about the person at the head of the church as if he was hundreds of years old.
I am always amazed at the Birts' ability to patronize and be wrong at the same time. They are confusing two different groups. The pilgrims came over on the Mayflower and landed in Plymouth Bay. The Pilgrims were indeed fleeing persecution. The Pilgrims had already fled England for the Netherlands to seek religious freedom. However, they became concerned their children would lose their English identity. Thus, they made the move to set up a colony in America. The Puritans were a separate group.
@@spookydirt Also from wikipedia. "In December 1620, a group of English religious Separatists (later referred to as "the Pilgrims") established Plymouth Colony just to the south of Massachusetts Bay, seeking to preserve their cultural identity and attain religious freedom.[14] Plymouth's colonists faced great hardships and earned few profits for their investors, who sold their interests to them in 1627.[15] Edward Winslow and William Bradford were two of the colony's leaders and were likely the authors of a work published in England in 1622 called Mourt's Relation. This book in some ways resembles a promotional tract intended to encourage further immigration.[16] Plymouth Colony would remain separate from Massachusetts Bay Colony until the creation of the Province of Massachusetts Bay." Two separate groups. They both settled in the present day Massachusetts area. They may have had a lot in common, but they were separate groups.
@@JeffB2005 This is what I read: "The Pilgrims, also known as the Pilgrim Fathers, were the English settlers who came to North America on the Mayflower and established the Plymouth Colony in what is today Plymouth, Massachusetts, named after the final departure port of Plymouth, Devon. Their leadership came from the religious congregations of Brownists, or Separatist Puritans, ". There were more than one group of puritans, then? Or have I misunderstood you?
I think Stephen may be misinformed here. The Puritan separatist movement in England during the 1600s was indeed persecuted by the C of E - at the behest of King James I. William Bradford (future governor of the Plymouth Colony) was imprisoned for criticism of the Church. Then the separatists left for Amsterdam on 1608. After remaining there for years, and achieving financial success, Bradford returned to England in 1620. Shortly after that, he boarded the Mayflower to America.
The reaction of the state was due to their attempts to force their theology and forms of worship on the whole Church of England. So they weren’t fleeing persecution, they were fleeing due to a refusal to impose their religious beliefs on everyone. So he’s not misinformed, you’ve omitted a rather essential part of the history.
What I wonder is the founding myth of England? I'm might doubt "1066 and all that", but as I have just learned of the Norman's other land grabs beyond Sicily including along the north African coast, I shall have to look elsewhere, perhaps at Ireland whilst gazing into the murky depths of a pint of the black stuff.
The problem is that we know so little about the myths and legends of pre-Roman Britain and then after Romans came the dark ages where again, we know very little. This was part of the reason why JR Tolkein was inspired to write The Lord of the Rings. He wanted to create a mythos to replace what had been lost. We do know a little of creation myth though. There is a story, however, that has survived from the early inhabitants of these islands. 100 Princesses killed their husbands, being of royal blood they could not be executed and so were banished. They wondered the earth until they came to Britain where they met and fell in love with a race of giants. Their offspring were the birth of the British people.
I mention Ireland because I suspect that when the "Brits" suffered invasion by Angles & Saxons on the big island many sought refuge in Ireland or in northern Scotland where the old language has survived to some extent. It would be interesting to know what language was commonly spoken in the British isles under the Romans. ... something else to look up.
I'm not sure the Puritans went across to Massachusetts so that they could better persecute people for following the wrong type of Christianity, given that there weren't Christian people there before the Mayflower landed.
It’s more telling that you took him admitting that EVERY country has these myths as a reason to point at the country of the man making that point to avoid critique of your own - as if he’d excluded Britain.
Sorry, but this has every bit as much crap as such discussions usually have. The leaders of those on the Mayflower were not "Puritans" (a slur against Church of England people who wanted to "purify" the church of its "Popish essences) but "Separatists" (slur against those who had "separated" from the church into independent congregations - i.e., congregationalists). They came to what is now the US in 1620 to escape poverty in Holland (to which they had fled to escape persecution in England). Puritans are more associated with Boston, founded 1630. Neither group came "in order to oppress," to "build a country in which there could be no dissent from Puritanism." That's utter nonsense and when coupled with the implication that England of the time was a land of religious tolerance is historical revisionism of a 3rd grade level. They came for pretty much the same reason everyone else did/has: a combination of a better life (England was in a depression at the time), land, and a dream of getting rich.
@@Brasswatchman The claim at issue was not if the Puritans pushed theological orthodoxy, just as the Church of England _of which they were part did,_ but that they came to this continent "in order to oppress" rather than for land or wealth. As for "a country in which there could be no [lawful] dissent," they already had that in England. Neither was "why" they came.
@@whoviating Except they still had dissenting views from the Anglican Church, didn't they? So they left to found their own with blackjack and hookers, except forget the blackjack and hookers. And while I'm sure they wouldn't have put it as traveling "in order to oppress," isn't that still effectively what they did?
The Puritans, and the Pilgrims were Puritans, were being persecuted in England. They did want to go to America to be free of that persecution. They didn't go for the sole purpose of persecuting others.
Name one law that was enacted to persecute the Puritans in England. Stephen is correct in what he said. In 1689 the Toleration Act, while continuing the Church of England as the dominant religios body, tolerated dissenting religious groups and allowed them to practice their religion freely. That included the Puritans. The Puritans, however, weren't happy about everone being able to worship the way they wanted, and demanded that King James persecute anyone who was NOT a Puritan. He said, "Don't be rediculous," or words to that effect, so the Puritans left England in a huff.
They were only persecuted in their own imaginations. I mean the Puritans took the whole country over in 1645 (or somewhere around there), killed the king, abolished the Church of England, and ruled the country for 15 years. How can they possibly claim to be persecuted? The puritans were the ones doing the persecution
@@JosephSchmidtfan "An Acte to retayne the Quenes Subjectes in Obedyence", 1593, makes it illegal to fail to attend CoE services and to attend non-CoE religious services. You can find the text in "The statutes of the realm", v.4, pt.2, p.841. It's available for reading on the Internet Archive.
I find it interesting that people in this thread are referencing things that occurred in 1645 and 1689 to show that Puritans were not being persecuted in 1620. That's like pointing out that Obama was president in 2008 to prove that black people weren't being persecuted in America in 1955.
Your history opnion is suspect at best, I think you would do well to do a little more reading instead of repeating Wikipedia type nonsense. But since you say it with you best snobbish British accent, then it must be scholarly and true.
I love seeing Americans come over here and have to grapple with the reality of their creation myth. Any criticism of the country and some of you guys go wild.
@@Croyles I love seeing people ignore their own history of oppressive colonialism to point fingers at people they consider inferior. Any criticism of the Empire and some of you guys lose all semblance of intelligence.
@@John_Smith_60 Point proven. 1. I am not from the UK 2. No one here in the comments is denying it's role in colonialism and the great damage it has done and continues to do, although maybe the US is denying it's own absolutely massive role in colonialism? Great whataboutism. 3. This same video literally shows how they take the piss out of themselves. Criticizing another country isn't a statement that your own doesn't have problems. 4. Any source outside of the the US will corroborate what was said in this video.
Ugh, Stephen is showing his bigotry, and the worst part is that he's already been corrected on it before. Search "Fry in America Bonus Footage" and you'll see him trying this line out on a Mayflower reenactor, who puts him in his place. FRY: They came to be free to persecute, didn't they? REENACTOR: Well, they could have done that at home, couldn't they? That is ye Kynge his worke at home! No need to cross the ocean to do that.
Stephen also got the name of the king wrong when he tried to rebut, and had to be corrected by the reenactor. It was the funniest clip in the series and was cut from the broadcast version because of how humiliated Stephen was by the end of it.
This definitely was one the greatest questions ever asked on QI. Even better you had Sandi, Henning and Clive who are all well educated, interesting and genuinely love to learn.
The Puritans and Pilgrims get confused even among New Englanders who are taught the history. The Pilgrims (also known as Scrooby Congregation, English Dissenters, or Brownists) came on the Mayflower, in 1620, but the Puritans came about 10-20 years later. These two groups in fact founded distinct colonies; Pilgrims established Plymouth Colony, Puritans established Massachusetts Bay Colony. Eventually these were combined (in the 1690s) into one Province of Massachusetts Bay. You can in fact still see the original boundary between the two colonies in the borders of the Massachusetts state counties in the southeastern part of the state. Incidentally, it was the Puritans, but not the Pilgrims, behind the Salem Witch Trials.
What makes it a bit confusing is that both the Pilgrims and the Puritans were both of a religious lineage from Seperatist Puritanism, but they were distinct sects with distinct aims.
Both went to the US in part due to religious tolerance though and wanting to impose their own. The one in the Netherlands in case of the pilgrims. And just looking into it more the Pilgrims are considered a branch of puritans.
I believe the big divider between the two groups was the Puritans wanted to "purify" the Church of England of any connection to the Catholic Church. The Pilgrims on the other hand didn't like the idea of a central authority at all and believed the Church of England resembled too much like the Catholic Church. In the Pilgrim's case, they were kinda escaping persecution as their followers refused to attend Church of England services which lead to fines and eventually prison if the fines weren't paid. It's the main reason they left for the Netherlands.
@@samhirst2830 Eventually they left the Netherlands because they thought there was too much tolerance
This is really interesting, I really wish we were taught more world history in the UK rather than our own periods which can be discovered by just going to National Trust sites most of the time lol
@@RubenTheCartographer I don't know if that's entirely accurate on QI's part as it sounds like they are confusing them with the Puritans. Catholics at that time were discriminated against in the Netherlands and I have no idea whether the Brownists were bothered by the tolerance of other Protestant denominations. The reasons why the Brownists were unhappy in the Netherlands were more cultural than religious. They struggled to find work because none of them spoke Dutch nor did they want to as they wanted to hold on to their English identity and culture. If anything the reason why they left the Netherlands was more by a stroke of luck as they had heard that the London Virginia Company was looking to sponsor a group of people to set up a colony in the New World. It should be noted that the Brownists lived in the Netherlands for 12 years so I doubt it was down to religious tolerance.
Honestly, this explains a lot
If only England had sent the Puritans to Australia and let us have the convicts. America would be so much better off.
@@paulpeterson4216But the number of Australasian people(s) who could have been killed by God's Pustulous wrath - and even then the number that survived such devastation, were far fewer in number than the great plethora of peoples throughout the New World.
Have to main and kill & convert as many as possible after all.
@@paulpeterson4216 as an Australian...no thanks.
@@paulpeterson4216 We did have convicts sent to the American colonies, too. It doesn’t get as much air time, perhaps because the transported were a men convicted of lesser crimes and sent off on ships in among other travelers (that I don’t know, only guessing),
@@paulpeterson4216 No, the US is already fucked, you leave us Australians alone m8.
I'll always remember Greg Proops doing a stand up bit in England and mentioning American Thanksgiving or, "as it's known here, 'F*** Off, Puritan, Day.'"
Well, they'd already fornicated off by that point. Apart from the ones who stayed a banned Christmas.
Excellent clip, and the first hundred comments are fabulous in the few hours this clip has been 'up'
What an invention QI was....
They had to come here because pretty much everyone kept kicking them out of the country. They tried several countries in Europe but people got quite sick of their schit very fast, and booted them out. So the New World was really their only option.
Same thing happened to the Mormons in Utah (of course both groups deserved it, in my opinion)
But not Australia. Phew!!!
@@john.premose Joseph Smith the founder became quite tyrannical and started imprisoning and silencing people who were against him. He was a mayor of a small town. So the citizens of the town eventually got together and shot him.
Also of course they didn't really left from England. They had been living in Leiden, Holland for quite a well by then. They only stopped over in England to change from a small channel hopper called Speedwell to the larger Mayflower to cross the Atlantic.
You describe the Pilgrims, not the Puritans.
Not quite: The Mayflower was hired for the voyage, but the Speedwelll had been purchased by the company of investors financing the voyage. Both ships were supposed to come, with the Speedwell remaining in the settlement. But after two attempts, it appeared (another story in itself) unseaworthy and so was sold.
Wrong group Dude. That's the Pilgrims.
@@andyalder7910 The Pilgrims were a subset of Puritans, so yes, Puritans arrived on the Mayflower. I mean, it seems weird for British people to be telling Americans we have our own history wrong, you know? But the Pilgrims were Puritans (good old William Brewster of Scrooby, and his Separatist friends).
Also, they first landed at Provincetown and the local landmarks make the distinctions clear, but they *settled* at Plymouth (and yes, the rock is just hooey).
@@nimue325
Someone has to publicly tell Yanks they're perversely promoting falsehoods as history - eg 'the USA single-handedly won WWII'.
Clearly the puritans wanted to escape the persecution of their intolerance.
Oh the irony of the modern USA
Virtually no one at that time was for religious tolerance.
@@lukemwill99 it's not modern
@@michaelsommers2356 The muslims were fairly tolerant.
@@zapkvr There weren't many of them in Europe, and those that were, were not in charge. They also taxed Christians at a higher rate. They were hardly in favor of religious freedom.
On the subject of B&B's, there's in Warkworth, Northumberland, that had Bed & Brexit on their sign.
They may as well have a sign saying “Keep on driving.”
I love Stephen's passion for dispelling myths.
It was his job. And he was wrong as well you know. Pretty sure he wasn't doing the research
He didn't dispel anything. He just reinforced the conventional British belief. Just like the British Empire never killed Zulu's, or Maoris, or aborigènes. The British arrange historical facts to suit their own sensitivities.
@@msamour Did he ever say they didn't?
Except that he's wrong. We don't teach Puritans on the Mayflower. Those folks were Separatists.
@@msamour original
It's sad, but very enlightening, to know that America has a long history of arguing that religious freedom includes the freedom to restrict other people's religious freedom.
Finke and Starke wrote the book "Churching of America" which runs down the history of the tension between the Conservatives and the Liberals. Fascinating
@@zapkvr Thank you for the recommendation; I shall seek out the book.
I enjoyed _Lies My Teacher Told Me_ .The author, James Loewen, analysed the most widely-used high school U.S. history textbooks & corrected the many legends, exaggerations, & outright lies.
It's an excellent read (or listen via Audible) despite its 1990s copyright. An updated edition was released recently.
"The Puritans came here to worship in their own way, and to make others do the same."
And the part that (the preservation of) slavery played in the War of Independence ...
@@Tupelo927 I have a copy of this, which I''ve not gotten around to. Will make it a higher priority!
When I hear someone talk about Puritans I always think of Mr and Mrs Whiteadder:
"You have chairs?! Wicked child! Chairs are an invention of Satan!
In our house Nathaniel sits on a spike!"
"And where do you sit?"
"I sit on Nathaniel. Two spikes would be an extravagance."
QI~epicc content,
Like Stephen said though, many people did escape to America to evade persecution. They just weren't Puritans.
And then the Puritans followed them.
The puritans received far worse than they gave (even if they shouldn't have given as they did)
The Puritans were persecuted, sometimes harshly, in England, and they did go to America to get away from that.
@@michaelsommers2356 they persecuted others then left when people gave them shit back.
@@nehrigen
As ye sow ...
As the 'great USA' is now discovering.
LOL My Mayflower ancestor was a petty criminal in England who came here as basically an indentured servant who got into a good number of scrapes on this side of the pond. He was one of the first to fight a duel here and got in trouble for it. He's a very colorful character that I find amusing and fascinating.
While America has proud traditions of openness and freedom, the vocal minority of zealots seeking to impose their religious views on others through state/legal coercion has never really gone away, and has an outsize influence in American politics to this day.
'America has proud traditions of openness and freedom' - hahahahaha!
US involvement in coups since WWII - and these are only the ones Wikipedia (centre-right in its politics, generally) will consent to admitting happened (examples such as Bolivia and Venezuela in the last few years are missing).
The US weren't open about an awful lot of these, and many, many of them involved the restriction of people's freedoms, often replacing elected, democratic governments with hard-right dictators.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_involvement_in_regime_change
5.1 1940s
5.1.1 1945-1948: South Korea
5.1.2 1945-1949: China
5.1.3 1947-1949: Greece
5.1.4 1948: Costa Rica
5.1.5 1949-1953: Albania
5.1.6 1949: Syria
5.2 1950s
5.2.1 1950-1953: Burma and China
5.2.2 1952: Egypt
5.2.3 1952: Guatemala
5.2.4 1952-1953: Iran
5.2.5 1954: Guatemala
5.2.6 1956-1957: Syria
5.2.7 1957-1959: Indonesia
5.2.8 1959-1963: South Vietnam
5.2.9 1959-1962: Cuba
5.3 1960s
5.3.1 1960-1965: Congo-Leopoldville
5.3.2 1960: Laos
5.3.3 1961: Dominican Republic
5.3.4 1961-1964: Brazil
5.3.5 1963: Iraq
5.3.6 1965-1967: Indonesia
5.4 1970s
5.4.1 1970: Cambodia
5.4.2 1970-1973: Chile
5.4.3 1971: Bolivia
5.4.4 1974-1991: Ethiopia
5.4.5 1975-1991: Angola
5.4.6 1975-1999: East Timor
5.4.7 1976: Argentina
5.4.8 1979-1992: Afghanistan
5.5 1980s
5.5.1 1980-1989: Poland
5.5.2 1981-1982: Chad
5.5.3 1981-1990: Nicaragua
5.5.4 1983: Grenada
5.5.5 1989-1994: Panama
5.5.6 1989: Paraguay
6 1991-present: Post-Cold War
6.1 1990s
6.1.1 1991: Iraq
6.1.2 1991: Haiti
6.1.3 1992-1996: Iraq
6.1.4 1994-1995: Haiti
6.1.5 1996-1997: Zaire
6.2 2000s
6.2.1 2000: FR Yugoslavia
6.2.2 2001-2021: Afghanistan
6.2.3 2003-2021: Iraq
6.2.4 2005: Kyrgyzstan
6.2.5 2006-2007: Palestinian Territories
6.2.6 2005-2009: Syria
6.3 2010s
6.3.1 2011: Libya
6.3.2 2012-2017: Syria
@@julianevans9548 Wikipedia is user moderated. The politics are that of its users.
@@julianevans9548 Dude, chillax. These are comments in response to a comedy show segment regarding Puritans, not the minutes of the America Haters' Annual Symposium. I'm not on the payroll of the US government and am not gonna justify each of their foreign interventions - in fact, I've personally opposed and protested a couple of them - but your calling the governments of Libya, Syria, Iraq, Afghanistan, Yugoslavia, Zaire, Paraguay, etc., "free" and "democratic" does little to help your credibility.
@@V45194 You seem to be missing out on reading comprehension, given that you replied to someone saying "often replacing elected, democratic governments" pretending they said something entirely different. Also, the USA were built on exploitation, slavery and land theft, so those "proud traditions of openness and freedom" hardly ever extended beyond white rich cishet men and still barely do. You can pretend reality doesn't exist and live in your nationalistic fantasy all you want, but if you truly believe that your home country is capable of those ideals, you should start by dropping the pathetic denial.
@@V45194 The USA definitely has overthrown, or participated in the overthrow of, democratically elected governments in Central and South America. I'm just wondering what you base your assertion on that "America has proud traditions of openness and freedom"? In the constitution, yes, I'll give you that. But in the actual actions of the nation...? Well, ask a Native American or Black or Chinese over the last 200 years whether they have experienced openness and freedom in the USA. I agree that you have a massive problem with religious zealots imposing their will on the state. Again, this should be protected against by the separation of church and state, but in practise... not so much. Sorry, just relaying some minutes from the America Haters' Annual Symposium.
It was the pilgrims that where on the Mayflower and they left the Netherlands after coming over from the UK, in part due to religious tolerance in the Netherlands. Where they where afraid that their kids might switch religion.
The reason they were in the Netherlands was because they'd tried to force their beliefs on others in England. Going to Holland didn't work out in large part because of a lack of work/income. Locals wouldn't employ the men and the women weren't allowed out unaccompanied by a male member of their community. Religion works in mysterious ways, in this case to force a dissenting group to run for the hills.
The pilgrims were puritans. Pilgrims is a much younger word, they wouldn't have called themselves that.
The modern day United States makes a Hell of a lot more sense in light of this.
I mentioned it already but read Finke and Starke. It makes even more sense
Yep. We've still got both streaks alive and well in our culture -- religious tolerance on the one hand, Puritan extremism on the other.
Oh gosh this explains so much about that country!
We have two faces. On one face, we want to help others to fulfill their dreams. On the other face, we want to burn all you love and imprison you in your own mind.
It does, particularly the fact that they've completely reversed the truth in their origin story
Ahhh the dark old days when Sandy was naught but an occasional guest contestant. How far we've come. Maybe Stephen will appear on the final edition as a contestant though?
That explains a lot
I love Sandy, I'd love to see her host this show one day...
Prefer Henning
There is the Pilgrims Monument in Provincetown Massachusetts. Most Americans who don't live in Massachusetts have no clue that's where they landed. Of course now it's a vacation spot for the LGBTQ+ community.
So, it's finally being put to good use.
I'm certain the Pilgrims and Puritans would approve. 🤣🤣🤣
It's the main reason the founding fathers were adamant that church and state should forever remain separate.
You wouldn't be able to tell the way republican politicians like Lauren Boebert are carrying on.
the "founding fathers" owned slaves. and the country was already founded when they got there.
Americans?! You need to listen to this more than anyone else.👆
And perhaps the English should also speak to how they burned/killed/arrested the puritans for their disagreements with the Church of England.... but it is more fun to tell stories about those who you don't live with anymore
Aww…. A snarky comment from someone living in a country who celebrates the gold-digging, do-nothing Princess Diane, voted in Brexit, and destroyed peoples lives world wide for empire building… Don’t have some sheep to protect in the Faulkland instead of making narrow-minded, sweeping comments about a country and its people? I mean, really? You don’t get to be prejudiced against a group of people and then claim to know better.
Yeah but we need more than this, lol. By the 1700s the Puritans didn't even have much real power in Massachusettes, let alone by 1776, because the original colonial charter was revoked in 1684 in part due to the Puritans repeatedly breaking its rules...
@@nehrigen It's generally legal to kill traitors. In the US, it's legal to kill most criminals to this day
@@nehrigen And too damn right they did that! Those loonies made the Taliban look like a bunch of peace-loving hippies, do you also feel sorry for ISIS by any chance?
Is it also true that the Puritan's preferred name was The Separatists? Always a good sign
And they continue to do so to this day
".... they came to be able to persecute".
Also the religious right in America continue pursue this aim today.
Purtian's views, the basis for the modern GOP views.
They kicked Thomas Hooker out of Massachusetts so he founded Hartford, Connecticut
Many of them are buried at Yale's old campus
There was a lot of that going around. Then you had Roger Williams, who after getting kicked out of Massachusetts Bay went and founded Rhode Island specifically as a place of religious tolerance.
Pilgrims and Puritans are very different. There were no Puritans on the Mayflower.
the Separatists (later known as Pilgrims) were an more extreme branch of puritanism
Are you saying I've been lied to my whole life?
Yeah, pretty much.
It would be the equivalent of the English revering King Arthur and Merlin as the founders of their country.
This is a semantic argument. "Persecution" is defined as hostility and ill-treatment, based on political/religious beliefs, (I combined them, Church and State, because they were 2 branches of the same tree) as well as other acts frowned upon. The "Puritans" couldn't get their form of anti-Catholic theocracy and had hostility directed at them from James I, who's KJB was an abomination to them, for changing the divine word of god. Of course religious (zealots or not) are going to be ostracized and treated with hostility from their church and government when they show forceful objection. Yes they were "persecuted". This religious battle was going on with James I, as well as with his predecessor, Elizabeth I, and going on for much longer, (the 80 years war) than just a snapshot or moment in time, a lot longer. There's a great YT video on this and Guy Fawkes, from a videographer named (apropos) John Smith; it's worth the watch if you don't mind reading the PowerPoint presentation style. It's not long, only about 5 minutes.
ruclips.net/video/-Ry7eHvl7B0/видео.html
You will learn something I'm sure you did not know.
Funny how it continues to this day. Puritanical Evangelical Hypocrites trying to persecute and prosecute all those that dare to disagree.
Evangelicals are not Puritans. You are just using "Puritan" and "Puritanicaal" as meaningless terms of abuse.
@@michaelsommers2356 I didn't say they were the same. They have very similar interests and wants however. If you're looking to elicit some form of response, try harder.
@@ronaldmallette * elicit
@@michaelsommers2356 "Mike Pence says there is no 'freedom from religion'". Tell me how this viewpoint is not puritanical.
@@wbfaulk Tell me how it is puritanical. It's your claim.
"Why Did The Puritans Travel To America?"
For the tax-free cigarettes?
…to get too the other side.
It's true that the motivation for Pilgrims to leave England was not "persecution," per se. However, religious persecution in general was a feature of England at the time, after the Religion Act of 1592, particularly of Jews, Catholics, and Quakers. Separatist Puritans like the Pilgrims were in fact prohibited from setting up churches in England, and some were executed. So it's not entirely a myth.
The separatists, now called Pilgrims, are completely different from the Puritans who were themselves not separatists. There were two different groups and two different settlements.
Pilgrims and Puritans are two completely different groups of people. Both were separatists, but that's all. One seek freedom of religion (praise god in whatever form you want), the other investment in a land and freedom to build a stricter version of pre-reformation English religion.
One is Wendy's, the other McDonald.
@@SneakyBadAssOG The Pilgrims didn't want religious freedom any more than the Puritans did. Except for themselves, of course. What you are saying is the equivalent of saying that Baptists and Methodists are completely different groups. In fact, they are both Christians.
@@estranhokonsta No they weren't. They are a subset of Puritans, at least in every book I have read. At any rate, they didn't call themselves Pilgrims or Puritans; those are historical terms. Puritans believed that the reformation had stopped early in England and pushed for stronger protestant and anti-Catholic policies. That fits both groups. The distinction is whether they were separating or non-separating. "Anglican, Puritan, and Sectarian in Empirical Perspective" is a good example of a source that explores these distinctions. At any rate, in this video, Stephen Fry clearly refers to the Pilgrims as Puritans.
@@SneakyBadAssOG They can't both be separatist if the defining difference is that one of them was separatist and the other was not. Later Puritan migrations to the Americas consisted of non-separating Puritans. They established Anglican churches here.
They're still trying to make it a Puritan country.
Nobody is trying to make the US Puritan.
That’s what guns are for
& I thought they went to America to see Disneyland.
Funnily enough, the expression "religious liberty" is still used in the US to mean "the right to force your religion on others" to this very day
Funny that they eschewed luxury, but wore black clothing; black cloth being wildly expensive back then.
To get to the other side.
Because they were F*cking mad.
Also, first in everything.
Edit.
No, it's because they were F*cking Germans. ;)
That's an understatement. And you could also say they migrated to the southern US, cause a lot of them act like Puritans.
How a bunch of men used the ideals of the Enlightenment to create a country when the dna of its people was borne out of such hatred religious beliefs is baffling at times. The US founding was far from perfect (3/5ths of a person comes to mind) so I get it and I’m not blind to it’s flaws. But to be able to weave together a society where you’re free to believe whatever religious nonsense you want as long as you don’t force it down someone else’s throat. (Which, once again, I’m not blind to reality and history and the fact that has happened and is happening now).
But as a 48 year old American, I was taught the myth that these people were just trying to peaceful practice their religion. Then I read Lies My History Teacher Taught Me (I may not have the title right) and it opened my eyes to the fact they weren’t a day or two off the boat when they started digging up graves! And it got worse from there!! Plus, I was raised Mormon and that same nonsense is taught there. The “oh, we’re just a peaceful people who want to practice our religion” defense is used to distract from the hard reality they are horrible people.
No, because they are all fucking German
Nonsense! We Americans don't teach that Puritans were on the Mayflower. Everyone knows those folks were Separatists. SMH
And of course as was pointed out previously it wasn't named for Amerigo Vespucci but for Richard Americke a welsh merchant who sponsored Caboto's voyage.
The idea that they left England because it was too tolerant isn’t really accurate. While it’s true that the Church of England was much more culturally liberal than the Brownists (the group from which the pilgrims came), the CofE still did not tolerate dissenting churches and sought to force their conformity. Had the English government granted equal rights to the Brownists and other religious nonconformists, they probably would have been satisfied with it.
Although you raise some valid points, it’s not quite that simple and they were religious extremists who would not have been happy with a status quo. They objected to the C of E adopting the 1662 book of common prayer and having bishops and wanted to insist that all churches in the land were governed on their Presbyterian model and only used their theology and forms of worship.
@@stufour the pilgrims were Congregationalists, not Presbyterians.
And some people think it's only Alan! that knew the questions that were going to be asked?
Explains quite a lot about the US, doesn't it.
Ya we like to build stuff up with myths but we did win the Revolutionary war!
Because France bailed us out.
Make less plastic in the first place?
We're still having problems with Puritanism, but now we call it Trumpism.
I'm afraid that this isn't true. My Baptist church (in the UK) is old enough to have been around during the civil war. After the monarchy was reinstated, the church underwent religious persecution. The police sometimes broke into the church and beat people up during services. Our pastors were fined or put in prison. Their "crime" was refusing to join the Church of England. The original architecture of the church reflected this, with a secret escape route for the preacher.
I am not saying this to bash the Church of England, which I consider a force for good despite that unfortunate period. But to claim that the Puritans weren't persecuted in that era is both incorrect and disrespectful to my spiritual ancestors. I would be grateful if QI could be more careful with its research on future when dealing with sensitive topics.
Which civil war?
If uk civil war, that would make him hundreds of years old.
If US civil war he'd be over 130 years old.
@@gravel7614 Sorry, I should have clarified that I was referring to the UK civil war, which happened around the same time as America was being colonised. And yes, my church is several hundred years old.
@@pi4t651 I completely misunderstood what you were saying. Misread like an idiot. I thought you were talking about the person at the head of the church as if he was hundreds of years old.
@@gravel7614 Haha, no problem. Glad things got cleared up. I was a bit confused by your reply :)
You’re not the only one who would be more grateful one of the subjects as well QI is not perfect
I am always amazed at the Birts' ability to patronize and be wrong at the same time. They are confusing two different groups. The pilgrims came over on the Mayflower and landed in Plymouth Bay. The Pilgrims were indeed fleeing persecution. The Pilgrims had already fled England for the Netherlands to seek religious freedom. However, they became concerned their children would lose their English identity. Thus, they made the move to set up a colony in America. The Puritans were a separate group.
Wikipedia says that the Pilgrim Fathers were puritans
@@spookydirt Also from wikipedia. "In December 1620, a group of English religious Separatists (later referred to as "the Pilgrims") established Plymouth Colony just to the south of Massachusetts Bay, seeking to preserve their cultural identity and attain religious freedom.[14] Plymouth's colonists faced great hardships and earned few profits for their investors, who sold their interests to them in 1627.[15] Edward Winslow and William Bradford were two of the colony's leaders and were likely the authors of a work published in England in 1622 called Mourt's Relation. This book in some ways resembles a promotional tract intended to encourage further immigration.[16] Plymouth Colony would remain separate from Massachusetts Bay Colony until the creation of the Province of Massachusetts Bay."
Two separate groups. They both settled in the present day Massachusetts area. They may have had a lot in common, but they were separate groups.
@@JeffB2005 This is what I read: "The Pilgrims, also known as the Pilgrim Fathers, were the English settlers who came to North America on the Mayflower and established the Plymouth Colony in what is today Plymouth, Massachusetts, named after the final departure port of Plymouth, Devon. Their leadership came from the religious congregations of Brownists, or Separatist Puritans, ". There were more than one group of puritans, then? Or have I misunderstood you?
@@spookydirt and Wikipedia is often wrong, especially when it is referencing conservative Christian groups or topics.
@@spookydirt Yes, they both had similar religious beliefs but they came to America at different times and for different reasons.
The Puritans clearly turned into the modern day GOP 🤣
Why did the portions travel to America? More importantly, when can we give them the bum's rush?
I think Stephen may be misinformed here.
The Puritan separatist movement in England during the 1600s was indeed persecuted by the C of E - at the behest of King James I.
William Bradford (future governor of the Plymouth Colony) was imprisoned for criticism of the Church.
Then the separatists left for Amsterdam on 1608. After remaining there for years, and achieving financial success, Bradford returned to England in 1620. Shortly after that, he boarded the Mayflower to America.
The reaction of the state was due to their attempts to force their theology and forms of worship on the whole Church of England. So they weren’t fleeing persecution, they were fleeing due to a refusal to impose their religious beliefs on everyone. So he’s not misinformed, you’ve omitted a rather essential part of the history.
I have no way of fact checking any of this. Lol.
You do lazy brat
They where evil people not atall Christians
Much like the C of E, then.
What I wonder is the founding myth of England? I'm might doubt "1066 and all that", but as I have just learned of the Norman's other land grabs beyond Sicily including along the north African coast, I shall have to look elsewhere, perhaps at Ireland whilst gazing into the murky depths of a pint of the black stuff.
King Arthur
@@Ellestra Yes, a mythical figure, but I don't recall that anything was new. The 'set-up' was already there including a round table.
The problem is that we know so little about the myths and legends of pre-Roman Britain and then after Romans came the dark ages where again, we know very little. This was part of the reason why JR Tolkein was inspired to write The Lord of the Rings. He wanted to create a mythos to replace what had been lost. We do know a little of creation myth though. There is a story, however, that has survived from the early inhabitants of these islands. 100 Princesses killed their husbands, being of royal blood they could not be executed and so were banished. They wondered the earth until they came to Britain where they met and fell in love with a race of giants. Their offspring were the birth of the British people.
I don't think you'll find it in Ireland, but your methodology is spot on and definitely worth a go 👌
I mention Ireland because I suspect that when the "Brits" suffered invasion by Angles & Saxons on the big island many sought refuge in Ireland or in northern Scotland where the old language has survived to some extent. It would be interesting to know what language was commonly spoken in the British isles under the Romans. ... something else to look up.
How very modern day. This is the Republican's blue print for America today.
The Puritans it appears were just.
I'm not sure the Puritans went across to Massachusetts so that they could better persecute people for following the wrong type of Christianity, given that there weren't Christian people there before the Mayflower landed.
"Every country likes to build up a myth of its own foundation" said the heir to foundational stories of King Arthur and Robin Hood.
He said every country, not every country except Britain. Sometimes you can include yourself in a criticism.
It’s more telling that you took him admitting that EVERY country has these myths as a reason to point at the country of the man making that point to avoid critique of your own - as if he’d excluded Britain.
For the freedom to practice the most stultifyingly repressive religion known to man?
Sorry, but this has every bit as much crap as such discussions usually have. The leaders of those on the Mayflower were not "Puritans" (a slur against Church of England people who wanted to "purify" the church of its "Popish essences) but "Separatists" (slur against those who had "separated" from the church into independent congregations - i.e., congregationalists). They came to what is now the US in 1620 to escape poverty in Holland (to which they had fled to escape persecution in England). Puritans are more associated with Boston, founded 1630. Neither group came "in order to oppress," to "build a country in which there could be no dissent from Puritanism." That's utter nonsense and when coupled with the implication that England of the time was a land of religious tolerance is historical revisionism of a 3rd grade level. They came for pretty much the same reason everyone else did/has: a combination of a better life (England was in a depression at the time), land, and a dream of getting rich.
Re: Puritans - tell that to all the people they kicked out of Massachusetts Bay. Like Roger Williams.
@@Brasswatchman The claim at issue was not if the Puritans pushed theological orthodoxy, just as the Church of England _of which they were part did,_ but that they came to this continent "in order to oppress" rather than for land or wealth. As for "a country in which there could be no [lawful] dissent," they already had that in England. Neither was "why" they came.
@@whoviating Except they still had dissenting views from the Anglican Church, didn't they? So they left to found their own with blackjack and hookers, except forget the blackjack and hookers. And while I'm sure they wouldn't have put it as traveling "in order to oppress," isn't that still effectively what they did?
The Puritans, and the Pilgrims were Puritans, were being persecuted in England. They did want to go to America to be free of that persecution. They didn't go for the sole purpose of persecuting others.
Name one law that was enacted to persecute the Puritans in England.
Stephen is correct in what he said. In 1689 the Toleration Act, while continuing the Church of England as the dominant religios body, tolerated dissenting religious groups and allowed them to practice their religion freely. That included the Puritans.
The Puritans, however, weren't happy about everone being able to worship the way they wanted, and demanded that King James persecute anyone who was NOT a Puritan. He said, "Don't be rediculous," or words to that effect, so the Puritans left England in a huff.
Salty American alert
They were only persecuted in their own imaginations. I mean the Puritans took the whole country over in 1645 (or somewhere around there), killed the king, abolished the Church of England, and ruled the country for 15 years. How can they possibly claim to be persecuted? The puritans were the ones doing the persecution
@@JosephSchmidtfan "An Acte to retayne the Quenes Subjectes in Obedyence", 1593, makes it illegal to fail to attend CoE services and to attend non-CoE religious services. You can find the text in "The statutes of the realm", v.4, pt.2, p.841. It's available for reading on the Internet Archive.
I find it interesting that people in this thread are referencing things that occurred in 1645 and 1689 to show that Puritans were not being persecuted in 1620. That's like pointing out that Obama was president in 2008 to prove that black people weren't being persecuted in America in 1955.
Your history opnion is suspect at best, I think you would do well to do a little more reading instead of repeating Wikipedia type nonsense. But since you say it with you best snobbish British accent, then it must be scholarly and true.
I love seeing Americans come over here and have to grapple with the reality of their creation myth.
Any criticism of the country and some of you guys go wild.
@@Croyles I love seeing people ignore their own history of oppressive colonialism to point fingers at people they consider inferior.
Any criticism of the Empire and some of you guys lose all semblance of intelligence.
@@John_Smith_60 Point proven.
1. I am not from the UK
2. No one here in the comments is denying it's role in colonialism and the great damage it has done and continues to do, although maybe the US is denying it's own absolutely massive role in colonialism? Great whataboutism.
3. This same video literally shows how they take the piss out of themselves. Criticizing another country isn't a statement that your own doesn't have problems.
4. Any source outside of the the US will corroborate what was said in this video.
**SALTY YANK ALERT**
A question on compulsory poppy wearing and what it celebrates would he too controversial.
Compulsory?? Have a day off, mate.
@@artsed08 Have you been locked in a dungeon for 70 years?
Ugh, Stephen is showing his bigotry, and the worst part is that he's already been corrected on it before. Search "Fry in America Bonus Footage" and you'll see him trying this line out on a Mayflower reenactor, who puts him in his place.
FRY: They came to be free to persecute, didn't they?
REENACTOR: Well, they could have done that at home, couldn't they? That is ye Kynge his worke at home! No need to cross the ocean to do that.
Stephen also got the name of the king wrong when he tried to rebut, and had to be corrected by the reenactor. It was the funniest clip in the series and was cut from the broadcast version because of how humiliated Stephen was by the end of it.
Sandi - a New Yorker who was too short to be accepted into the Midget Club, so moved to London, faked a British Accent and pretends to be Danish ..