Foundation Stories 0:10 Pilgrims in New England, Profiteers in Jamestown Virginia. 1:28 Jamestown (1607) Plymouth Rock (1620) Boston Puritan (1630) 1:48 *Who/What was a Puritan* ? - Want to strip away fanciness of Church of England. Focus more on Bible. - Desire Separation of Church and State - Live Out What a proper, righteous society looks like. 4:59 *Pilgrims and Puritans* 1620’s Separatists= completely separate from Church of England. 1630’s= Show England it is wrong. Show them New England 🏴 is the “city upon a hill” and eventually be invited back to England. 6:48 *New England Society* Environment= Cold, Rocky, + Little tropical diseases - Poor agriculture land + *Family* Farming, Fishing/Shipbuilding, Trading + Life expectancy up to 70 years + Highest rates of Literacy Middle class artisan types generally Less enslaved Africans, less plantations. More family labor Mostly egalitarian. - Strictness of Church - No Christmas 🎄(too Pagan) - Excommunication/Execution for questioning actions (Roger Williams 1636 and Anne Hutchinson 1637)
The part about the idea of no separation of Church and State and the monarch objecting is a classic example of the type of temptations such a man has to be warry of: casting doubt on any ruler is not unpatriotic, it is the *essence* of patriotism: the insertion of man into a guardian role towards his society, over, above, and against the established government for the good of all.
9:47 It’s actually a myth that the Puritans were seeking religious freedom. They actually wanted to create their own theocracy. They moved to The Netherlands 🇳🇱 before coming to the New World, but the Dutch were _too_ tolerant for them!
Great video. Im from delaware and my ancestors accomack va that go way back. Very interesting. There was a northam that married a Indian in my family that was disowned. I know the northams go back to early 1600s .
Very educational I enjoyed your video I am a relative of Mather Cotton on my father side of my family I recently had a DNA test done and I have over 656 4th cousins or closer
If you want a sample of the various ways a Puritan, basically a British Calvinist, would go off the rails; just look at the monster Oliver Cromwell as a classic example. Some things he did the Soviets would've cheered on, such as outlawing celebrating Christmas. Basically, for a man who *claimed* to be a Christian, he forbade people from celebrating Christ's birthday- now that's messed-up!
Well in one sense they were right. Nobody knows when Christ was born, but it probably wasn’t around the winter solstice. Pagan religions celebrate winter solstice, many Christmas traditions come directly from pagan traditions. Yule logs, Christmas trees, etc have nothing to do with the birth of Christ. The Catholic Church wrapped winter solstice celebration in a veil of Christianity. The Puritans understood this.
@@bobbilaval6171 Not to much, it turns out that the Pagans were copying their Christian neighbors; not the reverse. But it has never ever been out of the question for a new faith to coopt the holydays of the previous faith- the pagans tried to do that with us in Imperial Rome's days. I am, however, more referring to how the Soviets renamed Christmas "the Winter Holidays" to be specific.
@bobbilaval6171 but why does it matter? If they were doing these things with the celebration of Christ in mind and in heart, having a Christmas tree shouldn't matter. They were wrong.
@@xXESproductionsXx In *theory* you're right about them doing these things due to genuine beliefs. Here's the problems herein: by then the paganism, if even remotely connected to that, had long-since disappeared completely. And another detail that his educational system gets diametrically false on world history: the Eastern Roman Empire was NOT orthodox at all, the reason: at that time, and even in the days of Constantine: orthodox *didn't exist*, he converted to Roman Catholicism, not Orthodoxy, as the latter hadn't existed until *at least* some 700 years *after* his death, with the Great Scism. This kind of a historical blunder is NOT acceptable for anyone who'd seek to teach history- now the matter of the Puritans, that's believable, but they were NOT "Cathars" they were really English Calvinists, in *all* of their beliefs, including absolute belief in the really idiotic idea of predestination- these errors in discernment are really nothing new, even by their day- the "Lollards" of England in the Middle Ages had the same general belief system- and they were, by and large, rejected by the Brits of their day, who were really amazingly devout Catholics in the Middle Ages; yet oftentimes it was only "skin deep" as even St. Patrick mentions in his writings of the faith in his days in Britain: it was a shallow faith, only surface-deep basically. These're historical details; and no, I'm not truly angry at all at Mr. Khan, but rather critiquing his assessments of history. The fight that resulted in the Great Schism really was due to the internal politics of the Byzantine Empire in a lot of ways; some good arguments by the rulers: as not every man who believes he's called to the monastaries is truly called theretofore: most men by far are called to careers "in the world" (Christian terms: more commonly understood then and there than by and large here: it means largely something akin to men living the typically civilian lives of husband and father and career worker in his chosen career), the religious life, not the religiously *devout* life (the latter it turns out that a certain Washington, G. voiced absolute support for: he referenced in his farewell address from public service some things that tell us that even *then* in the American Republic that a strongly anti-God value system had begun to exist, and he was speaking out to *condemn* that movement, even going so far as to stress that we mustn't long expect public morality in the abscence of religion- so the question of "should we do away with His kingdom or not?" had already begun to be bounced around; and guess what: that shows just how resilliant our men are: we've long dealt with such conflicts and divisions and have survived even worse than we currently are), the religiously devout life is NOT necessarily the same as the "religious life" the latter of those is kind of those men who take religious vows, the former is any man trying to live right values as he believes he should. The Byzantine Emperors really could've easily appealed to the men to defend their right *to* practice their faith- that's also been done, ironically by Poland in the Russo-Polish War of 1919 AD actually, so it certainly is NOT out of the picture, in fact, the whole idea of the Crusades when you look at them was Christendom turning an Islamic argument back on the Moslems and carrying out the argument better than the Moslems did: their concept of "Jihad" is defined as a *defensive Holy War*, so the expansionary wars they waged in history certainly would NOT cut it; but rather the defense they carried out in Afghanistan certainly does: nobody was nastier towards religion than the Reds of the 20th Century AD, not by a long-shot; and they had left no secret at all of their goals- that was a just war, not their wars of invasion- that's different on all points. Sadly what happened in their world is a kind of religious dictatorship, where you either toe the line, or are basically canceled for short- and yeah, I learned of that practice *from some of the Moslems I deal with, or dealt with*, so their practicing of their faith has become, as any faith will when it is cultural: shallow, only skin-deep, and thus fragile. To the men who'd be practicing faiths: when your state makes your faith "the law of the land" *officially* that is by far the Worst possible deal of them all: as practice will go downhill, and badly at that. There are some peculiar things that came out of Poland's days behind the Iron Curtain: religious practice had spiked up, but how much was really because the men practicing the faith in question, one suppressed by the Marxist government of those days, was really due to the men having become convinced of the truth of the beliefs verses how much of it was them "thumbing their noses" to the Marxists in the Kremlin? That's always been the problem with religious regulations- and that's the infinite wisdom of having a separation between Church and State, yet a limited one; where each kind of tacitely recognizes the other, but there's no official union- it is, in terms of beliefs, recognition of a kind of "metaphysical physics" intertwined with the government NOT enslaving or even trying to enslave anybody at all. And here's the really and truly *dumb* thing of Oliver Cromwell's attempt to cancel Christmas; even from a devout Puritan viewpoint: he's playing around in the employ of the devil- as that entity truly *would* want the celebration of Christ's birthday party canceled; so they'd be like "What is he *thinking*?!" and there'd be a LOT of disobedience of that regulation, even by his own men in the New Model Army. Plus his actions aren't even valid when you analyze them in the light of the gospels, something he was no doubt *very* into adhering to, if he truly did believe in the teachings therein, as any devout Protestant will have to accept that at least the Nativity Gospels are backing up the whole claims. I've even used referece to those items to explain Catholic Marian Devotion to a Protestant friend of mine: reference the "Lord's Prayer", specifically the very first two words: the other name for the prayer in question, and the Nativity Gospels, and you *have* to acknowledge who His mom by birth really is to you; or you have to end up rejecting His layout. Some He would stress *should* be rejected, regarding the cultural views. Christ Himself was, historically-speaking at least, a first-century middle-eastern man; so He was no stranger to the idiotic stances in favor of blood feuds; He condemned them sure, but He wasn't alien to them, and He would no doubt fully condemn us taking *that* idea up as a valid practice. That kind of practice really gets dumb real fast!
Foundation Stories
0:10 Pilgrims in New England, Profiteers in Jamestown Virginia.
1:28 Jamestown (1607) Plymouth Rock (1620) Boston Puritan (1630)
1:48 *Who/What was a Puritan* ?
- Want to strip away fanciness of Church of England. Focus more on Bible.
- Desire Separation of Church and State
- Live Out What a proper, righteous society looks like.
4:59 *Pilgrims and Puritans*
1620’s Separatists= completely separate from Church of England.
1630’s= Show England it is wrong. Show them New England 🏴 is the “city upon a hill” and eventually be invited back to England.
6:48 *New England Society*
Environment= Cold, Rocky,
+ Little tropical diseases
- Poor agriculture land
+ *Family* Farming, Fishing/Shipbuilding, Trading
+ Life expectancy up to 70 years
+ Highest rates of Literacy
Middle class artisan types generally
Less enslaved Africans, less plantations. More family labor
Mostly egalitarian.
- Strictness of Church
- No Christmas 🎄(too Pagan)
- Excommunication/Execution for questioning actions (Roger Williams 1636 and Anne Hutchinson 1637)
I would kiss you if you were next to me
Thank you so much
I love you omg
Thank You SO MUCH!
I needed this
Ngl, voice is hella soothing
ikr
Until the “So how did life compare” part lol
"so HOW DID LIFE COMPARE" 6:44
my ears busted open
mf need to audio level bruh
Good lord, my speakers almost broke at 6:45! Please fix before someone punctures an eardrum.
👍🏻👍🏻👍🏻👍🏻👍🏻👍🏻👍🏻👍🏻👍🏻Do you have a point a very good point
6:45 made me jump
The part about the idea of no separation of Church and State and the monarch objecting is a classic example of the type of temptations such a man has to be warry of: casting doubt on any ruler is not unpatriotic, it is the *essence* of patriotism: the insertion of man into a guardian role towards his society, over, above, and against the established government for the good of all.
9:47 It’s actually a myth that the Puritans were seeking religious freedom. They actually wanted to create their own theocracy. They moved to The Netherlands 🇳🇱 before coming to the New World, but the Dutch were _too_ tolerant for them!
What's with the sudden audio increase at 6:45
Bakunaga i started fading into a deep slumber when next thing i know she screaming at me 😂
not audio increase but up to that point the audio was decreased and then it became normal
jESUS CHRIST
wow! i learned so much. thank you
Great video. Im from delaware and my ancestors accomack va that go way back. Very interesting. There was a northam that married a Indian in my family that was disowned. I know the northams go back to early 1600s .
Volume is on the low side so even if my iPhone/iPad speakers are on max, it’s not loud enough
fix your audio levels, @khanacademy
what were they hoping to do/ change about the church?
It looked interesting, but there is no sound on this video.
Thanks
9:10 the people of virginia had a 70 year life expectancy? or new England?
new england prob
Very educational I enjoyed your video I am a relative of Mather Cotton on my father side of my family I recently had a DNA test done and I have over 656 4th cousins or closer
mhm
@David O'Neill What about Cotton Mather?
Ok
Yay I know so boring 😴😴😴😴😴😴😴😴😴😴😴😴😴😴😴😴😴😴😴😴😴😴😴😴😴😴😴😴😴😴😴😴😴😴😴😴😴😴
Thank you
Ty this helpede with my project on new England colonies easier BTW u gona fix that audio any soon.
I'm from New Hampshire
Didier super
If you want a sample of the various ways a Puritan, basically a British Calvinist, would go off the rails; just look at the monster Oliver Cromwell as a classic example. Some things he did the Soviets would've cheered on, such as outlawing celebrating Christmas. Basically, for a man who *claimed* to be a Christian, he forbade people from celebrating Christ's birthday- now that's messed-up!
Well in one sense they were right. Nobody knows when Christ was born, but it probably wasn’t around the winter solstice. Pagan religions celebrate winter solstice, many Christmas traditions come directly from pagan traditions. Yule logs, Christmas trees, etc have nothing to do with the birth of Christ. The Catholic Church wrapped winter solstice celebration in a veil of Christianity. The Puritans understood this.
@@bobbilaval6171 Not to much, it turns out that the Pagans were copying their Christian neighbors; not the reverse. But it has never ever been out of the question for a new faith to coopt the holydays of the previous faith- the pagans tried to do that with us in Imperial Rome's days. I am, however, more referring to how the Soviets renamed Christmas "the Winter Holidays" to be specific.
@bobbilaval6171 but why does it matter? If they were doing these things with the celebration of Christ in mind and in heart, having a Christmas tree shouldn't matter.
They were wrong.
@@xXESproductionsXx In *theory* you're right about them doing these things due to genuine beliefs.
Here's the problems herein: by then the paganism, if even remotely connected to that, had long-since disappeared completely.
And another detail that his educational system gets diametrically false on world history: the Eastern Roman Empire was NOT orthodox at all, the reason: at that time, and even in the days of Constantine: orthodox *didn't exist*, he converted to Roman Catholicism, not Orthodoxy, as the latter hadn't existed until *at least* some 700 years *after* his death, with the Great Scism.
This kind of a historical blunder is NOT acceptable for anyone who'd seek to teach history- now the matter of the Puritans, that's believable, but they were NOT "Cathars" they were really English Calvinists, in *all* of their beliefs, including absolute belief in the really idiotic idea of predestination- these errors in discernment are really nothing new, even by their day- the "Lollards" of England in the Middle Ages had the same general belief system- and they were, by and large, rejected by the Brits of their day, who were really amazingly devout Catholics in the Middle Ages; yet oftentimes it was only "skin deep" as even St. Patrick mentions in his writings of the faith in his days in Britain: it was a shallow faith, only surface-deep basically.
These're historical details; and no, I'm not truly angry at all at Mr. Khan, but rather critiquing his assessments of history.
The fight that resulted in the Great Schism really was due to the internal politics of the Byzantine Empire in a lot of ways; some good arguments by the rulers: as not every man who believes he's called to the monastaries is truly called theretofore: most men by far are called to careers "in the world" (Christian terms: more commonly understood then and there than by and large here: it means largely something akin to men living the typically civilian lives of husband and father and career worker in his chosen career), the religious life, not the religiously *devout* life (the latter it turns out that a certain Washington, G. voiced absolute support for: he referenced in his farewell address from public service some things that tell us that even *then* in the American Republic that a strongly anti-God value system had begun to exist, and he was speaking out to *condemn* that movement, even going so far as to stress that we mustn't long expect public morality in the abscence of religion- so the question of "should we do away with His kingdom or not?" had already begun to be bounced around; and guess what: that shows just how resilliant our men are: we've long dealt with such conflicts and divisions and have survived even worse than we currently are), the religiously devout life is NOT necessarily the same as the "religious life" the latter of those is kind of those men who take religious vows, the former is any man trying to live right values as he believes he should.
The Byzantine Emperors really could've easily appealed to the men to defend their right *to* practice their faith- that's also been done, ironically by Poland in the Russo-Polish War of 1919 AD actually, so it certainly is NOT out of the picture, in fact, the whole idea of the Crusades when you look at them was Christendom turning an Islamic argument back on the Moslems and carrying out the argument better than the Moslems did: their concept of "Jihad" is defined as a *defensive Holy War*, so the expansionary wars they waged in history certainly would NOT cut it; but rather the defense they carried out in Afghanistan certainly does: nobody was nastier towards religion than the Reds of the 20th Century AD, not by a long-shot; and they had left no secret at all of their goals- that was a just war, not their wars of invasion- that's different on all points.
Sadly what happened in their world is a kind of religious dictatorship, where you either toe the line, or are basically canceled for short- and yeah, I learned of that practice *from some of the Moslems I deal with, or dealt with*, so their practicing of their faith has become, as any faith will when it is cultural: shallow, only skin-deep, and thus fragile.
To the men who'd be practicing faiths: when your state makes your faith "the law of the land" *officially* that is by far the Worst possible deal of them all: as practice will go downhill, and badly at that.
There are some peculiar things that came out of Poland's days behind the Iron Curtain: religious practice had spiked up, but how much was really because the men practicing the faith in question, one suppressed by the Marxist government of those days, was really due to the men having become convinced of the truth of the beliefs verses how much of it was them "thumbing their noses" to the Marxists in the Kremlin? That's always been the problem with religious regulations- and that's the infinite wisdom of having a separation between Church and State, yet a limited one; where each kind of tacitely recognizes the other, but there's no official union- it is, in terms of beliefs, recognition of a kind of "metaphysical physics" intertwined with the government NOT enslaving or even trying to enslave anybody at all.
And here's the really and truly *dumb* thing of Oliver Cromwell's attempt to cancel Christmas; even from a devout Puritan viewpoint: he's playing around in the employ of the devil- as that entity truly *would* want the celebration of Christ's birthday party canceled; so they'd be like "What is he *thinking*?!" and there'd be a LOT of disobedience of that regulation, even by his own men in the New Model Army. Plus his actions aren't even valid when you analyze them in the light of the gospels, something he was no doubt *very* into adhering to, if he truly did believe in the teachings therein, as any devout Protestant will have to accept that at least the Nativity Gospels are backing up the whole claims.
I've even used referece to those items to explain Catholic Marian Devotion to a Protestant friend of mine: reference the "Lord's Prayer", specifically the very first two words: the other name for the prayer in question, and the Nativity Gospels, and you *have* to acknowledge who His mom by birth really is to you; or you have to end up rejecting His layout. Some He would stress *should* be rejected, regarding the cultural views. Christ Himself was, historically-speaking at least, a first-century middle-eastern man; so He was no stranger to the idiotic stances in favor of blood feuds; He condemned them sure, but He wasn't alien to them, and He would no doubt fully condemn us taking *that* idea up as a valid practice.
That kind of practice really gets dumb real fast!
Both happened
How did Puratinism shape New England?
Yaay
E
Still first
wow like anyone would care
indeed seal bro it’s been 2 years let it go
I luv u
bump
First
Nope, the spaniels got here first in the south/southwest.